Ross Street (refer to Figure 2). This area was identified as the Clark Street-Albert Street Conservation Area and was recommended for urban conservation (UC1) controls. It was additionally recommended that local character controls be introduced over the areas surrounding this proposed UC1 area (on both sides <strong>of</strong> Graham Street) in the form <strong>of</strong> one large LCA area, the Evans Street – Clark Street Character Area. The assessment was that while both areas were <strong>of</strong> heritage significance, the area recommended for UC1 controls had a higher level <strong>of</strong> intactness when compared with the proposed UC1 area. The distinction was described as follows: The [Evans Street-Clark Street Residential Local Character Area] derives its character from the cohesive nature <strong>of</strong> the mainly nineteenth century housing which the area contains. The Clark Street-Albert Street Conservation Area is located in the centre <strong>of</strong> the area, and stands out for its particularly intact and cohesive character and for the unusual street pattern. The surrounding area, although broadly similar in its building stock, is slightly less cohesive and less intact. 2 In any event, the recommendations <strong>of</strong> the 1995 study were not implemented and the current arrangement <strong>of</strong> HO1 in this area reflects the recommendations <strong>of</strong> the subsequent heritage review for the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Port</strong> <strong>Phillip</strong> (<strong>Port</strong> <strong>Phillip</strong> <strong>Heritage</strong> <strong>Review</strong>, 2000). Only part <strong>of</strong> the Clark Street-Albert Street Conservation Area proposed in 1995 ultimately was included in HO1, which also included parts <strong>of</strong> the proposed Evans Street-Clark Street Residential Local Character Area <strong>of</strong> 1995. Considerable change has occurred within this area since the mid-1990s. While some <strong>of</strong> this change has occurred within the boundaries <strong>of</strong> the existing HO1, unsurprisingly, more extensive change has occurred in those streets where the HO was not applied, particularly in parts <strong>of</strong> Albert, Alfred and Ross Streets and at the western end <strong>of</strong> Evans Street. Changes in these areas have included the demolition and replacement <strong>of</strong> existing buildings, as well as alterations and additions to existing buildings. By contrast, the area bounded by Bridge Street, Evans Street, Raglan Street and the rear <strong>of</strong> properties fronting onto Williamstown Road, despite the absence <strong>of</strong> heritage controls, has undergone relatively little change in this period. Interestingly, with relatively few exceptions, where new development has occurred in this broad area, this development has retained the existing lot size and subdivision pattern (as single lots have been redeveloped) and in some cases the new building stock has been <strong>of</strong> a related scale and even <strong>of</strong> similar form and materiality to the existing. The area also retains its street layout, including small-scale lanes and in many cases, early street surfacing. As a result, while not as intact in terms <strong>of</strong> heritage fabric as it was in the mid-1990s the area as a whole still retains a particular character that is generated by its street layout and surfacing, small lot sizes, and modestly scaled residences. As noted earlier, however, in considering the application <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Heritage</strong> <strong>Overlay</strong> control to additional areas, there is a need to draw a distinction between places and areas <strong>of</strong> heritage significance which are characterised by a relatively high level <strong>of</strong> intactness and cohesion, and those where there is a character which may be derived in part from heritage but where the building stock itself is not intact. On this basis, it is the conclusion <strong>of</strong> this review that it is not appropriate to apply the <strong>Heritage</strong> <strong>Overlay</strong> wholesale across <strong>Review</strong> Areas 1 and 2. Rather, the more intact and cohesive streetscapes within these areas have been identified and these are recommended 2 Allom Lovell & Associates, <strong>Port</strong> <strong>Melbourne</strong> Conservation Study <strong>Review</strong>, Vol. 1, p. 56. 8 L O V E L L C H E N
for incorporation into HO1. These areas are contiguous with the existing <strong>Heritage</strong> <strong>Overlay</strong> (refer Figure 3). Figure 3 Recommendations for inclusion in the <strong>Heritage</strong> <strong>Overlay</strong>. Note that <strong>of</strong> the areas shown Edwards Park and the <strong>Port</strong> <strong>Melbourne</strong> Cricket Ground (indicated by red arrows) are recommended for site-specific <strong>Heritage</strong> <strong>Overlay</strong>s, while the balance <strong>of</strong> the areas shown are recommended to be included within HO1. L O V E L L C H E N 9
Change language