A recent comment by ‘Ben’ has alerted us to the current advertising by Council of  an Amendment. The objective is to remove Heritage status from properties in Hawthorn Road and Seaview Avenue. We thought this was important enough to go back to the original Officer’s report and to analyse the content and ultimate recommendations.

The report was tabled at Council on 31st August, 2010. The name of the officer under Enquiries was Jacquie Brasher, Strategic Planner. The motion put by Lipshutz and Pilling to remove Heritage Status  from all of the properties and to seek the Minister’s approval to advertise,  was accepted unanimously by Council with Esakoff declaring 3 ‘conflicts of interest’. We present our analysis below –

The original Heritage status was applied in 2003 under Amendment C19. Only the property in Hawthorn Road was listed in the original amendment although all properties were incorporated into the map overlay, hence there is an ‘anomaly’. Further, the owners of the Seaview properties were not informed at the time that they were now under the Heritage Overlay. Brasher recommends that as a consequence all 3 properties should be included in the Heritage status. 

The arguments are: 

  • ‘Consultation’ only involved the 3 owners of the properties. Two ‘submissions’ were received in response. Brasher includes the points raised in these submissions – perhaps more extensively than other planning applications that come to council. Some of the issues raised include: development will be stymied; ‘building is not sufficiently notable’; building has deteriorated so will involve ‘substantial costs’ to ‘rectify’; the design does not ‘cater for the needs…of modern day living’; it’s a Housing Diversity area so will ultimately ‘detract, and demean any perceived value’ of the property; heritage listing detracts from housing needs of the area;  
  • Brasher then posits the argument that changes may still be made especially to the inside of buildings hence “the application of the Heritage Overlay may restrain but does not completely prohibit changes to the building. The building can be altered to cater for the needs of modern living”. 

The final section of the report includes the current Council Heritage Advisor’s comments, as well as a report from the original advisor (2000) which resulted in the properties’ listing. Some of these comments are: 

“In my opinion, all three apartments should be included in the Heritage Overlay. In fact, the rear two apartments are perhaps slightly more intact than the front apartment, as tapestry brick embellishments remain unpainted (these have been over-painted on the front apartment). 

I would agree (with the Statement of Significance) that this apartment block, clearly influenced by the architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright, is unusual in the context of this municipality, and even beyond, and I think individual protection of the site is warranted. 

It is considered that this individually significant building at 466 Hawthorn Road, 2A and 2B Sea View Street should be included in the Heritage Overlay. Therefore an amendment to modify the schedule to the Heritage Overlay to include 2A and 2B Sea View Street at HO114 is warranted and should be commenced as soon as possible to rectify the anomaly.” 

Andrew Ward, 2000 wrote: “They (the properties) are aesthetically significant (Criterion E) as uncommon examples of residential buildings undertaken in a manner directly influenced by the work of Frank Lloyd Wright, comparing in Glen Eira only with the house at no.45 Balaclava Road but demonstrating that the influence of his work was still being felt in Melbourne during the late Inter War years”. 

QUESTIONS: 

  • What is the point of council having Heritage Advisors when their professional opinion on a matter strictly to do with ‘heritage’ is overlooked and ignored?
  • Why have Heritage listings in Diversity Areas at all if the argument is that ‘development’ should have priority?
  • Why have Heritage Listings if the facile argument that such dwellings do not accommodate ‘modern living’ are given credence?
  • Are the current Heritage guidelines in the Planning Scheme/MSS explicit enough to protect such properties? 
  • Is development classified as more important than ‘cultural heritage’ in Glen Eira?

This amendment is only one of a series, including planning applications, where we seriously question the content, logic, and recommendations produced in such reports and the logic then (mis)applied by councillors. Not only do residents need clear arguments and logic, but so do those individuals who apply for permits. Consistency, logic, and comprehensiveness in considering all issues is what is needed. We will be following this issue closely.