Item 9.2 – 1 Wahgoo Road, Carnegie – Heritage Protection
This item raises heaps of issues as to the value that council places on heritage. The property is Frogmore in Carnegie. The site has no heritage listing dating back to the 1996 Council assessment. The latest ‘review’ recommends Heritage listing via an overlay. The large site has been bought by Jewish Care and residents fear that demolition of the building would consequently ensue.
Officer reports are there to provide ‘guidance’ and ‘advice’ and ultimately we suggest, to proffer specific and clear recommendations. In this instance the recommendation is for ‘council to decide’. Perhaps, well and good, if the report is fair, unbiased, and comprehensive. We don’t believe that this is the case in this instance.
Basically, two ‘options’ are provided. But, it is in the wording of these options, that all semblance of objective, fair appraisal, is missing.
Recommendation ‘A’ reads –
One option would be to act on the recent reassessment and initiate a planning scheme amendment process to include the property in the heritage overlay.
Council would need to ask the Minister for Planning to place interim protection over the site. Given the previous assessment that heritage was not appropriate, no objections being raised for many years and that a new owner has acted in good faith on the basis of existing controls, there is no assurance that the Minister would grant such an interim control.
If interim controls were approved, the Council would need to exhibit an amendment to apply a heritage overlay. Submissions could be made for or against. The matter would go to an independent panel which could consider all submissions. Again, given the original process and that the owner has acted in good faith on Council’s decision not to place a heritage overlay, there is no assurance that the panel would support the amendment. Any amendment would need to be approved by the Minister. The process would take approximately 18 months.
COMMENT
- ‘heritage was not appropriate’. Quite misleading we suggest since the ‘criteria’ applied by council was that Heritage listings be part of ‘an identified historic area’. Yet all the legislation and even Council’s own Planning Scheme ostensibly contradicts this application of policy. Section 21.10 of the Glen Eira Planning Scheme makes it absolutely clear that single sites may also be worthy of heritage protection – A number of areas and individual properties comprehensively demonstrate important eras in the growth of Glen Eira and survive in a reasonably intact state.
- The officer report even admits that Frogmore received a 1996 rating of “C” – just not the C+ that placed it in a ‘historic area’. Readers should remember that this is Carnegie after all, and given land development history, ‘expendable’!
- Repetition of the ‘owner acting in good faith’ is arguably entirely irrelevant to the question of whether a building is worthy of heritage protection or not.
- The presence or absence of ‘objections’ is also entirely irrelevant. With little publicity, and certainly little opportunity for residents to have direct input into council matters it is not surprising that Frogmore and its potential heritage status has been enveloped by silence. Further, several other comments made in the officer report could also act as a major deterrent to public involvement– ie the expense of obtaining private heritage advice by any interested resident.
- The Minister’s approval would be required regardless of the two options provided in the report. According to The Heritage Act, – After considering the report of the Heritage Council, the Minister may make any determination in relation to a recommendation that the Heritage Council could have made under Division 3. Hence, ‘there is no assurance’ that even with Heritage Council approval the Minister would give it the nod!
Recommendation ‘B’ states –
Option B: Not re-open the heritage issue at a municipal level but abide by whatever decision is made by the Heritage Council.
The heritage process of 1996 – 2003 considered all properties in Glen Eira. It placed 3,893 properties under heritage controls. It was a very public process with many stages of consultation. It provided opportunities for views to be put for or against heritage classification of any property in the municipality. The views being expressed now might more appropriately have been expressed during the seven year process and been taken into account and determined then or in the eleven years since then.
It is reasonable for prospective purchasers to act on the basis of the Council’s planning scheme, especially given that the heritage status of every property in the municipality had been considered and had been decided. It would be unreasonable to change the rules after the purchaser had acted in good faith and committed significant funds.
COMMENT
- Is this Seaview revisited? Council stuff ups again?
The suggested wording of the ultimate motions also require comment. Here is what an Option ‘B’ resolution would contain –
That Council:
(a) note the heritage process over the period 1996 to 2003 which provided the appropriate opportunity to put views for or against the heritage status of 1Wahgoo Road, Carnegie;
(b) note that the current owner of the property has acted in good faith and committedsignificant funds on the basis of Council’s planning scheme; and
(c) forwards the attached consultant report to the Heritage Council and agrees toabide by the Heritage Council’s decision in this matter.
In our view parts (a) and (b) of this motion are inappropriate and entirely irrelevant. If anything, they undermine to a great extent the ‘neutrality’ of any potential Heritage Council decision and thus potentially sway the argument in favour of rejection. We also wonder whether the 1996 policy was simply an early version of Amendment C87, where sites for Significant Character Overlays were all selected by officers with no allowable input by councillors or residents!
There are many other comments scattered throughout this report that need to be questioned. The most glaring concerns the fact that Frogmore is not ‘visible’ from Wahgoo Road. This is an argument for not having a Heritage listing. Funnily enough many of the the most prized Heritage properties in Glen Eira are also not ‘visible’ from the main road – Ripponlea being the perfect example.
Glen Eira Debates 
February 1, 2015 at 6:08 PM
There must be some pretty nervous people over all this. If the sale has gone through and if the sale is contingent on getting a planning permit then if the heritage council says that there should be a heritage overlay then there could be the chance that the new owners sue for compensation. Sounds like another mighty administration booboo that residents could be paying for.
February 1, 2015 at 8:09 PM
Over and over and over and over again we see officer reports deciding first what decision they want then attempt to steer or manipulate Council towards it. Not good enough. Absolutely, the irrelevances that the officer repeatedly stresses should be ignored. Just because the property was not placed on a Heritage Overlay in the past is not evidence the previous decision was the correct or preferred one. An alternative interpretation is not flattering to the people then involved.
It should be remembered that Heritage Overlays don’t in themselves protect properties. They do however provide additional “decision guidelines” that a decision-maker is supposed to consider before VCAT overrules them and orders a Permit to be granted.
As for whether a Heritage Overlay is appropriate, well the starting point should be the Planning Scheme and the purpose of the Overlay. This includes “To conserve and enhance heritage places of natural or cultural significance”. Frogmore House is undoubtedly a place of cultural significance, having been designed by Melbourne’s preeminant architect Joseph Reed.
What do the State Library of Victoria, Collins Street Baptist Church, Rippon Lea Estate, Melbourne Town Hall, Melbourne Trades Hall and Frogmore House all have in common? Architect Joseph Reed, either in his own right or the practice he established, Reed and Barnes [now known as Bates Smart].
Glen Eira Historical Society recognises the significance too, contributing to VictorianCollections the map of Frogmore Estate from when JG Thompson’s property was subdivided, which established the road and built form patterns that surround it. To this day, Real Estate Agents leverage the cachet of Frogmore Estate to boost property value.
Almost certainly some of our councillors will resist placing Frogmore House on a Heritage Overlay, in case it is inconsistent with what the new owners, Jewish Care, intend to do with the property [120-bed Aged Care facility].
It is galling to read the officer statements in support of the developer against a Heritage Overlay. This property is zoned NRZ and is surrounded by land zoned NRZ. Due diligence would have revealed that. The purchaser would know that they couldn’t reasonably expect a Permit for something inconsistent with the NRZ zoning. Imposing a Heritage Overlay is little different to changing a property’s zone via a Minister exercising his or her discretion under s.20, something that neither Council nor the previous Planning Minister had any qualms about. That’s thousands of property owners who have had the rules changed on them unilaterally after their purchase “in good faith”. A permanent Heritage Overlay for Frogmore House would go through the normal planning process. Jewish Care is not being treated unfairly.
Melbourne has lost many fine buildings, including those by Joseph Reed—Menzies Hotel for example. We can repeat past mistakes, or learn from them.
February 1, 2015 at 10:33 PM
If you cannot see it from the street, it may as well not be there, is that the spin we are meant to reason. Come to think of it has anyone checked on Ripponlea lately, I personally haven’t seen it for years
Anyway it’s only in the Carnegie, Murrumbeena area, so who gives a stuff anyway, certainly not the Rosstown councillors, and most definitely none of the residents at the Clown Hall
Cr. Pilling will knock it down himself to win the approval of his Liberal Party mates
February 1, 2015 at 10:39 PM
Well done to those residents who organised the petition and did all the necessary research. If Council was as efficient as these residents we wouldn’t be in this muddle now.
February 2, 2015 at 9:31 AM
I couldn’t see why council didn’t/couldn’t of purchase this property, with the idea of clearing off the modern buildings and have this area as a public open space, with a fine old heritage building on the site, This area of Murrumbeena has no immediate open space.
What is wrong with our CEO is, he has absolutely no vision of what is needed to manage a growing city. Glen Eira statistics show that we a booming with development, population and all that this development brings us.
Its about time councillors directed the CEO (after all they are his employers) to pull his finger-out and do his job. After all we live more in the future than we do in the present. There has been so many lost opportunities in acquiring more open space. Frogmore is just another missed opportunity!
February 2, 2015 at 10:15 AM
It’s a large block of land so cost would have been prohibitive. Even with the current owners, a good design could still keep the building and meet the needs of the aged.
February 2, 2015 at 12:17 PM
Prohibitive? what a “Newtonian statement” from the D.
We have to supply the infrastructure needed, the cost is the cost, a CEO with his finger on the trigger would slow down on the pavilion roll-outs. The open space levy has collected a tidy sum to purchase additional open space.
A good design would possibly save the outside of the structure, but the inside would be possible gutted.
February 2, 2015 at 5:28 PM
I used the word prohibitive because this is a large piece of land and even working at the conservative estimate of only $2000 per square metre, I would think that the purchase price could be well over fifteen million dollars. Whether it is prudent to spend that much on one piece of land is something that should be discussed with residents and priorities worked out in a transparent fashion. Naturally this won’t happen because having resident input into council priorities is simply not the way Glen Eira Council likes to work.
February 3, 2015 at 8:29 AM
Providing infrastructure is a necessity, regardless of bureaucratic excuses, Newtons public land asset stripping has raised many more millions than what’s needed to purchase Frogmore.
Is $2000 a square metre correct?
February 2, 2015 at 2:20 PM
Speaking of heritage and environmental value of land. I am a member of the Health Living Centre Gym at the rear of the Caulfield Hospital. It is a very servicable but old building that had recently been upgraded. But a result of a “landmark agreement” between the hospital and Hammond Care the area of the Gym and the large carpark surrounding it, that services staff,gym, ambulances will be hived off to HammondCare. I am satisfied that the Gym will be moved to a suitable building and that is not my concern, but looking around the large carpark there are beautiful old gum trees possibly about 20 which may possibly be removed for the aged care “village” Im wondering if anyone local to the Caulfield Hospital have received a planning permit notice or know more about this aged care development and its environmental impact. Maybe someone from Council can advise