Introduction The table below provides a summary of the overall position of each submission and any specific requests raised. Submissions have been summarised, with an officer response provided. Changes recommended by officers as a result of submissions are recorded in the final column. Abbreviations Abbreviated terms for documents referred to in this summary: Study: Gisborne and Kyneton Heritage Study, December 2017 (proposed Reference Document), as exhibited HO: Heritage Overlay (HO numbers refer to those used in entries in the Schedule to the HO and on the HO maps in the Planning Scheme) Controls: Specific controls listed in the Schedule to the HO, e.g. controls over internal alterations or external painting Sub No. Submitter Submission summary and key issues raised Officer response Recommended change 1 Owner of affected property Reference to 59 Howey Street, Gisborne. HO281. Overall: The usefulness of applying the HO to the ‘Eblana’ property is questioned, given the diminished heritage values of the site. If it is to be applied, some changes are requested to the Study (G2, p.16-22) and controls (HO281). The consultant’s expert assessment is that the heritage values of the property, while made less visually prominent by past subdivision, still has merit to apply a HO. The residence is largely intact and clearly reflective of its architectural and historical associations (Note also that responses to Submission 2, 5, 10 and 11 also relate to this site) 1.1 Request that internal controls not be applied A previous heritage report noted the importance of the interior. In the absence of an interior inspection (the owner has not granted access) it is recommended that these interior controls remain in the amendment. No change 1.2 Request removing reference to Weeping Chinese Cypress tree from the citation for the property p.20). The wording in the citation can be amended for clarification. On p.21 of the Study, under Discussion, replace wording under Dot Point 6 as follows: This tree however is known to be aggressive in its root system and has been planted within 10 meters of the house. By its regrowth pattern, it would have been a hedge. Its current size is beyond return to this state. The veracity of this species identification, however, has been questioned. Its regrowth pattern indicates that it would have been a hedge but its current
a) it is on a separate title; and b) the entire UL Daly Nature Reserve has been nominated to the Victorian Heritage Register (VHR). on the VHR. It is possible for a place to be protected under an HO as well as on the VHR. 10.2 Reference to property at 2 Cabbage Tree Lane, Gisborne. HO 280. Gisborne Park (proposed HO280) should be nominated to Heritage Victoria for State level heritage protection as recommended in the Macedon Ranges Cultural Heritage and Landscape Study 1994 The inclusion of the place in the HO is recommended on merit. Nomination for State level protection is a separate process and not precluded by its inclusion in the local planning scheme. The 1994 Study provided no evidence or argument for State level listing. The consultant’s assessment, based on further information developed for this Citation, is that local level protection is appropriate. No change 10.3 Reference to New Gisborne Avenue of Honour. HO304. New Gisborne Avenue of Honour (proposed should not have the HO applied; there are two other avenues of trees that are more worthy of recognition. The New Gisborne Avenue of Honour is of local heritage value and is worthy of HO protection and recognition. The other avenues in the Gisborne environs have been degraded over the years and do not reflect the continuity of trees, parallel planting creating the avenue and visual impact. Their partial existence as fragments does not merit heritage recognition. There are other landscape/vegetation overlays in the Planning Scheme which could provide landscape protection for those fragmented avenues. No change 11 Residents’ group MRRA Overall: Supports the intent of the amendment but claims are deficiencies and inconsistencies in the Study which is the strategic basis for it. Requests a review of the Study and its implementation through C118, as well as specific changes to individual citations and HO controls. Sections 1 to 5 of the submission include a number of general concerns with the methodology and accuracy of the These are responded to under 11.1 to 11.10 below. In places Sections 1 to 5 include summaries of specific requests that are detailed in Section 6 on specific sites; responses to these are made later in this table as appropriate.
General issues: 11.1 (MRRA Section 2 & Attachment 1) Other sites should have been considered for the Study; the selection of sites for inclusion (or deletion after initial investigation) is not sufficiently justified. Some precinct-level protection of areas in Gisborne & New Gisborne should have been included in the Study and introduced by the amendment. Questioning whether other sites should have been included does not diminish the justification for applying the HO to the recommended sites. The Study provides the strategic basis for applying the HO to recommended sites. A brief summary of sites that were considered in the Study, but not recommended for further assessment, is provided at Section 3.0. The longer rationale for sites deemed not to merit further assessment was provided to Council in the report on Part One of the study process but not in the adopted Final Report. In Gisborne and New Gisborne, the expert assessment concluded that there were individual sites that merited protection but no precincts that were sufficiently intact and representative enough to warrant precinct-level protection. No change 11.2 (MRRA 3.1) The recommendations in the Study may have been influenced by the ‘development potential’ of particular sites. The townships in the Study were prioritised for heritage assessment precisely because more development activity is occurring in them than in other townships or localities in the Shire. There is potential for any site in the Study to be the subject of development applications. The Guidelines section in each citation is intended to provide guidance to property owners and statutory planners if development is considered in the future so that key heritage values can be retained. No change required – see specific recommendations below for individual sites. 11.3 (MRRA 3.2) Inconsistencies with the findings of earlier studies. Previous studies, which were written when previous criteria applied, were reviewed by the consultant as important references. Their assessments of specific places needed to be tested against current criteria for state and local significance. No change required.