Statement of Evidence and Report to the Panel · 1.0 Statement of Qualifications and Experience 1.1 Authorship This statement has been prepared by Ms Kate Paterson, Associate, Flightpath

flightpath Statement of Evidence and Report to the Panel Glenelg Shire Council Planning Scheme Amendment C89

Instructed by GLENELG SHIRE COUNCIL 14 March 2018

Glenelg Shire Planning Scheme Amendment C89 Statement of Evidence

Flightpath Architects page 3

Table of Contents Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................... 31.0 Statement of Qualifications and Experience .................................................................... 4

1.1 Authorship ..................................................................................................................... 41.2 Qualifications and Experience ........................................................................................ 41.3 Expertise to make the report .......................................................................................... 41.4 Instructions .................................................................................................................... 41.5 Reports relied upon to prepare expert witness statement .............................................. 51.6 Glenelg Planning Scheme .............................................................................................. 51.7 Amendment C89 ........................................................................................................... 61.8 Response to Submissions ............................................................................................. 6

2.0 Summary of Opinions ...................................................................................................... 82.1 Submission 1 : HO301 .................................................................................................. 92.2 Submission 2 : HO308 ................................................................................................ 152.3 Submission 3 : HO305 ................................................................................................ 172.4 Submission 4 : HO165 ................................................................................................ 212.5 Submission 5 : HO165 ................................................................................................ 232.6 Submission 6 : HO276 ................................................................................................ 252.7 Submission 7 : HO165 ................................................................................................ 272.8 Submission 8 : Multiple ................................................................................................ 312.9 Submission 9 : Multiple ................................................................................................ 362.10 Submission 10 : HO316 .............................................................................................. 37

3.0 Declaration ..................................................................................................................... 414.0 Appendix A : Recommended amendments to Heritage Citation Reports ..................... 425.0 Appendix B : Heritage Citation Report, Richmond Henty Complex HO114 .................. 436.0 Appendix C : Curriculum Vitae, Kate Paterson, Flightpath Architects ........................... 44



1.0 Statement of Qualifications and Experience

1.1 Authorship

This statement has been prepared by Ms Kate Paterson, Associate, Flightpath Architects Pty Ltd., 101 Hindley Street, Adelaide.

1.2 Qualifications and Experience

I have Bachelor of Architectural Studies and Bachelor of Architecture degrees from the University of Adelaide, 1990-95. Over the past 22 years I have worked in the fields of architecture, building conservation, heritage management and planning in Victoria, Queensland, New South Wales and South Australia. In this field I have worked autonomously and as a team member and leader on many facets of heritage-related projects of varying scale and type including conservation and heritage management plans, heritage surveys and studies, heritage appraisals and strategic planning reports. My heritage work has spanned across many sectors including residential, institutional, government, educational, ecclesiastic, industrial and landscape. These sites have been both simple and complex in nature and span places from Contributory to National and Commonwealth heritage value.

I have undertaken numerous municipal heritage surveys and reviews in both urban and regional areas in Victoria and South Australia including Greater Shepparton, Bass Coast, Boroondara and Moreland (Vic) and Charles Sturt, Mid Murray, Goyder Regional and Northern Areas Regional (SA). I have also provided strategic advice in a variety of roles and expert witness statements for municipal Planning Scheme/Development Plan reviews and amendments.

In addition I have acted as Heritage Advisor to Bayside City Council and Glenelg Shire Council (Victoria); and City of Port Adelaide Enfield, City of Tea Tree Gully, City of Salisbury and City of Playford (SA).

I am also a member of the Australian Institute of Architects (A+).

A copy of my curriculum vitae is attached (Appendix C).

1.3 Expertise to make the report

The specific expertise which I bring to this report is in the areas of assessment of heritage value (as outlined above) and a familiarity with the historic development and themes of value for Portland and the surrounding Glenelg Shire via my experience as Heritage Advisor to the Council for nearly five years. In that time I have prepared two other expert witness statements for Council on heritage, C55 and C57.

Further, I had the opportunity to review the findings of the Portland Heritage Gaps Study, Review and Recommendations Report, Vol. 4 (2016) in its draft format. This familiarised me with the content and preliminary findings of the Study.

1.4 Instructions

This statement addresses the heritage issues raised by submissions received by Glenelg Shire Council in response to public exhibition of the proposed Planning Scheme Amendment, C89.

My original instructions on this matter comprised written correspondence from Glenelg Shire Council, dated 1 February 2018. The instructions required the preparation of an expert witness statement in accordance with Planning Panel Victoria’s Guide to Expert Evidence and in particular the following:

• a response to the issues raised in eight submissions that are being referred to Panel; • to exclude a response to Submission No.5 (HO165, 26 Blair Street) and Submission

No. 10 (HO316, Fisherman’s Wharf) which have not been referred to Panel;



• to address Council’s response to the issues raised in submissions particularly key being:

o the appropriateness of an overlay control where contested (5 places); o whether a place be listed as Contributory; o changes to the HO schedule; o proposed updates to citations; and o creation of a citation HO114.

Subsequently, following the Panel’s Directions Hearing on 27 February, 2018, I received additional written instruction from Glenelg Shire Council, dated 27 February 2018 to:

• include a response to Submission No.5 and Submission No. 10, on the basis that they were exhibited as part of the original Amendment C89 for public consultation.

1.5 Reports relied upon to prepare expert witness statement

The Portland Heritage Gaps Study was undertaken by Jacobs Group (Australia) Pty Ltd between May 2016 and February 2017. Commissioned by Glenelg Shire Council, the Study was undertaken to identify all post-contact places of heritage significance within the study area which are not currently afforded protection under the Heritage Overlay.

The Portland Urban Conservation (PUC) Study was completed by Wilson Sayer Pty Ltd, Urban and Regional Planners and Bruce Trethowan, Architect, in December 1981. Commissioned by the former Town of Portland and the Department of Planning, the Study identified approximately 245 properties and heritage precincts in Portland with potential cultural significance. Of these, 159 properties and heritage precincts were translated into a ‘New Format’ Glenelg Planning Scheme in 1998.

1.6 Glenelg Planning Scheme

Since the inception of the Glenelg Shire Planning Scheme in 1998 various minor and major amendments to the Planning Scheme relating to heritage have included:

• C06 Minor amendment to correct errors and omissions in schedule and maps which apply to various small parcels of land affected by heritage overlay controls to clarify the intent of the new format planning scheme (21.03.2002)

• C22 Minor amendment to apply HO to additional State Heritage Places (30.06.2005)

• C25 Major amendment which introduces changes to Glenelg Planning Scheme Heritage Overlay Maps and Heritage Overlay Schedule, to correct serious errors in the recording of heritage places. The amendment is administrative only, and does not change the context or intent of the Heritage Overlay (27.04.2006)

• C46 Amendment to implement Section 48 of the Heritage Act for consistency with Victorian Heritage Register. This groups places on the VHR and Local Heritage Places (20.08.2009)

• C68 Amendment to implement Section 48 of the Heritage Act to alter the Planning Scheme maps and schedule to the Heritage Overlay so that the heritage places in the Glenelg Planning Scheme are consistent with the Victorian Heritage Register (28.06.2012)

• C55 (Part 1) The Amendment implements the Glenelg Heritage Study Stage 2A (September 2006) and Heritage Citation Report (August 2013). It inserted 84 additional places into the Heritage Overlay maps and schedule (30.05.2014)

• C57 Largely administrative Amendment with many of the changes required due to errors in the Glenelg Planning Scheme schedule and mapping.



1.7 Amendment C89

In summary, Amendment C89 proposed the following changes:

• to add 47 places of Local Significance;

• to amend 1 Heritage Precinct; and

• to add 6 Sub-Precincts

1.8 Response to Submissions

Amendment C89 was exhibited from the 26 October until 27 November 2017. The process included formal notification by letter to all subject landowners, publication of the full report on Council’s website and exhibition of the report in hard copy at Council’s Portland, Casterton and Heywood Customer Service Centres.

At the conclusion of the exhibition, ten submissions had been received by Council which variously included:

• Local Heritage Overlays contested (five);

• Whether a place be included as Contributory (six);

• Proposed changes to the Heritage Overlay Schedule;

• Proposed updates to citations; and

• Creation of a Citation for HO114.

Submission Number

Proposed HO Number

Proposed Heritage Place and Address

1 HO301 Bluestone and Timber Sheds, 3R Julia Street, Portland

2 HO308 Soldier’s Memorial Clubroom, 21 Percy Street, Portland

3 HO305 Residence, 85 Kobo Creek Road, Portland

4 HO165 Bluestone Wall, 37 Bentinck Street, Portland (Contributory)

5 HO165 26 Blair Street, Portland (Contributory)

6 HO276 ‘Avonmore’, 28 Avonmore Road, Portland

7 HO165 82 and 84 Gawler Street, Portland and 22 and 24 Cameron Street, Portland (Contributory)

8 Various Multiple

9 Various Multiple

10 HO316 Fisherman’s Wharf, Port of Portland

As a result of the submissions received, Flightpath Architects, as Council’s appointed Heritage Advisor, reviewed the information provided and supported the recommendation that eight of the ten submissions be referred to the Panel.

At the Panel Directions Hearing held on 27 February 2018, it was concluded that all ten submissions would be considered by the Panel on the basis that the submissions relating to the two places to be removed from Amendment C89 had been included in the advertised



Amendment.

A review and response to all submissions in relation to heritage matters is included at Section 2.0 of this report (below).

A draft Heritage Citation Report for the existing HO114, Richmond Henty site, is included at Appendix B, as instructed.



2.0 Summary of Opinions

The preparation of the following evidence has involved a review of each of the public submissions received in relation to:

• assessment of cultural heritage significance and appropriateness of HO;

• accuracy of datasheet information;

• suitability/extent of HO schedule; and

• proposed updates to citations.

The following evidence does not address matters of perceived economic impact, privacy or security or of a structural engineering nature.



2.1 Submission 1 : HO301

Bluestone and Timber Sheds

3R Julia Street, PORTLAND

Figure 1 Bluestone and timber sheds, west elevation Source: Flightpath Architects, 2017

Figure 2 Bluestone and timber sheds, north elevation Source: Flightpath Architects, 2017



Figure 3 Bluestone and timber sheds, interior looking west Source: Flightpath Architects, 2017

Figure 4 Bluestone and timber sheds, east elevation (left) and interior partition (right) Source: Flightpath Architects, 2017



Figure 5 Footprint of earlier structures on site, indicates that the current form of the sheds post-dates 1853

Source: Birmingham, 1853, National Library of Australia, MAP NK 575

Figure 6 Bluestone and timber sheds indicated, aerial image, c.1928 Source: State Library of Victoria, H91.160/1260



Figure 7 Subject warehouse sheds are visible in a 1920s image Source: Glenelg Shire Cultural Collection

Portland Heritage Gaps Study 2017

The Portland Heritage Gaps Study states:

The Bluestone and Timber Sheds at the rear of 3 Julia Street are significant for their research potential (HERCON Criterion C) as the buildings demonstrate details of early construction techniques for functional buildings in the region. The buildings were constructed using locally available materials during a period of intense development in Portland.

The Bluestone and Timber Sheds at the rear of 3 Julia Street are significant for their ability to demonstrate the principal characteristics of a type of place (HERCON Criterion D). These buildings represent examples of Colonial Georgian unadorned bluestone vernacular buildings for functional use.

The Bluestone and Timber Sheds at the rear of 3 Julia Street are significant for their aesthetic characteristics (HERCON Criterion E). The shape and form of the buildings in their context provides an aesthetic which evokes the period when Julia Street was a hub of trade and commerce in the early days of settlement.

Amendment C89

Amendment C89 proposes to include this place in the Heritage Overlay as a Local Heritage Place, HO301.

Site Inspection

I inspected the property on 27 November 2017 as Council’s Heritage Advisor.



Issues

Issue Response

1. The submission disputes the ‘Description’ included in the citation, including

• the extent of bluestone walling of the southern shed;

• the description of the northern shed; and

• the composition of the eastern wall.

• While the submission queries the description of the northern component as a ‘shed’ because it doesn’t include its own bluestone end walls, it is quite clearly an integral part of the overall shed complex, merely supported by timber framing at the east and west ends in lieu of stone. Both ‘sheds’ or bays are visible in known available historic images of the property and their integral roof structure and vernacular construction indicates that they were constructed at the same time.

• Regardless of the extent of bluestone being limited to the south and west walls of the building, both the north and south bays of the building (referred to as ‘sheds’) are considered to make up the significant structure which is associated with the mid-nineteenth century development of the site by the Henty and Trangmar businesses.

• While the sheds have been altered over time with a doorway in the west elevation (likely nineteenth century given the age of the surrounding brickwork), replacement roof cladding, weatherboard and sheet cladding on the eastern elevation of the southern shed and internal partitioning, these alterations do not alter the ability of the building to demonstrate its origin and role in the early mercantile development of Portland.

2. The submission queries the impact of the HO in relation to:

• the opening in the western wall and future subdivision;

• the structural condition of the timber framing and replacement of roofing;

• the restrictions on redevelopment of the site.

• I am not qualified to comment on the implications of the door opening on the proposed subdivision of the site. A permit application would be required to alter the fabric, should the door need to be sealed, however heritage listing would not preclude a sensitive solution;

• While the structural integrity of the roofing may not meet current construction standards, this does not diminish its cultural heritage significance. Improving the structural condition of a historic structure (subject to Planning Permit) is a common practice which can be undertaken without diminishing the



Issue Response

heritage value of the place.

• The mere location of the building within a Commercial 1 Zone does not warrant removal of a proposed Heritage Overlay in order to facilitate commercial development. Adaptive reuse of nineteenth century warehouse structures is a common outcome and can be supported, subject to careful development and Planning Permit.

• The overall form and fabric of the sheds, including the timber framed gabled roof are included in the extent of the HO description and future development which only retained the bluestone component of the buildings would be considered to have a major impact on the individual significance of the place as well as the broader HO165.

Conclusion and Recommendation

I recommend that the Bluestone and Timber Sheds at 3R Julia Street, Portland be retained in the Schedule and Mapping to the Heritage Overlay.

I recommend that the Heritage Citation Report for HO301 be amended to include a revised history and description, as per the copy included in Appendix A to this report.




Soldier’s Memorial Clubroom

21 Percy Street, PORTLAND

Figure 8 Soldier’s Memorial Clubroom, Gawler Street (south) elevation Source: Flightpath Architects, 2017

Figure 9 Soldier’s Memorial Clubroom, Percy Street (east) and (north) elevations Source: Flightpath Architects, 2017



Amendment C89


Site Inspection


Issues

Issue Response

1. The submission makes no objection to the Statement of Significance or the inclusion of the place in the Heritage Overlay.

• Supported

2. The submission requests minor corrections to the ‘Description’ in the Citation, including:

• Change to read: “The building has a hipped corrugated iron roof and new guttering, with a splayed corner to the intersection of Percy and Gawler Streets”.

• Change to read: “There are double-hung windows on the North side (two) fitted with security screens. The south side has (three) in the open lounge area and (three) in the Sitting (meeting) room. Additionally, there are (two) in the office facing east as per the photograph in the amendment and (one) facing west in the kitchen”

My site visit confirms the following:

• The first suggested correction to the datasheet is supported.

• The second suggested correction includes a minor error, stating six windows on south side, not the seven which are evident, as well as unnecessary detail about the use of the rooms inside the building. The datasheet should therefore be amended as follows: ‘There are timber-framed double-hung sash windows in all elevations of the building including the north (two) which are fitted with later security screens, the south (seven), the east (two) and west (one)’


I recommend that the Heritage Citation Report for HO308 be amended to include a revised description, as noted above as per the amended copy included at Appendix A to this report.




Residence

85 Kobo Creek Road, PORTLAND

Figure 10 East elevation, 85 Kobo Creek Road, Portland Source: Flightpath Architects, 2018

Figure 11 South elevation, 85 Kobo Creek Road, Portland Source: Flightpath Architects, 2018



Figure 12 North elevation, 85 Kobo Creek Road, Portland Source: Flightpath Architects, 2018

Figure 13 North elevation, 85 Kobo Creek Road, Portland Source: Flightpath Architects, 2018



Figure 14 Bluestone shed, 85 Kobo Creek Road, Portland Source: Flightpath Architects, 2018



The residence at 85 Kobo Creek Road is significant for its demonstration of the principal characteristics of colonial Georgian architecture. Features include the symmetrical front façade, hipped, corrugated iron roof, gable windows and the bluestone chimney.

The residence at 85 Kobo Creek Road is also significant for its association with AR Cruickshank, who was a prominent member of the Portland community, participating in the Portland Land and Building Society and campaigning to be Portland’s representative on the 1853 Victorian Legislative Assembly. He was also a local property and business owner. The house at 85 Kobo Creek Road is locally known as “Murrells” due to its associations with the Murrell family (Gordon Stokes pers comm, 14 June 2016). Further research is being undertaken to document this association.

Amendment C89


Site Inspection

I inspected the property on 19 February 2018 as Council’s Heritage Advisor.

Issues

Issue Response

1. The submission does not dispute the identified heritage significance of the place or content of the Heritage Citation Report.

• Noted

2. The basis of the submission in objection to the proposed HO is related to property

• The occupancy status of the property (vacant for long periods) is not considered



Issue Response

security. to be relevant to the assessment of cultural heritage value

• Site inspection confirms that the small bluestone cottage, which likely dates from the 1850s, clearly demonstrates its origin, relevant Historical Australian Themes and Statement of Significance as cited in the assessment report.

3. An authorised site inspection confirms that the ‘Description’ of the place included in the Heritage Citation Report requires amendment.

• Refer to amended Heritage Citation Report, attached


I recommend that the residence at 85 Kobo Creek, Portland, be retained in the Schedule and Mapping to the Heritage Overlay.

I recommend that the Heritage Citation Report for HO301 be amended to include a revised ‘Description’ as per Appendix A of this report.




Bluestone Wall in Portland Heritage Precinct

37 Bentinck Street, PORTLAND

Figure 15 Bluestone wall, 37 Bentinck Street Source: Flightpath Architects, 2017

Figure 16 Earlier wall on street boundary and adjacent building to south in location of present wall, illustrate the later origin of the subject wall.

Source: State Library of Victoria, H91.160/1263



Amendment C89

Amendment C89 proposes to include this place in the Heritage Overlay as a Contributory Place to the Portland Heritage Precinct, HO165.

Site Inspection


Issues

Issue Response

1. The submission objects to the inclusion of the wall in the HO as it is a modern structure.

• A site inspection confirms that the bluestone wall is a modern structure, constructed in 1980 for the then owner of the adjacent Mac’s Hotel, L.P. Hunt (marked by a plaque).

• Reference to historic images notes that a bluestone wall may have been located along the Bentinck Street property boundary of the site in the early twentieth century, however this was not in the location of the subject wall. Further, a large warehouse/store was constructed over part of the allotment where the present wall is located.

• While the extant wall is sympathetic to the heritage character of the precinct, it is not considered to hold any heritage significance or make a contribution to the heritage value of the precinct.


I recommend that the Bluestone Wall at 37 Bentinck Street is removed from the list of Contributory Places in the Heritage Citation Report for HO165.

I recommend that the Bluestone Wall at 37 Bentinck Street is removed from the Contributory places list, as exhibited in Clause 22.06-04.




26 Blair Street, PORTLAND

Figure 17 Bluestone wall, 37 Bentinck Street Source: Flighpath Architects, 2017

Amendment C89

Amendment C89 proposes to include this place in the Heritage Overlay as a Contributory Place to the Portland Heritage Precinct, HO165.

Site Inspection


Issues

Issue Response

1. The submission has concerns that the inclusion of the dwelling as a Contributory Place in HO165 will decrease the property value and limit the development potential.

• Noted, no comment;

• The perceived impact on property value is not a relevant consideration of heritage value;

• The impact on future redevelopment of a property is not a relevant consideration in the assessment of heritage value or whether an HO should be applied.

2. The owner is concerned that they will not be able to make any external changes or improvements to the dwelling

• External alterations are often permitted, subject to a Planning Permit.



Issue Response

3. The submission questions the heritage value of Post-World War Two housing to the Heritage Precinct

• A site visit confirms that the dwelling at 26 Blair Street was likely constructed in the Post-War era. It is a representative, albeit very conventional and understated example of a dwelling of this type and has a distinct lack of architectural detail. While it demonstrates the era of infill housing during that time in Portland, it is my belief that it makes little contribution to the identified significance of HO165.


I recommend that the dwelling at 26 Blair Street is removed from the list of Contributory Places in the Heritage Citation Report for HO165.

I recommend that 26 Blair Street is removed from the Contributory places list, as exhibited in Clause 22.06-04.




‘Avonmore’

28 Avonmore Avenue, PORTLAND

Figure 18 ‘Avonmore’, prior to construction of additional bay on western verandah, n.d. Source: Jacobs, 2018



‘Avonmore’ is of historical significance as the fabric of the building demonstrates past ways of life and the update and redevelopment of early properties to meet the changing requirements over time. Through the extensive renovations, the property demonstrates how the standards and requirements of a residential building have changed over time.

‘Avonmore’ has the potential to yield information as the bluestone drystone wall present on the property is included on the VHI for its potential to yield information. The potential information includes the construction techniques and the use of local materials for linear farm structures. The details available on the VHI site card are limited and therefore there is no additional information available about the location and nature of the archaeological features at the property.

‘Avonmore’ is significant as it demonstrates the principal characteristics of an early to mid-Victorian era residence. Features include the hipped roof, the rendered stone façade, the verandah with decorative timber brackets under the eaves, doors with sidelights and transoms, and the timber-framed, two-pane, double-hung, sash windows.

‘Avonmore’ has aesthetic significance as it is situated in a picturesque location surrounded by an established garden, and planted trees and shrubs.

‘Avonmore’ is also associated with George Yelverton Wilson, the original owner of the house. Wilson was one of the earliest settlers in Portland, and established the first chemist shop there. ‘Avonmore’ is also associated with the Leighton family’s ‘Avonmore Carnations’ business, which became an interstate and international exporter, with all the produce coming from the land surrounding the ‘Avonmore’ residence.

Amendment C89

Amendment C89 proposes to include ‘Avonmore’ in the Heritage Overlay as a Local Heritage Place, HO276.



Site Inspection

I have not been granted access to inspect the property.

Issues

Issue Response

1. The submission does generally not dispute the identified heritage significance of the place.

• Noted;

• The existing assessment of ‘Avonmore’ has been reviewed and, with the exception of the assessment regarding the dry stone walls (see note below), is supported with respect to the cited HERCON assessment criteria A, D, E and H.

2. The principle basis of the submission in objection to the proposed HO is related to property and personal security.

• The occupancy and security concerns of the owners are noted, however are not a consideration of relevance to the assessment of cultural heritage value

3. The submission states that the property does not contain any dry stone walls

• A site visit was not available to confirm the statement that dry stone walls are not extant on the property;

• It is noted that the subject property is now smaller in area due to subdivision than when the dry stone walls were identified and recorded/assessed by Heritage Victoria. The VHI database entry for the walls is limited in descriptive/spatial information and the only photographs included on the VHI suggest that the walls were located in open paddocks. It would appear that the walls are not located on the proposed HO extent for ‘Avonmore’.


I recommend that ‘Avonmore’ at 28 Avonmore, Portland, be retained in the Schedule and Mapping to the Heritage Overlay.

I recommend that the reference to dry stone walls is removed from the ‘Avonmore’ Heritage Assessment Report, unless an inspection of the property can confirm their existence.




82 Gawler Street, PORTLAND; 84 Gawler Street, PORTLAND; 22 Cameron Street, PORTLAND; 24 Cameron Street, PORTLAND

Figure 19 82 Gawler Street, Portland Source: Flightpath Architects, 2017

Figure 20 84 Gawler Street, Portland Source: Flightpath Architects, 2017



Figure 21 22 Cameron Street, Portland, site levelling for new dwelling Source: Flightpath Architects, 2017

Figure 22 24 Cameron Street, Portland Source: Flightpath Architects, 2017




The Portland Heritage Gaps Study lists all four properties as Contributory within the extension of the Portland Heritage Precinct, HO165. Contributory elements include:

Victorian and Edwardian architecture in the Precinct, particularly examples which contain the key elements of each period.

The Statement of Significance notes:

The Portland Heritage Precinct is aesthetically significant (HERCON Criterion E) to the Glenelg Shire for exhibiting key architectural aesthetics particular to different phases of Portland’s development, such as early colonial vernacular architecture and late Victorian housing styles.

Amendment C89

Amendment C89 proposes to include 82 and 84 Gawler Street and 22 and 24 Cameron Street in the Heritage Overlay as Contributory Places to the Portland Heritage Precinct, HO165.

Site Inspection

I inspected the properties from the street on November 27, 2017.

Issues

Issue Response

1. The submission objects to the inclusion of 82 and 84 Gawler Street on the basis that they contain asbestos and may need demolition in the future.

• Possibly constructed during the 1930s, 82 Gawler Street is a relatively modest, yet good representative example of an Interwar bungalow. While not specifically addressed in the ‘Physical Description’ or in the ‘Statement of Significance’ for HO165, Interwar residences such as this make a contribution to the significance of the Portland Heritage Precinct. This is in addition to the Late Edwardian, Art Deco and Post-War places identified.

• The dwelling at 84 Gawler Street is a good and substantially externally intact example of a late-Edwardian residence and displays the typical characteristics which contribute to the heritage value of the precinct, such as large gables, low pitched wide roof, integral overhanging verandah and timber-framed verandah posts and fretwork.

• The reported existence of asbestos in these dwellings does not reduce their heritage value, nor does it require demolition for this reason. Should demolition of the dwelling be required in the future, the permit application would be assessed based on the integrity or structural condition of the place and with regard to reasonable economic repair.



Issue Response

2. The submission objects to the inclusion of 22 Cameron Street as a Contributory Place as the property includes only a new house under construction.

• A site visit confirms that there is no visible element of Contributory heritage value on this allotment and a new dwelling is being constructed.

3. The submission objects to the inclusion of 24 Cameron Street as a Contributory Place but gives no grounds.

• A site visit confirms that the allotment contains a modest single-storey weatherboard bungalow which appears to date from the Interwar period. Substantial unsympathetic alterations and additions, including a second storey, have greatly diminished the integrity of the place. It makes little contribution to the Heritage Overlay.


I recommend that 82 and 84 Gawler Street, be retained in the list of Contributory Places in the Heritage Citation Report for HO165 and the Contributory places list, as exhibited in Clause 22.06-04.

I recommend that 22 and 24 Cameron Street, be removed from the list of Contributory Places in the Heritage Citation Report for HO165 and the Contributory places list, as exhibited in Clause 22.06-04.



2.8 Submission 8 : Multiple

Amendment C89

The submitter is generally supportive of the amendment but raises a number of issues, most of which have been amended and/or resolved by Council to refer to Panel. I make the following additional comments, where appropriate and note that the additional requests to amend mapping and controls to the HO Schedule are outside the scope of C89.

Issues

Issue Response

1. The submission requests that a review of the Heritage Citation for the Richmond Henty Hotel Complex (HO114) should be undertaken to reflect the full extent of significant structures.

• Reviewed and agreed.

• A draft Heritage Citation Report is attached to this Statement for referral to Panel.

2. HO165, Portland Heritage Precinct, various comments


3. HO269, Julia Street Commercial Precinct. The submission requests that all of the significant bluestone elements are noted in the citation and covered by adequate controls in Schedule 43.01.


4. HO268, Percy Street Commercial Precinct. The submission notes that a number of properties which appear as more recent include earlier nineteenth and early twentieth century fabric. The submission also requests that all of the significant bluestone elements are noted in the citation and covered by adequate controls in Schedule 43.01. The submission requests that Tree Controls be applied.


5. HO273, Public Buildings Precinct. The submission provides additional historical information for individual structures and sites.

• Reviewed and supported. The ‘Historical Background’ of the Heritage Citation report should be amended to include additional material.

6. HO118, Gaol Wall. The submission recommends the description in the Schedule to 43.01 is amended to ‘Gaol Wall Remnant, 1849’.

• It is my belief that the inclusion of the construction date in the description is considered unnecessary, however I support the description being amended to ‘Portland Gaol wall remnant’.

7. HO277, 55 Bentinck Street and HO278, 57A&B Bentinck Street. The submission requests that Recommended Controls should include Outbuildings and Fences

• The bluestone ‘party walls’ likely referred to in the submission are the external walls of the adjoining bluestone Must and Flower building, and a bluestone fence on



Issue Response

for both properties to cover bluestone ‘party walls’.

the southern boundary, immediately to the west of this warehouse, both already covered by HO14, rather than boundary fences or outbuildings associated with the Bentinck Street shops. It is therefore considered that the proposed Recommended Controls for Outbuildings and Fences need only apply to HO14.

8. HO281, 81 Bentinck Street and HO283, 85-89 Bentinck Street. The submission requests that Recommended Controls should include Outbuildings and Fences to cover bluestone ‘party walls’.

• Reviewed and agreed. The bluestone walls referred to would appear to be boundary fences, rather than ‘party walls’ between buildings and should be identified in the Schedule.

9. HO283, Ploughed Field. Additional historical information has been provided and the submission recommends that the Statement of Significance should be amended.

• Reviewed and supported.

10.HO288, South Portland Cemetery. Submits that errors in history should be amended.


11.HO289, Portland Foreshore. Highlights whaling industry activity and archaeological remains of sea baths, and submits that these should be added to the citation and Statement of Significance.


12.HO290, The Bungalow. Submits that Internal Controls should be applied.

• As per Practice Note 1, Applying the Heritage Overlay, Internal Controls should be applied sparingly and on a selective basis and would ordinarily be applied only to interiors of particularly noteworthy level of special detail or significance. While I have not inspected the interior of this place, I suggest that these internal features are of a relatively common nature and not worthy of additional control.

13.HO291, Former Stables, 34 Gawler Street. Submits that the Citation should link/mention Thomas Webb Smith and that an internal inspection should be undertaken to determine internal features.

• The Citation clearly mentions the association with Webb Smith.

• I inspected the interior of the place a number of times prior to the present ownership and can confirm that at the time, with the exception of a bluestone block step, exposed timber posts and ceiling joists, there was little remaining fabric of particular note. It is my



Issue Response

understanding that recent works to the interior for adaptation to a residence, have lined the ceiling and may have concealed the step and posts. In this regard, I consider that the interior would not meet the threshold for Internal Controls.


14. HO292, The Powerhouse. Submits that Internal Controls should apply.

• I have not inspected the interior of the building and cannot comment on the particular significance of the interior; on face value, it would appear not to be of particular note or meet the required threshold.


15. HO293, Brick Store, 3 Henty Street. Submits that Internal Controls should apply and that the driveway on the eastern side should be included in the HO.

• Without the benefit of an inspection, I am not familiar with the interior of the building. Consideration may be given to Internal Controls, subject to confirmation, however as per Practice Note 1, Applying the Heritage Overlay, Internal Controls should be applied sparingly and on a selective basis and would ordinarily be applied only to interiors of particularly noteworthy level of special detail or significance. While I have not inspected the interior of this place, I suggest that these internal features are of a relatively common nature for a building of this type and not worthy of additional control..



Issue Response

• It is my belief that the HO should include the entire allotment to ensure that any proposed development of the curtilage maintains the significance of the place.

16.HO294, Residence and Stables, 13 Henty Street. Submits that the house and stables are associated with Thomas Hickey.

• Supporting primary evidence has not been provided to substantiate this claim. Further research should be provided for review.

17.HO295, Bluestone Store, rear 19 Henty Street. Submits that additional historical information should be added.


18. HO296 Old Portland Cemetery. Submits that:

• the 3 driveways which define the denominational division should be recognised;

• External Paint Controls should be included;

• The Statement of Significance should recognise the landscape values;

• That Outbuilding and Fence Controls should apply.

• Reviewed and supported, all points.

19. HO300, Former Barleycorn Inn. Submits that Internal Controls should apply

• Without the benefit of an inspection, I am not familiar with the interior of the building. Consideration may be given to Internal Controls, subject to confirmation, however a bluestone and brick fireplace alone would not normally be grounds for Internal Controls.

• As per Practice Note 1, Applying the Heritage Overlay, Internal Controls should be applied sparingly and on a selective basis and would ordinarily be applied only to interiors of particularly noteworthy level of special detail or significance. While I have not inspected the interior of this place, I suggest that these internal features alone are not worthy of additional control.

20. HO303, Ruth Martin Memorial. Submits that error in citation.

• Agreed, amend as required.

21. HO304, Star Cinema. Submits that HO should extend to small outbuilding in NW

• Reviewed and supported with regard to



Issue Response

corner and that Outbuilding and Fence controls should be included to also cover bluestone wall on western boundary.

extent of HO covering the outbuilding.

• The bluestone rear wall located on the western boundary is included in the Statement of Significance on the VHD for the Former ANZ Bank, 44 Percy Street (HO63/H0238).



2.9 Submission 9 : Multiple

Amendment C89

The submitter is generally supportive of the amendment but raises a number of issues, most of which have been amended and/or resolved by Council to refer to Panel. I make the following additional comments, where appropriate and note that the additional requests to amend mapping and controls to the HO Schedule are outside the scope of C89.

Issues

Issue Response

1. HO114, Richmond Henty Hotel complex. Submits that all of the extant elements which are associated with the Henty occupation of the site, including those located on adjoining properties, should be included in a Citation which should supersede the existing. The Schedule to 43.01 should also be updated.

• A proposed Heritage Citation Report for the place has been prepared for review by the Panel.

2. Submits that a full review of PUCS 1981 should be undertaken.

• Supported; outside the scope of C89.

3. Comments on Clause 22.06, notes a generic nature and requirement for an improved MSS in relation to heritage. An alternative Statement wording is suggested. It also makes suggestion that SLOs 1-4 should be added to 22.06

• The Statement and SLO recommendations are supported and should be referred to Panel for review.

4. The submission is concerned by the limitation of referring to ‘front’ fences that will not ensure adequate identification and protection of the many significant rear and side fences within the Study area

• Amending the policy to include ‘boundary fences or walls’ is recommended

5. HO166, Convincing Ground. Submits that the HO should be amended to cover grater are of significance

• Items on the VHR can only be amended by State authority. This should be referred to Panel for support.

6. HO283, Ploughed Field. Submits that much of the Citation focuses on Indigenous activity and cultural value, rather than the importance of the place to the Henty occupation and their farming activity.





Fisherman’s Wharf

Barton Place, PORTLAND

Figure 23 Fisherman’s Wharf, no date, possibly nineteenth century and certainly prior to rebuilding. Note alternate spray wall and open viaduct

Source: Glenelg Cultural Collection

Figure 24 Fisherman’s Wharf, after storm damage in 1923. Note timber decking, edge beam, bollards and fuel house.


Figure 25 Viaduct remains intact but additional beams added (left) and viaduct filled in (right), post-1950




‘The Fisherman’s Wharf is of historical significance due to its association with renowned British harbour engineer, Sir John Coode. The breakwater is also a reminder of Portland’s



early maritime history, and the financial and technological struggles to become a sheltered harbour. The wharf is the sole remaining element of the early port history of Victoria’s first permanent settlement. Portland was also one of Victoria's major outer ports and was the only deep sea port between Melbourne and Adelaide. The Fisherman’s Wharf also demonstrates nineteenth century engineering skills, and the limitations of sedimentology knowledge at the time.

Remnants of the early construction phases are also still present at the site. The Fisherman’s Wharf contains rare aspects of a cultural history, as there are two hand cranes associated with the wharf, which may be the last remaining extant examples of their type in Victoria (National Trust nd).

The Fisherman’s Wharf is of technical significance as it represents the use of mass concrete, which was a feature of Coode’s designs – present also at Warrnambool and Port Fairy. The wharf and breakwater adds to the comparative and contrasting nature of the use of mass concrete in early harbour construction. The wharf and breakwater are representative of a ‘flow-through’ engineering principle, which was only partially successful (National Trust nd).

The Fisherman’s Wharf is of social significance for the local community as it is has strong associations for the local fishermen, who consider the Fisherman’s Wharf Breakwater to be ‘their' wharf, and has historically allowed them access to the sea.

The Fisherman’s Wharf is of special associative significance due to its association with and early design by British harbour engineer, Sir John Coode. Coode was brought to Melbourne to work on the further development of the Port of Melbourne, but was engaged by the Government to advise on the Portland, Geelong, Port Fairy, Lakes Entrance, and Warrnambool harbours. While Coode’s initial design was not implemented for the breakwater, his revised design of 1887 was, resulting in the current shape of the Fisherman’s Wharf (excluding the mid-twentieth century reclamation).

Amendment C89

Amendment C89 proposes to include the Fisherman’s Wharf in the Heritage Overlay as a Local Heritage Place, HO276.

Site Inspection

I inspected the place on 18 December 2017.

Issues

Issue Response

1. The submitter objects to inclusion of the Fisherman’s Wharf in the Heritage Overlay due to perceived statutory requirements that would adversely affect the future development of the site.

• The issues of statutory control are not a consideration in the assessment of cultural heritage value.

2. The submitter states that the proposed HO is at odds with the operation of the site which is supported by the relevant SPPF and LPPF.

• The issues of business operation are not a consideration in the assessment of cultural heritage value.

3. The submitter states the poor condition of the Wharf means that it should not be included in the HO.

• I state that I am not qualified to comment on structural condition of the wharf. The condition, and possible structural integrity, likely places the wharf beyond reasonable



Issue Response

economic repair. While this is not an issue which reduces the level of significance alone, it has led to the condemnation and decommissioning of the facility, which has also ended its accessibility and useful life.

• The poor condition of the fabric observed includes:

o the wharf timbers are variously but seriously decayed, rotting and splitting, which is to be expected of a timber structure of this age in a marine environment;

o the bluestone wharf paving has been repaired/filled with concrete where it has failed;

o steel and cast iron elements are significantly corroded including reinforcement in the concrete elements;

o concrete is failing with loose sections spalling and delaminating and/or indicating structural movement, settlement and failure of reinforcing.

4. The submitter objects to the assessment of heritage value, based on it not meeting the HERCON assessment criteria as cited.

• I disagree with the submission in relation to the point that the wharf is of lesser heritage value as there are other examples by Coode in nearby towns and there is little social significance.

• The wharf provides evidence of Victoria's nineteenth century investment in regional port infrastructure and the development of Victorian coastal shipping. It is of some significance for its purported association with the English civil engineer Sir John Coode, the most distinguished harbour engineer of the nineteenth century, who was retained by the Government to advise on improvements to the harbours at Warrnambool, Geelong, Port Fairy, and Lakes Entrance, as well as Portland. While Coode is not attributed with the design of the Fisherman’s Wharf, the breakwater is historically significant as a reminder of Portland's early maritime history as a Western District port. While the Portland Breakwater is a demonstration of the engineering skills of the nineteenth century, it also demonstrates the limitations of knowledge relating to sedimentology at the time and



Issue Response

the confidence apparent in a number of nineteenth century plans which assumed that natural forces could be overcome or contained by engineering.

• While some elements of original fabric remain, including the mass concrete foundations/breakwater, encasing timber structure, small section of remnant bluestone walling on west side, small section of cast iron balustrade and remnant portion of hand cranes, documentary and physical evidence indicate that the wharf has undergone many, extensive, phases of alteration and adaptation; the original form and design is largely indiscernible. These include:

o removal and/or infill of the original timber viaduct section at the southern base in the 1950s with realignment and formation of the canal;

o original timber piles replaced in part with concrete piles;

o low-level timber platform and stairs removed at junction of breakwater and former viaduct;

o concrete apron/ledge constructed in front of original breakwater;

o concrete edge beam installed in front of original timber beam;

o sections of concrete and asphalt topping constructed over original bluestone paving;

o original spray wall and associated shed structures to breakwater section replaced with reinforced concrete spray wall, c.1950s-60s (date?);

o original timber bollards removed; o new steel bollards installed; o majority of cast iron balustrade

removed and replaced with galvanised pipe balustrade on concrete plinth;

o pillar and jib cranes removed from their original location, later partially reinstated on wharf; missing jibs and other mechanisms remain in storage;

o modern steel shed constructed at southern end of breakwater structure;

o modern infrastructure and services installed on wharf;

• A large portion of the extant fabric dates from the era between the 1923 storm and the formation of the Canal in the late



Issue Response

1950s. The modifications obscure the original form and fabric, greatly reducing the wharf’s ability to demonstrate its nineteenth century origin (HERCON criteria A, B and F).

• With regard to social significance (HERCON Criterion G), it is acknowledged that many generations of fishermen have utilised the structure for facilitating access to the sea and mooring. Whether this can be considered a ‘strong’ or ‘special’ association for social, cultural or spiritual reasons to the local community, more so than any other workplace or place of recreation is not clearly defined or demonstrated by the heritage citation report.


While the 1890s Fisherman’s Wharf has an association with the ongoing development of Portland Bay for maritime use, I conclude that the original design of the wharf has been extensively altered and the extant fabric is not clearly able to demonstrate the wharf’s nineteenth century design or origin.

I recommend that HO316 be removed from the Heritage Overlay.

3.0 Declaration

I have made all the enquiries that I believe are desirable and appropriate and no matters of significance which I regard as relevant have to my knowledge been withheld from the Panel.



4.0 Appendix A : Recommended amendments to Heritage Citation Reports

HO 301 Bluestone and Timber Sheds, rear 3 Julia Street

HO 305 Residence, 85 Kobo Creek Road

HO 308 Soldier’s Memorial Clubroom



5.0 Appendix B : Heritage Citation Report, Richmond Henty Complex HO114



6.0 Appendix C : Curriculum Vitae, Kate Paterson, Flightpath Architects

One of Portland's prominent early settlers, Stephen G Henty, purchased number 8 of Crown Allotment 3 in this sale, which included Deleted:

Deleted: Deleted:

Deleted: Deleted:

Deleted: Deleted: Deleted: Deleted: Deleted: Deleted: Deleted: Moved down [1]:

Deleted: Deleted: Deleted: Deleted: Moved (insertion) [1]Deleted: Deleted: ... [1]

The bluestone barn and stables are of historical significance as a demonstration of the day to day importance of horses and their management in Penshurst up to the First World War. They are of further significance as a rare surviving example of stables and barn within a township, and demonstrate a previous way of life.

Deleted: Deleted:

Deleted: ... [2]

The single storey bluestone store, dwelling and outbuildings at 57 Percy Street were originally erected in 1868 for Joseph Marriott. The store has operated continuously in this role for more than 100 years and the gable facade of fine axed bluestone is a distinctive feature. The extensive side elevation with interesting fenestration and verandah, the outbuildings, well and pump are also notable. The stables at the rear are two-storey and constructed of bluestone, with timber dormer doors. The stables are in good condition.

HO51 Residence and stables, 21 Hurd Street, Portland, Glenelg Shire – Stables at rear

The complex of buildings at 21 Hurd Street comprising timber cottage (erected 1862), ruined cottage and stables (erected c.1855) form a most distinctive residential group and date from the early development of Portland. A statement of significance is not available for this place. The stables at the rear are two-storey and constructed of bluestone, with timber dormer doors. The stables are in good condition.

•

•

•

•

Deleted:

Deleted:

Deleted:

Residence and stables at 21 Hurd Street, Portland.

Page 3: [1] Deleted Author

Page 3: [2] Deleted Author

Deleted:

Formatted: Para 0

Formatted: Font:Bold

Formatted: Para 0

Deleted:

Deleted:

Deleted:

Deleted: Deleted: Deleted: Deleted: Deleted: Deleted: Deleted: Deleted: Deleted: Deleted: Deleted: Deleted: Deleted:

Deleted:

Deleted:

•

•

Deleted: Deleted: Deleted: Deleted: Deleted:

Deleted:

Deleted:

Deleted:

Deleted:

Deleted:

Formatted: Font:Not ItalicFormatted: Font:Not ItalicDeleted:

Deleted:

Deleted:

•

•

•

Summary

•

•

•

This information is provided for guidance only and does not supersede official documents, particularly the planning scheme. Planning controls should be verified by

checking the relevant municipal planning scheme.

KATE PATERSONAssociate: Heritage Specialist

03 Expertise + Experience

QUALIFICATIONSBachelor of Architecture, University of Adelaide (1995)

Bachelor of Architectural Studies, University of Adelaide (1992)

PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONSAustralian Institute of Architects,

A+ Member

ACCREDITATIONSDCSI Child-Related Employment Screening - Cleared, Reference 461779

SELECT WORK HISTORYFLIGHTPATH ARCHITECTS [ADELAIDE, SA]

2010- Present

LOVELL CHEN [MELBOURNE, VIC]

2001- 2008

GRAHAM EDDS & ASSOC. [SYDNEY, NSW]

1999- 2000

Kate, a heritage specialist, joined Flightpath Architects in April 2010, after gaining 14 years’

Flightpath and a number of interstate practices.

including the preparation of Conservation Management Plans, Heritage Impact Statements, Expert Witness Statements, Municipal Heritage Surveys and Heritage Advice.

Advisor to Glenelg Shire (Victoria) since 2013. Kate has also provided advice on behalf of the State Heritage Unit to a number of councils.

Kate is a valued member of the Flightpath team, she is astute and articulate, and approaches

RELEVANT PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

Consultant Heritage Advisor Positions• Glenelg Shire Council [Portland, VIC]: Heritage Advisor 2013 – Present• Town of Walkerville, SA: 2017 - present• City of Port Adelaide Enfield, SA (including State Heritage Places): 2011 – 2014• The City of Tea Tree Gully, SA: 2011 – 2014• City of Salisbury, SA (State Heritage Places): 2011 – 2012• City of Playford, SA (State Heritage Places): 2011 – 2012

Adaptive Re-Use and Refurbishment• Fort Largs, Largs Bay - Future Use Report• Timber Wharf (fmr), Morgan - Condition Assessment, Conservation and Adaptation• St Peter’s College, Adelaide, Pentreath Building Adaptation

Conservation Works• Hindmarsh (fmr Burley Griffin) Incinerator: Conservation Works• Walford Anglican School for Girls ‘Reed House’: External Conservaiton

Heritage Advisory• Bishop’s Court & St Peter’s Cathedral Precinct - Heritage Advice• Walford Anglican School for Girls ‘Reed House’ and ‘Mabel Jewel Baker House’

Heritage Planning and Conservation Advice• GLG Shopping Complex, Mount Gambier - Heritage Impact Statement • Glenside Masterplan Development - Heritage Advice• Adelaide GPO - Heritage Management Plan (Commonwealth & State Heritage)• Urbanest Student Accommodation North Terrace, Adelaide - Heritage Impact Statement• Star Theatre Complex, Hilton - Heritage Advice• Lutheran Homes, Fullarton - Heritage Advice• Christ Church North Adelaide, Church: Conservation Management Plan (CMP) incl. Works

Identification + 5yr Works Implementation Plan• Pulteney Grammar School, Adelaide, Allan Wheaton House and Osmond Terrace Cottages

- Heritage Advice• Prince Alfred College, Adelaide - Heritage Advice• Whyalla High School - Conservation Management Plan• Milang Primary School - Conservation Management Plan• Naval Military and Air Force Club - Conservation Management Plan• Hughes Pumphouse, Moonta - Conservation Management Plan• Stenhouse Bay Jetty - Conservation Management Plan• Nurney House, North Adelaide - Conservation Management Plan Update• Origin Energy Torrens Island Quarantine Station - Heritage Assessment and Impact

Statement• Mid Murray Council, Mannum Institute - Heritage Assessment

KATE PATERSONAssociate: Heritage Specialist

03 Expertise + Experience

• Mid Murray Council, Southern Heritage Places Review, Development Plan Amendment• Mid Murray Council, Morgan Wharf - National Heritage Listing Nomination• Mid Murray Council, Pug and Pine Cottage - Heritage Advice• Regional Council of Goyder - Heritage Survey of the District Council of Goyder• Glenelg Shire Council, Victoria, C57 Heritage Review Amendment• Glenelg Shire Council, Victoria, C55 Amendment, Expert Witness Statement• City of Charles Sturt DPA, select review of heritage places for the City of Charles Sturt• City of Port Augusta DPA, select review of heritage places for the City of Port Augusta• Ozone Cinema, Glenelg, State Heritage Place Assessment Report• 69 Light Square, Adelaide - Heritage Impact Statement• JT Johnson and Sons, Kapunda - Heritage Impact Statement• Bowstring Rail Bridge over River Torrens - Heritage Impact Statement• Holland Street Bridge, Thebarton - Heritage Impact Statement

Awards:• University of Adelaide (1995), Student Prize, Final Project

Documents

Statement of Evidence and Report to the Panel · 1.0 Statement of Qualifications and Experience 1.1 Authorship This statement has been prepared by Ms Kate Paterson, Associate, Flightpath