Review of Heritage Overlay 1 Port Melbourne ... - City of Port Phillip

Contributory and Significant residential building stock at the south-east corner of Bay and
Graham Street extends east along the southern side of Graham Street and returns around
onto the western side of Esplanade West (refer Figure 10). This building stock here is
consistent and cohesive and relates to the predominantly residential areas to the north and
east.
In contrast, the balance of HO1 south of Graham Street is not so consistent or visually
cohesive in the sense of having a generalised heritage character. Rather, it is characterised
by individual buildings or groups of buildings of heritage significance (most of a high
local/metropolitan significance or of state significance) interspersed with new development or
Non-Contributory buildings. On Bay Street itself, for example, there are important groupings
and individual buildings but these are interspersed with later development. The same is true
to the west on Rouse and Nott Streets. East of Bay Street there are two isolated buildings of
significance on Dow Street and the former sugar refinery complex on Beach Street is an
imposing, but again, isolated complex.
Overall, while it retains numbers of important heritage buildings, this is an area which has
undergone considerable change in recent years, including development of significant scale.
A similar process has occurred to the west (outside HO1) in the area between Beach and
Graham Streets (examples are shown at Figure 11, Figure 12, and Figure 13). Here too,
individual heritage buildings, including the Victorian Heritage Register (VHR) registered
Swallow and Ariell complex have been retained but now stand in a changed context of new
development of contemporary design and substantial scale.
The changes at the southern end of HO1 reflect the identification of this area as a whole as
one where there are significant development opportunities, and the management of
development in the area through the design objectives and built form requirements set down
in the Design and Development Overlay Schedule 1.
The retention of individual significant buildings and groups of buildings should remain a
priority in this area (refer Figure 15) and these should continue to be protected by the
Heritage Overlay control. Given the overall lack of cohesion of the building stock, however,
the appropriateness of a precinct-based Heritage Overlay control over this area appears
questionable. Ultimately it may be preferable to replace the precinct control with a series of
site-specific Heritage Overlays. Such site-specific Heritage Overlay controls are already in
place for a number of key buildings in the area and the significance of many others has been
recognised through the inclusion of individual citations in the Port Phillip Heritage Review.
Additional strategic work would be required, beyond the scope of work identified in the
current review, in order to confirm the appropriate approach in this area. This work would
need to include the preparation of detailed assessments for individual buildings within the
area to ensure an appropriate level of statutory heritage protection for these buildings.
The review work should also include the consideration of other mechanisms available through
the planning scheme through which the scale and form development adjacent to and in the
vicinity of these individual heritage buildings can be managed. Possible options for
managing these issues might include a new or revised Local Policy addressing built form in
the area, the introduction of adjacency controls – whether through mapped site-specific
DDOs as in the Moreland Planning Scheme or Local Policy provisions, as in the Stonnington
and Yarra Planning Schemes - or though revisions to the existing DDO.
L O V E L L C H E N 19