amendment c266 - 10-12 rochester road, canterbury ......d.v bick b. arch. (hons.) architectural...

D.V Bick B. Arch. (Hons.)

ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN CONSERVATION ARCHITECT

1 Alverna Grove Brighton Victoria 3186

Australia ABN 78 687 501 327

Telephone : (03) 9592 8383 Mobile: 0418 125 373

V:/MATTPP/2702/9817/00293413.DOCX 10 – 12 Rochester Road in Canterbury (in HO703) Boroondara C266 Amendment Panel Hearing Expert Heritage Overlay Evidence of David Bick, Architectural & Conservation Architect April 2018

10 – 12 ROCHESTER ROAD IN CANTERBURY

BOROONDARA PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C266 – INTERIM HO703 ROCHESTER ROAD PRECINCT

EXPERT EVIDENCE OF DAVID BICK

ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN AND CONSERVATION ARCHITECT

PREPARED AT THE REQUEST OF OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY,

BOROONDARA AGED CARE SOCIETY (BASS CARE) © DV Bick, 2018

3 April, 2018



V:/MATTPP/2702/9817/00293413.DOCX 1 10 – 12 Rochester Road in Canterbury (in HO703) Boroondara C266 Amendment Panel Hearing Expert Heritage Overlay Evidence of David Bick, Architectural & Conservation Architect April 2018

CONTENT AND FORM OF THE EXPERT’S REPORT Name and Address of the Expert :

David Bick 1 Alverna Grove Brighton Victoria 3186

Expert’s Qualifications and Experience : Degree of Bachelor of Architecture (Honours) from the University of Melbourne

Consultant Architectural Historian and Conservation Architect with over twenty-five

years’ experience in identifying and evaluating heritage places (buildings, structures and areas), including providing expert heritage overlay evidence to planning panels, VCAT Applications for Review, state and local government, and private organizations and individuals.

Preparation of heritage studies for around one-third of the City of Greater Bendigo (survey component), the Shire of Eltham, Euroa township, Shire of Kyneton, City of Maryborough, more than two-thirds of the City of St Kilda, and the rural City of Warragul.

Statement Identifying the Expert’s Area of Expertise to Make the Report : As indicated by the above section, I have had a wide range of experience in the identification, research and evaluation of buildings of heritage significance, and am generally quite familiar with the history and heritage of the City of Boroondara, having undertaken a heritage field survey of the former City of Hawthorn as part of the Character Study, and other work, including providing expert heritage evidence about the nearby “Shrublands” property at 16 Balwyn Road for a VCAT appeal, and expert heritage evidence for a Planning Panel Hearing in relation to the property on the south west corner of Balwyn Road and Mont Albert Road. I have inspected all of the houses in the proposed Rochester Road Precinct from the road on several occasions. As part of the preparation of this Expert Evidence, I have walked along a large number of the streets in the Canterbury suburb to understand its nature in detail. I have also undertaken a Sands and McDougall Directory search to date all of the dwellings in the proposed precinct and provide a comparison with the dates of construction in the ‘City of Boroondara Municipal-wide Heritage Gap Study’ for Canterbury.




Other Contributors to this Report : I undertook all of the work in preparing this Expert Evidence. The briefing material was provided by Ward Lawyers and Bass Care. Instructions that Define the Scope of the Report : I was asked by Bass Care in 2017 to provide an opinion on the Rochester Road Precinct being proposed by the ‘City of Boroondara Municipal-Wide Heritage Gap Study’ and particularly the merits of the inclusion of numbers 10 – 12 in the proposed Heritage Overlay Precinct. I read the supplied copy of the Heritage Study’s evaluation and inspected all of the houses in the proposed Heritage Overlay Precinct from the street and provided a written opinion. In 2018, following the City Council’s decision to proceed with the Amendment, I was asked by Bass Care through Ward Lawyers, to provide Expert Evidence for this Panel Hearing. Identity of the Person who Carried Out Any Tests or Experiments Upon Which the Expert Has Relied On No such tests or experiments have been relied on. Facts, Matters and All Assumptions Upon Which the Report Proceeds : This report was prepared based on the exhibited material as supplied by Bass Care through Ward Lawyers. Documents and Other Material the Expert has been Instructed to Consider or Take into Account and the Literature and Other Material Used in Making the Report : The documents that I have used in making this report are –

The exhibited material, particularly the Context Pty Ltd, ‘City of Boroondara Municipal-Wide Heritage Gap Study Volume 1. Canterbury Expanded Volume 25 May 2017’ ‘City of Boroondara Urban Planning Special Committee Minutes Attachments Monday 3 July 2017’ Boroondara Planning Scheme, Clauses 43.01 and its Schedule and Maps




1885 subdivision plan of “Shrublands”, Map Library, State Library of Victoria, H2000.180/299 – shows the first small lot subdivision with the lots in Rochester Road and elsewhere having a 132 feet frontage, not the current smaller lot sizes Robin Da Costa-Adams, “Enniskillen A Brief Cultural History and Assessment of Cultural Heritage Significance” (of number 14 Balwyn Road), February 2009. Reproduces a circa 1882 (watercolour?) illustration of the “Shrublands” property drawn by (William?) Tibbits on page 12.

Statement Identifying any Provisional Opinions that are Not Fully Researched for any Reason : There are no such provisional opinions. Questions that Fall Outside the Expert’s Expertise and Whether the Report is Incomplete or Inaccurate in Any Respect : David Bick is not aware of any questions that fall outside his expertise or of any incomplete or inaccurate aspects of this report. Declaration I have made all the inquiries that I believe are desirable and appropriate, as qualified above, and no matters of significance which I regard as relevant have, to my knowledge, been withheld from the Panel.

David Bick 3 April, 2018




SUMMARY OF OPINIONS OF THE EXPERT My expert opinion in summary is the following : 1. While the line of mostly reasonably substantial 1920s and 1930s residences on the

west side of Rochester Road (numbers 11 – 17 and 21 – 35) justify the proposed inclusion in a Heritage Overlay area, the six properties on the east side of the street (numbers 10 – 20) do not justify inclusion in the Heritage Overlay area.

The dwellings on the west side comprise a near line of intact 1920s and 1930s

residences that are relatively distinctive in this part of the City of Boroondara, where the old dwellings mostly date from the first half of the 20th century. To the west in Canterbury they are commonly similarly substantial, while to the east they are commonly more modest.

2. The six properties on the east side comprise –

Number 10 – a quite basic 1930s house that, though being three rooms wide, lacks the distinctive, reasonably substantial design qualities of the line of 1920s and 1930s residences on the west side of the street.

Number 12 – a quite basic 1888/1889/1890 timber house that is not intact (there is a better, more substantial and apparently more intact nearby example of a timber house from the same period at number 15 Faversham Road).

Number 14 – a 1916 timber house that has very little in common with the line of 1920s and 1930s residences on the opposite side of the street.

Number 16 – the only dwelling on the east side of the street that was constructed in the same period as the residences on the west side, and visually has some relationship to them.

Number 18 – a circa 1960s/1970s house that has no possible Heritage Overlay significance.

Number 20 – a much altered 1889? and 19071908/1909? house, which has no relationship to the period of significance of the distinctive line of residences on the west side of the street.

Thus only one dwelling on the east side of Rochester Road has a direct relationship to

the reasonably distinctive residences that comprise the near line of 1920s and 1930s buildings on the west side, number 18.




While number 10 was built in the period of significance, its quite basic design (in the

context of the City of Boroondara) means that it lacks the necessary direct physical relationship to the line of dwellings that are the justification for this proposed Heritage Overlay area.

None of the other, older houses on the east side have a relationship to those on the

west side which give the proposed Precinct its significance. 3. The avenue tree planting on both sides of Rochester Road is a significant part of the

setting of the near line of distinctive residences on the west side of the street (along with the rising ground which elevates them above the street), but the Heritage Study and The Amendment is proposing to only include half of the street in the proposed Heritage Overlay area, except in front of numbers 10 – 20 where the full roadway is included.

In my opinion the full width of the roadway in front of numbers 11 – 35 should be

included in the proposed HO703 Precinct. 4. Heritage Overlay Tree Controls are not being proposed for the HO681 Precinct. In my opinion Heritage Overlay Tree Controls should be applied to the street trees in

Rochester Road1. There are also some mature trees in the front gardens of some of the houses on the

west side which are likely to be original or early planting, and they should be assessed and considered for tree controls (at numbers 9, 11, 15, 21, 23, 25 and 31).

5. External Paint Controls are not being proposed for the HO681 Precinct. The

general Heritage Overlay Planning Scheme controls regular painting unpainted surfaces, but the inclusion of External Paint Controls would allow the regulation of already painted surfaces, such as the face brick and cement rendered surfaces.

6. First Floor Additions Not Recognised – the ‘Heritage Study’ has not recognised the

first floor additions or likely first floor additions to numbers 29 and 35.

1 My understanding is that municipal councils are exempt from having to obtain a town planning permit for

works costing less than $1,000,000, but identifying the street trees as having Heritage Overlay significance will hopefully result in their conservation.




THE STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE PROPOSED ROCHESTER ROAD PRECINCT

The significance of the proposed HO703 Rochester Road Precinct in the Heritage Study2 is –

Why is it significant? The Rochester Road Precinct is historically significant as once part of the larger Shrublands estate of Ernest Carter of 18 Balwyn Road (HO258). It was initially subdivided by Carter in the 1880s as part of residential intensification of the area tied to the extension of the railway line to Canterbury making residential living more accessible in Canterbury. Rochester Road is historically significant as a subdivision from 1923 when smaller allotments were created as a result of the sale of the larger (underveloped) allotments from the estate of John Hindson and as part of the further intensification of Camberwell following the extension of tram routes in the 1920s and 30s. (Criterion A). Rochester Road is significant as one of a number of residential areas largely developed throughout the 1920s and 30s that demonstrate high quality and fashionable housing of the period. The precinct is characterized by substantial, predominantly brick, detached houses, many of which were designed by architects in a range of fashionable architectural styles, including Spanish Mission, English Tudor interspersed with versions of Federation and large interwar bungalows with a range of transitional features common to both styles. These complement the isolated examples of earlier houses from the Victorian and Federation periods on the east side. Rochester Road Precinct demonstrates a range of residential styles commonly associated with the 1920s and 30s and with a high degree of individual and collective integrity. This is represented to an equivalent degree in other Interwar precincts represented on the HO including those of Lower Burke Road Camberwell (HO154), Prospect Hill Road Camberwell (HO159), Leslie Street Hawthorn (HO164), Howard Street Kew (HO528) and Union Road Surrey Hills (residential area) (HO534). The Rochester Road Precinct is distinguished by its integrity and cohesion. Rochester Road Precinct is of aesthetic significance primarily as a consistent street of interwar houses designed and built in a relatively short period and using a similar architectural vocabulary and with high quality design. It also includes some examples of Victorian and Federation era development at 12 and 20. Early development of the period resulted in the transitional styles of 13, 14, 16, 17, 21, 25, 31 and 33 Rochester Road expressed in the use of gable roof forms clad in terracotta tile, red brick masonry with ‘hit and miss’ or other brickwork patterning to generous porches, the use of gabled roof forms with attics, banks of windows in combinations of box bay and curved forms chimneys (sic) that enhances the roofscapes. A number

2 Context Pty Ltd, ‘City of Boroondara Municipal-Wide Heritage Gap Study Expanded Report 25 May 2017’




of houses including 25, have masonry fences from the 1920s and 30s that complement the streetscape and the houses. Rochester Road is aesthetically significant for its later development of Interwar Tudor Revival residences including 11, 23, 29 and 35 that demonstrate typical features of the style, including steeply pitched roofs (sic) in a picturesque composition, the use of clinker brick and render, decorative entry porches, half timbering and often decorative leadlight windows. 7 Rochester Road (HO184) is individually significant though not within the precinct, for its Prairie School design by architect Eric Nicholls and as a rare flat development in the locality of Canterbury, although now converted to a single house. 9 Rochester Road (HO185), (sic) designed by architect Arthur W Plaisted, is notable as a good example of the Spanish Mission style. 10 Rochester Road is a more typical version of the Spanish Mission style. The garden at number 29 may have been designed by Edna Walling but this has not been confirmed. The London plane trees of the street also contribute to its aesthetic quality (Criterion E).

THE KEY COMPONENTS OF THE SIGNIFICANCE CLAIMED IN THE STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE

The key components of this rather lengthy statement of significance, in the order of the statement, are –

The Rochester Road Precinct is historically significant as once part of the larger Shrublands estate of Ernest Carter of 18 Balwyn Road (HO258)….. was initially subdivided by Carter in the 1880s as part of residential intensification of the area tied to the extension of the railway line to Canterbury making residential living more accessible in Canterbury.

Rochester Road is historically significant as a subdivision from 1923 when smaller allotments were created…. and as part of the further intensification of Canterbury following the extension of tram routes in the 1920s and 30s. (Criterion A).




Rochester Road is significant as one of a number of residential areas largely developed throughout the 1920s and 30s that demonstrate high quality and fashionable housing of the period.

The precinct is characterized by substantial, predominantly brick, detached houses, many of which were designed by architects in a range of fashionable architectural styles including Spanish Mission, English Tudor interspersed with versions of Federation and large interwar bungalows….

These complement the isolated examples of earlier houses from the Victorian and Federation periods on the east side.

Rochester Road Precinct demonstrates a range of residential styles commonly associated with the 1920s and 30s and with a high degree of individual and collective integrity.

This is represented to an equivalent degree in other Interwar precincts represented on the HO including those of Lower Burke Road Camberwell (HO154), Prospect Hill Road Camberwell (HO159), Leslie Street Hawthorn (HO164), Howard Street Kew (HO528) and Union Road Surrey Hills (residential area) (HO534).

The Rochester Road Precinct is distinguished by its integrity and cohesion.

Rochester Road Precinct is of aesthetic significance primarily as a consistent street of interwar houses designed and built in a relatively short period and using a similar architectural vocabulary and with high quality design. It also includes some examples of Victorian and Federation era development at 12 and 20.

Early development of the period resulted in the transitional styles of 13, 14, 16, 17, 21, 25, 31 and 33 Rochester Road….

A number of houses including 25 have masonry fences from the 1920s and 30s that complement the streetscape and the houses.

Rochester Road is aesthetically significant for its later development of Interwar Tudor Revival residences including 11, 23, 29 and 35 that demonstrate typical features of the style….

The London plane trees of the street also contribute to its aesthetic quality (Criterion E).




ANALYSIS OF THE STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE The following are relevant – Significance as Once Part of the Grounds of “Shrublands” (HO258) – nothing has

been identified as surviving on the subject properties from the time when their sites were part of the extensive grounds of the “Shrublands” property. The 1885 subdivision plan shows that part of the garden and orchard and vineyard were once located on a few of the present lots in Rochester Road, but it is extremely unlikely that there are any remains from them (in any case no Heritage Overlay tree controls are to apply). The present lots are mostly substantially smaller than the 1885 ones, resulting in more intense suburban development of the land, and hence the inevitable removal of anything that pre-existed on the land before the subdivision, such as structures or earthworks. The other 1885 lots seem not to have contained any identifiable features3. In terms of the 1885 subdivision itself, the fact that there was little development on those lots, and the current lots are all or almost all substantially smaller, indicates that the 1885 subdivision was essentially a failure, and that, importantly, the present built form of Rochester Road in the interim Precinct was very largely created by the 1923 subdivision and the subsequent development that it initiated. Thus the claimed historical significance is not of consequence (many parts of the City of Boroondara once comprised the grounds of larger residences and mansions, and other types of dwellings, that were closely subdivided later). (The close subdivision of “Shrublands” very adversely affected its immediate surroundings and setting, as it created the quite small area between its grand south east facing front façade and the rear fences of the dwellings in Rochester Road. There is also now a large stormwater drainage channel in its grounds against the rear fences of the Rochester Road properties that also does not enhance the setting of the front façade of “Shrublands”.) Number 19, now a 2018 dwelling, was the driveway into “Shrublands” after the original driveway entrance on the corner of Canterbury and Mont Albert Roads was sold off. When the previous circa 1950s/1960s house on number 19 was built, a driveway to “Shrublands” remained on its north side.

3 The likelihood is that the garden was located along the driveway and around the residence, and that most of

the large property comprised open grounds or farmland, given the basically rural location in the 1860s and 1870s.




Historical Significance due to the Smaller Lot Subdivision of 1923, and the Role

of the Extension of Tram Routes – again the 1923 smaller lot subdivision is part of the history of this part of Rochester Road, but is of little Heritage Overlay significance as such. Very comparable suburban lot-type subdivisions are found throughout the City of Boroondara, and the rest of Melbourne. The nearest tramlines are in Whitehorse Road, approaching a kilometre away, and around a kilometre away in Riversdale Road, while the Canterbury Railway Station is very close by at the southern end of Rochester Road, and had existed since circa 1883 when the railway line was extended to Lilydale4, so it is more probable that the construction of the railway line and station facilitated the suburban development of Rochester Road once the demand for such housing had reached this part of Melbourne. To both the west and east in Canterbury, the oldest dwellings very largely date from the 1900s onwards, and that continues into Surrey Hills, which shows that the progressive outwards spread of suburban development had reached this part of Melbourne at that time. The 1920s and 1930s dwellings in Rochester Road are part of the very extensive suburban development that took place in this part of Melbourne then.

Rochester Road is significant as one of a number of residential areas largely developed throughout the 1920s and 30s that demonstrate high quality and fashionable housing of the period – this confirms that it is the high quality and fashionable housing of the 1920s and 1930s period that gives the proposed HO703 Precinct its Heritage Overlay significance. That is also very apparent when examining the properties on the west side of Rochester Road.

…substantial, predominantly brick, detached houses, many of which were designed by architects in a range of fashionable architectural styles… - this also confirms that the significance of the proposed HO703 Precinct is due to its quite substantial and architecturally distinctive 1920s and 1930s dwellings, due to their design and appearance, and their siting.

These complement the isolated examples of earlier houses from the Victorian and Federation periods on the east side – however, the statement of significance does not say how the 1920s and 1930s houses in a variety of architectural styles on the west side complement the Victorian and Federation period houses on the east side.

4 Robin Da Costa-Adams, “Enniskillen A Brief Cultural History and Assessment of Cultural Heritage

Significance” (of number 14 Balwyn Road), February 2009, page 13.




Rochester Road Precinct demonstrates a range of residential styles commonly

associated with the 1920s and 30s and with a high degree of individual and collective integrity – again that reinforces that the buildings that give the proposed Precinct its significance are the 1920s and 1930s ones.

This is represented to an equivalent degree in other Interwar precincts represented on the HO… - again that reinforces that the buildings that give the proposed Precinct its significance are the 1920s and 1930s ones, and not the dwellings from other eras.

The Rochester Road Precinct is distinguished by its integrity and cohesion…. – the integrity and particularly the cohesion of the proposed HO703 Precinct are very evident in the line of 1920s and 1930s dwellings on the west side of Rochester Road, though some have very visible first floor additions (as do many early 20th century houses in Canterbury). In marked contrast, the five dwellings on the east side of the street date from different periods and are very different in appearance to each other, so do not form a cohesive row of dwellings. Viewed from the street, numbers 10, 14 and 16 appear to be largely intact, while number 12 had been altered (verandah altered or replaced, and the house re-roofed), and number 20 has apparently been extensively altered (the present front verandah has much higher floor level than the north side front door5, and there is a large recent rear addition). The origins of the different sections of the 19th? and/or early 20th century house at number 20 are unclear. Numbers 14 and 20 have quite visible rear two storey additions, that of the former having a substantially steeper roof than the original front section.

Rochester Road Precinct is of aesthetic significance primarily as a consistent street of interwar houses designed and built in a relatively short period and using a similar architectural vocabulary and with high quality design. It also includes some examples of Victorian and Federation era development at 12 and 20 – again this reinforces the significance of the proposed HO703 Rochester Road Precinct being due to the consistent street of interwar (1920s and 1930s) houses, with the Victorian and Federation era development at 12 and 20 being just examples of dwellings from different, earlier periods. The 1920s attic house at number 16 is the only one on the east side that has a direct relationship to the line of 1920s and 1930s houses on the west side, due to its red face brick construction, attic design with a prominent gables, terracotta tile roof, and windows.

5 One of the front rooms has a doorway at the higher front verandah level, which may mean that the front

rooms have a higher floor level than the rear of the late 19th and/or early 20th century house.




Numbers 12 and 20 cannot be said to be of aesthetic significance and to be examples of high quality design – rather number 12 is a quite basic, typical late 19th century timber house, while number 20 is also a typical sort of early 20th century house (viewed from the street it is unclear if the twin-gabled main body of this house dates from the 19th century or the early 20th century). The visible red brick chimneys and the front bay windows date from the early 20th century. The 1915/1916 house at number 14 could also be regarded as being an example of a late Edwardian/Federation style house, with the timber decoration on its front verandah. (The masonry verandah posts and balustrade may be a later change).

Early development of the period resulted in the transitional styles of 13, 14, 16,…. – as noted above, the 1915/1916 house at number 14 could also be regarded as being an example of a late Edwardian/Federation style house, not an example of some different transitional style, while number 16 is a typical attic style house of the later 1910s and 1920s. The Canterbury suburb contains a sizable number of 1910s and 1920s houses that could be similarly regarded as being in “transitional styles”.

A number of houses including 25 have masonry fences from the 1920s and 30s that complement the streetscape and the houses. – 1920s and 1930s houses in good quality suburbs such as Canterbury, commonly had low masonry front fences originally and they form part of the traditional presentation of the dwelling to the street, along with the front garden. On the west side of Rochester Road the natural ground level slopes upwards, so masonry fences also act as a retaining wall to some extent.

Rochester Road is aesthetically significant for its later development of Interwar Tudor Revival residences including 11, 23, 29 and 35 that demonstrate typical features of the style… - again this reinforces the significance of the proposed HO703 Precinct as being in the Interwar (1920s and 1930s) period, and not in the dwellings that were constructed in earlier eras on the other side of the street.

The London plane trees of the street also contribute to its aesthetic quality (Criterion E). – the mature street trees are key parts of the setting of the Significant and Contributory dwellings and the appearance of the street itself, but no Heritage Overlay Tree Controls are being proposed by the Heritage Study and the responsible authority, and the street trees being proposed to be included in the Heritage Overlay area are only on one side of the street for approaching 75 percent of its length. The street trees on the west side of Rochester Road are different to those on the east side (and may not be as old). On the east side of the street they are mostly Plane trees, while those on the west side are possibly Pin Oaks6.

6 I do not have expertise in identifying the species of trees.




The avenue street tree planting in Rochester Road is a significant part of the setting of the line of dwellings on the west side of Rochester Road. In my opinion, the entire roadway in front of the dwellings within the proposed Heritage Overlay Precinct should be included in the HO703 Precinct if it is to be made permanent, and the tree controls should also be applied to all of the street trees. This would also apply a Heritage Overlay to the bluestone kerbs and gutters, which are probably original or early roadway features.

THE COMPARATIVE PRECINCTS USED The width of the lots on the west side allowed the construction of three-room-wide 1920s and 1930s dwellings, which differs from some of the other 1920s and 1930s housing areas, such as Cookson Street, where the width of the lots only allowed two-room dwellings. The rising ground also encouraged the construction of the houses across the site to lessen the height of the plinths and extent of any excavation.

SUPPORTING MATERIAL IN THE ‘HERITAGE GAP STUDY’ The supporting material in the Historical Context, comparative Analysis, Description and Integrity, and Assessment Against Criteria sections all reinforce the significance of the proposed HO703 Precinct as being the 1920s and 1930s dwellings.

ADDITIONAL HISTORICAL MATERIALS WHICH MAY ASSIST THE PANEL

The following from Robin Da Costa-Adams’ history of number 14 Balwyn Road7, may assist the Panel – Ernest Carter, a surgeon dentist like his father, arrived in Australia in 1852, and

commenced his practice.

By 1857 he and his family had moved to his 60 acre property “Shrublands”, on what became Carter’s Road (later Balwyn Road).

7 Robin Da Costa-Adams, ‘Enniskillen A Brief Cultural History and Assessment of Cultural Heritage

Significance’ (of number 14 Balwyn Road), February 2009, pages 12-15.




In 1876 he added another 27 acres, extending his “Shrublands” property to Mont

Albert Road.

By 1883 the railway had been extended from Hawthorn to Lilydale (passing through Canterbury where there was a railway station, as shown on the 1885 subdivision plan).

In 1883 John and Alice Hindson purchased the “Shrublands” residence and 8 acres of land around it.

In 1885 Ernest Carter auctioned his remaining land.

Ernest Carter retired to St Kilda, and died aged 60, in 1889.

By the early 1890s the Hindsons decided to live closer to central Melbourne and at their Sorrento house “Seacombe”, and “Shrublands” was leased to tenants.

John Hindson died at “Seacombe” in 1919, and his eldest son died in 1921.

In 1923 the land around the “Shrublands” residence was subdivided and sold at auction, and the Hindsons gave the residence to the Church of England to use as a boys’ home.

(The Church of England owned the property up until recent decades; I inspected it at the time that the Church was selling it).

THE GRADINGS USED BY THE CONTEXT PTY LTD ‘HERITAGE GAP STUDY’ WITHIN PRECINCTS

The ;’Heritage Gap Study’ has used the gradings defined in Clause 22.05-6 of the Boroondara Planning Scheme, except for different wording in regard to Non-contributory places, as follows –

‘Significant’ heritage places are places of state, municipal or local cultural heritage significance that are individually important in their own right. When in a precinct, they may also contribute to the cultural heritage significance of the precinct. ‘Significant’ graded places within a precinct are of the same cultural heritage value as places listed individually in the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay. ‘Contributory’ heritage places are places that contribute to the cultural significance of a precinct. They are not considered to be individually important places of state, municipal or local cultural heritage significance, however, when combined with other ‘significant’ and/or ‘contributory’ heritage places, they play an integral role in demonstrating the cultural heritage significance of a precinct.




Non-contributory places – ‘Non-contributory’ places are those within a heritage precinct that have no identifiable cultural heritage significance. They are included within a Heritage Overlay because any development of the place may impact on the cultural significance heritage significance of the precinct or adjacent ‘significant’ or ‘contributory’ heritage places.

Under Clause 43.01 of the Boroondara Planning Scheme, the HO703 Heritage Place listed on the Heritage Overlay Schedule is the Rochester Road Precinct, Canterbury, not the ‘significant’, ‘contributory’ and ‘non-contributory’ properties and buildings within it.




PRECINCT GRADINGS SCHEDULE WITH ITS DATES OF CONSTRUCTION IN THE CONTEXT PTY LTD ‘HERITAGE

GAP STUDY’ The ‘Heritage Gap Study’ states its view of the degree of significance of the buildings in the proposed Rochester Road precinct and their dates of construction in a table on page 148. I have checked the Heritage Study’s dates by undertaking a Sands and McDougall Directory search. The ‘Heritage Gap Study’s’ ‘Precinct Gradings Schedule’ and the Sands and McDougall Directory dates determined by me are set out below – Street Number Heritage Gap Study’s Precinct

Gradings Schedule and Built Dates

Sands and McDougall Directory dates8

5 (7 (9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 25 29 31 33 35

Contributory Significant (HO184) Significant (HO185) Contributory Contributory Contributory Contributory Contributory Contributory Contributory Contributory Non-contributory Non-Contributory Contributory Significant Contributory Contributory Contributory Contributory Contributory Contributory

1937 1929 1924 1937 1931 1888 1924 1916 1937 1922 1924 1889 1924 1938/40 1926 1933 1923 1924 1937

1935/1936 1929-1930) 1924/1925) 1936/1937 1930/1931 1889/1890 1924/1925 1915/1916 1936/1937 1921/1922 1924/1925 (circa 1960s/1970s) (2017-2018) 1908/1909 1924/1925 1939/1940 1926/1927 1935/1936 1918/1919? 1923/1924 1935/1936

The ‘Built Dates’ in the ;Heritage Gap Study’ appear to have mostly or all been determined from unspecified Rate Books, though the Sands and McDougall Directory is also given as one of its References. My experience is that the information in the Sands and McDougall Directories appears to have been obtained from Rate Books originally.

8 The dates in the Sands and McDougall Directory can be sometimes up to a year out of date, depending on

when the information in it was collected, so both possible years are listed.




The accuracy of dates determined from Rate Books, particularly when mostly or all vacant land in a street is first built on, depends on ensuring that the correct entry is determined for each property, and is not confused with the neighbouring properties. For instance, if an owner owns more than one lot, they were usually rated as one, not individually. Inexperienced searchers of Rate Books can make mistakes due to the wrong entries being relied on. In regard to the difference between the above dates for numbers 20 and 31 Rochester Road, the Directory search was undertaken as carefully as possible, so the different dates may well be correct, but the only way to resolve the difference in the dates would be to undertake a detailed search in the Rate books to check this (and that was not part of the Brief for the preparation of this Expert Evidence). While the building at number 20 is said by the ‘Heritage Gap Study’ to date from 1889, with 1907 for alterations also suggested in the text, as viewed from Rochester Road, there is some doubt that the present house dates from the nineteenth century, and the Directories seem to indicate only the 1908/1909 date of construction. The Directories also seem to indicate only the house referred to by the ‘Heritage Gap Study’ as being number 20 and altered by Mrs Catherine Beck in 1907, was actually number 22, but that can only be verified by undertaking a detailed Rate Book search and as stated above, I have not been instructed to undertake such a search and thus the resources were not available to do so in the preparation of this Expert Evidence.

WHAT ARE NUMBERS 10 AND 12 ROCHESTER ROAD? Number 10 Rochester Road Number 10 Rochester Road – Is a fairly basic 1936/1937 single-storey, detached house.

Was one of the last dwellings constructed within the proposed HO703 Precinct –

numbers 5, 15 and 35 were also constructed in 1937, and no other dwellings after that.

The front of the building is three-rooms-wide, a reflection of the width of the lot which allowed that, and results in a dwelling that looks larger than it actually is, as the main rooms are across the site at the front, not one behind the other, and the remainder of the house behind comprises a secondary bedroom/s kitchen and bathroom.




Three-room-wide houses like this were popular during the 1920s and 1930s and later where the site allowed it, as they looked larger and more impressive than the more common two-rooms-wide houses seen on smaller lots. Some of the houses on the opposite side of the road are also of this three-room-wide form as the width of their sites allowed it, such as the more elaborate numbers 15, 21, 25, 29 and 33. There are other examples elsewhere in Canterbury, such as – 11 Wentworth Street

Stylistically, number 10 comprises a basic rectangular building mass constructed of cement render and face brickwork walls and with a hip tile roof, and the façade’s decorative details are from several architectural styles in the eclectic manner of the 1920s and 1930s, a projecting triple-arched Spanish Mission style porch with barley sugar columns, Edwardian/Old English style small windows with simple leadlight toplights in a row, neo-classical window surrounds, and chimney caps of eclectic origins. 1920s and 1930s houses with single, double and triple-arched front porches can all be seen in the Canterbury suburb, which contains quite a large number of dwellings constructed at that time. Some examples are –

23 Avenue Athol single arch (no H.O.) 19 Stanley Grove twin arch (no H.O.) 32 Victoria Avenue twin arch (in interim HO704) 27 Avenue Athol triple arch (no H.O.) 33 Avenue Athol triple arch (no H.O.) 13 Faversham Road triple arch (no H.O.) 36 Mangarra Road triple arch (no H.O.) 38 Mangarra Road triple arch (no H.O.) 3 Mont Albert Road triple arch (no H.O.)

The residence at number 9 Rochester Road is a better and more substantial example of the Spanish Mission style that was designed by the quite well-known Architect, Arthur W Plaisted.

Cannot be described as being of high quality, and may well have been a builder’s

design, rather than architect’s.




Number 12 Rochester Road Number 12 Rochester Road – Is a quite basic circa 1890 timber house.

Has lost its original front verandah posts, cast iron frieze and floor. The origins of the

remainder of the front verandah structure are not known, but it may all date from recent tines given the low roof rise and the depth of the main beam.

The roof cladding has been replaced with terracotta tiles.

A better and intact nearby example of a circa 1890 timber house can be seen at number 15 Faversham Road (no H.O.), which has a bay window to both front rooms, appears to have retained all of its original front verandah, and also has the quite unusual (for a suburban location) return verandah down both sides.

Better nearby brick examples can be seen at 35 Chatham Road (proposed HO683) and on the south east corner of Chatham and Empress Roads (an asymmetrical design with an apparently altered verandah).

NUMBERS 10 AND 12 ROCHESTER ROAD WOULD NOT JUSTIFY AN INDIVIDUAL LISTING ON THE BOROONDARA

HERITAGE OVERLAY SCHEDULE Neither building has sufficient Heritage Overlay significance to justify an individual listing on the Boroondara Heritage Overlay Schedule. They have been included in the HO703 Heritage Overlay listing solely for their perceived role in the proposed Precinct. The small Canterbury suburb and much of the City of Boroondara contains large numbers of late 19th century and particularly 1900s to 1930s dwellings, usually of middle class or better standard, and thus there are large numbers of buildings from most eras that illustrate the relevant themes in the city’s history. The 19th century dwellings are less common than those from the early 20th century, particularly in the eastern part of the City which is furthest from central Melbourne, as that was when much of the suburban development in the city took place. While the circa 1890 timber house at number 12 is an example of an uncommon building type in the Canterbury suburb due to the lack of suburban development there in the 19th century, there are still better examples nearby.




There are more examples not far away in Camberwell, such as in Trafalgar Road north of Riversdale Road. The best that can be said of the mid 1930s house at number 10 is that, in the context of the City of Boroondara, it is an example of a typical standard house of its time, in marked contrast to the distinctive 1920s and 1930s houses on the opposite side of Rochester Road.

THE DWELLINGS AT NUMNBERS 14, 16, 18 AND 20 ROCHESTER ROAD

These dwellings comprise – Number 14 A fairly modest and simply detailed single-storey timber house constructed in

1915/1916, with weatherboard and roughcast exterior walls, a low pitch terracotta tile roof, and a recessed verandah with Edwardian era style arched timber frieze between masonry piers – the simplicity of this building contrasts with the substantially grander 1920s and 1930s houses on the opposite side of the street.

There are a very large number of 1900s and 1910s dwellings in the Canterbury suburb, including Precincts that contain them (such as the proposed HO700 and HO702).

Number 16 The only dwelling on the east side that is similar to and thus has a direct relationship to

the quite distinctive line 1920s and 1930s houses on the west side of the street (number 10 is a 1930s house, but lacks the features of better than average house that characterize those in the line on the west side).

Number 18 The building at number 18 is a circa 1960s/1970s colonial revival/cape cod style

dwelling that has no Heritage Overlay value. Number 20 As previously discussed, the origins of this house are unclear, but it has little value to

the HO703 Precinct as its significance is due to the line of quite substantial 1920s and 1930s house opposite.




THE CONTRIBUTION OF NUMBERS 10 AND 12 TO THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PROPOSED HO703 PRECINCT IS

VERY LIMITED In summary, the significance of the Rochester Road Precinct is due to – The line of twelve mostly reasonably distinctive detached residences and houses on

the west side of the street, all of which were constructed in the 1920s and 1930s period, and the variety and common elements in their design and/or construction that reinforce the visual qualities of the line of buildings.

The setting of the houses on the west side of the street, on rising ground which makes them quite prominent in the street, their front gardens and mostly low front fences, and the avenue street tree planting, all of which results in a quite distinctive old urban environment.

In marked contrast, on the east side of the street – There are only five houses, plus one ‘non-contributory’ one.

All of the houses are single-storeyed, except for number 16, and all of their sites slope

down from the street towards the watercourse at the rear, so the dwellings are not nearly as visible as those on the opposite side of the street.

These five houses are all very different in design to each other, so do not comprise a consistent line of buildings like the much longer line opposite. In this case their different appearances do not result in a line of dwellings that have Heritage Overlay Precinct significance.

While the line of dwellings on the west side has a quite strong presence in the street, those on the east side do not, due to the combination of the ground sloping down from the street, the single storey nature of all of the dwellings except one (number 16), their very different appearances, and the lack of any visual relationship to those on the west side, except for number 16.




BUILDINGS IN THE STUDY AREA NOT BEING PROPOSED FOR HERITAGE OVERLAY PLANNING SCHEME CONTROLS

In making my investigations as part of preparing this evidence, I observed a number of dwellings that are not being proposed for inclusion on the Heritage Overlay Schedule, but seemed to me to be potential candidates (I have not investigated any of them), such as the nearby 23 Faversham Street, which compares favourably with the houses on the west side of Rochester Road in my opinion.

CONCLUSION Thus the merits of including numbers 10 to 14 and 18 to 20 in the proposed HO703 Precinct needs to be very seriously questioned. In my opinion the houses at numbers 10 – 14 and 18 – 20 add very little to the proposed HO703 Precinct. The removal of numbers 10 and 12 from the interim HO703 Precinct would not have any real impact on it.