Conservation controls in Melbourne

Conservation controls in Melbourne Max Nan kervis Royal Melbourne Australia

Institute of Technology,

Controls to protect the historic environment have developed relatively late in Australian cities. The earliest and subsequently most comprehensive evolved in the state of Victoria, especially in the inner suburbs of the state capital, Melbourne. These controls have two basic forms; specific site registration and protection and broader planning control. While the controls have developed amidst some criticism and opposition, they appear currently to be well accepted and to be making a positive impact. Statutory and other controls to preserve the historically and architecturally important aspects of the built environment have had a long gestation period in many European countries. In France, controls have existed since 1819, while in the UK the Society for the Preservation of Ancient Buildings dates from 1877 and the National Trust from 189.5. In contrast, controls in the US have come much later and are less comprehensive. Australians have been even slower to recognize the importance of historic preservation. With few buildings predating the 1850s gold rush, and even fewer grand architectural masterpieces on the scale of those in Europe, the local architecture has been undervalued, However. over the last decade or so interest in Australian history and architecture has rapidly developed, coupled with a reaction to the general

CITIES

May i 988

Melbourne,

speed of destruction and change in the built environment. This has resulted in the implementation of various conservation plans and other controls. While some of these controls have affected non-urban areas, most interest and activity has centred on the large metropolitan cities. Given the proportion of the national population in these urban areas, this emphasis is not surprising. Two cities. Sydney and Melbourne, each with a population of three million, account for more than one-third of the total population. Nevertheless, this interest, and its consequent expression in conservation controls, has not been evenly spread. While three of the six states have comprehensive controls and specific legislation to protect urban areas, the others have either weak controls or, in the case of Queensland, no controls. The Federal Government also has a conservation programme, The National Estate, but for constitutional reasons this has little statutory power over the sites it registers. Each state also has a National Trust which, while influential, has no power to prevent demolition, for example. In general, their work is confined to acquiring significant buildings for public display or acting as lobby groups. The situation in the state of Victoria however, is noteworthy. The process of protecting the historically or architecturally-important built environ-

137

ment the

has

been

other

introduction ‘A. Briggs, Victorian Cities, Odhams, London, 1963.

somewhat

states,

not

of controls.

comprehensiveness. two 0

thrusts

brief.

creating

Buildings

‘G. Davison, Marvellous Melbourne, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, 1978; L. Sandercock, Cities For Sale, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, 1975; M. Cannon, The Land Boomers, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, 1966. “L. Sandercock, /b/d.

The the

legislation conscrv2ition

former

approach

1’470s. while

There

of the

;\rc controls Trust

sympilthetic

to spc-

homogeneously

of

boom

history

the

catalyst

c:xly

was

unique. The

1880s produced public

Figure 1. Tasma

Terrace.

as an alternative

to a multi

rights

buildings,

csten\ivc

wh-

This block was saved level office

which

Given

fruition.

been

described

~1s the

periods

with

reasons,

from

without

Attxks ers.

lund

controls has

:mcl property

and

both

have

the

sc~‘n

building time.

and spcbeing For

of controls

numerous

long

10th

several

scandals

to

the evolution

acrimonious

cities,’

Mclbournc

v:irious time

people

it is some-

the current

of uncontrolled

exposed

few

the development

p;lr;ldisc’,’ centuries

cul:ition.

been

that

on

freedom

of Australian

to

20th

Conserva

in p;~rticul:lr,

came

the has

restrictions

and the

limitations

surprising

and

Mclbournc.

and

;m easy path.

what

‘specuhrtors

with

the evolution

ever

;I very

:trchitectural

the

mansion\

the

in the late 1980s

arc in effect

and pattern

with in

taken

Melbourne

One

the

city,

impressive

why

Melcities

in comparison

property

of the

‘VictorLrn of

not always

and

houses.

1).

of affairs,

tion controls

stance

premier

(Figure

state

to dcvclop.

is

or row

has identified

the situation

sanguine

in Victori:i.

important

patinch of the capitd numerous

reasons

while

can accept easily.

cmph:Gs

in negotiations

recognition

flamboyimt

delineates

chxxterizcd

xsertive

state

of the world’

private

IWOs.

cvolvcd

Another

economic

138

registers

‘terrace’ Briggs

as one of the key ‘Victorian’

earlier

iire;i4. has

several

was the politically National

which

the planning

bourne

Asa

appears

Historic

which

of attractive

Historian

But

buildings;

characteristic

the

xc

urbs

policy:

protection

specific

lc)7Os.

of

early

there

the

Council,

planning

earliest

the

conservation

:rnd gives statutory 0

in

but also in their

In

to this

legislation

cific

in advance

only

thc$;e has not

and

ot’tcn

bnttles. halve conic from

I’rcdictubly,

from demolition

the

various

clu:irt-

ctcvelopment

lobby

and restored

block. It is now the headquarters

by the government

of the National Trust.

CITIES

May

1988

has been critical, while several churches have entered the fray to argue against controls on their buildings. Representing the opposition camp, in the early 1970s a left-wing building trade union, the Builders’ Labourers Federation (BLF), actively supported preservation by imposing ‘green bans’ (ie, prohibited development) on selected sites.4 The National Trust even took a case to the Supreme Court in an attempt to save a particular building. With such a background, not only is it surprising that preservation controls have evolved, but that they have evolved so quickly, become so comprehensive and

‘in 1974 the Historic Buildings Act was passed’ are so broadly accepted. What follows is an outline of these controls and a critical appraisal of their implementation and effectiveness in avoiding the blight and sense of ‘placelessness’ which some cities have suffered in the absence of any controls. The Historic Buildings Act. The first embryonic controls emerged in 1972 when the National Trust succeeded in having the (Conservative) state government set up the Government Buildings Advisory Committee (GBAC). However, this body had limited effectiveness as it merely advised state departments to take heritage into account when considering the development of their own buildings. But in 1974 the Historic Buildings Act was passed, which created a statutory body in charge of a register of protected buildings. All development work on registered buildings (including demolition permits) was to be considered by this Council. Failure to comply could lead to court imposed punishments, which included fines and a ban on any further development. The positive aspects of the Act was that it could allocate funds to assist owners, though the most conten-

CITIES May 1988

tious provision was that only architectural and historic, and not economic, issues were to be considered when registering a site. In the event, the register grew to include 600 listings, ranging from mansion houses to workers cottages, industrial archeological ruins and some relatively recent buildings. (Non-European, Aboriginal artifacts and sites are dealt with under a separate act). While the funds given to owners appear to have been effectively used, these are generally either small amounts or given as interest subsidies on loans. The punitive sections of the Act have rarely been imposed, and in any case the fines are insignificant in comparison with the potential profits and development costs involved. Instead, the Historic Buildings Council has attempted negotiations with owners, though not always successfully. Disputes can go to the Planning Court (Planning Appeals Board), where owners have often won. Despite these limitations, the outcome of the legislation has been significant (Figure 2), even if much of its effect has been simply to raise awareness rather than tangible results. However, the process of identifying specific buildings for preservation has engendered considerable criticism, both from pro- and anti-

‘Q. Roddewig, Green ~~~~~~~~6irth Of Environmental Politics, AllenheldandOsmund,

New Jersey, lg7*.

‘a new act which recognized economics in the listing criteria was passed’ conservationists. Owners affected by the limitations on development have argued that they are discriminated against, being forced to incur extra costs (in complying with directions) or suffering losses in not being able to redevelop uneconomic sites. Particular criticism has been focused on the absence of economic criteria in the listing process, and this has encouraged claims for compensation, which in the case of Central Business District sites, if given, could amount to millions of dollars. In this sort of climate, registering came to be seen as a quasi-acquisition by

139

Figure 2. ‘Wade House’. Restoration plans for the house in the centre became the subject of long and expensive litigation. The issues subsequently influenced the new planning act.

the

state.

ment

Eventually

won

rccognizcd criteria act was

soon

Labour The tical

in

in 1981.

amended

government

considerations of

by the

to exclude

on individual of the

This

was

point

(Figure

only

teeth,

consideration

of

wider.

the

USC

and

to Lichicve

conservation

the

ment because

claims

140

to

the

treated

or

was

in in

Planning

authorities this

area

r:lrely

LISA,

new

ernment

poignant Icd to general planning

The

pos-

site-specific planning

;I

compensation and

the

wider scale. In 19X3. the

1071 :rmcndAct. IIowcver.

feared

exclusivity.

way

for

only once

duced and

istering

oi-

planning

arena.

3 (Figure

the

term

controls

the

Planning which

Areas’

‘arca overlaid

stricter

development

work

on

UC

I and

5). The

important

existing

the

‘Urban

creatccl two

area:

grade.

to

223,

(UC’s),

was

the reg-

process

Figure

(ic.

the greater significantly

Amendment

and

intro-

from

‘acquisition’

4

on ;I

Scheme

covering

of conservation

UC

the gov-

application

conservation

Conservation

paved

government

area)

urban

it

by

to the Melbourne

scheme

metropolitan

I,

state

Metropolitan

grades

this

to

values,

Thus,

an amendment

shifted

be-

planning-oriented

to consider

the planning

largely it tended

property

creating it

more of

controls

was

also cri-

conserv;ition.

of including

schemes

(not

and cook

C‘onscrl~utiot7 pluttt7ittg cotttrols. sibility

raise

limit)

in this

application

received.

economic

it

a

suburban

well

in the area in question

of the site.

in

metropolitan generally

was

process)

Nevertheless,

cause

and eventually

controls process

one

this

negotiation area.

hecausc

buildings

captured 3),

a IO-year

bcca~~sc

but

ambience

(after

the metropolitan

incoming

were

not

act,

lacked

no account cartoon

listing

the

once again.

the

focused

argu-

However,

pro-conservationists

somctimca

of

and ;I new act which

economics

was passed

line

this

the day,

LIW

;I<

LJC‘

‘LISC zones'.

required

that

properties

CITIES

of

these

May

all in

;I

1988

Figure 3. The problem

of preservation.

Reproduced

designated area should apply for a planning permit (as opposed to a simple building permit). ‘Development’ was defined widely and even included painting and colour selection. In effect, no development was ‘as of right’, everything being individually considered by the local planning authority. While the Amendment does not specifically exclude demolition and redevelopment (rather it encourages ‘sympathetic’, ie to the environment, development), it clearly

‘some councils have undertaken conservation studies to identify and assess every building’ frowns on unwarranted demolition (Figure 5). UC 2 areas have less stringent controls and are generally meant to act as ‘buffer zones’ or control parkland areas. While the initial declaration of UC areas was centrally imposed. it was after some discussion with the local (municipal) authorities which administer the planning scheme and whose territory was

CITIES

May 1988

by courtesy

of Nicholson

and The Age

affected. In most cases, the local authorities cautiously welcomed the move. though they were critical of the additional administrative work it entailed. Despite this, the enthusiasm and strictness of application of the Amendment has varied. Some authorities have assiduously pursued offenders in court or forced restitution of offending work, while others have tended to ignore the less blatant offences. A feature of these controls is that they involve more subjective assessment than planners have previously been accustomed to applying. So, in an effort to give greater predictability and assist planners and property owners, some councils have undertaken conservation studies to identify and assess every building (with some industrial exceptions) and the associated streetscape. Design guidelines relating to bulk, colour, extent or permissible dcvelopment and desirable restoration goals have then been related to the various gradings in the form of a matrix.5 However, due to a shortage of either personnel or available conservation planning expertise, it is sometimes uneconomical to insist on compliance.

‘Melbourne City Council, Urban Consen/afion in the City ofMebourne, ,985,

141

tive

burden, it became clear to local authorities that the Amendment gave them considerably more discretionary power over general amenity and planning in their areas. This has resulted in other councils seeking inclusion. Subsequent parallel amendments have included most of the inner ring of suburbs with the exclusion of specific (unworthy or controversial) areas. In this way, much of the Victorian II n d Ed w a r d i a n architecture of Melbourne is covered by conservation controls. At present, some middle ring municipalities, where the architecture is much more mixed ot predominantly twentieth century, are considering similar controls. Howcvcr, such an extension of the controls may make criteria definition more difficult, and has the potential value of the controls

to downgrade the in the inner area

where it is more crucial to the protection of the nineteenth century ambience.

Other c’onsrrvution uctim. In addition to controls over the metropolitan area, several provincial cities in the state have

Figure 4. The location of the first Urban Conservation areas 1 and 2, 1983. Subsequent additions cover much of the inner area. An interesting side-effect of these controls has been to create a local ‘conservation industry’, which includes reproduction materials,

for example.

Of course,

much of the trade in reproduction architectural features derives from a general interest in the old. But one paint company advertises a set of ‘heritage paint colours’ which, it is asserted. are compatible with the planning guidelines. This first group of amendments (and several subsequent complementary ones) ‘Victoria, Ministryof Planningand Environment, Protecting the Environment: A Conservation Strategy for Victoria, 1987.

142

appear to have been accepted reasonably well, though this is partly due to the fact that they applied to attractive, middle class gentrified areas where the effect was to consolidate property values. Moreover, despite the additional administra-

included specific conservation controls in their planning scheme, while a group of architecturally significant particularly small towns (populations have had statutory heritage

3Oi)O~7000) control for

some time (based on the lY71 Planning Act). While these non-metropolitan con-

‘the state has developed a conservation strategy’ trols have not always been enthusiastically received, they generally arc. In contrast to Melbourne, the amounts of money at stake are usually low and alternatives are more readily available. thus reducing the potential for conflict. Finally, to give these controls greater form the state has developed ;I ‘Conservation Strategy’.” This is a political document which outlines the direction which the current government intends to take within the state in respect of the natural and built environment in general.

CITIES

May 1988

Figure 5. Urban Conservation

demolished

Areas will help prevent scenes such as this. The bank on the left building leaving a gaping hole in the streetscape.

two sections of the arcaded

Conclusiorz. Australia is a vast country, with well separated agglomerations of population. Despite this, it is surprisingly homogeneous. Thus the Victorian state conservation process is not unique. Two other states have both a register and conservation planning controls. However, in South Australia there is little urban area control, the emphasis being on the registered sites approach, while in New South Wales the degree of area control is less strict and the register process less extensive. There arc several reasons for this less intensive control, but basically they derive from the subtle differences in politico-economic ‘culture’ in the other states. The significance of the developments in Victoria is the early arrival, the subsequent extensiveness of

CITIES

May

1988

heritage protection and the relative equanimity with which it was accepted by a society which apparently puts such store on private property rights. Perhaps the key to the success of the planning approach has been the general effect it has had on consolidating the residential property values in the areas where it has been exercised, and the careful exclusion of areas which are the most speculationprone and sensitive to commercial development The built environment conservation process in Victoria has its critics. Nevertheless, its positive effects are beginning to show and this has given it considerable legitimacy and acceptance. It is a process which has had positive impact and importance in controlling development.

143