This post from a reader has just gone up on the Bouquet & Brickbats section of the blog. We believe that it deserves more prominence. Just a reminder that objections to this removal of heritage status closes on the 18th April.
HERITAGE DOWN THE TOILET
Fancying myself as a bit of a history buff I have done some research on the proposed Planning Scheme Amendment C83 which relates to the removal of Heritage Overlay HO114 from 466 Hawthorn Street and 2A and 2B Seaview Street. On reading this amendment one gets the impression that building demolition and high density multi level redevelopment has already been approved.
The C83 Explanatory note states
• “The removal of Heritage Overlay HO 114 will have no environmental impacts on the subject or surrounding properties. The amendment will have positive social and economic effects as it will remove a restrictive overlay and allow for the potential for more intense development on the land. The subject sites are located in a Housing Diversity Area”.
• “Council has formed the view that this property is not worthy of
heritage protection in the planning scheme and should be removed”
Both very strong statements and both totally unsubstantiated.
So, dig a bit deeper to Council Minutes and in the 31st August, 2010 minutes (Section 9.5).
• Council’s opinion of “not worthy of heritage protection” is diametrically opposed to the rate payer funded recent Heritage Advisors report . These minutes state that both past and current Heritage Advisors “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…. While a number of features that are listed in the Citation have been removed from the property, it is the actual building that is the most significant structure on the property and is the most important element to retain”.
This is very much a case of don’t like the experts report, then ignore it.
• The Heritage Overlay requires Council Approval for external modifications (building façade), no approval is required for internal modfications.
• That, without any substation, Council changed the wording of the recommendation from “to rectify an anomaly (error) in
the schedule to Heritage Overlay HO114 to include 2A and 2B
Sea View Street” to become “ to remove HO 114 from the map and schedule of the Heritage Overlay of the Glen Eira Planning Scheme as it applies to 466 Hawthorn Road, 2A and 2B Seaview Street, Caulfield South.”
In reading the 31st August minutes one can’t help wondering which developer has acquired interests (in full awareness of the Heritage Overlay) in all three apartments and been dealing with Council.
I have also inspected the building, it is well maintained and is extremely attractive. Heritage Victoria’s website (which includes a picture of the building) states it is “a large Inter War apartment development after the style of Frank Lloyd Wright with deep overhanging eaves with angled fascias and shallow tiled hipped roof. Characteristic emphasis being given to the corners by recessing them at the eaves line and setting them against vertical piers. The strength of the design turns on the treatment of the horizontal and vertical elements, emphasis to the forms being given by the use of stuccoed and tapestry brick surfaces, some since over painted, leadlight windows, semi-circular balconettes and elevated terraces with rebated tapestry brick courses creating horizontal shadow lines. The cement balusters have been given geometric treatment in the front also characteristic of the Wright School. Integrity: High
Condition: Sound, garages at the rear appear not to be in use”
Contrary to the view expressed in the 31st August minutes of “Proposed development around the property in the Housing Diversity Area (Tram corridor) will detract and demean any perceived value in terms of the character of the building” I argue that proposed development around the property will only add to the perceived value of the building. Such an attractive and architecturally detailed building will become even more significant when it is surrounded by box life modern high density buildings.
I urge fellow bloggers to oppose the removal of Heritage Overlay (HO114).
Glen Eira Debates 
April 14, 2011 at 5:40 PM
Lipshutz of course moved the motion to get rid of the heritage status for all three residences. Jack Esakoff or his company own one of the Seaview premises. Can’t help thinking that this might be a case of scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours.
April 14, 2011 at 6:56 PM
Actually, Anon, Jack owns one of the units (refer GE Leader October 2010). There is also a very strong rumour that he acquired an interest in the other 2 units a few years ago when he was well aware of the heritage overlay.
How can Council ignore their own expert?
Why didn’t Council correct the wording of the overlay to include other 2 units?
Why didn’t Council consider retaining the building facade and allowing modernisation (internal and height increases) like the numerous examples in the CBD and other suburbs?
Where is the usual “stiff sh*t” Council attitude.
The ombudsmen should investigate this if Council passes C83.
Time to lodge an objection
April 15, 2011 at 2:37 PM
Interesting that you heard that You heard that Esakoff owns all of the flats. This is not possible as I know the owner of one of those flats and he is not selling to anyone.
You should check the source of the rumour Ben. Lodge an objection that would be the best plan.
April 15, 2011 at 9:15 AM
This gets more and more embarrassing by the day, the gang of four, Newton and the Audit Committee members Gibbs and McLean should all be investigated whether it be incompetence or heaven forbid, corruption. Whats the municipal inspectors number – and who can make the call?
April 16, 2011 at 10:21 PM
The Municipal Inspector is weak as P…S, he makes that savage and ruthless Petrol Commissioner look like “Jaws”. Dont even waste the 20c or whatever it is on the phone call to him.
April 15, 2011 at 2:05 PM
I have just returned from viewing the building in question and I must agree to all the comments on architectural merit. It is a well maintained, fine example of high density housing a la the late 1930’s. Brickwork, raised garden beds, leadlight windows and balconies all visible from the street. The loss of the building will definitely diminish the street scape.
Obviously developers are about to descend on the area … the adjacent two large housing blocks have been cleared and boarded up and across the street a line of derelict art deco brick shops (6?) have also be boarded up.
Given all the modern development (which will probably be in the 5-10 storey range) set to occur, failure to protect the building will definitely be a huge loss.
I’ll be making a submission – I checked with Council, closing date for submissions is 18th April.
April 17, 2011 at 8:39 AM
On my daily tram commute I am always impressed by the building on the corner of Hawthorn Road and Seaview Street. It is a charming example of Caulfield’s development along public transport routes and nearby Princes Park. Heritage listing is certainly warranted.
Doom and gloom descended when I read this website and found that Council, because of an administrative error in 2003, has decided to remove the buildings heritage protection so that it can be demolished and replaced with high density, high rise housing (because it’s on a tram route, it’ll probably be 8 storeys with shops at street level).
I have read the August, 2010, minutes and the C83 explanatory note – as my name implies, I am appalled at
• Blatant disregard of their own experts’ (past and present Heritage Advisors) advice
• The total disregard of heritage and it’s importance which is clearly evident in the wording of both documents
• The pathetic attempt to hide this destruction from residents accessing the information on line by posting the notice and explanatory note separately.
Three owners of the building. One didn’t respond. One was correctly advised of the heritage listing and made no comment in 2003, yet now (through a representative) objects. That leaves one owner (less than 33%) with a potentially valid right to object – is Council in discussions?
The loss of this building will be a blight on Council’s record and shows Councils flagrant disregard for heritage.
April 19, 2011 at 4:09 AM
Now others are seeing how it is so possible to manipulate council decisions so we are seeeing a blatent attempt to smash down our precious heritage with the “ball and chain” in a few hours so as more rubbish can reach skywoods in other parts apart from the twenty three storeys in this municipality!
April 21, 2011 at 11:08 AM
• Council’s opinion is “not worthy of heritage protection”
• Past and current heritage advisors (August, 2010)“In my opinion, all three apartments should be included in the Heritage Overlay. ….. this apartment block is unusual in the context of this municipality, and even beyond, and I think individual protection of the site is warranted”.
Refer
• Council Minutes (31 August, 2010 – Section 9.5)
• C83 Explanatory note (only if your stress levels are under control)
• Heritage Victoria listing for 466 Hawthorn Road, South Caulfield
What a travesty … typical of this predevelopment Council – without a shred of evidence proving otherwise, just ignore the experts’ advice and GE heritage and build ever upwards.
Even if you don’t live in the area and are interested in retaining heritage you should protest this absolute mockery.
Although Council notices give 18th April as the objection date, Council will accept objections up to the Council Meeting 28th April.
By the way, Council is supposed to publish two public notices for this C83 amendment. The first in the Leader (March 8, 2011) was incorrectly labelled Amendment C77, the second in the Leader (March 15, 2011) was correctly labelled Amendment C83. Once again Council has failed to satisfy public notification requirements.
April 21, 2011 at 5:49 PM
We can only hope Bill Munday’s Union will be effective if our favourite council decides to do the wrong thing. Remember we wouldn’t be so lucky as to have had the Regent and Plaza Theatres to provide the venues for Priscilla and Paint your wagon in such great world class performance,style and surroundings.