Planning and Environment Act 1987dsewebapps.dse.vic.gov.au/Shared/ATSAttachment1.nsf/(attachment... · Street west of Wheelers Street, the Bendigo Railway Reservation to the ... was

Planning and Environment Act 1987

Panel Report

Mount Alexander Planning Scheme Amendment C60

22 December 2015

Planning and Environment Act 1987

Panel Report pursuant to Section 25 of the Act

Mount Alexander Planning Scheme Amendment C60

22 December 2015

Margaret Pitt, Chair

Mount Alexander Planning Scheme Amendment C60 Panel Report 22 December 2015

Contents Page

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Amendment process ............................................................................................... 1 1.2 The Amendment ...................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Relevant heritage studies ........................................................................................ 3 1.4 Structure of this report ........................................................................................... 6

2 Strategic planning context .......................................................................................... 8 2.1 Policy framework ..................................................................................................... 8 2.2 Ministerial Directions and Practice Notes ............................................................. 11 2.3 Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 12

3 General issues ........................................................................................................... 13 3.1 Claim of failure to notify ........................................................................................ 13 3.2 Social and economic issues ................................................................................... 16

4 Forest Creek Channel Precinct (HO1183) ................................................................... 19 4.1 Nature of precinct ................................................................................................. 19 4.2 Submissions ........................................................................................................... 19 4.3 Discussion .............................................................................................................. 20 4.4 Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 20

5 Western and Eastern Reserves Precinct (HO1204) .................................................... 21 5.1 Nature of precinct ................................................................................................. 21 5.2 Submissions ........................................................................................................... 22 5.3 Discussion .............................................................................................................. 22 5.4 Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 23

6 Industrial, Commercial and Related Residences Serial Sites (HO1214) ...................... 24 6.1 Nature of Serial Sites ............................................................................................. 24 6.2 Submissions ........................................................................................................... 26 6.3 Discussion .............................................................................................................. 32 6.4 Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 38 6.5 Recommendations ................................................................................................ 39

7 Structure of proposed heritage controls ................................................................... 40 7.1 Discussion .............................................................................................................. 40 7.2 Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 41 7.3 Recommendations ................................................................................................ 41

8 Consolidated recommendations ............................................................................... 42

List of Figures Page

Figure 1 Exhibited Heritage Overlays .................................................................................... 2


List of Abbreviations

DELWP Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning

HO Heritage Overlay

HV Heritage Victoria

LPPF Local Planning Policy Framework

MSS Municipal Strategic Statement

SOS Statement of Significance

SPPF State Planning Policy Framework

VPP Victoria Planning Provisions


Page 1 of 43

1 Introduction

1.1 Amendment process

Amendment process

The Amendment Mount Alexander Planning Scheme Amendment C60

Subject Site The area lies immediately to the south of the Castlemaine township, between Forest Street and the Forest Creek Channel.

Planning Authority Mount Alexander Shire Council

Authorisation AO3070 26 May 2015

Exhibition 22 June to 10 August 2015

Submissions Submissions received:

1. M Turner (minor correction) 2. ERM Australia on behalf of Lascorp Aust. P/L (opposing)1 3. S Bonning (opposing) 4. N Katiforis on behalf of R. Katiforis (opposing) 5. VicRoads (no objection) 6. Native Title Services Victoria2 7. Dja Dja Wurrung Clans Aboriginal Corporation Inc.3

Panel Process

The Panel Margaret Pitt, Chair

Directions Hearing Castlemaine, 19 October 2015

Panel Hearing Castlemaine, 16 November 2015

Site Inspections Unaccompanied, 19 October and 16 November 2015

Appearances Mount Alexander Shire Council represented by Peter Newman (PLN Planning P/L) who called Amanda Jean (Architectural Historian) as an expert witness.

N Katiforis representing R. Katiforis and S. Bonning

Date of this Report 22 December 2015

1 This submission was subsequently withdrawn as a result of a Council resolution on 22 September 2015 to

delete the subject site from the Amendment. 2 This submission, made on behalf of the Dja Dja Wurrung Clans Aboriginal Corporation and lodged on the

day of the Hearing, requested extra time be allowed for consultation with the Corporation, which had not been formally notified of the Amendment.

3 This submission was received by the Panel on 10 December 2015.


Page 2 of 43

1.2 The Amendment

(i) Background to the Amendment

The area affected by Amendment C60 to the Mount Alexander Planning Scheme (‘the Amendment’) lies between the Castlemaine commercial area (already protected under HO667) and the Forest Creek Channel. The area had been identified in earlier heritage studies as having potential heritage significance and was recommended for further investigation. In response to concern about a permit application for demolition and redevelopment of a potentially important site within the area in 2013, Council decided to undertake a heritage assessment to establish whether heritage controls would be appropriate.

Council commissioned Amanda Jean (conservation architect) and David Moloney (town planner and historian) to undertake the heritage study. Their report, Forest Street to Forest Creek Heritage Assessment Report (‘the Study’), was finalised in 2015.

(ii) Purpose of the Amendment

The purpose of the Amendment is to implement the recommendations of the Study.

(iii) The subject area

The Amendment as exhibited applies to land shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1 Exhibited Heritage Overlays

The part of HO1204 east of Urquhart Street was the subject of Submission 2. The area was subsequently deleted from the Amendment by Council resolution dated 22 September 2015, and is not considered further in this report.

The land forms part of a larger area designated as an area of Aboriginal cultural heritage sensitivity.

The subject area covers the first (1851) alluvial gold diggings on the banks of Forest Creek, which was realigned via a channel in 1860. The area has since had multiple uses, including establishments supporting coach, rail and car transport, a large Chinese commercial/residential/market garden quarter, and later housing and community recreation


Page 3 of 43

facilities. The land is relatively flat and was subject to flooding, erosion and contamination prior to flood mitigation works. There are some significant plantings primarily associated with the development of recreational uses.

The area is bounded on the north by Forest Street and the rear of properties facing Forest Street west of Wheelers Street, the Bendigo Railway Reservation to the west, the Forest Creek Channel to the south and the Pyrenees Highway to the east.

All the subject land is identified as being within the Castlemaine Town Centre in the Land Use Framework Plan in Clause 21.05 of the Planning Scheme. The area is covered by four zones: Commercial 1 Zone, General Residential 1 Zone, Public Park and Recreation Zone and Public Conservation and Resource Zone. The Forest Creek Channel is also affected by the Significant Landscape Overlay and the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay.

(iv) Details of Amendment

The Amendment proposes to introduce the Heritage Overlay (HO) over the following three areas within the Castlemaine township:

HO1183 Forest Creek Channel Precinct

HO1204 Western Reserve, former Eastern Reserve and Lawn Tennis Club Precinct

HO1214 Forest Street Industrial, Commercial and Related Residences Serial Site.

The Amendment also proposes to:

Amend Clause 21.05 (Reference documents) to include the Study as a reference document

Amend Clause 22.20 (Natural and Cultural Heritage policy) to include the Study as a reference document

Amendment the schedule to Clause 43.01 Heritage Overlay to include the two proposed precincts and the proposed Serial Site

Amend Planning Scheme Maps 22HO and 23HO to include the proposed overlays.

1.3 Relevant heritage studies

(i) Previous heritage studies

Four previous heritage studies included some discussion of the subject area:

City of Castlemaine Architectural Study (Perrot Lyon Mathieson Pty Ltd 1979)

The study recommended planning scheme protection of some environmental areas including the Forest Creek environs, and further investigation of industrial areas (including part of the subject site).

Cultural Landscape of the Castlemaine‐Chewton Goldfields Study (National Trust 1990)

The study identified the Forest Creek alluvial diggings area as a ‘key feature of historic significance’.

Heritage Strategy (Context 2012)

This gap study established a program for further identification of heritage places, focusing on under‐represented aspects including Aboriginal, industrial and 20C heritage.


Page 4 of 43

Heritage Assessment of the Castlemaine Bus Lines site at 122 Barker Street (Context 2013)

While this study found the site did not meet the threshold for individual heritage significance, it was recognised as a prominent landmark that could in future be assessed as part of a wider precinct.

(ii) The current heritage study

Study brief

The context for the Study was provided by Council in the project brief:

The area between Forest Street and Forest Creek, from Kennedy Street to Urquhart Street contains sites that have redevelopment potential. In the last six years, Council has issued three Planning Permits for redevelopment in the subject area.

This gave Council the impetus to undertake a heritage assessment of the area, as recommended in previous studies. Ms Jean’s expert witness statement included the following summary of the project brief:

To undertake a heritage assessment of the study area by an examination of the documentary and physical evidence, an analysis of this evidence, which includes a comparative assessment with other sites in the area or region.

To assess the significance of these places using recognized thresholding methods and heritage criteria.

To provide conservation and management recommendations.

To make recommendations as to the suitability of applying a Heritage Overlay to individual places and/ or to the study area as a heritage precinct.

To include heritage citations for each place of significance together with Statements of Significance and photographs of places assessed.

The study area was identified by Council based on the previous studies, and embraces the area between the existing HO667 covering the commercial area of Castlemaine and the Forest Creek Channel.

Methodology

Ms Jean’s statement explained the methodology as follows:

At the commencement of the Study little historic data was known about the study area. With the aid of the Castlemaine Historic Society ten years of their research on the Forest Creek channel area was completed and incorporated into the history section of the Study. Every parcel of land within the study was subject to extensive research through rate books, contemporary newspaper articles and advertisements, directories, election rolls, Council records and minutes, Crown Land files and certificate of titles as well historic maps and images.

The various sites and places were mapped on site and overlaid with layers of historical maps and crosslinked to historic photographs to identify potential places of heritage significance within the study area. Mapping was an important part of the methodology in order to trace layers of development and ascertain the current status of the sites.

Narrative stories were built up from many different forms of material and described in field notes and histories such as archival research, literature and paintings in local collections, oral histories, unstructured interviews, public meetings and community consultation.


Page 5 of 43

Narrative methodology was used to capture the social significance of the sites:

A conceptual framework for collecting the stories was created by focussing on three areas: temporality (history and time), place (the study area) and the social human interaction with the sites and memories.

The fragments of stories collected were arranged into common themes and typologies based on the Victorian Historic Themes.

Through both textual and visual analysis a detailed comparative analysis was undertaken of the study area with reference to the wider area.

These stories were cross referenced to site mapping and site inspections and visits to authenticate current status and condition of the sites.

The use of comparative analysis was used to explore differences and similarities between places, absence and presence of groups, and serial or thematic sites. Content analysis of media coverage, previous planning reports and heritage studies, historic photographs, maps and images and the processes of their production and practices of archiving were used in this part of the interpretation of the data gathered.

Assessment criteria

Ms Jean’s statement explained that:

Each potential site was assessed against the model criteria recommended by the Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter. A framework or matrix that sets out different kinds of heritage values such as aesthetic, historic, scientific, social and spiritual criteria referenced in the VPP Practice Note Applying the Heritage Overlay was applied.

The relevant criteria are:

A. Importance to the course or pattern of our cultural or natural history (historical significance).

B. Possession of uncommon rare or endangered aspects of our cultural or natural history (rarity).

C. Potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of our cultural or natural history (research potential).

D. Importance in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a class of cultural or natural places or environments (representativeness).

E. Importance in exhibiting particular aesthetic characteristics (aesthetic significance).

F. Importance in demonstrating a high degree of creative or technical achievement at a particular period (technical significance).

G. Strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group for social, cultural or spiritual reasons. This includes the significance of a place to Indigenous peoples as part of their continuing and developing cultural traditions (social significance).

H. Special association with the life or works of a person, or group of persons, of importance in our history (associative significance).


Page 6 of 43

(iii) Panel comment on the Study

The Panel is satisfied that the methodology, assessment criteria and thresholds used in the Study were rigorous and meet current standards and guidelines.

However, the Panel has some concerns about the balance in the Statements of Significance (SOSs) between historic narrative and identification of extant fabric. This is not to deny the importance of the historical information in supporting the heritage significance of the fabric. But the purpose of the HO is ultimately to ‘manage’ heritage fabric, and there should be sufficient detail of the significant fabric to enable planning officers to make decisions on permit applications, and to provide owners with certainty about what elements of the fabric are significant and need to be protected.

In the Panel’s view, the SOSs do not place sufficient emphasis on the fabric that is the physical representation of the site’s history, especially in the sections titled ‘What is Significant’. The Practice Note explains what should be included in this section of the SOS as follows:

This section should be brief, usually no more than one paragraph or a series of dot points. There should be no doubt about the elements of the place that are under discussion. The paragraph should identify features or elements that are significant about the place, for example, house, outbuildings, garden, plantings, ruins, archaeological sites, interiors as a guide to future decision makers. Mention could also be made of elements that are not significant.

The Study includes much of the history under the ‘What is Significant’ heading, which tends to obscure the detail of the fabric to be protected. In the Panel’s view, these sections should be rewritten so that the significant physical fabric is clearly described. Non‐significant fabric should also be identified. Supporting historical information should be included in the sections titled ‘Why is it significant’.

The Panel makes the following recommendation:

Rewrite the section ‘What is significant’ in all the Statements of Significance to focus on identifying the extant physical fabric that is to be protected.

1.4 Structure of this report

The Panel has considered all written submissions, as well as submissions presented to it during the Hearing. In addressing the issues raised in those submissions, the Panel has been assisted by the information provided to it as well as its observations from inspections of the relevant sites and the surrounding areas.

Issues raised in submissions covered the following matters: 1. Failure to notify 2. Lack of social and economic assessment 3. Accuracy of citation 4. Site has no historic or architectural significance 5. Basis of serial listing not substantiated 6. Assessment does not comply with HERCON criteria 7. Study does not adequately address Aboriginal cultural heritage.


Page 7 of 43

Issues 4, 5 and 6 all related to the Forest Street Industrial, Commercial and Related Residences Serial Sites.

This report deals with the above issues, as well as other issues considered by the Panel, under the following Chapter headings:

Strategic planning context

General issues - Claim of failure to notify - Social and economic issues

Forest Creek Channel Precinct

Western and Eastern Reserves Precinct

Industrial, Commercial and Related Residences Serial Sites

Structure of proposed heritage controls.

The Panel’s consolidated recommendations are included in the final chapter.


Page 8 of 43

2 Strategic planning context

The Panel has reviewed the policy context of the Amendment and made a brief appraisal of the relevant zone and overlay controls and other relevant planning strategies.

2.1 Policy framework

(i) State Planning Policy Framework

Council’s submission included the following extracts of relevant clauses in the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF):

Clause 11 ‐ Settlement

Clause 11.01‐2 Activity centre planning

Objective: To encourage the concentration of major retail, residential, commercial, administrative, entertainment and cultural developments into activity centres which provide a variety of land uses and are highly accessible to the community.

Clause 11.05‐4 Regional planning strategies and principles

Objective: To develop regions and settlements which have a strong identity, are prosperous and are environmentally sustainable.

Clause 15 Built Environment and Heritage

Planning should ensure all new land use and development appropriately responds to its landscape, valued built form and cultural context, and protect places and sites with significant heritage, architectural, aesthetic, scientific and cultural value.

Clause 15.01‐5 Cultural identity and neighbourhood character

Objective: To recognise and protect cultural identity, neighbourhood character and sense of place.

Clause 15.03‐1 Heritage conservation

Objective: To ensure the conservation of places of heritage significance.

15.03‐2 Aboriginal cultural heritage

Objective: To ensure the protection and conservation of places of Aboriginal cultural heritage significance.

Clause 17 Economic Development

Clause 17.01‐1 Business

Objective: To encourage development which meet the communities’ needs for retail, entertainment, office and other commercial services and provides net community benefit in relation to accessibility, efficient infrastructure use and the aggregation and sustainability of commercial facilities.


Page 9 of 43

(ii) Local Planning Policy Framework

Council’s submission listed the following relevant local planning objectives and policies and provided the following commentary on how the Amendment is consistent with them:

Clause 21.02 Key Issues influencing the Shire’s future land use planning and development

Under the heading ‘Cultural and Natural Heritage’ the commentary notes the significance of the Shire’s cultural heritage, and that the extent and diversity of the heritage assets is such that it affects most aspects of planning.

Key issues include the need for good heritage management and protection practices, in accordance with the Burra Charter, to prevent incremental loss or degradation of these assets, and that the design of new development in areas of heritage significance should respect the particular characteristics of the sensitive setting.

Clause 21.03 Municipal Vision and Framework Plan

The Castlemaine Land Use Framework Plan identifies the land between Forest Street and Forest Creek as being within the Castlemaine Town Centre.

Clause 21.04 Objectives and Strategies

Clause 21.04‐5 Built and Cultural Heritage

The overview to this clause includes the following commentary which is considered to be of relevance to the present Amendment:

The pre‐eminent historic theme and significance of the shire lies in the concentrated evidence in the landscape of successive phases of gold mining and associated patterns of settlement, particularly the clear evolution from transient gold mining sites to permanent townships. The spatial relationships, condition and integrity of remnant structures, types of structures and their distribution contribute to the unique character of the shire. …. Industries which were established to support the mining and the population have also created a distinctive built legacy …

The Objectives include:

Protect the significance, character and appearance of Aboriginal and European heritage places, precincts, buildings, streetscapes, places and structures.

Encourage all heritage places to be restored, recycled and /or renovated in a sympathetic manner that will enhance the heritage value of the place.

Protect heritage character of towns in the Shire.

Ensure that all new developments within heritage overlay areas harmoniously integrate with the heritage character of towns and areas.

Strengthen and extend heritage provisions to protect identified buildings, places and areas.

Clause 22.20 Natural and Cultural Heritage

This policy applies to all buildings, works, sites and landscapes of local natural and cultural significance, including those buildings or places which are listed in the schedule to the Heritage Overlay.

The Objectives include:

To ensure that the Shire’s local heritage is preserved and maintained.

To recognise the buildings, works, sites and landscapes which are of local historical and architectural significance and the role they play and the need to ensure their preservation and maintenance.


Page 10 of 43

It is policy that (inter alia):

New development will be designed so it will not prejudice the character of a heritage building, site or area.

The policy basis and objectives must be considered when determining any application.

The comments and recommendations of any relevant heritage study must be considered when determining any application.

The Panel agrees that these extracts from the SPPF and LPPF are the most relevant, and that the Amendment supports and implements these strategies and policies.

(iii) Other planning strategies or policies relevant to the Amendment

Castlemaine Commercial Centre Study (SGS Economics and Planning 2012)

The study’s recommendations included:

More retail and commercial investment to be encouraged along the Forest and Barker Street corridors within the Commercial Centre boundary; and

Major new retail and commercial investment, in particular another supermarket, on the former bus depot site and adjacent land.

Council has adopted the study’s recommendations and is seeking to implement them through Amendment 61, currently awaiting Ministerial approval.

Castlemaine Town Entrance Land Use Strategy (Planit 2002)

This strategy recognised the important cultural landscape context of Forest Creek, Western Reserve and Eastern Reserves (Lawn Tennis Club and Reserve for Planting) and recommended that the area should be managed as a key precinct of the town.

The strategy recognised that long term redevelopment opportunities exist for:

141 Barker Street (former Cusack Motors)

82‐84 Forest Street (former Hunt & Lobb buildings)

86‐92 Forest Street (group of Inter‐War buildings).

It also recognised the former Bruce & Cornish sites in Barker Street as potential archaeological sites.

Castlemaine Central Area Urban Design Framework (Planit 2002)

The Framework recommended the development of the Forest Street to Forest Creek area as a mixed use and self‐contained precinct, including:

New retail, commercial or community buildings at the eastern and western ends of the precinct

The site east of Urquhart Street recommended for retail/residential

A new community or cultural facility recommended for the site between Barker Street and the Western Reserve

The south‐east corner of Forest and Wheeler Streets (Hunt & Lobb site) identified as a priority site for retail/commercial redevelopment.


Page 11 of 43

2.2 Ministerial Directions and Practice Notes

(i) Ministerial Directions

Council submitted that the Amendment meets the relevant requirements of the following Ministerial Directions:

Strategic Assessment Guidelines

Council provided a response to the Strategic Assessment Guidelines as part of the Explanatory Report. The Panel accepted Council’s assessment with the exception of the assessment of Social and Economic Impacts, which is discussed in Chapter 3.2 of this report.

Form and Content of Planning Schemes

The Amendment is consistent with the Ministerial Direction on the Form and Content of Planning Schemes under Section 7(5) of the Act.

(ii) Planning Practice Notes The following Planning Practice Notes are relevant to the consideration of this Amendment:

PPN01 ‐ Applying the Heritage Overlay The Practice Note provides guidance on places that should be included in the HO. It requires the process leading to the identification of significant heritage places to be rigorous and heritage controls to be applied judiciously.

In the Study, places of cultural heritage significance were identified and assessed using the HERCON criteria and format as published by the Victorian Heritage Council.

While the Panel is satisfied that the assessment process was rigorous and the HERCON criteria generally applied appropriately, Chapter 6 of this report discusses whether the use of the ‘serial sites’ provision is consistent with the Practice Note.

PPN13 ‐ Incorporated and Reference Documents The Practice Note provides guidance on the type of documents that are appropriate for incorporation into a planning scheme.

Amendment C60 includes the Study as a reference document in both Clause 21.05 (Reference documents) and Clause 22.20 (Natural and Cultural Heritage policy). All reference documents in the Planning Scheme are listed twice in the same way. Although the Panel has some concern about this practice, the issue would be more appropriately addressed in a general review of the LPPF rather than in the current Amendment.

PPN46 ‐ Strategic Assessment Guidelines

The Practice Note provides provide a framework for preparing and evaluating a proposed planning scheme amendment, including factors to be considered in undertaking social and economic assessments required under s. 12(2) (c) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.


Page 12 of 43

2.3 Conclusions

While the Panel is satisfied that the Amendment is broadly consistent with most elements of the Practice Note, Chapter 3.2 of this report discusses concerns that the exhibited social and economic evaluation was inadequate in addressing the issue of competing policies.

The Panel concludes that the Amendment is supported by, and implements, the relevant sections of the State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks. The Amendment is well founded and strategically justified, subject to addressing the more specific issues raised in the following chapters.


Page 13 of 43

3 General issues

3.1 Claim of failure to notify

A claim was made by Native Title Services Victoria that the Dja Dja Wurrung Clans Aboriginal Corporation had not been notified of the Amendment. The land affected by the Amendment is within an identified Area of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Sensitivity. The consultation processes followed are outlined below.

(i) Consultation prior to exhibition of C60

The Study sets out the consultation process undertaken during the course of the Study as follows:

The following people and organisations were notified of the Study and invited to participate:

All owners of properties and operating businesses within the Study Area

The Dja Dja Wurrung Aboriginal Corporation Inc

The National Trust (Victoria) Castlemaine branch

The Castlemaine Historical Society Inc

The Castlemaine Art Gallery and Historical Museum

The Castlemaine Old Residents and Pioneers Association

North Central Catchment Management Authority Flood Mitigation project

National Trust of Australia (Victoria), Castlemaine Branch.

Notifications were placed in the following local newspapers:

Midland Express

Mount Alexander Council website.

Public forums and community meetings to discuss broad cultural heritage issues were held on Wednesday March 12 from 2pm to 7pm at which about 30 or more people attended. Public notices and individual invitations were sent out to property owners

within the Study Area and other interested organisations listed above. An exhibition of over 50 early maps, sketch and photographs of the study area with

explanatory text about the study and methodology were installed on exhibition panels, together with power point illustrations.

An interactive map for community participation was available for mapping of like/dislike places. Consultants, representatives from the Castlemaine Historical Society and Council staff were available to answer questions.

The Panel notes that the Dja Dja Wurrung Clans Aboriginal Corporation was notified of the Study and invited to participate in this stage of the process.

(ii) Notification specified in Letter of Authorisation

The letter of authorisation for the Amendment dated 26 May 2015 specified that, because the Amendment affects Crown land, Native Title Services Victoria should be given notice of the Amendment.

At the Directions Hearing on 19 October 2015, Council advised the Panel that notice had been given to the Parks, Forests and Crown Lands division of DELWP but no response had been received. Council was unable to confirm whether or not the notice had been referred


Page 14 of 43

to Native Title Services Victoria (a division of the Department of Premier and Cabinet) as required. This was an important issue as the subject land forms part of a larger area designated as an area of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Sensitivity. The Panel directed Council to clarify whether the Amendment had been referred to Native Title Services Victoria.

On the day of the Hearing (16 November 2015) the Panel was advised in writing by Native Title Services Victoria that they were not made aware of the Amendment until 12 November 2015, and that the Dja Dja Wurrung Clans Aboriginal Corporation (the Registered Aboriginal Party for the area) would require additional time to comment on the Study and the proposed Amendment. The Panel agreed to accept a submission by 23 November 2015. Further time was requested and the submission was received by the Panel on 10 December 2015.

(iii) Submission

The submission did not raise any issues about the proposed heritage controls or the individual precincts, but addressed the way in which Aboriginal cultural heritage interests were addressed in the Study. The submission requested that the following statement of significance be included in the Study:

The Forest Creek area is part of a much wider cultural landscape that contains ancient travelling routes, camping and occupational sites, burials and traditional places known to Dja Dja Wurrung people. Forest Creek holds significance for its values connecting Dja Dja Wurrung people over a period that extends further back in time before the first non‐Aboriginal people visited this region. Dja Dja Wurrung Country is a cultural landscape that is imprinted with our dreaming stories, lore, totemic relationships, songs, ceremonies and Ancestral spirits, which give it life and hold significant value to Dja Dja Wurrung People. Dja Dja Wurrung People hold holistic values for Country, shaped by our belief that all things are interconnected through their murrup (spirit), which is within all water, birds, plants, animals, rocks and mountains, and people. All Aboriginal places, objects and Ancestral burials are highly significant to Dja Dja Wurrung People as these are our inheritance and connect us with our Ancestors, telling the story of our People and our Country.

The Panel agrees that the statement should be included in the Study, and its authorship by the Corporation cited.

The submission also made the following comments on specific sections of the Study:

Areas of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Sensitivity (page 18)

The Corporation states that the opening statement is too general and not relevant to Dja Dja Wurrung Country. It also requests that the Corporation’s statutory functions are accurately described.

The Panel considers that placing the Dja Dja Wurrung Country in the context of the significance of country in Aboriginal culture across Victoria and indeed Australia is relevant to the Castlemaine site. A fuller explanation of the Corporation’s statutory role as a Registered Aboriginal Party should be included.


Page 15 of 43

Community and Resident Consultation (page 28)

The submission claims that inclusion of the Corporation in the list of people and organisations notified of the Study is incorrect.

Ms Jean in her evidence confirmed that the Corporation was formally notified of the Study and that she had at least one telephone contact with Diana Smith.

Recommendations (page 30)

The submission proposes that in the summary Table, the column ‘Other actions’ should include a link to requirements of the Cultural Heritage Management Plan process under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006.

The Panel supports this proposal.

Victoria’s Framework of Historical Themes (page 35)

The submission suggests reference to current case studies of themes.

The Panel does not believe this is necessary.

Heritage Assessment of Study Area – Introduction (page 54)

The submission proposes that the paragraph concerning the Dja Dja Wurrung People be replaced by a summary of the Recognition Statement (Recognition and Settlement Agreement).

The submission does not identify any specific concerns about contents of the paragraph, and the Panel is not satisfied that replacing it is necessary.

Assessment against Heritage Victoria Criteria (page 149)

The submission proposes that the paragraph concerning the Dja Dja Wurrung People should refer to the Recognition and Settlement Agreement and/or to Dhelkunya Dja (Dja Dja) Wurrung Country Plan 2014‐1034).

The Panel supports this proposal.

(iv) Discussion

In addition to the specific issues listed above, the submission notes that there are no references to Dja Dja Wurrung ‘ethno‐historical sources, historical accounts and materials as no research or investigation has been undertaken as part of the project’.

The Panel accepts that the Corporation was invited to participate in the Study, and that the recording of the Dja Dja Wurrung People’s tradition ownership in the area and its cultural heritage significance to them was as accurate as possible, in the absence of direct input from the Corporation. Nevertheless, the Panel recommends that several of the Corporation’s proposed changes be adopted.


Page 16 of 43

(v) Recommendations

The Panel makes the following recommendations:

Modify the Study document as follows:

Insert the statement of significance proposed in Submission 7, citing its source.

Include a fuller explanation of the Corporation’s statutory role as a Registered Aboriginal Party on page 18.

Include a link to the requirements of the Cultural Heritage Management Plan process under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 in the summary Table under the heading ‘Other Actions’ on page 30.

Refer to the Recognition and Settlement Agreement and/or to Dhelkunya Dja (Dja Dja) Wurrung Country Plan 2014‐2034 on page 149.

3.2 Social and economic issues

(i) Council’s assessment

Section 12(2) (c) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (‘the Act’) requires Planning Authorities, when preparing an amendment, to consider any social and economic effects of the amendment. The Panel is also obliged to consider these matters when considering submissions. Planning Practice Note 46 Strategic Assessment Guidelines (revised October 2013) states that:

The normal way of assessing the social and economic effects is to consider whether or not the amendment results in a net community benefit.

The Practice Note) provides further guidance on the nature of pertinent social and environmental matters. It suggests that the types of broad effects that might need to be considered at the amendment stage include:

The likely effect on the economic wellbeing of the community

Potential changes to the economic and social life of the existing community

The likely effect on public and private sector investment in the immediate and surrounding areas

The likely effect on potential capacity for growth of the immediate and surrounding areas

Potential changes to the attractiveness and physical condition of the immediate and surrounding areas

The likely effect on the attractiveness, amenity and safety of the public realm.

While the Explanatory Report exhibited with the Amendment included an assessment of social and economic impacts, it was fairly rudimentary in nature and only considered the positive economic effects of heritage‐based tourism, which would be supported by the Amendment. At the Directions Hearing, the Panel asked Council to include the following in its submission to the Panel:

A more detailed assessment of the economic and social effects of the Amendment. This section should expand on the material included in the Explanatory Report, and address the issues set out in the revised Planning Practice Note 46 Strategic Assessment


Page 17 of 43

Guidelines that are relevant to the Amendment. It should also address social and economic issues raised in submissions.

At the Hearing, Council submitted the following assessment.

The social and economic effects of this Amendment have been considered by Council at the broader level, which is generally accepted as being an appropriate level of assessment at the Amendment stage. The effects of heritage listing on individual properties has not been assessed however, as this is generally accepted as being a matter which should be assessed at the permit stage.

The Castlemaine Commercial Centre Study notes that a key feature and success factor for the centre is that it is a compact and walkable mixed use centre that includes historic buildings and streetscapes and serves both residents and visitors. The study found that heritage was a key driver of the local economy, contributing significantly to tourism, and that further protection of heritage places will contribute to heritage remaining as a key local economic driver.

Council’s submission drew attention to the existing HO667, which covers the Castlemaine commercial centre, noting that:

These controls have not prevented development and in some cases redevelopment from occurring within the centre. In this regard, the Heritage Overlay is simply a mechanism for requiring that heritage considerations be taken into account first. As far as demolition is concerned, the Heritage Overlay does not prohibit this, but raises the bar in terms of the justification that is required.

As far as conflicting strategies are concerned… each development application in this area needs to be assessed on its merits, which requires that a balanced assessment be made of heritage significance and economic effects.

Conflicting strategies will also obviously apply in respect of the proposed serial site subject of the present Amendment. In this regard, heritage considerations will need to be balanced against the fact that the Castlemaine Commercial Centre Study identifies the former bus depot site as appropriate for new development, and that the Town Entrance Land Use Study identifies the Cusack Garage site as a potential redevelopment site.

The reality is that Council has many strategic statements or policies that at first glance may appear contradictory, but in actual fact may promote a better solution (e.g. by allowing redevelopment to proceed in a manner which has regard to heritage values). It is the planner’s role to assess the merits of any individual permit applications against the various policies and strategies.

(ii) Submissions

Submission 4

This submission explicitly raised the issue of whether the Amendment adequately addressed the issue of social and economic effects, as required under the Act. The submission drew particular attention to the proposed serial listing HO1214 which includes properties in the Commercial 1 Zone, suggesting that heritage listing would ‘interfere with the future private sector investment and limit the capacity for growth via expansion, improvement or redevelopment’. It also cited existing (and conflicting) Council planning strategies for redevelopment of the two key corner sites.


Page 18 of 43

Council response

In its submission to the Panel at the Hearing, Council’s response to the submission included the following:

In terms of ‘conflicting’ strategies, it is true that the Castlemaine Commercial Centre Study identifies the former bus depot site as appropriate for new development, and that the Town Entrance Land Use Study identifies the Cusack Garage site as a potential redevelopment site. However the Commercial Centre Study (and other strategic work undertaken by Council) also reinforces that heritage is a key driver of the local economy. In this regard, Council has many strategic statements or policies that at first glance may appear contradictory, but in actual fact may promote a better solution (e.g. by ensuring redevelopment proceeds in a manner which has regard to heritage values).

In assessing planning permit applications in the Heritage Overlay, a balanced assessment can be undertaken of heritage significance and economic effects. It is the planner’s role to assess the merits of any individual permit applications against the various policies and strategies.

(iii) Conclusions

The need to balance apparently competing objectives is not uncommon in planning. There are many instances where, through careful design and a flexible approach, satisfactory compromises can be reached that respect all relevant objectives.

In Amendment C60, the primary relevant ‘competing strategies’ are the objectives of the Castlemaine Commercial Centre Study, the imperatives of protecting important heritage assets that contribute to the economy via high amenity and tourism, and the policy of encouraging higher density residential opportunities close to town centres.

The Panel is satisfied that the imposition of the Heritage Overlay does not preclude the type of development needed to meet development objectives for the relevant areas. It allows proper consideration of all objectives in assessing their relative importance and determining the most appropriate outcome of a planning application.

The Explanatory Report failed to address these issues adequately, as required under the Act. Detailed attention to the factors nominated in the Practice Note would have greatly improved the credibility of the Explanatory Report. Council should ensure that social and economic issues are properly addressed in future amendments.

In response to Submission 4, the Panel also notes that the HO does not prohibit partial or complete demolition but requires heritage issues associated with any proposed new development to be addressed on a site‐specific basis. It allows alterations and extensions to a heritage building, providing they are sympathetic to the heritage values of the site. There are many examples throughout Victoria where outcomes have been reached that respect heritage significance but allow development to occur.


Page 19 of 43

4 Forest Creek Channel Precinct (HO1183)

4.1 Nature of precinct

The Forest Creek Channel was constructed as a realignment of Forest Creek, with the works commencing in 1860. The sandstone channel is about 1 km long and has levee banks and plantings on both sides. There are three bridges, including one footbridge. The channel has served multiple purposes, including alluvial goldmining, flood mitigation, steam power and, in recent years, bicycle and pedestrian pathways along its length.

The Study identifies the precinct as having potential Aboriginal cultural heritage significance, as well as post‐contact archaeological potential.

The proposed precinct is in the Public Conservation and Resource Zone, and is covered by the Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 2 (Castlemaine Landscape Significance Area) and the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay.

The Study assesses this precinct as meeting four criteria for heritage significance on the following grounds:

Criterion A: (historic significance)

The precinct has local historic significance as a major channelisation engineering project that resulted in the diversion of Forest Creek into a straight stone sludge channel that was cut through the centre of Castlemaine…

Criterion E: (aesthetic significance)

The channel demonstrates vernacular use of local sandstone and traditional masonry techniques associated with local quarrying and nearby prominent monumental masons… The channel contains and delineates the civic centre… The tree lined levee banks create a corridor of green through the centre of Castlemaine.

Criterion F: (technological significance)

The channel is an important component of the Forest Creek system which clearly illustrates layers of alluvial gold mining, sludge dams, water races, rehabilitation works and environmental transformation.

Criterion G: (social significance)

The Channel is part of the network of former alluvial gold mined creeks, gullies and walkways… and is closely associated with the Castlemaine Diggings National Heritage Park. It has potential Aboriginal cultural heritage significance.

4.2 Submissions

No submissions were received in relation to this precinct.


Page 20 of 43

4.3 Discussion

The Panel has inspected the precinct from both sides of the channel. The extant fabric of channel, drains, levee banks and plantings are clearly visible. The Panel supports the activation of tree controls for this precinct as exhibited.

The Study identifies the precinct as having potential Aboriginal cultural heritage significance.

4.4 Conclusions

The Panel concludes that this site well meets the criteria for historic, aesthetic, technological and social significance and should be included in the HO. However, the section ‘What is significant’ in the SOS should be rewritten as a clear description of the significant fabric, as recommended in Chapter 1.3 of this report.


Page 21 of 43

5 Western and Eastern Reserves Precinct (HO1204)

5.1 Nature of precinct

This precinct is located between the Forest Creek Channel and Forest Street, between Barker and Urquhart Streets. The Western and Eastern Reserves are separated by Hargreaves Street, and are both in the Public Park and Recreation Zone. The Study describes this precinct as follows:

It comprises the former bed and alluvial gold mining works of Forest Creek prior to its diversion into a stone channel. The large site is open public land, subject to repeated flooding. It is a reclaimed wasteland, the site of former Chinatown and extensive Chinese market gardens. The site comprises three4 distinct areas:

The Western Reserve comprises the cricket oval and skate park, including the site of the former grandstand and public toilets and exotic tree plantings.

The Eastern Reserve comprises an undeveloped road lined with historic oak plantings dating from 1870s, the former Chinese market gardens that were later leased to the Castlemaine Lawn Tennis Club, including club rooms and lawn tennis courts and nets with exotic tree plantings and bush regenerated vegetation.

The precinct has potential Aboriginal cultural heritage significance and potential post‐contact archaeological significance.

The Study assesses this precinct as meeting three criteria for heritage significance on the following grounds:

Criterion A: (historic significance)

The precinct … is the site of the first irregular canvas settlement of Castlemaine prior to the official survey in 1852… it demonstrates the evolution of the river bed alluvial gold diggings, from transient camp and wasteland, into an ornamental reserve… The re‐alignment of the bed of Forest Creek was hard won through periods of renewed mining, extensive landfill debris, devastating periods of flooding and makeshift dwellings and squatters.

The Mount Alexander goldfields received the first Chinese diggers in 1854 in what was the first big migration of Chinese miners into Victorian gold diggings. Large numbers worked at Forest Creek and Chinatown was established along Forest Street. Even when a large section of the settlement on the corner of Hargreaves Street was demolished, Chinese presence in the area remained.


The precinct… has aesthetic value for its visual scenic properties and transformative values as extensive open parkland, an urban sink that contributes to the Forest Creek channel linear park which stretches over a kilometre through central Castlemaine.

The precinct… has aesthetic value as a large, late nineteenth century public recreation reserve and ornamental park in close proximity to nineteenth century market square… characteristics include the retention of its nineteenth century layout, its significant plantings, some dating from the 1870s, its differing levels of horticultural intensity, the

4 The third area (to the east of Urquhart Street) was deleted from the Amendment on 22 September 2015.


Page 22 of 43

avenues of elms, oaks, ash and palms, including water features, bridges, sandstone channels and drains and nature conservation.


The precinct is a site of annual sports events, circus, markets, fairs, festivals, community celebrations and public protests…the site of Chinese temples, ceremonies and massive protest marches. Its social value has been created through numerous social practices created by the interaction with the community and natural environment.

5.2 Submissions

No submissions were received in relation to this precinct.

5.3 Discussion

Following a detailed inspection of this precinct, the Panel had some difficulty reconciling the physical appearance of the precinct with the SOS, which is almost entirely focused on historic uses. There appears to be little, if any, extant built fabric. The section titled ‘What is significant’ contains only the following references to physical features:

From around 1880 ornamental trees were planted …

In the inter‐war period the tennis club began to develop its courts on the Eastern reserve.

The only structures mentioned (‘the small brick grandstand’ and ‘an early bridge built over Forest Creek at Hargraves Street’) have been demolished. The existing tennis club rooms are not mentioned or assessed as having any heritage significance. While the historic plantings are recognisable, the presence of ‘water features, bridges, sandstone channels and drains’ listed in the SOS is not evident within the boundaries of this precinct. There appears to be some remnant stone channel on the west side of Wheeler Street, but it is unclear whether it is within the precinct boundary.

At the Hearing the Panel suggested that, due the lack of extant fabric requiring protection, the precinct might be more appropriately protected by the Significant Landscape Overlay. In reply, Ms Jean expressed the view that the SLO is usually applied to much larger landscape areas, and that there are extant structures within the precinct that are significant, such as channels and drains and the tennis clubrooms. However, as previously stated, the tennis club rooms have not been mentioned or assessed in the SOS, and there are no ‘channels and drains’ mentioned under either the site description or the ‘What is significant’ section for this precinct.

These anomalies between the SOS and Ms Jean’s evidence at the Hearing will need to be properly resolved. In particular, if the tennis club rooms are to be identified as significant, a proper assessment of the building should be included in the citation. In the Panel’s view, any heritage significance attributed to the somewhat typical inter‐war clubrooms is reinforced by the long history of the tennis club. A quick search on Trove reveals that the


Page 23 of 43

club was established as early as 18975, although probably on a different site. The Age reported ‘improvements’ to the club in 1926 as follows:

The borough council has been notified by the Public Works department that the grant of £100 to the council for the relief of unemployment in the borough may be expended in improvements to the Eastern Reserve, which has been leased by the council to the Castlemaine Tennis Club, and the nature of the improvements has been approved by the department.

It is proposed by the tennis club to construct twelve grass courts on the reserve, and erect necessary buildings etc. The work of clearing the reserve has now been commenced, and it has been found necessary to remove some of the trees which were planted over twenty years ago by, and in memory of, past presidents of the A.N.A., but wherever possible trees so planted are being preserved.

From the mid‐1920s the club hosted important 3‐day annual tournaments that attracted Victorian and interstate competitors, and by the mid‐1930s the club boasted 18 grass courts.

Such large tennis clubs and their annual tournaments played a very important social role in regional towns, and played a significant part in the development of tennis as a competitive sport in Australia. Examples of similar large regional tennis clubs are Colac, Mildura and Bacchus Marsh. With 18 courts in the inter‐war period, Castlemaine was one of the more significant tennis clubs in Victoria. The club still has 12 courts.

5.4 Conclusions

The Panel concludes that the precinct meets the criteria for historic, aesthetic and social significance. However, for the reasons outlined above, the Panel concludes that the section of the SOS titled ‘What is significant’ should be rewritten to clearly identify the significant extant features of the site in line with the above comments and as recommended in Chapter 1.3 of this report.

5 Reports of several Annual General Meetings of the Lawn Tennis Club from 1897 can be found in Trove

(trove.nla.gov.au).


Page 24 of 43

6 Industrial, Commercial and Related Residences Serial Sites (HO1214)

6.1 Nature of Serial Sites

The Study describes the area where the serial sites are located as follows:

The Heritage Precinct is a discrete area, centred at the junction of Forest Street, Barkers Street and Bruce Street. The large site is bounded to the south by Forest Creek and associated Western Reserve; to the west by the Railway Bridge Viaduct and Embankment; to the north by Forest Street and to the east by Western Reserve. The streets were formally tree‐lined avenues planted with elms and mix of exotics that still remain in Bruce Street. The south western section comprised the former Cornish and Bruce railway yards as well as the remaining former Steam Flour Mill and Fitzgerald Brewery. Bruce Street was known formerly as Circular Road the main road that led to Government Camp located nearby on Barkers Creek. The former gold mining area located along major transport routes was the site of foundries, coach building, public transport depots, garages and their associated residences which remain largely intact today. The 15 recommended serial sites are associated with these historic themes.

The Comparative Analysis states that ‘there are no known similar surviving historic transport hub areas that have been researched in such detail’.

The 15 sites making up the serial listing HO1214 are described in the Study as follows: 101‐105 Barker Street, the former 1856/7 Steam Flour Mill, the site of the Cornish &

Bruce railway workshops, Robertson & Wagner coach builders, and Fitzgerald Brewing & Malt Co.

109 Barker Street, a timber Victorian house, the former residence and site of the workshop of John Collicoat, blacksmith, who also had a premises in Forest Street. The building was also used by workers (manager) from the Fitzgerald Brewing & Malt Co.

115 Barker Street, former garage owner, William Cusack’s 1950s residence, a striking face brick single storey residence, built in the vicinity of the former blacksmith yard, possibly Joseph Attenborough and Thomas Murdoch’s smithy on the former Cornish and Bruce workshop area.

141 Barker Street, the 1938 William Cusack’s brick and render drive‐in brick service station and General Motor dealership and garage, extended in 1949 in the same architectural style.

120 Barker Street an impressive two storey brick residence built in 1952 by Alfred Bentley, the owner of the Bentley Garage and later Castlemaine Bus Line Company. The land was also part of or adjacent the former site of wheelwright workshops owned by Joseph Attenborough and then Thomas Blundell, smithy, who also lived at 20 Forest Street and had a workshop and cottage in Barker Street taken over by Redfearn’s monumental mason business in 1932.

122 Barker Street, the former Haymarket Hotel, shops and smithy built in 1864 by George Shegog, demolished in 1950 to make way for the construction of the Castlemaine Bus Line Company building owned by Alfred Bentley. The former site of two different smithies (Campbell Murdoch, and John Wilson). In 1890 Alexander Maybury is listed as taking over John Collicoat’s blacksmith business on one of these Allotment 4 premises. The rear of the property was leased or owned by James Ah Coy and later Catherine Ah Coy.


Page 25 of 43

3 Bruce Street, the Victorian timber house on the site of the former Cornish & Bruce engineer’s residence. It was acquired by the surgeon Dr James Hutchinson and later by Philpot, the local chemist. In 1932 William Thomas Murdoch had a ‘smithy and land’ on Section A –adjoining 105 and 109 Barker Street.

5 Bruce Street, an Inter‐War timber house, on the site of the former Cornish and Bruce workshop area.

10 Bruce Street, 1880s timber weatherboard house, sited on an early Miner’s Residency area built by William Woolnough, former miner, who had a large black smiths and coach building yard in Forest Street. By 1901 William Woolnough was working in Forest Street (now beside Louisa Gray ‘smithy’), and by 1911 his coach‐building business is described as ‘smithy and showroom’. In 1921 he expanded his premises to the east (part of Allotment 5). The coaching business is now part of the former Bentley’s Garage and Castlemaine Bus Line Building.

20 Forest Street, a timber weatherboard houses, the residence of Thomas Blundell, smithy.

22, 24 and 26 Forest Street group of timber weather board Victorian houses, originally built on Miners’ Residency Areas by lease holders, rates indicate that by 1880s the widows and descendants are now in possession of the miner’s houses. Miners mined in the local area.

46‐50 Forest Street, the former Rowe Motors, prior to this the site was owned by EC George who had engineering works, garage and house. The garage was purchased by Clem Rathborne for the Rowe Motors business where he also lived with his wife. The facade was rebuilt in 1960 as KRB Motors. Rowe Motors was originally owned by the Rowe Brothers, miners who owned the Mosquito and Duke of Cornwall mines in Fryerstown.

54 Forest Street, in 1864 the land was sold to James Ah Coy, the local Chinese interpreter who was responsible for building the newly relocated Chinatown. The land was rented to Gee Ling, who had a store between 1879 and 1890. A portion of the land was purchased in 1884 by Samuel Kelsell who rented out the land. By 1901 it was rented to Lee Pack as a carpenter’s shop, owned by Charles Lee Suey, who also operated a Chinese Marine business from the site. By 1919 it was used by Joseph Torrens Witherow, a blacksmith, later being used by carpenters and second hand dealers.

It should be noted that, although the property at 105 Barker Street is included in the above list, the former Steam Flour Mill is listed on the Victorian Heritage Register and the site was not exhibited as one of the serial sites.

The Study assesses the serial sites as meeting four criteria for heritage significance on the following grounds:

Criterion A: (historic significance) (i) The serial site has historical significance as an example of a complex 19th century

industrial area located on the periphery of Castlemaine in flood prone area associated with the development of transport industry. Forest and Barker Streets from the very first became the location where farriers, blacksmiths, wheelwrights and coachbuilders established. The intergenerational networks and working associations have their beginning in the construction of a co‐operative venture, the 1856 first steam‐powered industry in town, the Castlemaine Steam Flour Mill (1856‐57), still extant.

(ii) The serial site of 15 buildings is of historical significance for its collection of buildings that demonstrates the continuity and evolution of 19th century smithy and associated


Page 26 of 43

coach building services as their technology transformed in early‐mid twentieth century into the vehicle and garage service industry (now also providing fuel) and dealerships for the motor car industry.

(iii) The serial site has historical significance for the group of eight 19th century timber weatherboard residences (109 Barker Street, 3, 5 and 10 Bruce Street and 20, 22, 24 and 26 Forest Street), it illustrates the close association with opportunities afforded the miners’ Residency areas, gold mining and the blacksmith trade, coach builders and carpentry trade.

Criterion B: (rarity) (i) The serial site has rarity value as the location of extant Chinese business presence in

Forest Street, representing the former 1860s Chinatown. (ii) The serial site has rarity value for the group of surviving of inter‐war garages, which

generally have not survived well in the Mount Alexander region.


The serial site has aesthetic significance for the collection of buildings associated with the vehicle industries that include the modern style of the Castlemaine Bus Lines (originally Bentley’s Motors, built c.1952) and associated two storey residence, and the 1938 period‐style of the drive in service garage (originally Cusack’s Motors) and associated residence, both largely intact. They are architecturally different, and distinctive, buildings impressively situated on the main intersection of the town. Together with the KRB Motors building, they express the modern aesthetic associated with introduction of mid‐20th century road vehicle industries.


(i) The serial site has social significance for its long links with skills associated with the transport industry, its motor repair and fabrication industry is of more than local significance.

(ii) The serial site and in particular the former Castlemaine Bus Line Company has social significance for its long association with public transport industries dating to 1856.

The industrial and commercial sites and the three houses in Barker Street (Nos. 113, 115 and 120) are in the Commercial 1 Zone. The remaining houses in Forest and Bruce Streets are in the General Residential 1 Zone. There are no overlays affecting any of the sites.

The Study identifies the area as having potential Aboriginal cultural heritage significance as well as post‐contact archaeological potential.

6.2 Submissions

Submission 1

This submission drew attention to an error in the SOS regarding the date of the street trees in Bruce Street. Council resolved to amend the Study to reflect the correct dates.

Submission 3

This submission from the owner of 46‐50 Forest Street opposed the Amendment on the grounds that the property has ‘no historical significance from either an architectural or use perspective’. The front of the building was replaced in the 1960s, and it no longer has any association with the motor trade. The submitter was represented at the hearing by Mr Katiforis (Submission 4).


Page 27 of 43

Submission 4

This very detailed submission opposed the Serial Sites listing on the following principal grounds:

The assessment of potential economic and social effects was inadequate

The serial sites as a whole were not justified

Application of the HO to 141 Barker Street (former Cusack’s Motor Garage) was not justified.

The first part of the submission concerning the assessment of economic and social effects of the Amendment (Issue 1) has been covered in Chapter 3.2 of this report. The submission’s arguments supporting the other grounds were summarised by Council in its submission to the Panel. In response to a question from the Panel, Mr Katiforis agreed that Council’s summary of his submission was a fair representation of the matters raised. For this reason, the summary prepared by Council is reproduced below.

Issue 2. The Report has not made enough effort to differentiate between heritage interest and heritage significance

It is submitted that heritage assessments must clearly differentiate “heritage value and significance” from other considerations which do not meet the threshold for the listing of buildings or areas as having heritage significance, and that the HAR6 does not correctly apply the Victorian Heritage Register Criteria and Threshold Guidelines which have been developed to try to address subjectivity.

Comparative analysis is noted by the submitter as one recognised method of addressing subjectivity, but it is submitted that this has not been properly undertaken for the Forest Street Industrial Heritage Serial Listing because the site has not been compared with other similar sites, with the HAR (at page 47) stating that there are no known similar surviving historic transport hub areas that have been researched in such detail. It is submitted that the absence of any comparative analysis enlarges the scope for historical interest to overtake actual historical significance.

The submission also expresses the view that the HAR’s reliance on the thematic history of the serial site to justify its claims of significance incorrectly identifies the area’s gold diggings history dating back to 1852 to justify the listing of buildings constructed in the mid‐20th century.

Issue 3. The interlinking of the two precincts & serial site is not appropriate

The submission notes the commentary in the HAR Executive Summary that each of the heritage places (being the two heritage precincts and the serial site) is interlinked through the history of gold mining, industrial engineering, transport and water management. It objects to this “attempted interlinking” of the three areas and to the “landscape” approach to heritage assessment on the grounds that:

The relevant historic themes, and the criteria used to assess significance, are different for open areas such as reserves compared to a group of buildings, and combining them makes it difficult to understand which themes are the most important ones for each place.

6 Council’s references to the ‘HAR’ (Heritage Assessment Report) are referred to elsewhere in this report as

‘the Study’.


Page 28 of 43

Interlinking does not lend itself to compliance with the HERCON / VHR’s “Criteria and Threshold Guidelines” assessment methodology, or the Burra Charter’s Practice Note “Understanding and assessing cultural significance”.

The serial site does not depend on the other two places for any significance, and vice versa, and should be able to be assessed, and objected to, separately.

Issue 4. The thematic basis of the proposed serial listing is confusing and not substantiated

The submission points to inconsistencies in the HAR references to the Serial Site:

Under the heading “Key Findings” (page 7) it is described as being made up of a group of 15 heritage places that share historic themes associated with 19th century transport industry and 20th century motor car dealerships, local public transport, garages and car repair shops and their domestic residences, which represent several phases of evolution that reflect different periods of industrial development and technological change over a 160 year period. The shared legacy of these businesses is described as contributing to the sense of identity and distinctiveness of Castlemaine as a former industrial gold mining town.

In the SOS (at page 45) there is a map showing the location of major historic themes for the serial site and the heritage precinct, followed by a listing of Victoria’s Framework of Historical Themes. In the subsequent discussion on the serial site (under the heading ‘Description and Integrity’, it is stated that the serial sites are associated with these historic themes. However these themes do not include Transport.

However at page 49 of the SOS in the description of why the serial site is significant, it is confirmed that a Transport Industry theme is what is important.

The submission goes on to make observations about the ‘Transport Industry’ theme, including:

That transport is not referenced in the title of the proposed listing

The importance of the Transport Industry theme is presented as a fait accompli, with the 15 buildings proposed in the listing being presented as a better representation of this theme than any other buildings in the area.

There has been no comparative analysis of the Transport theme against other themes.

The relevant sections of Forest Street and Barker Street have contained (and still do) a variety of businesses, and whilst the early transport industry was a part of the area, it cannot be considered to be the dominating industry, or even a significant industry.

There is no link between the early farriers, blacksmiths, wheelwrights and coachbuilders and the subsequent development of the motor garages on Forest Street or Barker Streets.

Many motor garages established elsewhere in Castlemaine, with Cusack’s and KRB Motors being only two out of a total of at least 18 garages in the town’s history.

For these reasons, the area’s Transport industry is not significant enough that it can be used to underwrite the serial listing, and nor does this small collection of places make such a special or influential contribution to it.

The submission then goes on to make the following points about the ‘Industry’ theme, including:

The term “Industrial” in the title of the listing appears to be derived from two historical references ‐ the first being the Flour Mill’s history as the site of the Cornish & Bruce railway workshops, Robertson & Wagner coach builders, and Fitzgerald Brewing & Malt Co; and the second being the reference to a monumental mason businesses.


Page 29 of 43

Other than the blacksmiths and coachbuilders of the Flour Mill, the rest of the industries cited by the Report have no relevance to, or association with, the current buildings in Forest Street.

That an Industry theme (as opposed to a Transport industry theme) is only applicable to the Flour Mill.

Any linkages to the gold mining days can only refer to those involved with the early transport industry, since motorised transport clearly has no association with the gold mining days.

Issue 5. The proposed listing does not comply with the HERCON / VHR criteria

It is submitted that the proposed listing does not satisfy VHR criteria which require that the association and/or the principal characteristics of the place(s) that express a theme (Transport) must be evident in the physical fabric of the place(s). Instead, the HAR takes an approach whereby ‘place’ is defined as the site area, with the ‘physical fabric’ being limited to various buildings (the Flour Mill and a couple of motor garages and the Bus Lines) that contribute to the theme – which results in buildings which have not themselves been associated with the ‘evolution’ of the transport theme being nevertheless recommended for heritage listing.

The submission is critical of the suggestion in the HAR that the previous history of the land can itself contribute to the significance of a building constructed after the historical period in question, e.g. that because the land under the Castlemaine Bus Lines and KRB Motors used to contain the early transport industries, this reinforces their association with the theme. It is submitted that this may be interesting, but has no bearing on the historical or cultural significance of the building itself.

It is submitted that the (transport) theme, as defined and applied, falsely enables the joining together of totally unrelated buildings, and that the serial site buildings cannot be said to demonstrate, when viewed together, the evolution of transportation in the town.

It is submitted that a correct application of the criteria would mean that previous buildings that used to exist on the site and were associated with the theme, but are now gone, are not relevant.

It is submitted that if the application of the transport theme is considered valid, then it sets a dangerous precedent which would dramatically expand the scope for buildings to be captured by heritage listings.

Issue 6. The sites involved are not “interlinked” or have a relationship with each other

The submission disputes the claims in the HAR that the sites are somehow related to each other. In particular, that the Flour Mill (site) is in some way interlinked with the original early transport businesses along Forest Street.

In response to the HAR’s claim (page 7) that the businesses in and around the area of the Flour Mill and railway yards “attracted a wide range of workers and contributed to the establishment of a local coach building hub”, the submission points out that the McCarthy coach building business was established on a site some half a kilometre away and appears to have operated quite independently.

The submission acknowledges the Flour Mill’s heritage importance, but states that the buildings in Forest Street do not contribute in any way to the significance of that site, nor does the Flour Mill in any way contribute to the limited significance of the buildings in Forest Street.


Page 30 of 43

Issue 7. The claim on page 30 that “All of the places are associated with the historic themes of alluvial gold diggings and development and modernization of type still found in regional areas with continuous connection to their beginnings in 1852” is not valid

The submission rejects that the serial site places have a continuous history dating back to 1852 by referring to photographs in the HAR (page 110) that show the area at c. 1860 consisted of nothing more than a couple of shed‐type buildings, and by noting that individual allotments in this area were not auctioned until 1864.

The submission also disputes that there has been an ongoing transport theme for some of the individual buildings and sites which make up the serial site:

141 Barker Street (former Cusack’s) ‐ that the building and the site had no association with the pre‐motorised transportation industry, and that the site never held blacksmiths, shoeing forges, coachbuilders, etc.

In respect of the former Castlemaine Bus Lines building, that other than a small part of the area covered by this building (less than 50%) having been previously used by a shoeing forge, with a further small area at the north‐east corner having been occupied by Alf Bentley’s original garage, the majority of the land was not used by businesses relating to the early transport industries. It is submitted that the claim in the HAR that this site has had a continuous association with the transport industry since 1852 is an overreach, particularly given the former Haymarket Hotel was constructed on part of the site in 1865.

46‐50 Forest Street (former Rowe Motors) – that only a portion of the land that the building currently resides on was used for transport‐related purposes (a shoeing forge/Coach Building business), while the building itself (constructed in 1940) never contained these businesses.

The submission then turns to the anomaly of the Hunt & Lobb building at 74‐80 Forest Street (former Castlemaine Coach Factory) being excluded from the proposed heritage listing, given that the HAR draws substantially on this building’s history in its justification for the application of a serial heritage listing over the other buildings. The submission takes issue with the fact that this building has been excluded from the listing due to the approval of redevelopment plans (for a medical centre). It is submitted that it is unreasonable to use the only building that has a clear, continuous association with the transport theme, and which is substantially intact, to help justify a heritage listing over other buildings which either don’t have a continuous association with that theme (i.e. 141 Barker Street) or which don’t retain any of the original building fabric.

Issue 8. The inclusion of former residences of blacksmiths, coach builders and motor garage owners does not meet the basic tests of VHR Criterion H

It is submitted that the HAR has not demonstrated that any of the buildings satisfy VHR Criterion H which requires a “Special association with the life or works of a person, or group of persons, of importance in our history.”

Issue 9. The listing does not meet Victorian Planning Provisions (VPP) guidelines

The submission asserts that the serial site does not satisfy the Practice Note 46 definition which defines serial listed places as ‘Places that share a common history and/or significance but which do not adjoin each other or form a geographical grouping’, and is at odds with the two examples of serial listing given in the Practice Note (the Chicory Kilns on Phillip Island in the Bass Coast Planning Scheme and the former Rosella Factory Complex in the Yarra Ranges Planning Scheme).


Page 31 of 43

It is submitted that the HAR oscillates between serial listing and precinct listing when describing the site, and notes several instances where the HAR makes reference to the “Forest Street and Bruce Street Heritage Precinct”.

It is also submitted that with the HAR confirming the Castlemaine Bus Lines building as not individually significant at a local level, it is highly unlikely (with the exception of the Flour Mill, which is significant) that any of the other commercial buildings would individually meet the threshold of significance either, and that the proposed serial listing fails for this reason.

Issue 10. Issues relating to the application of the HO on 141 Barker Street

It is submitted that:

No assessment of potential social and economic effects has been performed

The building has never been previously identified as being of heritage significance, only potential heritage significance at a local level

Fails to satisfy the VHR Criterion.

(i) Council response to Submission 4

At the Directions Hearing on 19 October 2015, the Panel directed that Council’s submission should only include responses to submitters’ non‐heritage issues, and that responses to submitters’ heritage issues were to be addressed in Ms Jean’s expert witness statement. This Direction was repeated in the written Directions issued on 22 October 2015.

Unfortunately, the Direction was not complied with, and heritage issues were addressed in Council’s submission and not in Ms Jean’s statement. Although some details were adequately covered by Council, it would have been much more useful to the Panel if the complex heritage issues raised in Submission 4 had been responded to by Ms Jean, the author of the Study and Council’s expert witness at the Hearing.

Many of Council’s responses did not address the specific issue directly but expressed general support for the analysis and findings of the Study. However, some specific responses on individual matters were helpful, including the following comments:

Issue 3. The interlinking of the two precincts & serial site is not appropriate

… each of the three proposed Heritage Overlays have their own SOS detailing why the site is significant, and each proposed overlay is required to ‘stand on its own’ in terms of the relevant SOS. On that basis, any one of the three places can be objected to separately (which is what has happened).

Issue 4. The thematic basis of the proposed serial listing is confusing and not substantiated

The area is significant for its transport related industrial development. Many of the dwellings in the area are also the former owners or manager’s residence of transport related industries. While not all industrial sites have been used for industry on a continuous basis, the sites have a history of transport related industry, and three of the current buildings were constructed for transport. Additionally the flour mill was also related to the construction of the Melbourne Murray River railway line.


Page 32 of 43

Issue 6. The sites involved are not “interlinked” or have a relationship with each other

Buildings in the proposed serial listing generally have a relationship with a number of (but not all) other buildings. This may be a common theme, or direct relationship, particularly between dwellings and industrial buildings.

Issue 7. The claim on page 30 that “All of the places are associated with the historic themes of alluvial gold diggings and development and modernization of type still found in regional areas with continuous connection to their beginnings in 1852” is not valid.

In relation to the Hunt & Lobb building, Council has previously considered (in 2014) whether to apply an interim Heritage Overlay to this site, but resolved against this because a permit for redevelopment had been issued and an application had been received to demolish the building. It was considered that even if a Heritage Overlay was applied, the demolition application would likely be approved. The Hunt & Lobb building has been excluded from the serial site for this reason.

The situation with respect to the Hunt & Lobb building in many ways reinforces the importance of the present Amendment. Had the Heritage Overlay been in place when the application to redevelop that site had been received, then this would have enabled the heritage significance of the site to be considered at that time, noting however that the Heritage Overlay would not have precluded redevelopment as an option.

Issue 8. The inclusion of former residences of blacksmiths, coach builders and motor garage owners does not meet the basic tests of VHR Criterion H

Criterion H is not listed in the SOS as a reason for this area being significant. Other criteria apply instead.

Issue 10. Issues relating to the application of the HO on 141 Barker Street

In relation to the second point, the HAR should be changed to reflect that 141 Barker Street has only previously been identified as being of ‘potential’ heritage significance.

Ms Jean was able to give verbal responses to some of the heritage issues at the Hearing.

6.3 Discussion

(i) The proposed serial listing

From the outset, the Panel had concerns about whether HO1214 meets the criteria for a serial listing. The Practice Note Applying the Heritage Overlay provides the following guidance on places that may be considered for serial listing:

Group, thematic and serial listings

Places that share a common history and/or significance but which do not adjoin each other or form a geographical grouping may be considered for treatment as a single heritage place. Each place that forms part of the group might share a common statement of significance; a single entry in the Heritage Overlay Schedule and a single Heritage Overlay number.

The Practice Note then offers two appropriate examples: the chicory kilns on Phillip Island (Bass Coast Planning Scheme) and the former Rosella Factory Complex in Cremorne (Yarra


Page 33 of 43

Planning Scheme). The chicory kilns are dispersed singly across the island, while the five buildings that comprise the Rosella complex are separated by other buildings and streets.

By contrast, the sites in the proposed HO1214 adjoin each other in two groups on either side of Barker Street, and clearly form a ‘geographical grouping’ or precinct. It was clear from the terminology in the Study that the area was originally conceived as a heritage precinct, and this was confirmed by Ms Jean at the Hearing. She stated that although she had initially recommended a precinct, Council had preferred the ’serial sites’ approach as it considered it would carry more weight than a precinct listing.

The Panel then asked Ms Jean for her view on the level of heritage significance of a serial site compared to a site within a precinct. Ms Jean gave her opinion that each site included in a serial listing would have the same level of significance as an individually listed site. This effectively means that the bar is raised for each site in a serial listing – in a precinct they would be graded as ‘contributory’, but in a serial listing each site would need to meet the criteria for ‘individually significant’. In the Panel’s view, based on the assessments in the Study, previous heritage assessments of some of the sites, and a comparison with existing individually listed sites in the Mount Alexander Planning Scheme, it is unlikely that most of the sites in HO1214 would meet the criteria for individual significance.

For the above reasons, the Panel supports the arguments put in Submission 4 that the proposed serial listing meets neither the relevant Practice Note guidelines nor the HERCON criteria for individual significance.

On the other hand, much of this agglomeration of sites and buildings, together with their historic uses and their transition to their current forms and uses, clearly meets the criteria for local heritage significance, and would be appropriate for inclusion as a heritage precinct.

However, the drawing of the boundary of a precinct would need to be further considered. For example, all the exhibited HO1214 sites could be included within the precinct, including Bruce and Barker Streets. Alternatively, the precinct could be more tightly focused on the commercially zoned area, an option considered by Ms Jean in the course of the Study.

(ii) The individual sites

The residential sites

The boundary should be drawn in a way that resolves some of the questions that arise from the SOS, particularly for some of the residential sites. The study divides the residences into two groups:

Group A: Late 19th century timber weatherboard cottages built on former Miner’s Right licences and residency areas

Group B: Residences built in the 1930s to early 1950s attached to garages and industrial workshops

Group A. It can be argued that the site at 20 Forest Street, an undistinguished house that post‐dates the peak mining period (1850s), does not have heritage significance simply on the basis that the site was formerly a Miner’s Right and at one stage was occupied by a local smithy. The neighbouring houses at 22, 24 and 26 Forest Street were built on Miner’s Residency Areas leases and occupied by miners’ widows by the 1880s. Nos 3 and 5 Bruce


Page 34 of 43

Street are on the site of the former Cornish and Bruce workshop, and apart from occupation of 3 Bruce Street by a smithy in 1932, the houses have only a tenuous link to historical uses. The house at 5 Bruce Street is an Inter‐War bungalow and has no connection with the area’s history.

There should be a clear connection between the extant fabric and the history of the site, as well as some appreciable significance of the fabric in its own right, to establish heritage significance. In the Panel’s view, neither the link with the area’s historical uses nor the significance of the extant fabric have been established to an appropriate threshold.

This is not to say that the area’s history is not important, and it has certainly been thoroughly researched in the Study. However, the history is not sufficiently represented in the built fabric to warrant the application of heritage controls.

An exception to this analysis is the house at 109 Barker Street, a late 19th century Victorian house with decorative iron lacework. The site was part of the Cornish and Bruce workshop land and the house was occupied by a local blacksmith. When the land was taken over by the Fitzgerald Brewing and Malt Co and the house was occupied by one of its managers. In this case, there is a clear link between the history and the extant fabric, making it eligible for heritage protection.

Group B. This group comprises two substantial mid‐20th century houses commissioned by the owners of neighbouring businesses. No 115 Barker Street (the 1950 former Cusack residence, associated with Cusack’s garage) is described in the Study as having ‘landmark qualities’, while No 120 Barker Street (the 1952 former Bentley residence associated with the Bentley garage) is described as a ‘rare example of a two‐storey modern brick and tile house associated with the development of car dealerships…’. This group clearly meets the criteria for heritage significance, based not only on the history of the sites but also on the existing built fabric. They are also highly visible, being located on one of the main entrances to Castlemaine, and next to the businesses run by their former owners, which are both substantial buildings marking the prominent corner of the Midland and Pyrenees Highways at the heart of the precinct.

Other sites

a. 101 Barker Street

There appears to be no extant fabric identified on the site at 101 Barker Street, which is currently occupied by a caravan park and zoned for residential use. Neither is there is any specific heritage assessment of this site in the Study. It is identified as having been occupied by a range of industries utilising power from the adjacent steam mill, including the Cornish and Bruce railway workshops, Robertson and Wagner coach builders and Fitzgerald Brewing and Malt Co.

The Study makes the following comment on the archaeological potential of the site:

The site is considered to have archaeological potential. While no recommendations is made for archaeological controls under the Planning Scheme, the owners should be advised of the requirement of the Heritage Act and encouraged to take a proactive approach to investigating the archaeological values of the site in the event subsurface disturbance is proposed.


Page 35 of 43

If there is any remnant fabric related to the historic industrial uses on this site, it needs to be clearly identified in the SOS. If there is no remnant fabric related to the site’s history, it would not meet the threshold for heritage significance as a contributory element of HO1214. In order to establish whether the site meets the appropriate criteria, a more detailed site examination and assessment needs to be undertaken. As the Study itself implies, ‘archaeological potential’ alone does not justify heritage controls.

b. 141 Barker Street (former Cusack’s Motors)

Submission 4 opposed the inclusion of the 1938 garage on the following grounds:

The site was previously identified as having only ‘potential heritage significance’, not ‘heritage significance’ as stated in the Study on pages 50 and 100.

The site has ‘some historical interest in terms of the Transport theme, but its historical importance is low and does not meet the threshold for individual classification under Criterion A’.

The garage is not unique in the local area and does not meet the basic tests for ‘rarity’ (Criterion B).

The building is ‘a typical, not outstanding example of a period motor garage, one of many in the area, of local historical interest but not significance’ (Criterion D)7.

The building is ‘a very basic example of an inter‐war garage/service station… Whilst it does have some aesthetic qualities, they do not exceed those of the general class ‘modern’ to which it is being attributed’ (Criterion E).

The Study at page 129 describes this building and its history in detail:

In 1938 William Cusack built his Cusack’s Motors facing Castlemaine Bus Lines, on the south‐west corner of Forest and Barker Streets (previously the site of the Rechabite Hall and also Trades Hall). Prior to becoming a sole Mobil agent, the bowsers lined up in front of its canopy had six different types of petrol. Cusack was a General Motors dealer and sold Pontiac, Vauxhall, Bedford and also Chevrolet vehicles. In 1949 the garage workshop was considerably extended, in the same architectural style, on its south side. In 1957 GMH appointed Cusack’s Motors as agents for the Holden range of vehicles. This was an important dealership for Cusack’s and Castlemaine, and the workforce was increased to service the sales. Bill Cusack Jnr came to work at Cusacks in 1946 after having worked at Thompson’s foundry as a fitter. It was identified as an ‘early drive‐in’ service station, in the 1930s Modern style, and of additional architectural interest for its canopy.8

The modern style Castlemaine Bus Lines (originally Bentley’s Motors, built c.1952), and the 1938 period‐style garage (originally Cusack’s Motors), both largely intact, are architecturally different, and distinctive, buildings impressively situated on the main intersection of the town.

The fact that the site was identified as having only ‘potential heritage significance’ in an earlier study only drew attention to the need to assess it fully in future. That has been done as part of this Study, and the site is listed in the SOS as having local heritage significance under Criteria A, B and E.

7 The Study does not attribute heritage significance to this site or any of the serial sites under Criterion D. 8 Catrice Daniel & Summerton Michele, ‘The Motor Garage and Service Station in Victoria: a Survey’, National

Estates Grant Program, Heritage Victoria, 1997, p.209.


Page 36 of 43

As a former service station, garage and car dealership, the site is clearly part of a continuum of uses representing the Transport theme in this area, evolving over time from coachbuilding through to railway, bus and car transport (Criterion A).

In relation to Criterion B (‘rarity’), the submitter argued in some detail that the site does not meet the ‘tests’ in the Victorian Heritage Register Criteria and Threshold Guidelines (Heritage Council 2014). While the guidelines are extremely useful in assessing heritage significance, the threshold is set at a level to determine State significance. The threshold is generally accepted to be lower for local significance.

The Study attributes ‘rarity’ not just to the Former Cusack’s Motors, but to the group it forms part of at the intersection of Barker and Forest Streets:

The group of existing 20th century residences and retail buildings are excellent examples of regional vernacular modernist architecture. Regional examples built by local contractors reflecting the aspirations of local business owners are considered rare survivors of this genre. The group of buildings form a strong focal point at the cross roads at the entrance to the commercial centre of Castlemaine.

The Panel accepts that the former Cusack’s Motors is ‘Castlemaine’s only intact period an ‘early drive‐in’ service station, in the 1930s Moderne style, and of additional architectural interest for its canopy’. The submission also gave details of other garages in Castlemaine that are within the area of the central Castlemaine precinct HO667. However, none of them are of the same form or architectural period as Cusack’s Motors.

Criterion E relates to aesthetic significance. The inter‐war period has been the subject of heritage studies leading to heritage controls over the last decade and, increasingly, post‐war sites up to the 1980s are now being afforded heritage protection. The site has strong inter‐war design and detail, including the canopy, and would have been strikingly modern in 1930s Castlemaine. It is also remarkably intact. The 2013 Context assessment of the Castlemaine Bus Line building on the opposite corner uses 141 Barker Street in the comparative analysis:

In comparing other buildings that are related to the theme of Transport the Action Auto Centre (former Cusack’s Motors) at 141 Barker Street is comparable. This building is an earlier and more elaborate architectural design of a service station with portico and pillars, and when compared with the Castlemaine Bus line building had more architectural interest.

The Panel expressed the opinion earlier in this report that ‘it is unlikely that most of the sites in HO1214 would meet the criteria for individual significance’. The possible exceptions are the former Cusack’s Motors and the Castlemaine Bus Company, together with their associated residences. However, the Panel notes that the sites in HO1214 were originally assessed as a precinct, and as such the threshold is whether or not they have ‘contributory’ status to the significance of the precinct.

The Panel is satisfied that the site at 141 Barker Street meets the criteria for heritage significance and should be included in an HO.


Page 37 of 43

c. 46‐50 Forest Street (former Rowe Motors)

Submission 3 opposed the serial listing of this site on the following grounds:

The property ‘has no historic significance from an architectural or previous use perspective’

The property was ‘built to a low budget probably some time in the mid to late 1960s’

Castlemaine is ‘not historically renowned as a car‐servicing town’

Council encouraged the previous motor trade use to relocate east of the town centre.

The Study at page 130 describes this building and its history as follows:

In 1922 descendants of the Fryerstown Rowe Brothers (owners of the Mosquito and Duke of Cornwall mines) purchased Harrison’s garage on the corner of Barker and Mostyn Streets. In 1930 Clem Rathbone purchased ‘Rowe Motors’, and in 1939 he purchased Percy George’s Engineering Works and Garage at 48 Forest Street. In 1940 he moved Rowe Motors from ‘The Corner’ to 48 Forest Street (part Allotment 7 Section 84). During the war‐time labour shortage Rathbone visited Castlemaine Technical School looking for workers, but in the 1950s his Ford dealership boomed, and Rowe Motors employed 34 staff. In 1951 Rathbone was presented with a plaque and a gold watch by Ford’s Victorian manager for his long and outstanding service to Ford.

The façade of the 1940 building had been rebuilt by the ‘early ’60s’. As ‘KRB Motors’ the building has continued to be used until very recently for the transport trade. Underneath its different livery, the façade appears to have a high degree of integrity. Part of the rear of the premises appears to date to the inter‐war period, and may preserve something of the earlier (at least back to 1921) uses of the site for garages and blacksmiths.

This site relates strongly to the Transport theme of this area. Although the existing building was constructed in 1940 and altered in the 1960s, it is typical of modern garage premises, and clearly representative of the Transport theme in terms of both its form and its use over many decades.

The test is not whether Castlemaine is ‘historically renowned’ as a car‐servicing centre, but whether the motor trade has played an important role in the local economy. As a central administrative centre and service town, at one time Castlemaine had up to 18 garages and car dealerships serving a wide area outside the town. For some decades it has also been an important centre for repair and restoration of historic cars in Victoria.

The cessation of motor trade use on this site is not relevant to the assessment of heritage significance.

The Panel is satisfied that the site at 46‐50 Forest Street meets the criteria for heritage significance and should be included in an HO.


Page 38 of 43

d. 122 Barker Street (Castlemaine Bus Lines building)

The heritage assessment of the Castlemaine Bus Lines building by Context in 2013 reached the following conclusion:

The building has modest architectural interest as an austere moderne building.

The Castlemaine Bus Lines building is considered to be of historic interest and a prominent landmark. This would be sufficient to include the place as a contributory place in any heritage precinct but not as an individual element.

The Panel notes that the assessment was of an individual building, and while the site’s history and relationship to the Transport theme is acknowledged, the assessment did not take into account the site’s role and contribution to the historical context of the precinct in which it is sited. Such an assessment may have attributed a higher level of heritage significance to this site.

However, inclusion of the building in the proposed heritage precinct would be consistent with Context’s assessment.

e. 112‐116 Barker Street

The Study includes an assessment of the sites at 112‐116 Barker Street, which were occupied at various stages by wheelwrights, blacksmiths, coachbuilders and monumental masons. This history is clearly consistent with the significant themes of the serial listing. The Study identifies the remaining structures as ‘a 19th century shed and interwar office built in the 1930s.’ Both of these small structures are located on the street frontage, and the corrugated iron ‘shed’ has a narrow brick structure with a complex parapet at the rear. The sites were assessed as ‘non‐contributory structures due to the poor structural condition of the buildings’, and were not included in the serial listing.

It is surprising that these sites were omitted on these grounds. Building condition is not relevant to the assessment of heritage significance. There are many sites identified in the HO and on the Victorian Heritage Register that are in poor or even derelict condition, but have nevertheless been identified as significant on the grounds of their social, historic or aesthetic significance. The time to assess condition is when a permit application is lodged. It would be appropriate for these two buildings to be assessed for heritage significance as part of a future heritage amendment.

6.4 Conclusions

On the basis of the above, the Panel has reached conclusions about how the uncertainties about the serial listing of HO1214 should be resolved. Overall, the Panel accepts that most of the area meets the criteria for local heritage significance and should be included in an HO, subject to the following changes:

Redefine the area as a heritage precinct, not as Serial Sites.

Delete the exhibited residential properties in Bruce Street and Forest Street covered by the General Residential 1 Zone from the precinct.

Include the site at 113 Barker Street (excluded from the serial listing) in the precinct but identified as ‘non‐contributory’.


Page 39 of 43

Identify the small modern building in Forest Street adjacent to 54 Forest Street as ‘non‐contributory’.

Delete the site at 101 Barker Street from the precinct unless significant remnant fabric from its historic occupation is identified.

Revise the SOS to reflect the above changes.

This outcome confines the precinct to properties covered by the Commercial 1 Zone. This is a flexible zone with very few prohibited uses, and allows wide scope for adaptive re‐use of existing buildings.

In the Panel’s view, because these changes do not impose any additional controls on the exhibited properties, they could be made without further exhibition and notice. The exception is the site at 113 Barker Street, which was not included in the exhibited Amendment. Council would need to confer with the owner before including the site in the proposed precinct as a ‘non‐contributory’ site. If the owner objects, the site should be processed via a subsequent amendment.

The Panel has also considered the argument put forward by Mr Katiforis at the hearing that disputed the association of many of the serial sites with the former Steam Flour Mill, which he described as the ‘lynchpin tying together the serial listing’. The Panel considers that although the Mill’s close association with some historic uses is clearly an important factor, the significance of the serial sites is also built on the evolution of uses in the area over time to meet contemporary needs, and is not dependent on the links with the Mill.

6.5 Recommendations


Redefine the Industrial Commercial and Related Residential Serial Sites (HO1214) as a heritage precinct, subject to the following modifications:

Delete the exhibited residential properties in Bruce Street and Forest Street covered by the General Residential 1 Zone.

Include the site at 113 Barker Street (excluded from the serial listing) within the precinct but identify it as ‘non‐contributory’, subject to the owner’s agreement.

Identify the small modern building adjacent to 54 Forest Street as ‘non‐contributory’.


Revise the Statement of Significance to reflect the above changes.

Include the sites at 112‐116 Barker Street within HO1214 as part of a subsequent amendment.

Include 113 Barker Street as a ‘non‐contributory’ site within HO1214 via a subsequent amendment if the owner objects to its inclusion in C60.


Page 40 of 43

7 Structure of proposed heritage controls

7.1 Discussion

Based on the conclusions reached in the previous Chapter, the recommended conversion of the serial site to a precinct provides an opportunity to review the structure of the Amendment as whole.

It is clear that there are strong historic links between the three exhibited precincts. This is acknowledged in the Study, which sets out the ‘landscape’ approach to heritage management and conservation adopted for this project. This is described in the Preface as follows:

The Forest Street to Forest Creek Castlemaine Heritage Assessment Report analyses the human‐nature relations that resulted in the urbanization of Forest Creek and its environs in central Castlemaine; a transformation of an alluvial rich herb meadow and grassy woodland creek into a utilitarian space that was mined, dug up, channelized, built upon and rebuilt.

As described in the following section, this heritage assessment provides an explanation of the themes and activities that have been important in shaping Forest Creek. It provides a landscape approach towards heritage management and conservation. It acknowledges that the definition of heritage management has been evolving from an object‐based approach towards a more all‐inclusive approach where notions of intangible, setting, context, urban and sustainable development accompanied by a greater consideration of the social and economical function of historic cities is recommended by UNESCO (Historic Urban Landscape Declaration 2011) and the Australian ICOMOS Burra Charter (revised 2013). A landscape‐based approach is expected to be the future path in heritage management as well as a key indicator for sustainable urban development. The steps undertaken in this Heritage Assessment allows identifying cultural significance and change agents defined by four variables: attributes (what), values (why), stakeholders (who) and strategies (how).

The Executive Summary also emphasises the links over the whole study area:

The Forest Street to Forest Creek Heritage Assessment Report re‐defines and assesses the post‐industrial urban landscape of left over structures and abandoned spaces along Forest Creek at the centre of Castlemaine. The study area is a complex mix of uncanny spaces made up of reconstituted ecology, where nature and industry have combined, creating spatially segregated voids on the edge of the commercial centre. It comprises sixty‐one titles and thirty‐six primary buildings plus their associated outbuildings.

Each of the heritage places is interlinked through the history of gold mining, industrial engineering, transport and water management.

The subsequent division of the area into three separate precincts appears to be at odds with this approach. It creates a situation where part of the significance of one precinct is linked to the others, and the complexity and inter‐relatedness of the overall area is somewhat lost. Although there is some spatial logic in assessing the ‘channel’, ‘reserve’ and ‘industrial’ areas separately, the consequent need for repetition and cross‐referencing adds unnecessary length and complexity to the SOSs and, in turn, to the task of assessing what is significant by owners and Council staff, which is the ultimate object of the SOS.


Page 41 of 43

7.2 Conclusions

The Panel can see no reason why the Amendment could not be greatly simplified by combining the three precincts into one precinct. The area is relatively small, the history intricately interwoven. It would be possible to structure a single SOS comprising a common history section and a common ‘Why is it Significant’ section. The ‘What is significant’ section could include a map showing the channel, reserve and industrial areas of the precinct, and provide a separate entry for each area focused solely on the significant physical fabric (as recommended in Chapter 1.3 of this report).

The combined precincts would have one HO number and could be named the Forest Street to Forest Creek Historic Precinct, taken from the name of the Study.

7.3 Recommendations


Combine the Forest Creek Channel Precinct, Western and Eastern Reserve Precinct and the Forest Street Industrial and Related Residences Serial Sites into a single precinct, the Forest Street to Forest Creek Historic Precinct.

Integrate the Statements of Significance for the exhibited precincts into a single Statement of Significance comprising the following elements:

A common history section

A map showing the channel, reserve and industrial/commercial areas

A separate section of the ‘What is significant’ section for each area

A common “Why is it significant’ section identifying the separate elements under each Criterion where appropriate.


Page 42 of 43

8 Consolidated recommendations

Based on the reasons set out in this Report, the Panel recommends that Mount Alexander Planning Scheme Amendment C60 be adopted as exhibited subject to the following modifications:

Rewrite the section ‘What is significant’ in all the Statements of Significance to 1.focus on identifying the extant physical fabric that is to be protected.

Modify the Study document as follows: 2.

Insert the statement of significance proposed in Submission 7, citing its source.

Include a fuller explanation of the Corporation’s statutory role as a Registered Aboriginal Party on page 18.

Include a link to the requirements of the Cultural Heritage Management Plan process under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 in the summary Table under the heading ‘Other Actions’ on page 30.

Refer to the Recognition and Settlement Agreement and/or to Dhelkunya Dja (Dja Dja) Wurrung Country Plan 2014‐2034 on page 149.

Redefine the Industrial Commercial and Related Residential Serial Sites (HO1214) 3.as a heritage precinct, subject to the following modifications:

Delete the exhibited residential properties in Bruce Street and Forest Street covered by the General Residential 1 Zone.

Include the site at 113 Barker Street (excluded from the serial listing) within the precinct but identify it as ‘non‐contributory’, subject to the owner’s agreement.

Identify the small modern building adjacent to 54 Forest Street as ‘non‐contributory’.


Revise the Statement of Significance to reflect the above changes.

Combine the Forest Creek Channel Precinct, Western and Eastern Reserve Precinct 4.and the Forest Street Industrial and Related Residences Serial Sites into a single precinct, the Forest Street to Forest Creek Historic Precinct.

Integrate the Statements of Significance for the exhibited precincts into a single 5.Statement of Significance comprising the following elements:

A common history section

A map showing the channel, reserve and industrial/commercial areas

A separate section of the ‘What is significant’ section for each area

A common “Why is it significant’ section identifying the separate elements under each Criterion where appropriate.


Page 43 of 43

The Panel makes the following additional recommendations to Council:

Include the sites at 112‐116 Barker Street within HO1214 as part of a subsequent 6.amendment.

Include 113 Barker Street as a ‘non‐contributory’ site within HO1214 via a 7.subsequent amendment if the owner objects to its inclusion in C60.