Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C208more  
Heritage Nominations Study  
Panel Report  
Planning and Environment Act 1987  
15 July 2022  
OFFICIAL  
How will this report be used?  
This is a brief description of how this report willbe used for the benefit of people unfamiliar withthe planning system. If you have concerns about a specific issue you  
should seek independent advice.  
The planning authority must consider this report before deciding whether or not to adopt the Amendment.  
[section 27(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (the PE Act)]  
For the Amendment to proceed, it must be adopted bythe planning authority and then sent to the Minister for Planning for approval.  
The planning authority is not obliged to follow therecommendations of the Panel, but it must give itsreasons if it does not follow the recommendations. [section 31 (1)  
of the PE Act, and section 9 of the Planning and Environment Regulations 2015]  
If approved by the Minister for Planning a formal change will be made to the planning scheme. Noticeof approval of the Amendment will be published in the  
Government Gazette. [section 37 of the PE Act]  
Planning and Environment Act 1987  
Panel Report pursuant to section 25 of the PE Act  
Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C208more  
15 July 2022  
Lisa Kendal, Chair  
Lucinda Peterson, Member  
OFFICIAL  
Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C208more | Panel Report | 15 July 2022  
Contents  
Page  
1
Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 5  
1.1 The Amendment..............................................................................................................5  
1.2 Background ......................................................................................................................9  
1.3 Procedural issues ...........................................................................................................10  
1.4 Submissions received and issues...................................................................................12  
1.5 Post exhibition changes proposed by Council ..............................................................12  
1.6 Limitations......................................................................................................................14  
1.7 The Panel’s approach.....................................................................................................15  
2
Strategic justification.......................................................................................................... 16  
2.1 Planning context ............................................................................................................16  
2.2 Moreland Heritage studies............................................................................................16  
2.3 Evidence and submissions.............................................................................................19  
2.4 Discussion.......................................................................................................................20  
2.5 Conclusions.....................................................................................................................22  
3
4
Common issues .................................................................................................................. 23  
3.1 Financial implications and property values...................................................................23  
3.2 Building condition, maintenance and repairs...............................................................24  
3.3 Development restrictions and property rights.............................................................25  
Heritage precincts............................................................................................................... 28  
4.1 Glenmorgan, Albion and Clarence Street Precinct (HO85)..........................................28  
4.2 Coonan’s Hill Precinct (HO207) .....................................................................................35  
4.3 Duke Street Precinct (HO593) .......................................................................................41  
4.4 Hanover Street Precinct (HO594)..................................................................................44  
4.5 Railway Place Precinct (HO595).....................................................................................49  
4.6 Walsh Street Precinct (HO599)......................................................................................54  
5
Individual heritage places .................................................................................................. 58  
5.1 151A Lygon Street, Brunswick East (HO505)................................................................58  
5.2 383 Brunswick Road, Brunswick (HO550).....................................................................65  
5.3 Lorreto, 198 Edward Street, Brunswick East (HO552)..................................................70  
5.4 CERES Community Environmental Park (HO559) and Joe’s Market Garden –  
131 Harding Street, Coburg (HO572)............................................................................76  
5.5 113 Nicholson Street, Brunswick East (HO563)............................................................90  
5.6 Coburg Market, 415-423 Sydney Road, Coburg (HO577)............................................93  
5.7 31 The Avenue, Coburg (HO580)...................................................................................96  
5.8 Coburg Velodrome, 30-34 Charles Street, Coburg North (HO582) ...........................106  
5.9 28 McMahons Road, Coburg North (HO583).............................................................108  
5.10 Bluestone retaining walls, Oak Park (HO585).............................................................111  
5.11 13 Ash Grove, Oak Park (HO586) ................................................................................114  
5.12 413 Gaffney Street, Pascoe Vale (HO590) ..................................................................116  
OFFICIAL  
Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C208more | Panel Report | 15 July 2022  
Appendix A Planning context  
Appendix B Submitters to the Amendment  
Appendix C Document list  
Appendix D Land affected by proposals to change, remove or modify the Heritage  
Overlay  
Appendix E Panel preferred versions of Amendment documents  
E1  
E2  
E3  
E4  
E5  
E6  
Glenmorgan Street, Albion Street and Clarendon Street Precinct (HO85)  
Coonan’s Hill Precinct (HO207)  
383 Brunswick Road, Brunswick (HO550)  
113 Nicholson Street, Brunswick East (HO563)  
Coburg Market 415-423 Sydney Road, Coburg (HO577)  
28 McMahons Road, Coburg North (HO583)  
List of Tables  
Page  
Table 1  
Table 2  
Table 3  
Table 4  
Table 5  
Table 6  
Table 7  
Table 8  
Proposed new heritage places/precincts and submissions received ............................5  
Amendment C208more chronology of events...............................................................9  
Post exhibition changes proposed by Council ..............................................................13  
State, regional and local policies .................................................................................120  
Properties with changes to their Heritage Significance..............................................130  
Properties removed from the Heritage Overlay.........................................................130  
Deleted Heritage Overlay and associated properties.................................................131  
Other modifications to the Heritage Overlay .............................................................131  
List of Figures  
Page  
Figure 1  
Glenmorgan, Albion and Clarence Streets Precinct (HO85) Precinct  
Designation Map............................................................................................................31  
Coonan’s Hill Precinct (HO207) – Precinct Designation Map.......................................37  
Duke Street Precinct (HO593) Precinct Designation Map............................................42  
Hanover Street Precinct (HO594) Precinct Designation Map......................................45  
Railway Place Precinct (HO595) Precinct Designation Map.........................................50  
Walsh Street Precinct (HO599) Precinct Designation Map..........................................55  
Figure 2  
Figure 3  
Figure 4  
Figure 5  
Figure 6  
OFFICIAL  
Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C208more | Panel Report | 15 July 2022  
Figure 7  
Figure 8  
Proposed changes to Statement of Significance for proposed HO552 .......................71  
Proposed changes to history section of the citation for proposed  
HO552.............................................................................................................................73  
Figure 9  
Updated Statement of Significance for CERES attached to Dr James’  
Expert Witness Statement.............................................................................................82  
Figure 10 Updated Statement of Significance for Joe’s Market Garden attached  
to Dr James’ Expert Witness Statement .......................................................................83  
Figure 11 The Grove/Sydney Road Precinct (HO172)...................................................................97  
Figure 12 31 The Avenue, Coburg – existing Heritage Overlay HO172 and  
assessed area (in hatched/yellow)................................................................................99  
Figure 13 Updated Statement of Significance for 28 McMahons Road, Coburg  
North ............................................................................................................................110  
OFFICIAL  
Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C208more | Panel Report | 15 July 2022  
Glossary and abbreviations  
Burra Charter  
The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for  
Places of Cultural Significance, Australia ICOMOS,  
2013  
CERES  
CERES Inc.  
Council  
DDO19  
Moreland City Council  
Design and Development Overlay Schedule 19 –  
Brunswick Activity Centre – Lygon Street Local Area  
Extent Heritage  
HERCON  
Extent Heritage Pty Ltd  
National Heritage Convention  
Heritage Exemptions Incorporated Plan Moreland Heritage Exemptions Incorporated Plan  
2020  
Heritage Gap Study  
Moreland Heritage Gap Study 2019 (Context Pty Ltd,  
2019)  
Heritage Nominations Study  
Moreland Heritage Nominations Study 2020 (Extent  
Heritage Pty Ltd, 2020)  
Mirabella  
Mirabella site  
PE Act  
P & S Mirabella (Holdings) Pty Ltd  
141-153 Lygon Street, Brunswick East  
Planning and Environment Act 1987  
PPN01  
Planning Practice Note 1: Applying the Heritage  
Overlay  
Sullivan Assessment  
Former Kangan Institute, Moreland Campus, 31 The  
Avenue, Coburg Heritage Assessment, June 2012  
prepared by Diahnn Sullivan  
VCAT  
VHR  
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal  
Victorian Heritage Register  
OFFICIAL  
Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C208more | Panel Report | 15 July 2022  
Overview  
Amendment summary  
The Amendment  
Common name  
Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C208more  
Heritage Nominations Study  
Brief description  
Implements the recommendations of the Moreland Heritage  
Nominations Study 2020 and Moreland Heritage Gap Study 2019 to:  
- apply the Heritage Overlay to 45 new individual places, one serial  
listing, seven new precincts and three precinct extensions  
- amend the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay to introduce a separate  
Statement of Significance for four existing individual places and two  
existing precincts  
- delete the Heritage Overlay from five existing individual places  
Land identified in Table 1 and Appendix D  
Moreland City Council  
Subject land  
Planning Authority  
Authorisation  
Exhibition  
9 July 2021, subject to conditions  
13 August to 1 October 2021  
Submissions  
Number of Submissions: 44 See Appendix B  
Panel process  
The Panel  
Lisa Kendal (Chair) and Lucinda Peterson  
Directions Hearings  
Panel Hearing  
Video conference – 27 January and 16 February 2022  
Video conference – 1, 2, 3 March and 3, 6 May 2022  
Unaccompanied on 28 February and 6 June 2022  
Site inspections  
Parties to the Hearing  
Moreland City Council, represented by Nia Kolokas, Angela Schirripa, and  
Kim Giaquinta who called expert evidence on:  
- heritage from Luke James of Extent Heritage  
- heritage from Kim Roberts of GML Heritage  
P & S Mirabella (Holdings) Pty Ltd and Mirabella Imports Pty Ltd,  
represented by Adrian Finanzio SC of Counsel instructed by Simone  
Jackson of Jackson Lane Legal, who called expert evidence on:  
- heritage from Bryce Raworth of Bryce Raworth Pty Ltd  
Andrew Stevens, represented by Daniel Epstein of Counsel instructed by  
Mark Yaskewych of KCL Law, who called expert evidence on:  
- structural engineering from Anthony Predebon of BSS Group  
CERES Inc., represented by Rod Duncan  
Development Victoria, represented by Mimi Marcus and Simon D’Angelo  
of Marcus Lane Group  
Joanna Stanley and Sam Kyriakou  
Enzo Carbone  
OFFICIAL  
Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C208more | Panel Report | 15 July 2022  
Amanda Goode  
Citation  
Moreland PSA C208more [2022] PPV  
15 July 2022  
Date of this report  
OFFICIAL  
Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C208more | Panel Report | 15 July 2022  
Executive summary  
Background and context  
Moreland City Council (Council) commissioned Extent Hertage Pty Ltd to prepare the Moreland  
Heritage Nominations Study 2020 (Heritage Nominations Study).  
The Heritage Nominations Study assessed potentially signifiant heritage places nominated by the  
public in 2016. The study also considered places that were identified by the consultants during  
preparation of the study. The study assessed 77 individual places, one serial listing of 14  
substations and 13 precincts.  
The Amendment  
Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C208more (the Amendment) seeks to implement the  
findings of the Heritage Nominations Study and complete implementation of the Moreland  
Heritage Gap Study 2019 (Context Pty Ltd, 2019). It proposes to apply the Heritage Overlay to:  
45 individual heritage places  
one serial listing  
seven new precincts  
three precinct extensions.  
It also proposes to:  
amend local policy, including reference to the Heritage Nominations Study and updated  
Moreland Heritage Exemptions Incorporated Plan 2020  
reduce the extent of two existing precincts  
delete the existing individual place listings from five places and incorporate into the new  
serial listing  
make associated changes and corrections to the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay,  
mapping and the Schedule to Clause 72.04 (Documents Incorporated in this Planning  
Scheme).  
Issues  
Council received 44 submissions, of which 13 were supportive of the Amendment, 29 objected,  
five suggested changes and two were neutral.  
Common issues raised in submissions include:  
financial implications and property values  
maintenance and repairs of heritage places  
development restrictions and property rights  
heritage grants and support.  
Issues raised in relation to precincts include:  
property categories and assessments (such as contributory and non-contributory)  
precinct cohesiveness and appropriate precinct boundaries or curtilage  
removing non-contributory properties  
accuracy or details in the citations or Statements of Significance.  
Several submitters objected to the Heritage Overlay being applied to their property because they  
considered their property was not significant enough, was too altered and no longer presented in  
its original form and for other reasons specific to that property or the associated citation.  
Page 1 of 137  
OFFICIAL  
Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C208more | Panel Report | 15 July 2022  
Two submissions requested the Heritage Overlay be applied to additional places.  
Strategic justification  
The Panel concludes the Amendment:  
is supported by, and implements, the relevant sections of the Planning Policy Framework  
is consistent with the relevant Ministerial Directions and Planning Practice Notes  
is well founded and strategically justified  
will achieve net community benefit  
should proceed subject to addressing specific issues raised in submissions as discussed in  
the following chapters.  
Common issues  
In relation to common issues:  
financial implications and property values are not relevant when assessing heritage  
significance or when deciding whether to apply the Heritage Overlay  
building condition, maintenance and repairs are not relevant when assessing the heritage  
significance of an individual place or a precinct  
matters of building condition and structural integrity are best considered at the planning  
permit stage as they relate to how heritage is managed  
development opportunity and property rights are not relevant when assessing the  
heritage significance of an individual place or a precinct.  
Precincts  
In relation to the six precincts subject to submissions:  
Glenmorgan, Albion and Clarence Street Precinct (HO85) is appropriate subject to  
removal of 78 Albion Street, Brunswick East. The single dwelling covenant and existing  
built form controls do not adequately protect heritage values of the Precinct.  
Coonans Hill Precinct (HO207) comprising the properties 467-491 Moreland Road has  
sufficient heritage significance to justify the Heritage Overlay having regard to the  
historical development of Coonan’s Hill and the existing heritage values of the Precinct.  
With regard to specific properties:  
-
-
485 Moreland Road is contributory  
while the house at 487 Moreland Road is contributory is not significant the front  
terraced garden within the front setback is contributory  
491 Moreland Road is non-contributory to the Precinct, however the property should  
remain within the extended Precinct.  
-
Duke Street does not meet the threshold for significance to justify application of the  
Heritage Overlay (HO593).  
Railway Place Precinct (HO595) meets the threshold of local heritage significance and  
warrants application of the Heritage Overlay. With regard to specific issues and  
properties:  
- the Italianate boom style is an appropriate description for the Victorian cottages  
- 13 and 15 Railway Place make a historical contribution to the Precinct and while they  
should remain non-contributory in this Amendment, they should be considered for  
contributory in a future Amendment subject to notifying the landowners  
- 17 Railway Place is non-contributory  
Page 2 of 137  
OFFICIAL  
Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C208more | Panel Report | 15 July 2022  
- neighbourhood character policies are not adequate to protect the heritage values of  
Railway Place.  
Walsh Street Precinct (HO599) does not meet the threshold of aesthetic significance to  
warrant application of the Heritage Overlay. To give proper attention to this area, Walsh  
Street Precinct should be re-assessed including the contribution of 26 Walsh Street.  
Individual places  
In relation to individual places, the following places do not have sufficient heritage significance to  
warrant the Heritage Overlay:  
151A Lygon Street, Brunswick East (HO505)  
198 Edward Street, Brunswick (HO552)  
31 The Avenue, Coburg (HO580)  
13 Ash Grove, Oak Park (HO586)  
413 Gaffney Street, Pascoe Vale (HO590).  
The following places have sufficient heritage significance to warrant the Heritage Overlay:  
383 Brunswick Road, Brunswick (HO550), subject to updating the Statement of  
Significance in accordance with Dr James’ Expert Witness Statement  
113 Nicholson Street, Brunswick East (HO563), subject to updating the Statement of  
Significance in accordance with Dr James’ Expert Witness Statement  
Coburg Market 415-423 Sydney Road, Coburg (HO577), subject to updating the  
Statement of Significance in accordance with Dr James’ Expert Witness Statement  
Coburg Velodrome at 30 Charles Street, Coburg North, noting the Heritage Overlay  
number needs to be confirmed and may need to be corrected.  
With regard to CERES Community Environmental Park (HO559) and Joe’s Market Garden (HO572):  
the Heritage Overlay is an appropriate planning control to manage intangible values  
CERES Community Environmental Park is likely to have sufficient heritage significance to  
justify application of the Heritage Overlay, however further work is required to confirm  
and accurately articulate its significance and location of the lease boundary  
Joe’s Market Garden has sufficient heritage significance to justify application of the  
Heritage Overlay, however further work is required to accurately articulate its  
significance  
to give proper attention to these places, further work is required to ensure the  
Statements of Significance are accurate and appropriate, and to identify suitable planning  
permit exemptions and prepare an incorporated plan for inclusion in the Schedule to the  
Heritage Overlay.  
The Statement of Significance for 28 McMahons Road, Coburg North (HO583) should be updated  
in accordance with Dr James’ Expert Witness Statement.  
The stone walls adjacent to 64 Vincent Street, Oak Park do not have sufficient heritage significance  
to justify the Heritage Overlay (HO585). The Statement of Significance should be updated as  
recommended.  
Recommendations  
Based on the reasons set out in this Report, the Panel recommends that Moreland Planning  
Scheme Amendment C208more be adopted as exhibited subject to the following:  
Page 3 of 137  
OFFICIAL  
Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C208more | Panel Report | 15 July 2022  
1.  
Delete the Heritage Overlay from:  
a) Duke Street Precinct (HO593)  
b) Walsh Street Precinct (HO599)  
c) 151A Lygon Street, Brunswick East (HO505)  
d) Lorreto, 198 Edward Street, Brunswick East (HO552)  
e) CERES Community Environment Park, 7 Lee Street, Brunwick East (HO559)  
f) Joe’s Market Garden, 131 Harding Street, Coburg (HO572)  
g) 31 The Avenue, Coburg (HO580)  
h) 13 Ash Grove, Oak Park (HO586)  
i) 413 Gaffney Street, Pascoe Vale (HO590).  
2.  
Remove 78 Albion Street, Brunswick East from the Glenmorgan Street, Albion Street and  
Clarendon Street Precinct (HO85).  
3.  
Amend the Statement of Significance for:  
a) Glenmorgan Street, Albion Street and Clarendon Street Precinct (HO85) in  
accordance with the Panel preferred version at Appendix E1 of this report.  
b) Coonan’s Hill Precinct (HO207) in accordance with the Panel preferred version at  
Appendix E2 of this report.  
c) Hanover Street Precinct (HO594) to refer to 32 and 54 Hanover Street, Brunswick  
as non-contributory.  
d) 383 Brunswick Road, Brunswick (HO550) in accordance with the Panel preferred  
version at Appendix E3 of this report.  
e) 113 Nicholson Street, Brunswick East (HO563) in accordance with the Panel  
preferred version at Appendix E4 of this report.  
f) Coburg Market 415-423 Sydney Road, Coburg (HO577) in accordance with the  
Panel preferred version at Appendix E5 of this report.  
g) 28 McMahons Road, Coburg North (HO583) in accordance with the Panel  
preferred version at Appendix E6 of this report.  
h) ‘Bluestone Retaining Walls, Deveraux Street, Draska Court, Short Avenue, Ash  
Grove, Vincent Street and Xavier Street, Oak Park’ (HO585) to:  
remove 64 Vincent Street, Oak Park from the map showing the Heritage  
Overlay curtilage  
amend the wording of ‘What is significant?’ to state:  
The bluestone retaining walls at Deveraux Street, Draska Court, Short  
Avenue, Ash Grove, Vincent Street (apart from 64 Vincent Street) and  
Xavier Street, Oak Park are significant.  
4.  
5.  
Amend the Moreland Heritage Exemptions Incorporated Plan to:  
a) show29, 32 and 54 Hanover Street, Brunswick as non-contributory.  
Before adopting the Amendment, confirm and if necessary correct the Heritage Overlay  
number for the Coburg Velodrome at 30 Charles Street, Coburg North.  
Further recommendations  
The Panel informally recommends that Council revise heritage citations in the Moreland Heritage  
Nominations Study – Stage 2 (Volume 2 – Citation Appendices) to reflect changes recommended in  
this Report.  
Page 4 of 137  
OFFICIAL  
Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C208more | Panel Report | 15 July 2022  
1 Introduction  
1.1 The Amendment  
Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C208more (the Amendment) proposes to implement the  
recommendations of the Moreland Heritage Nominations Study 2020 (Extent Heritage Pty Ltd,  
2020) (Heritage Nominations Study) and complete the implementation of the Moreland Heritage  
Gap Study 2019 (Context Pty Ltd, 2019) (Heritage Gap Study).  
Specifically the Amendment proposes to:  
apply the Heritage Overlay to land identified in Table 1  
change or delete the Heritage Overlay from properties, including modifying the Heritage  
Overlay curtilage on one property as identified in Appendix D  
amend local policy Clause 15.03-1L (Heritage in Moreland) to reference the Heritage  
Nominations Study and updated Moreland Heritage Exemptions Incorporated Plan  
2020 (Heritage Exemptions Incorporated Plan)  
amend the Schedule to Clause 72.04 (Documents Incorporated in this Planning Scheme)  
to include the Statements of Significance of all new and existing heritage places and  
reference the updated Heritage Exemptions Incorporated Plan  
amend the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay and associated Planning Scheme maps in  
accordance with proposed changes.  
Table 1  
Proposed new heritage places/precincts and submissions received  
Number of  
HERCON  
Place, Precinct, Precinct Extension, or Serial Listing  
Place  
New HO Ref  
submissions  
received  
Criteria  
*
248 & 250 Barkly Street  
17 Breese Street  
Brunswick  
E
HO548  
HO549  
HO550  
HO551  
HO552  
HO554  
HO555  
HO556  
HO557  
HO552  
HO558  
HO559  
HO505  
HO560  
-
Brunswick  
A, B, D & E  
A, B & F  
D & E  
-
383 Brunswick Road  
30 Davies Street  
Brunswick  
1
-
Brunswick  
609 Park Street  
Brunswick  
B & E  
1
1
1
-
635-637 Park Street  
639-647 Park Street  
25 Richardson Street (rear)  
11 Thomas Street  
198 Edward Street  
50-72 Harrison Street  
7 Lee Street  
Brunswick  
D & E  
Brunswick  
A, D & E  
G
Brunswick  
Brunswick  
A, B, E & H  
A, B, D & E  
A, B & G  
A, B & G  
D & E  
-
Brunswick East  
Brunswick East  
Brunswick East  
Brunswick East  
Brunswick East  
1
-
1
1
-
151A Lygon Street  
373-381 Lygon Street  
A & G  
Page 5 of 137  
OFFICIAL  
Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C208more | Panel Report | 15 July 2022  
Number of  
submissions  
received  
HERCON  
Place, Precinct, Precinct Extension, or Serial Listing  
New HO Ref  
Criteria  
*
49A Nicholson Street  
113 Nicholson Street  
148-150 Nicholson Street  
2 St Phillip Street  
Brunswick East  
Brunswick East  
Brunswick East  
Brunswick East  
Brunswick East  
Brunswick West  
Coburg  
E, G & H  
D & E  
HO562  
HO563  
HO564  
HO565  
HO566  
HO567  
HO568  
HO569  
HO570  
HO571  
HO572  
HO573  
HO574  
HO575  
HO577  
HO578  
HO579  
HO580  
HO581  
HO582  
HO583  
HO576  
HO561  
HO584  
HO585  
-
2
-
A, B, E, G & H  
A, D & H  
B & D  
-
52 St Phillip Street  
72-76 Melville Road  
20 Anketell Street  
126 Bruce Street  
-
B & D  
-
A, B, E & H  
A & E  
-
Coburg  
-
19 Edward Street  
Coburg  
A & E  
-
1/86 Gordon Street  
131 Harding Street  
24 Jessie Street  
Coburg  
A, B, D, E & H  
A & B  
-
Coburg  
1
-
Coburg  
A, B & E  
E
131 Moreland Road  
181 Moreland Road  
415-423 Sydney Road  
490 Sydney Road  
Coburg  
-
Coburg  
D & E  
-
Coburg  
B & D  
1
-
Coburg  
B & E  
492 Sydney Road  
Coburg  
E
-
31 The Avenue  
Coburg  
E & F  
1
-
32 Carr Street  
Coburg North  
Coburg North  
Coburg North  
Coburg North  
Fitzroy North  
Glenroy  
A, D & E  
A & G  
30-34 Charles Street  
28 McMahons Road  
50 Murray Road  
1
1
-
A, D & E  
A, D, E & G  
D, G & H  
A, B, E & G  
E
42A Nicholson Street  
737 Pascoe Vale Road  
Bluestone retaining walls  
-
-
Oak Park  
4
Deveraux Street, Ash Grove,  
Vincent Street, Short Street,  
Draska Court & Xavier Street  
13 Ash Grove  
Oak Park  
D & E  
D & E  
D & E  
D & E  
D & E  
HO586  
HO588  
HO589  
HO590  
HO592  
1
-
22 Josephine Street  
4 Vincent Street  
413 Gaffney Street  
44 Eastgate Street  
Oak Park  
Oak Park  
-
Pascoe Vale  
Pascoe Vale South  
1
-
Page 6 of 137  
OFFICIAL  
Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C208more | Panel Report | 15 July 2022  
Number of  
submissions  
received  
HERCON  
Place, Precinct, Precinct Extension, or Serial Listing  
New HO Ref  
Criteria  
*
12 Forster Court  
Serial Listing  
Pascoe Vale South  
D, E & H  
HO591  
-
339 Albion Street  
119 Brunswick Road  
Brunswick  
Brunswick  
A, H & D  
A, H & D  
HO600  
HO600  
-
-
(transfer from  
HO278)  
188 Brunswick Road  
Brunswick  
A, H & D  
HO600  
-
(transfer from  
HO279)  
Colebrook Street  
10 Dawson Street  
Brunswick  
Brunswick  
A, H & D  
A, H & D  
HO600  
HO600  
-
-
(transfer from  
HO61)  
14 Frith Street  
24 Gray Street  
Brunswick  
Brunswick  
A, H & D  
A, H & D  
HO600  
-
-
(transfer from  
HO311)  
HO600  
(transfer from  
HO139)  
2 Russell Street  
Brunswick  
Brunswick  
A, H & D  
A, H & D  
HO600  
HO600  
-
-
25A Stewart Street  
(transfer from  
HO24)  
425B Victoria Street  
318-324 Lygon Street  
7 Methven Street  
Brunswick  
A, H & D  
A, H & D  
A, H & D  
HO600  
-
-
-
(transfer from  
HO184)  
Brunswick East  
Brunswick East  
HO600  
(transfer from  
HO106)  
HO600  
(transfer from  
HO113)  
59 Ryan Street  
Brunswick East  
Brunswick West  
A, H & D  
A, H & D  
HO600  
HO600  
-
-
2A Walker Street  
(transfer from  
HO92)  
Page 7 of 137  
OFFICIAL  
Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C208more | Panel Report | 15 July 2022  
Number of  
submissions  
received  
HERCON  
Place, Precinct, Precinct Extension, or Serial Listing  
Precinct  
New HO Ref  
Criteria  
*
Hanover Street Precinct  
Brunswick  
A, D & E  
A & D  
HO594  
HO598  
4
-
2-64 & 27-49 Hanover Street  
Victoria Street Brunswick  
Precinct  
Brunswick  
223-229 Victoria Street  
Duke Street Precinct  
Brunswick East  
Brunswick West  
D & E  
HO593  
HO595  
5
1
1-15 & 2-14 Duke Street  
Irvine Estate Precinct  
A, D & E  
1-11 & 2-8 Bonar Street  
1-31 & 2-36 Bakers Parade  
22-26 Wales Street  
9-29 & 2-12 McGregor Avenue  
Railway Place Precinct  
1-43 Railway Place  
Coburg  
Coburg  
A, D & E  
A & E  
HO596  
HO597  
1
-
Sydney Road and Bell Street  
Shops Precinct  
491-509 Sydney Road  
94-112 & 81B-91A Bell Street  
Walsh Street Precinct  
Coburg  
E
HO599  
HO85  
1
6
1-35 & 6-24 Walsh Street  
Precinct Extension  
Glenmorgan, Albion and  
Clarence Streets Precinct  
Brunswick East  
A & E  
26-78 Albion Street  
11-45 & 20-46 Clarence Street  
Gordon Street and Devon  
Avenue Precinct  
Coburg  
D & E  
HO87  
-
95 Gordon Street  
Coonans Hill Precinct  
Pascoe Vale South  
A, D, E & F  
HO207  
6
467-491 Moreland Road  
* Model criteria specified in Planning Practice Note 1 (see Appendix A). HERCON - National Heritage Convention  
Page 8 of 137  
OFFICIAL  
Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C208more | Panel Report | 15 July 2022  
1.2 Background  
Moreland City Council (Council) provided a detailed background to the Amendment in its Part A  
submission, including a chronology of events which the Panel has summarised in Table 2.  
Table 2  
Amendment C208more chronology of events  
Event  
Date  
2016 - 2017  
Heritage Gap Study prepared by Context Pty Ltd in two stages:  
- Stage 1 – preliminary assessment  
- Stage 2 - detailed assessment  
November 2016  
August 2019  
A public nomination process was conducted and over 800 places of potential heritage  
significance were nominated  
Heritage Nominations Study Stage 1 was prepared by Context Pty Ltd including preliminary  
assessment of 73 individual places, 14 potential precincts (containing 587 properties), and  
potential extensions to five current Heritage Overlay precincts  
6 December 2019  
Council resolved to adopt the draft Heritage Gap Study and request:  
- authorisation from the Minister for Planning to proceed with an Amendment to proposed  
to apply the Heritage Overlay to properties identified as locally significant in the Heritage  
Gap Study on a permanent basis (Amendment C174more)  
- the Minister for Planning introduce interim heritage controls for properties identified as  
locally significant in the Heritage Gap Study (Amendment C173more)  
24 January 2019  
Amendment C173more gazetted with expiry date of 31 December 2019  
11 September 2019  
Following exhibition and panel hearing, Council resolved to split Amendment C174more into  
two parts to address issues raised in a late submission, with Part 2 of the amendment only  
considering issues relating to 151A Lygon Street, Brunswick East  
June 2020  
Heritage Nominations Study Stage 2 was prepared by Extent Heritage Pty Ltd (Extent  
Heritage) including a full assessment of places identified in Stage 1, additional places  
identified by the consultants and an update of heritage descriptions of four places where the  
Heritage Overlay already applies  
12 August 2020  
Council resolved to endorse the Heritage Nominations Study and request the Minister for  
Planning to:  
- prepare, adopt and approve prescribed Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment  
C207more (interim Heritage Overlay)  
- authorise the preparation of Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C208more  
(permanent heritage controls)  
- following receipt of the authorisation, exhibit the Amendment  
- authorise the Director City Futures to make changes to the Amendment C208more based  
on conditions imposed in any Authorisation grantedby the Minister for Planning and to  
make minor changes  
- abandon Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C174more Part 2 (pertaining to 151A  
Lygon Street), and advise the Minister for Planning of this decision  
Council included 151A Lygon Street, Brunswick East in Amendment C208more  
Page 9 of 137  
OFFICIAL  
Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C208more | Panel Report | 15 July 2022  
Date  
Event  
9 July 2021  
Authorisation was received from the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning  
with conditions to:  
- remove 18 Kendall Street, Coburg (HO547) from the list of properties to apply the Heritage  
Overlay and making consequential changes to Amendment documents  
- review the changes proposed to Clause 22.06 which is now obsolete and instead  
incorporating them to Clause 15.03-1L (Heritage in Moreland) where applicable  
- update all precinct Statements of Significance to ensure the map in each statement clearly  
outlines which properties are individually significant, contributory and non-contributory to  
the precinct  
- ensure consistency of place and precinct names and addresses  
- amend the Schedule to Clause 72.04 to include all statements of significance to be  
incorporated as part of the Amendment  
- ensure all Amendment documents are consistent with the Ministerial Direction - the Form  
and Content of Planning Schemes and Planning Practice Note 1: Applying the Heritage  
Overlay (PPN01)  
13 August – 1 October Exhibition of the Amendment  
2021  
30 September 2021  
8 December 2021  
Amendment C207more approved and gazetted, with expiry date of 31 May 2022  
Council resolved to:  
- request the Minister for Planning appoint an independent planning panel to consider all  
submissions to the Amendment  
- endorse the Council officer response to submissions to form the basis of Council’s  
submission to a panel  
- note that the recommended form of the Amendment be presented to the panel  
- refer any late submissions to the panel  
- authorise the Director City Futures to make minor changes to the Amendment and give  
direction on issues which arise during the Panel Hearing, so long as any further changes  
are generally in accordance with the Moreland Heritage Nominations Study.  
- endorse the Moreland Thematic History 2020  
Panel appointed  
23 December 2021  
1.3 Procedural issues  
(i)  
Referral of late submissions  
The Panel issued a direction for Council to clarify and confirm the formal referral of any late  
submissions. Council confirmed it had referred two late submissions to the Panel - Submissions 43  
and 44.1  
1
Documents 2 and 3  
Page 10 of 137  
OFFICIAL  
Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C208more | Panel Report | 15 July 2022  
(ii)  
Hearing timetable  
P & S Mirabella (Holdings) Pty Ltd (Mirabella) (Submitter 21) advised it was not available in the  
week of 28 February 2022 due to a Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) Hearing  
relating to its property at 151A Lygon Street, Brunswick East.  
At the first Directions Hearing, the Panel decided and parties agreed, to schedule two Hearing days  
in the week commencing 28 February and to reconvene for a final Hearing day at a mutually  
convenient day and time. Mr Carbone advised he was no longer available for the original Hearing  
days.  
The Panel received and agreed to accept the following late requests to be heard:  
Submitter 29 (CERES Inc.), received on 28 January 2022 and a time allocation was  
allocated on day 2 of the Hearing  
Submitter 30 (Development Victoria), received on 2 February 2022.  
Following exchange of correspondence it was determined that a second Directions Hearing was  
required to finalise Hearing dates. A second Directions Hearing was held on 16 February 2022,  
which resolved to:  
schedule a Hearing day on Thursday 3 March 2022 to hear from Development Victoria  
and Council’s preliminary closing statements  
schedule a Hearing day on Tuesday 3 May 2022 to hear from Mirabella and Mr Carbone.  
Exchange of information and witness reports  
Following a request from Council and Mirabella to reconsider the timeline for circulation of expert  
witness statements, the Panel agreed expert witness statements relating to Submission 21 should  
be circulated one week prior to Hearing of the relevant submissions.  
The Panel further directed Council to circulate its Part B submission in two parts:  
Part 1 in accordance with the Panel directions issued on 31 January 2022, excluding  
content relevant to Submissions 21 and 42  
Part 2 specifically addressing issues relevant to Submissions 21 and 42, by Monday 2 May  
2022.  
On 1 April 2022 Council advised all parties by email that it intended to call the following witnesses  
at the Hearing on 3 May:  
Dr Kim Roberts of GML Heritage in relation to 151A Lygon Street, Brunswick East  
Dr Luke James of Extent Heritage in relation to 413 Gaffney Street, Pascoe Vale South.  
Mirabella wrote to the Panel requesting an additional one hour of submission time and advising  
that it now intended to call the following witnesses:  
Mr Bryce Raworth of Bryce Raworth Pty Ltd on heritage  
Mr Marco Negri of Contour Town Planners on town planning.  
The Panel agreed to these changes and the timetable was updated accordingly (version 4).  
Final hearing day  
Due to timetable adjustments on Tuesday 3 May it was not possible to complete the Hearing on  
that day. The Panel suggested, and the parties agreed, Council’s reply and closing submissions be  
heard on Friday 6 May 2022. A final revised timetable was issued on Wednesday 4 May (version  
5).  
Page 11 of 137  
OFFICIAL  
Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C208more | Panel Report | 15 July 2022  
Further directions  
In closing on the final Hearing day, the Panel issued further directions that were agreed to by the  
parties, including:  
Council to circulate the following to all parties by 13 May:  
- details of previous heritage studies or assessments relevant to 151A Lygon Street,  
Brunswick East, including the sequence and relevant findings  
- an explanation of how the findings of any previous heritage studies have been  
integrated into Brunswick Activity Centre planning, and details of any relevant  
Planning Scheme amendments including sequence of changes to the Design and  
Development Overlay and Heritage Overlay in Lygon Street  
parties wishing to comment on any new material raised in Council’s closing submission to  
circulate a brief written response by Friday 20 May 2022  
Council may provide a final written reply submission responding to issues raised in the  
above further submissions by 27 May 2022.  
1.4 Submissions received and issues  
Council received 44 submissions, of which 13 were supportive of the Amendment, 29 objected,  
five suggested changes and two were neutral.  
Common issues raised in submissions include:  
financial implications and property values  
maintenance and repairs of heritage places  
development restrictions and property rights  
heritage grants and support (see Chapter 1.6).  
Issues raised in relation to precincts include:  
property categories and assessments (such as contributory and non-contributory)  
precinct cohesiveness and appropriate precinct boundaries or curtilage  
removing non-contributory properties  
accuracy or details in the citations or Statements of Significance.  
Several submitters objected to the Heritage Overlay being applied to their property because they  
considered their property was not significant enough, was too altered and no longer presented in  
its original form and for other reasons specific to that property or the associated citation.  
Two submitters requested the Heritage Overlay be applied to additional places (see Chapter 1.6).  
1.5 Post exhibition changes proposed by Council  
Council submitted it proposed post exhibition changes to the Amendment following further  
investigations by Extent Heritage and in response to submissions which the Panel has summarised  
in Table 3.  
Page 12 of 137  
OFFICIAL  
Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C208more | Panel Report | 15 July 2022  
Table 3  
Post exhibition changes proposed by Council  
Place or precinct Proposed change  
Individual places  
Council comments  
113 Nicholson  
Street, Brunswick  
East  
Update citation  
Include new information  
13 Ash Grove, Oak Remove HO586 from the Amendment Recent modifications to the front of the  
Park  
house have changed the heritage  
significance of this place  
28 McMahons  
Road, Coburg  
North  
Amend citation and Statement of  
Significance  
Corrections and to apply external paint  
controls  
Coburg Market  
Amend citation and Statement of  
Significance  
Include new information  
– 415-423 Sydney  
Road, Coburg  
CERES Park  
(HO559)  
Reduce the curtilage and amend the  
name and address  
Update to reflect the operational name  
and area as defined by the lease  
Amend citation  
Amend citation  
Include new information  
Include new information  
Joe’s Market  
Garden  
31 The Avenue,  
Coburg  
Amend citation  
Reduce curtilage  
Correctly describe the construction  
date  
Apply the Heritage Overlay only to the  
original Brutalist building  
198 Edward Street, Amend citation  
Brunswick East  
Correctly describe the place’s history,  
reflect the era of construction and why  
it is significant to Moreland  
Hanover Precinct (HO594)  
32 Hanover Street, Contributory to non-contributory  
Brunswick  
House has been legally demolished  
50 & 52 Hanover  
Street, Brunswick  
Amend Heritage Exemptions  
Incorporated Plan  
Correct error to heritage category in  
the precinct map  
54 Hanover Street, Contributory to non-contributory  
Brunswick  
Does not have heritage features that  
contribute to the significance of the  
precinct  
Coonan’s Hill Precinct (HO207)  
Amend Statement of Significance  
Provide more clarity on the significance  
of the materials of the terrace walls  
491 Moreland  
Road, Pascoe Vale  
South  
Contributory to non-contributory  
House has been demolished  
(recommended by expert Dr James)  
Page 13 of 137  
OFFICIAL  
Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C208more | Panel Report | 15 July 2022  
Place or precinct Proposed change  
Duke Street Precinct (HO593)  
Council comments  
Remove precinct from the Amendment New information changes heritage  
significance of the precinct  
Serial Listing  
Bluestone  
Remove HO585 from 64 Vincent Street, Only apply to walls associated with the  
Retaining Walls  
Serial Listing  
(HO585)  
Oak Park  
original bluestone walls  
1.6 Limitations  
(i)  
Heritage nominations  
There were submissions which sought to apply the Heritage Overlay to properties that were not  
exhibited with the Amendment, specifically:  
201-209 Nicholson Street, Brunswick East (Submitter 26)  
Edward Street East Precinct that includes 192-198, 237-243 and 255-257 Edward Street,  
Brunswick East (Submitter 38).  
Council submitted it was not appropriate for these additional properties to be considered as part  
of the Amendment as it seeks to implement the findings of the Heritage Nominations Study and  
Heritage Gap Study. Places recommended for protection have been through a rigorous  
assessment process, in accordance with established methodologies.  
Council submitted:  
201-209 Nicholson Street, Brunswick had been added to the register for future  
assessment  
Edward Street East Precinct was included in Stage 1 of the Heritage Gap Study as was not  
recommended for Stage 2 assessment due to low visual cohesion, low integrity and many  
of the potentially contributory houses are of borderline significance because of the  
degree of alteration. In December 2021, Council resolved to scope out a future study to  
investigate remnant Victorian cottages which will include the cottages nominated by  
Submitter 38.  
Submitter 38 was of the view the Edward Street East Precinct had heritage character, with many  
boom era houses in the area, and should be assessed for heritage significance.  
The Panel accepts Council’s submission and has not considered these properties because:  
they are not supported with the necessary assessment rigour given to properties which  
formed part of the Heritage Nominations Study  
Council is best placed to decide whether these properties should be investigated through  
the appropriate process, and Council has committed to a future assessment process  
potentially affected property owners and tenants were not provided with natural justice  
through an opportunity to review the proposal or to make a submission during exhibition  
of the Amendment.  
Page 14 of 137  
OFFICIAL  
Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C208more | Panel Report | 15 July 2022  
(ii)  
Heritage grants and support  
Several submitters sought further information about what kind of compensation and support  
Council is offering landowners to assist with preserving heritage places, and for making them more  
energy efficient.  
The Council report of 8 December 2021 advised that Council officers are investigating grant  
opportunities through the Victorian Heritage Restoration Fund, which may offer grants to  
residents to assist with preserving heritage places in Moreland. The report identified that there  
are programs available to assist owners modify their homes to become more efficient and the  
Australian Energy Foundation can provide further guidance on building efficiency.  
The Panel has not addressed the issue of grants or funding support for heritage preservation or  
energy efficiency as these are outside of the scope of the Amendment and beyond the Planning  
Scheme.  
1.7 The Panel’s approach  
The Panel has assessed the Amendment against the principles of net community benefit and  
sustainable development, as set out in Clause 71.02-3 (Integrated decision making) of the Planning  
Scheme.  
The Panel considered all written submissions made in response to the exhibition of the  
Amendment, observations from site visits, and submissions, evidence and other material  
presented to it during the Hearing. It has reviewed a large volume of material and has had to be  
selective in referring to the more relevant or determinative material in the Report. All submissions  
and materials have been considered by the Panel in reaching its conclusions, regardless of whether  
they are specifically mentioned in the Report.  
This Report deals with the issues under the following headings:  
Strategic justification  
Common issues  
Heritage precincts  
Individual heritage places.  
Page 15 of 137  
OFFICIAL  
Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C208more | Panel Report | 15 July 2022  
2 Strategic justification  
2.1 Planning context  
The Explanatory Report and Council’s submission identify the following as being relevant to the  
Amendment:  
Planning objective at Planning and Environment Act 1987 (PE Act) section 4(1)(d) and  
4(1)(g)  
Planning Scheme policy clauses 15.01-5S (Neighbourhood Character), 15.03-1S (Heritage  
Conservation) and 15.03-1L (Heritage in Moreland)  
Plan Melbourne Outcome 4, Direction 4.4, Policy 4.4.1  
Heritage Overlay  
Ministerial Directions:  
- Ministerial Direction – The Form and Content of Planning Schemes  
- Ministerial Direction 9 – Metropolitan Planning Strategy  
- Ministerial Direction 11 – Strategic Assessment of Amendments  
- Ministerial Direction 15 – The Planning Scheme Amendment Process  
Planning Practice Note 1: Applying the Heritage Overlay (PPN01).  
Appendix A provides further details of the planning context.  
(i) Clause 71.02-3 (Integrated decision making)  
Clause 71.02-3 (Integrated decision making) provides guidance on balancing planning objectives,  
stating:  
Victorians have various needs and expectations such as land for settlement, protection of  
the environment, economic wellbeing, various social needs, proper management of  
resources and infrastructure. Planning aims to meet these needs and expectations by  
addressing aspects of economic, environmental and social wellbeing affected by land use  
and development.  
The Planning Policy Framework operates together with the remainder of the scheme to  
deliver integrated decision making. Planning and responsible authorities should endeavour  
to integrate the range of planning policies relevant to the issues to be determined and  
balance conflicting objectives in favour of net community benefit and sustainable  
development for the benefit of present and future generations.  
2.2 Moreland Heritage studies  
(i)  
Heritage Gap Study  
In 2008, the Moreland Local Heritage Places Review reviewed past heritage studies and identified  
places with potential significance. Subsequently, several planning panel reports recommended  
additional heritage investigations.  
The Heritage Gap Study was prepared by Context in accordance with Heritage Victoria guidelines,  
The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance, Australia  
ICOMOS, 2013 (Burra Charter) and its guidelines. It sought to investigate outstanding  
recommendations of earlier studies and panel reports. The study was prepared in two stages:  
Stage 1 (2016):  
Page 16 of 137  
OFFICIAL  
Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C208more | Panel Report | 15 July 2022  
- comprised of a preliminary assessment of over 400 individual places and 12 potential  
precincts (containing 365 properties), as well as potential extensions to seven current  
HO precincts  
- recommended the following for detailed assessment in Stage 2 - 148 individual places,  
three serial listings, 10 potential precincts and 10 potential extensions to existing  
Heritage Overlay precincts  
Stage 2 (2017):  
- involved a full assessment of places identified in Stage 1, as well as additional places  
identified during field work  
- confirmed that 82 places satisfied the threshold of local significance, and the  
significance at the local level of three serial listings, four new precincts and 10 precinct  
extensions.  
The recommendations of the Heritage Gap Study were implemented through:  
Amendment C173more which sought to apply the Heritage Overlay on an interim basis  
to properties identified as locally significant  
Amendment C174more which sought permanent Heritage Overlay controls.  
The Heritage Gap Study identified 151A Lygon Street, Brunswick East as an individually significant  
place to Moreland. As explained in Chapters 0 and 5.1, consideration of the place for permanent  
heritage controls is included in the Amendment.  
(ii)  
Heritage Action Plan  
The Moreland Heritage Action Plan 2017-32 guides Council’s heritage work program and identifies  
actions which are underway and sets out a program for further identification, conservation and  
management of the city’s heritage. The following actions are relevant to the Amendment:  
Action K5 - Commission heritage expert assistance to undertake a preliminary  
assessment of the potential heritage places identified as part of the public nomination  
process held in 2016.  
Action K14 - Commission heritage expert assistance to undertake a heritage study of  
Pre-War and Post War Modern architectural style heritage places identified as part of the  
public nomination process held 2016 (this action is based on the outcomes of the  
Preliminary Assessment as per Action K5). Note two studies may be prepared i.e. Pre-  
War and Post War.  
Action P3 – Prepare a planning scheme amendment to introduce the places identified  
and assessed as part of the Pre-War and Post War Modern architectural style Heritage  
Study(s) (aligned with Actions K5 and K14) into the Moreland Planning Scheme, via  
application of the Heritage Overlay.  
Council explained that the nominations of Post War Modern architecture was not extensive and  
consequently the heritage study for the publicly nominated places was not themed by  
architectural style and instead named after the nomination process.  
(iii)  
Heritage Nominations Study  
The Heritage Nominations Study sought to assess places of potential heritage significance  
nominated by the public in 2016 and some places nominated by Council officers. The study was  
prepared in two stages:  
Page 17 of 137  
OFFICIAL  
Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C208more | Panel Report | 15 July 2022  
Stage 1 (prepared by Context Pty Ltd) comprised a preliminary assessment of 73  
individual places, 14 potential precincts (containing 587 properties), as well as potential  
extensions to five current HO precincts (containing 170 properties)  
Stage 2 (prepared by Extent Heritage) confirmed that 44 individual places, one serial  
listing, seven new precincts and an extension to three existing heritage precincts satisfied  
the threshold for local significance and recommended the Heritage Overlay be applied.  
Council called evidence on heritage from Dr James who was the author of the Heritage  
Nominations Study who provided an overview of the Heritage Nominations Study Stage 2  
methodology. He stated:  
the study was prepared in accordance best practice resources including the Burra Charter  
and PPN01  
documentation review:  
- all documents relevant to Stage 1 were reviewed  
- where reasons for nomination was not clear original community nominations were  
reviewed and additional desktop research undertaken  
research:  
- desktop research from historical and archival sources, using materials from the  
Moreland City Council and the preceding municipalities of Brunswick and Coburg,  
Moreland Library, Heritage Victoria, National Trust of Australia (Victoria), Australian  
Heritage Council, Public Record Office Victoria, State Library of Victoria, Landata,  
Picture Victoria and Coburg Historical Society  
- key sources included Melbourne Metropolitan Board of Works plans produced  
between the 1880s and 1950s, Sands & McDougall Directory of Victoria  
- resources sourced included images, aerial photographs, plans and maps, articles,  
newspapers, films and government gazettes  
- generalist architectural resources were used to assist with the identification of  
architectural styles and to inform comparative analysis  
fieldwork:  
- site inspection of each nominated place  
- completion of a fieldwork form and photographs taken for each site  
- ground truthing of existing data and capture of new, previously unrecorded data  
comparative analysis:  
- was based on typologies and thematic contexts  
- resources included the Heritage Victoria heritage database (HERMES), Victorian  
Heritage Database, Moreland Planning Scheme Schedule to the Heritage Overlay and  
previous heritage studies  
- where appropriate comparative places could not be located, places where an interim  
Heritage Overlay applied were considered or places outside the municipality  
assessment of significance:  
- each nominated place was assessed against the HERCON Criteria  
- a place, serial listing or precinct needed to meet at least one criterion to be considered  
locally significant  
- an explanation of reasons why a place met criteria were included in the citations  
- an integrity grading and condition assessment was undertaken for each place and  
precinct  
Page 18 of 137  
OFFICIAL  
Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C208more | Panel Report | 15 July 2022  
- each property within a precinct was graded as individually significant, contributory or  
non-contributory and the intactness of each precinct was assessed, measured as a  
percentage of contributory places with ‘low’ being less than sixty per cent, ‘moderate’  
being sixty to eighty per cent, and ‘high’ being eighty to a hundred per cent  
- where identified, places of potential State significance were assessed and if  
appropriate recommended for nomination for the Victorian Heritage Register (VHR)  
Statement of Significance, curtilage and mapping:  
- a Statement of Significance was prepared for each place that met the threshold of  
local significance  
- the proposed heritage overlay curtilage for each place or precinct was determined by  
the property boundary or where appropriate for an alternative was determined to  
protect specific significant components of a place  
- the recommended curtilage for each place was mapped  
additional places identified by Extent Heritage and included with the approval of Council.  
2.3 Evidence and submissions  
(i)  
Methodology and strategic justification  
Council submitted the Amendment would ensure Council met its commitments under the Council  
Action Plan 2021 – 2025 and the Heritage Action Plan. It submitted the Amendment was required  
to implement the recommendations of the Heritage Nominations Study and complete  
implementation of the Heritage Gap Study. It considered the precincts and individual places had  
been appropriately assessed against the standard criteria in PPN01 and met the threshold to apply  
the Heritage Overlay.  
Council considered the Amendment consistent with planning policy, and the Heritage Overlay the  
appropriate planning tool to protect heritage values as it requires a permit to be granted for  
building and works, including demolition.  
Council submitted the Amendment is expected to have a positive social effect, and applying the  
Heritage Overlay to identified properties would help preserve Moreland’s history for present and  
future generations. Further, the Amendment would not have a detrimental environmental impact  
or any adverse economic impacts, stating:  
the protection of architectural and historically significant buildings can have economic  
benefits, especially where buildings are sought for restoration and investment  
an economically sustainable outcome may be achieved through the retention,  
conservation and adaptation of heritage places where it contributes to local and regional  
economic benefits  
heritage controls do not prohibit development, subdivision or demolition but require that  
a planning permit be obtained to ensure that heritage values of a place are not  
jeopardised. Routine maintenance and repairs that do not change the appearance of the  
heritage place do not require a planning permit application.  
Several submitters raised concerns about the strategic justification for application of the Heritage  
Overlay on their property, in particular with consideration of balancing planning policy objectives.  
One submitter was of the opinion that little weight should be given to the Heritage Nominations  
Study as the author has not been called to substantiate their view. The Amendment was  
supported by 13 submissions.  
Page 19 of 137  
OFFICIAL  
Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C208more | Panel Report | 15 July 2022  
(ii)  
Public exhibition and consultation  
Council advised that it relied on the statutory public exhibition process for community consultation  
on the Amendment. Council was satisfied that it had complied with the statutory requirements for  
public exhibition in line with section 19 of the PE Act. It considered that “a fair, proper and  
reasonable consultation process was undertaken”.2 Council provided details of the exhibition  
process in its Part A submission.  
Several submitters were concerned that the exhibition period occurred while Victoria was  
experiencing COVID-19 restrictions. Others said they were not notified of the Amendment.  
Several community submissions raised issues and concerns relating to lack of community  
consultation by Council prior to formal exhibition of the Amendment, suggesting that factual  
errors in the nominations could have been avoided if this had occurred.  
In response, Council submitted:  
it had provided three additional weeks of exhibition than required by the PE Act  
notification letters were accompanied by a four-page colour information factsheet  
a dedicated webpage provided access to all Amendment documentation and included a  
property search tool and submission lodgement form  
all affected land owners and occupiers were notified and invited to one-on-one  
consultation sessions  
Council resolved to accept and refer all late submission to the Panel  
the submitters concerned with notification had been able to provide a submission and  
had opportunity to participate in the Panel process  
it had checked its consultation records and could see no error with contact details of  
landowners who said they did not receive direct notification.  
Council explained it had notified all submitters of the Council meeting which considered  
submissions on the Amendment, had provided modified citations and Statements of Significance  
and had further conversations regarding proposed post exhibition changes with a number of  
submitters.  
In response to questions from the Panel, Council advised it did not undertake community  
consultation on the proposal prior to formal public exhibition of the Amendment due to very high  
development pressure and threat of demolition to properties. Council advised that while it had  
adopted a community consultation plan, this was adopted after the study was completed, and a  
different approach was taken for heritage studies.  
2.4 Discussion  
(i)  
Methodology and strategic justification  
The PE Act includes objectives which seek to conserve buildings, areas and places of interest and to  
balance the present and future interests of all Victorians. This is reflected in Plan Melbourne and  
in State and Local planning policies. These policies require Council to identify, protect, enhance  
and promote local heritage. The Amendment is supported by and implements these policies.  
2
Council’s Part B submission, page 15  
Page 20 of 137  
OFFICIAL  
Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C208more | Panel Report | 15 July 2022  
Heritage studies are generally undertaken within a particular context, be it phases of development,  
building typologies or other themes. This sets the scope for identifying a short-list of places within  
the context of the thematic history and municipal-wide comparisons. For many heritage studies a  
call for public nominations is often part of the study process and the nominations are considered in  
the context of a wider methodology. It is unusual for a heritage study to be commissioned solely  
based on nominations.  
A nominations-only approach in the Heritage Nominations Study has raised challenges for the  
Amendment. For example, the extent to which post war nominated places are a true reflection of  
their significance or whether the assessment of the place was in response to a nomination and not  
in response to a wider understanding of places for Moreland within that development period, as  
one would find through a study of post war. The Panel accepts that the authors excluded some  
places they considered did not meet the threshold for significance. The absence of analysis of  
development period at a municipal-wide level made it difficult for the Panel to understand the true  
heritage value of some places.  
Some of the heritage assessments contain broad and generic statements, lack rigour and do not  
sufficiently detail why a place is significant with regard to the thematic development of Moreland,  
the criteria and other similar places. The Panel has reviewed some of these places in the Heritage  
Nominations Study as submissions were received, while other places within the Amendment have  
not been subject to review.  
The Panel notes Dr James’ evidence did not include a reference list or bibliography for sources  
referenced throughout the report which created some challenges to understand the reference  
material used.  
Subject to the recommendations of this Report the Panel considers:  
the heritage studies are sound, based on appropriate methodology and research, and  
provide a solid base for strategically justifying the Amendment  
the Amendment appropriately considers the needs of present and future interests of all  
Victorians by introducing planning provisions that ensure local cultural heritage values  
are considered when assessing a planning permit application  
the Heritage Overlay is the appropriate planning provision to protect heritage precincts  
and individual places  
Council has appropriately responded to the Amendment’s social, environmental and  
economic effects.  
Submissions relating to balancing planning objectives and strategic justification of applying the  
Heritage Overlay for specific places are addressed in other chapters of this Report.  
Issues relating to financial impacts and development potential are discussed in Chapter 3.  
(ii)  
Public exhibition and consultation  
The Panel is satisfied Council complied with statutory requirements for public exhibition of the  
Amendment. No evidence or submissions were provided the Panel otherwise. The Panel  
commends Council for providing an extended exhibition period and using a variety of  
communication methods including the information factsheet and website to assist with  
communicating the proposal. Use of these additional communication tools demonstrate a  
genuine commitment to ensuring that affected landowners and occupiers are aware of and  
understand the implications of the Amendment.  
Page 21 of 137  
OFFICIAL  
Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C208more | Panel Report | 15 July 2022  
The Panel understands the balance Council is endeavouring to achieve to protect identified  
heritage values while ensuring the community is adequately consulted on changes to the Planning  
Scheme. The Panel also understands the concerns of residents that a lack of informal engagement  
has created issues with the accuracy of exhibited material that could have been avoided.  
The Panel accepts that ultimately it is Council’s decision the extent to which consultation is  
undertaken prior to formal exhibition of an amendment to the Planning Scheme, noting that  
ideally informal consultation is undertaken to ensure the community has had an opportunity to  
contribute to the formulation of a proposal of interest or that affects them.  
2.5 Conclusions  
For the reasons set out in the following chapters, the Panel concludes the Amendment:  
is supported by, and implements, the relevant sections of the Planning Policy Framework  
is consistent with the relevant Ministerial Directions and Planning Practice Notes  
is well founded and strategically justified  
is likely to achieve net community benefit  
should proceed subject to addressing specific issues raised in submissions as discussed in  
the following chapters.  
Page 22 of 137  
OFFICIAL  
Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C208more | Panel Report | 15 July 2022  
3 Common issues  
This chapter refers to issues which apply across more than one individual place or precinct. Where  
a submission raised only general issues, it is not referred to in subsequent chapters.  
3.1 Financial implications and property values  
(i)  
The issue  
The issue is whether financial implications and property values are relevant when assessing  
heritage significance or when deciding whether to apply the Heritage Overlay.  
(ii)  
Submissions  
Numerous submitters were concerned the Heritage Overlay would devalue their properties and  
would add a financial burden to replace and maintain heritage features and modernise buildings,  
and additional regulatory and compliance costs.  
Mr Carbone outlined that Council had not undertaken any financial modelling to understand  
financial impacts. He was of the view the proposal would have no economic benefits. He  
submitted that real-estate agents expected that application of the Heritage Overlay would impact  
on property prices by 20 to 25 per cent.  
Council provided a standard response to this as a common issue in the attachment to the Council  
report of 8 December 2021:  
When applying the Heritage Overlay, only matters of a heritage nature supported by criteria  
for assessing the heritage significance of a place are considered. Financial or maintenance  
costs of individual properties are not considered as part of the assessment of appropriate  
heritage controls.  
Private economic effects of a heritage overlay have been considered by a number of  
Planning Panels, including Melbourne C201 Panel; Moreland C149 Panel and most recently  
Boroondara C274 and Glenelg C89 Panels, where it was concluded that impacts on land  
values or the individual financial circumstances of the land owner to be outside the scope for  
consideration.  
In its Part B submission, Council responded to issues raised in submissions. It acknowledged that  
financial aspects are of considerable concern to property owners, but submitted the key question  
is whether they are a valid concern when identifying heritage places and applying the Heritage  
Overlay.  
Council was of the view the financial impacts for property owners are not relevant economic  
matters when considering an amendment to the Planning Scheme. Council cited previous  
planning panel reports which consistently supported this view, specifically planning scheme  
amendments Ballarat C58, Moreland C129, Boroondara C266 and C274 (Part 2).  
Council acknowledged that the PE Act requires it to consider economic effects when preparing a  
planning scheme amendment. It submitted that while it was appropriate to consider public costs  
and broader economic effects, it was not appropriate to consider private economic impacts, such  
as impact on land values. In this regard, it referenced the planning panel reports for Melbourne  
C207, Moreland C149 and Glenelg C89.  
Page 23 of 137  
OFFICIAL  
Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C208more | Panel Report | 15 July 2022  
Council acknowledged that financial impacts may be considered if they overlap with or translate to  
broader public economic effects, but submitted for the Amendment submissions were expressed  
on a site-by-site basis and not a broader community level.  
(iii)  
Discussion  
The Panel agrees with Council that the PE Act requires it to consider economic effects of a planning  
scheme amendment. A critical question for the Panel is whether the financial impacts raised are  
valid concerns when considering application of the Heritage Overlay.  
There was no information or evidence provided to the Panel that demonstrated the Amendment  
would result in negative economic effects. There is no information or evidence presented to the  
Panel that the Amendment would unreasonably impact the broader community.  
While the Panel acknowledges there may be some financial impact on individuals associated with  
applying for a planning permit application, if an owner simply seeks to maintain their property  
without altering the appearance there would be no need for a permit and no additional planning  
costs.  
Property value is influenced by many complicated and dynamic variables, many of which sit  
outside of the planning system. The Panel is of the view that protecting heritage character and  
values is likely to ensure it is a desirable and valuable place to live for current and future  
generations.  
The Panel broadly agrees with the findings of the planning panel reports cited by Council that  
personal financial impacts should not be taken into consideration when assessing if a property has  
sufficient heritage significance to warrant the Heritage Overlay.  
(iv)  
Conclusion  
The Panel concludes that that personal financial implications and property values are not relevant  
when assessing heritage significance or when deciding whether to apply the Heritage Overlay.  
3.2 Building condition, maintenance and repairs  
(i)  
The issue  
The issue is whether building condition is relevant when assessing the heritage significance of an  
individual place or a precinct.  
(ii)  
Submissions  
Several submitters were concerned the Heritage Overlay would burden property owners when  
wanting to fix up their property, specifically:  
costs to replace and maintain heritage features and modernise buildings  
issues with availability of original materials and suitably skilled tradespeople  
additional regulatory and compliance costs.  
Submitter 33 was of the view it would not be possible to repair the property which is in an extreme  
state of disrepair.  
Council submitted a planning permit is not required for works, routine repairs or maintenance that  
do not change the appearance of a heritage place and while using the same materials and  
Page 24 of 137  
OFFICIAL  
Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C208more | Panel Report | 15 July 2022  
specifications. Council referenced the planning panel report for Whitehorse C74 (Part 2) in  
support of this view.  
Council further submitted:  
Clause 15.03-1L is clear that “external alterations and extensions to heritage-listed places  
can still occur, providing they do not adversely affect the heritage significance of the  
place, particularly in relation to the front of the building and the view from the public  
realm” and provides useful guidance on what demolition can be considered appropriate  
and design of particular elements  
the Heritage Exemptions Incorporated Plan enables owners to make minor changes to  
their properties with a planning permit depending on the heritage category  
not allowing heritage buildings fall into disrepair is consistent with section 6B of the PE  
Act and does not go any further than existing local laws relating to dilapidated, dangerous  
and unsightly premises.  
(iii)  
Discussion and conclusion  
The Panel agrees with Council’s submissions on this matter. It considers that matters of building  
condition and structural integrity are best considered at the planning permit stage as they relate to  
how heritage is managed.  
The Panel concludes that building condition, maintenance and repairs are not relevant when  
assessing the heritage significance of an individual place or a precinct.  
3.3 Development restrictions and property rights  
(i)  
The issue  
The issue is whether development opportunity and property rights are relevant when assessing  
the heritage significance of an individual place or a precinct.  
(ii)  
Submissions  
Several submitters were concerned the Heritage Overlay would prevent them from developing  
and modernising their properties. They were of the view introduction of the planning control  
would conflict with existing planning policy and controls that direct growth. Many were concerned  
they were being denied the same rights as other property owners.  
Submitter 27 was concerned the Heritage Overlay would contradict the directions of the  
Brunswick Structure Plan and was not in line with the Design and Development Overlay on the  
site, consequently limiting development potential.  
Mr Carbone raised concerns with the Council report of 8 December 2021 which stated in relation  
to human rights considerations that:  
A person is considered to be deprived of their property rights if a regulation has the effect of  
substantially depriving a property owner of the ability to use his or her property or part of that  
property. Amendment C208 implements existing planning scheme policy.  
He disagreed with this assessment, stating the proposal would substantially limit the development  
potential of his land as it would no longer be attractive to developers. He considered the property  
would be unable to contribute to the surrounding area’s purpose and intended growth.  
Page 25 of 137  
OFFICIAL  
Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C208more | Panel Report | 15 July 2022  
Mr Carbone considered the proposal would make it impossible to redevelop his property as  
intended by planning policies and controls encouraging growth. He submitted:  
the Heritage Overlay would directly conflict with the land use zone Residential Growth  
Zone and the local activity centre designation for his property  
application of the Heritage Overlay does not allow for meaningful development when  
property size and setback are taken into consideration  
the Heritage Overlay would remove owner’s rights to develop their properties  
Council had not provided any examples of meaningful development potential in the  
Heritage Overlay in relation to his individual property.  
In relation to applying the Heritage Overlay in designated growth areas, Mirabella was of the view  
that the Heritage Overlay should be applied where its application is justified, however:  
a planning authority is required to apply integrated decision making in pursuit of net  
community benefit at the planning scheme amendment stage  
while the heritage significance local threshold may be met, it may be “at such a low level  
and in circumstances which do not make a sufficiently compelling contribution to heritage  
in the municipality or the net community benefit”.  
Council considered the Heritage Overlay does not prohibit future development. It provided a  
standard response to this as a common issue in the attachment to the Council report of 8  
December 2021:  
The intention of the Heritage Overlay is that features of identified heritage value are  
protected. The Heritage Overlay is not a prohibition on the construction of new buildings or  
alteration of existing buildings. The intention of the Overlay is to ensure that any new  
buildings or alterations or additions to existing buildings do not detrimentally impact on the  
heritage significance of a heritage place. There are many instances in Moreland and other  
Councils where additional dwellings have been constructed on heritage properties or where  
existing heritage places have been extended and/or altered. …  
Any impact on development, whether perceived or real, can be considered at the planning  
permit stage when detailed designs are known.  
In its Part B submission, Council responded to issues raised in submissions, stating:  
the Heritage Overlay adds another layer of planning control that includes permit triggers  
and relevant considerations for a planning permit application  
it is standard practice in Victoria to apply the Heritage Overlay to places of heritage  
significance  
the Amendment is necessary to ensure places with heritage values are recognised and  
the impact on heritage significance appropriately managed  
concerns relating to future development opportunities are immaterial to this stage of the  
planning process, and are more appropriately considered at the permit application stage.  
Council submitted it was common for heritage places to be located in areas designated for growth.  
Further, there were many examples of heritage buildings successfully integrated into the design of  
a larger mixed use building. It stated:  
In these instances, the design has managed to balance the heritage values of the place with  
other policies directing growth, in addition to many other policies of the Scheme, such as  
sustainability, transport and stormwater to name a few.  
Council cited previous planning panel reports which consistently supported this view, specifically  
planning scheme amendments Latrobe C14, Glenelg C89, Campaspe C50, Melbourne C387,  
Boorondara C99, Boorondara C150 and Moreland C134.  
Page 26 of 137  
OFFICIAL  
Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C208more | Panel Report | 15 July 2022  
(iii)  
Discussion  
The Panel agrees with Council that application of a Heritage Overlay to a property does not  
prohibit development. It applies an additional planning controls to ensure heritage values are  
taken into consideration during decision making.  
The Heritage Overlay allows permit applications for additions, works and demolition through the  
planning permit process. It does not unreasonably restrict development or prevent owners from  
modernising a property, but ensures that heritage significance is taken into consideration.  
The Panel does not agree with parties that application of the Heritage Overlay conflicts with  
policies relating to growth, or does not allow meaningful development. Integrated decision  
making is a cornerstone of the Victorian planning system. Clause 72.02-3 (Integrated decision  
making) states:  
Victorians have various needs and expectations such as land for settlement, protection of  
the environment, economic wellbeing, various social needs, proper management of  
resources and infrastructure. Planning aims to meet these needs and expectations by  
addressing aspects of economic, environmental and social wellbeing affected by land use  
and development.  
Planning and responsible authorities should endeavour to integrate the range of planning  
policies relevant to the issues to be determined and balance conflicting objectives in favour  
of net community benefit and sustainable development for the benefit of present and future  
generations.  
It is appropriate to consider competing policy objectives when a decision about a development  
proposal is made. At this time an assessment can be made with regard to the specific proposal, all  
policy objectives and the outcomes in terms of net community benefit. A thoughtful and  
considered approach to design can achieve good outcomes that satisfactorily respect a range of  
planning objectives – it is rare that one objective must be rejected to achieve another.  
The Panel notes Council’s practice of integrating heritage in many of its areas identified for high  
growth. The first step is to test the threshold of significance for the place. Following this task,  
good strategic planning seeks to consider how the heritage place can be managed in the context of  
strategic development priorities for a particular area. This does not always happen during the  
same amendment but part of a strategic planning process.  
In response to issues raised by Mirabella relating to assessment of net community benefit at the  
planning scheme amendment stage, the Panel considers the only issue of relevance when deciding  
whether to apply the Heritage Overlay is heritage significance. This stage of the process relies on  
an objective evaluation of the heritage value of a place. Consequently, it is critical that the  
heritage assessment is robust and the significance of a place unequivocal for application of the  
Heritage Overlay.  
(iv)  
Conclusions  
The Panel concludes that development opportunity and property rights are not relevant when  
assessing the heritage significance of an individual place or a precinct.  
Page 27 of 137  
OFFICIAL  
Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C208more | Panel Report | 15 July 2022  
4 Heritage precincts  
4.1 Glenmorgan, Albion and Clarence Street Precinct (HO85)  
Exhibited Statement of significance  
NOTE  
To reduce the electronic size of this document, this image has been removed from this  
version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the  
report.  
What is significant?  
The Glenmorgan, Albion and Clarence Streets Precinct, comprising houses at 1-75 and 16-80 Glenmorgan  
Street, 26-78 Albion Street and 11-45 & 20-46 Clarence Street, is significant. With respect to contributory  
properties, the facades, roof forms and setbacks of the Victorian, Federation and Interwar houses are  
significant. Timber picket fences are also significant. Brick and metal fences, as well as rear extensions, are  
not significant.  
Contributory properties include:  
Glenmorgan Street: 1-37, 41-73 and 22-28, 32-44, 48-50, 54-60, 66, 70-80.  
Clarence Street: 11-17, 19-45 and 20-46.  
Albion Street: 26-46, 50-54, 58, and 62-78.  
Non-Contributory properties include:  
Glenmorgan Street: 16A, 18, 28A, 30, 30A, 30B, 39,46, 52, 62, 64, 68 and 75.  
Clarence Street: 19A.  
Albion Street: 48, 56 and 60.  
How is it significant?  
The Glenmorgan, Albion and Clarence Streets Precinct is of local historical and aesthetic significance to the  
City of Moreland.  
Why is it significant?  
The Glenmorgan, Albion and Clarence Streets Precinct is of historical significance as good example of  
housing stock which reflect the estates development in two distinct stages, first in the 1880s and then in  
the 1920s. (Criterion A)  
The Glenmorgan, Albion and Clarence Streets Precinct is of local aesthetic significance for its intact  
Victorian cottages, Federation cottages and Interwar style bungalows, all of which reflects its development  
Page 28 of 137  
OFFICIAL  
Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C208more | Panel Report | 15 July 2022  
in two distinct stages, first in the 1880s and then in the 1920s. These dwellings are generally grouped in  
their types, with Clarence Street containing all of the Victorian era and Federation era dwellings, and both  
Glenmorgan Street and Albion Street containing the 1920s bungalows interspersed with a small number of  
non-contributory postwar houses. These dwellings have a consistent scale, setback and materiality which  
creates a notable streetscape pattern, character and sense of cohesion.  
(i)  
The issues  
The issues are whether:  
the proposed expanded Glenmorgan, Albion and Clarence Street Precinct meets the  
threshold of local heritage significance to justify the Heritage Overlay  
Albion Street properties contribute to the significance of the Precinct and should be  
included within the Precinct  
the single dwelling covenant and existing built form controls are sufficient to protect the  
purported heritage values of the Precinct.  
(ii)  
Background and proposal  
The Amendment proposes to extend the existing Glenmorgan Street Precinct (HO85).  
The nomination suggested 24–80 Albion Street, 11–93 and 20–90 Clarence Street, and 261–279  
Nicholson Street, Brunswick East be assessed for heritage significance. The Moreland Heritage  
Nominations Study reviewed:  
all of Clarence Street, to the south of Glenmorgan Street  
properties along the southern side of Albion Street to the north of Glenmorgan Street  
Nicholson Street, between Clarence and Albion Street.  
The Heritage Nominations Study recommended:  
the existing Glenmorgan Precinct (HO85) be extended and renamed Glenmorgan Street,  
Albion Street and Clarence Street Precinct  
to include in the extended Precinct 26-78 Albion Street and 11-45 & 20- 46 Clarence  
Street, Brunswick East, see  
Page 29 of 137  
OFFICIAL  
Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C208more | Panel Report | 15 July 2022  
Figure 1.  
A citation was prepared that included only the additional areas.  
Page 30 of 137  
OFFICIAL  
Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C208more | Panel Report | 15 July 2022  
Figure 1  
Glenmorgan, Albion and Clarence Streets Precinct (HO85) Precinct Designation Map  
NOTE  
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Figure 1 has been removed from this version  
of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.  
Source: Heritage Nominations Study  
(iii)  
Evidence and submissions  
Submitter 11 supported inclusion of Albion Street within the Precinct, while submitter 15  
considered the Precinct should be extended further west along Clarence Street.  
Submitter 13 objected to the inclusion of 68 Albion Street in the Precinct due to plans to replace  
the house with a new house. Submitter 17 opposed the inclusion of 70 Albion Street within the  
Precinct as they considered the Heritage Overlay will prevent their plan to build a new house. The  
submitter considered that the current two storey built form controls and single dwelling covenant  
will ensure that a modern house will not affect the ongoing protection of Glenmorgan Street, in  
contrast to the five-storey building that has been approved at 80-82 Albion Street.  
Submitter 19 comprised a petition signed by 22 residents from 17 properties in Albion Street,  
objecting to the proposed extension of the Precinct to Albion Street. The submitter considered the  
zoning and covenant affecting properties along Albion Street already restricts development to one  
house on a lot with a maximum height of two storeys. The submitter considered the existing  
controls protect the status of Glenmorgan Street and adding a heritage listing to their properties  
would negatively impact development potential and value of Albion Street properties.  
Submitter 25 opposed the inclusion of 78 Albion Street as the character of Albion Street is mixed  
with various house types and Albion Street is a busy thoroughfare. Furthermore, heritage controls  
will add cost and complexity to development.  
Council relied on the evidence of Dr James. Dr James described the southern side of Albion Street  
as characterised by a row of intact 1920’s Bungalows that are consistent in scale, setback and  
Page 31 of 137  
OFFICIAL  
Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C208more | Panel Report | 15 July 2022  
materiality. He considered the Albion Street properties meet the threshold to be included within  
extension of the Precinct (HO85).  
However in light of submissions, he recommended that 78 Albion Street be removed from the  
Glenmorgan Street Precinct on the basis that ”there is insufficient evidence in the building form or  
site history to include 78 Albion Street within this characterisation”. Further, that the property  
does not share the prevailing front setbacks of the street and contains substantial unsympathetic  
alterations including the fence, roller door and front landscaping works. In making this  
recommendation, Dr James did not consider the removal of 78 Albion Street, at the edge of the  
Precinct, would impact on the integrity of the extended HO85 Precinct.  
In response to submissions 17 and 19, Dr James responded the issues appear “to be based on the  
mistaken belief that the precinct extension is for the primary benefit to the protection of  
Glenmorgan Street”. He explained the properties proposed to be added to the expanded Precinct  
were assessed as contributing to the significance of the Precinct in their own right and in addition  
to the properties on Glenmorgan Street – hence the name of the Precinct is proposed to be  
renamed ‘Glenmorgan, Albion and Clarence Streets Precinct’.  
During the Hearing the Panel requested:  
Council explain the consistency between the proposed incorporated Statements of  
Significance for all extended precincts and the Heritage citations that are in the Moreland  
Heritage Nominations Study Stage 2, 2020 (referenced as the primary source in the  
incorporated Statement of Significance for each precinct). For example, the while the  
Glenmorgan, Clarence and Albion Precinct Statement of Significance includes the  
contributory properties for Glenmorgan Street, the Precinct citation which is referenced in the  
Statement of Significance, does not. In addition it appears that the maps are not consistent  
between the incorporated Statements of Significance and the Precinct citations.  
Council confirmed that the citation in the Heritage Nominations Study focused on the extended  
(nominated area) only, however the Statement of the Significance to be incorporated into the  
Planning Scheme includes the entire Precinct.  
Following the Hearing, at the Panel’s direction Council circulated a revised ‘Post Panel’ citation that  
merged the content of the Heritage Nominations Study with the current citation for Glenmorgan  
Street Precinct so there is only one citation to reference when seeking information about the  
extended Precinct.  
(iv)  
Discussion  
The heritage citation explains that the Precinct extension comprises two former estates; the  
eastern portion of the Precinct historically made up the 1887 ‘Lyndhurst Hall Estate’ subdivision  
which was established during the first wave of development and the western portion of the  
Precinct arose from subdivision ‘likely attributed’ to the ‘Electric Tram Estate’ of 1923, which  
illustrates a second wave of development undertaken during the interwar period. Both periods of  
development were identified in the Thematic History as important phases in the development of  
Moreland.  
The existing Glenmorgan Street Precinct (HO85) is identified for the same reasons, displaying a mix  
of two development phases.  
The comparative analysis in the citation states that ‘As the subject site demonstrates the principal  
heritage values of the existing Glenmorgan Street Precinct (HO85), a comparative analysis has not  
been undertaken for this citation.’  
Page 32 of 137  
OFFICIAL  
Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C208more | Panel Report | 15 July 2022  
The Panel finds that the lack of comparative analysis does not assist in determining the relative  
importance of the expanded Precinct compared with other precincts in Moreland. That said, the  
Panel notes Glenmorgan Street is an existing Precinct in the Heritage Overlay, based on  
development between 1887 to 1923 resulting from the two Estates. Clarence Street and Albion  
Street are within the same former estates and its fabric compares very well with Glenmorgan  
Street. That said, throughout the entire estate there are many non-original elements such as  
fences, which render the Precinct of a lower scale of integrity.  
On balance, the Panel concurs with the findings of the Heritage Nominations Study and the  
extension of the Glenmorgan Street Precinct to become Glenmorgan Street, Albion Street and  
Clarence Street Precinct.  
The Panel agrees with Dr James that 78 Albion Street is characteristic of the 1920s Bungalows that  
predominate on Albion Street and, given its location at the edge of the Precinct, its exclusion  
would not undermine the rest of the Precinct.  
On the matter of whether the existing single house covenant and two storey height controls  
provide ample protection for the Glenmorgan Street, having agreed that Albion and Clarence  
Streets have heritage significance to the degree that they should be protected, only the Heritage  
Overlay can provide decision making around demolition.  
It is important the heritage citation include background to the entire Precinct, rather than have  
two different citations, one being from the original assessment for Glenmorgan Street and the  
other just Albion and Clarendon Streets. The Panel considers this nonsensical and confusing.  
Citations are important, providing background description, history and rationale to the final  
Statement of Significance.  
The Panel accepts the drafting of the revised citation, which includes the entire and updated  
Glenmorgan Street, Albion Street and Clarence Street Precinct, submitted by Council on 1 April  
2022.  
The Panel notes the Statement of Significance fails to identify the relevant suburb, namely  
Brunswick East. It would assist with understanding the location if this is included.  
Issues relating to development potential and property values are addressed in Chapter 3.  
(v)  
Conclusions and recommendations  
The Panel concludes:  
The single dwelling covenant and existing built form controls do not adequately protect  
heritage values of the Precinct.  
The proposed expanded Glenmorgan, Albion and Clarence Street Precinct has sufficient  
heritage significance to justify the Heritage Overlay.  
The revised Statement of Significance submitted by Council on 1 April 2022 is the Panel’s  
preferred version, subject to the following changes:  
- Albion Street properties contribute to the significance of the Precinct and should be  
included within the Precinct, except for 78 Albion Street, Brunswick East which should  
be removed from the Precinct.  
- The Statement of Significance should make reference to the relevant suburb, namely  
Brunswick East.  
Page 33 of 137  
OFFICIAL  
Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C208more | Panel Report | 15 July 2022  
The Panel recommends:  
Remove 78 Albion Street, Brunswick East from the Glenmorgan Street, Albion Street  
and Clarendon Street Precinct (HO85).  
Amend the Statement of Significance for:  
a) Glenmorgan Street, Albion Street and Clarendon Street Precinct (HO85) in  
accordance with the Panel preferred version at Appendix E1 of this report.  
Page 34 of 137  
OFFICIAL  
Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C208more | Panel Report | 15 July 2022  
4.2 Coonan’s Hill Precinct (HO207)  
Exhibited Statement of significance  
NOTE  
To reduce the electronic size of this document, this image has been removed from this  
version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the  
report.  
What is significant?  
The Coonans Hill Precinct, comprising houses at 1-47 and 2-58 Carrington Street, 1-43 and 2-52 Disraeli  
Grove, 1-45 and 2-44 Graham Street, 1-51 and 2-46 Grundy Grove, 1-41 and 2A-24 Louisville Avenue, 1-53  
and 2-60 Prendergast Street, 2-48 Walhalla Street, 1-59 and 2-74 Ward Grove, 1, 1A, 1B and 3-99  
Woodlands Avenue, and 467-491 Moreland Road, is significant. With respect to contributory properties,  
the facades, roof forms and setbacks of the interwar and postwar houses are significant, as well as the  
terraced landscaping along the Moreland Road properties. Rear extensions are not significant.  
Contributory properties include:  
Carrington Street: 1, 5-19, 23-25, 27-37, 43-45 and 2A-12, 16-36, 40-58.  
Disraeli Grove: 1-43 and 2-22, 26-46, 52.  
Graham Street: 1-11, 15, 19-31, 35-45 and 2-42.  
Grundy Grove: 105, 9-13, 17-51 and 2-12, 18-46.  
Louisville Avenue: 1A-29, 31-41 and 2-14, 18-24.  
Prendergast Street: 1-11, 15-19, 25-37, 41-53 and 2-4, 10-18, 22-60.  
Walhalla Street: 2-32, 36-38, 42-46.  
Ward Grove: 1, 5-9, 13-19, 25-47, 51-59 and 2-6, 10-22, 28-74.  
Woodlands Avenue: 1A, 1B, 3-13, 15-21, 25-35, 41-57, 61-83, 89-95, 97-99.  
Moreland Road: 467-491.  
Non-Contributory properties include:  
Carrington Street: 3, 14, 21, 21A, 25A, 38, 39, 41 and 47.  
Disraeli Grove: 24, 48 and 50.  
Graham Street: 13, 17, 33 and 44.  
Grundy Grove: 7, 7A, 14, 15 and 16.  
Louisville Avenue: 2A and 29A.  
Prendergast Street: 6, 8, 13, 20, 21, 23 and 39.  
Page 35 of 137  
OFFICIAL  
Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C208more | Panel Report | 15 July 2022  
Walhalla Street: 34, 40 and 48.  
Ward Grove: 3, 8, 11, 21, 23, 24, 26 and 49.  
Woodlands Avenue: 1, 15, 23, 37, 39, 59, 85 and 87.  
How is it significant?  
The Coonans Hill Precinct is of local historical, representative and aesthetic significance to the City of  
Moreland.  
Why is it significant?  
The Coonans Hill Precinct is of local historical significance for its association with the first colonial settlers  
and early farming in Coburg. The Coonans Hill Precinct is of local historical significance as an area of  
substantially intact modest interwar housing constructed on late-19th century subdivisions, which  
represents the suburban expansion that occurred in Coburg following World War One and World War  
Two. (Criterion A)  
The Coonans Hill Precinct demonstrate the principal characteristics of interwar and postwar houses in  
suburban Melbourne, including Interwar Old English, Interwar Moderne, Interwar California Bungalow and  
Mid-Century Austerity, architectural styles that were present in Moreland in the interwar and immediate  
post-war suburban development. This was an intense era of Australian urbanisation that was rich in new  
design themes. (Criterion D)  
The Coonans Hill Precinct is aesthetically significant for its range of intact, homogenous and visually  
cohesive interwar and immediate post-war dwellings on a hilly topography which is commonly identified  
as a distinct precinct within Pascoe Vale South. It has consistent materiality, scale, form, setbacks and  
landscaping. Further, the dwellings along Moreland Road are aesthetically significant as sites cut into the  
incline of Coonan’s Hill with terraced gardens overlooking the street, which all work to produce a single  
homogenous streetscape. The presence of retaining walls in varying materials, ranging from brick  
masonry to bluestone, are also of aesthetic significance for this particular streetscape. (Criterion E)  
The Coonans Hill Precinct demonstrates a high degree of creative and technical achievement during the  
interwar and immediate post-war years, as evidenced by 467-491 Moreland Road which has continuous  
terracing present at every property. (Criterion F)  
(i)  
The issues  
The issues are whether:  
the proposed extension of Coonan’s Hill Precinct of 467-491 Moreland Road meets the  
threshold of local heritage significance to justify the Heritage Overlay  
individual properties within the Precinct extension are contributory  
the terraced landscaping warrants application of the Heritage Overlay.  
(ii)  
Background and proposal  
The Amendment proposes to extend Coonan’s Hill Precinct (HO207) to include 467-491 Moreland  
Road, Pascoe Vale. The Precinct was originally identified as significant in City of Moreland Heritage  
Review, Allom Lovell and Associates, January 1999  
.
The Precinct has been reviewed three times including:  
the addition 1-59 and 2-74 Ward Grove, and 25-99 Woodlands Avenue in 2008 arising  
from the Moreland Local Heritage Places Review by Context Pty Ltd, 2004  
the addition of 1-23 Woodlands Avenue, 47 Carrington Street and 48 Walhalla Street,  
Pascoe Vale South  
Page 36 of 137  
OFFICIAL  
Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C208more | Panel Report | 15 July 2022  
transfer of 9-55 Melville Road from the Precinct to an adjoining Precinct through  
the Heritage Gap Study via Amendment C174more.  
The Heritage Nominations Study recommended the Coonan’s Hill Precinct be extended to include  
467-491 Moreland Road, as shown (in green) in Figure 2.  
The Study includes a citation for the extended portion of the Precinct comprising additional  
properties along Moreland Road. A Statement of Significance was prepared which included the  
entire Coonan’s Hill Precinct.  
Figure 2  
Coonan’s Hill Precinct (HO207) – Precinct Designation Map  
NOTE