local government inventory and ... - town of cambridge · of cambridge printed and distributed this...

R E P O R T

TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE AND HOCKING HERITAGE STUDIO

LOCAL GOVERNMENT INVENTORY AND HERITAGE LIST:

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT REPORT

INTERIM REPORT: SEPTEMBER 2017

Project Details

CLIENT Town of Cambridge

CONTACT DETAILS

Brett Cammell

Manager Planning Strategies & Economic Development

Kimberley Macphail

Strategic Planning Officer

ADDRESS 1 Bold Park Drive

Floreat WA 6014

PHONE (08) 9347 6006

EMAIL [email protected]

CLIENT Hocking Heritage Studio

CONTACT DETAILS

Prue Griffin

Director

Gemma Smith

Director

ADDRESS 156 Onslow Rd

Shenton Park WA 6008

PHONE (08) 9388 2810


PREPARED BY Creating Communities Pty Ltd

PROJECT TEAM Elena Cope

Consultant

Andrew Watt

Director

ADDRESS 100 Jersey Street Jolimont WA 6014

PHONE 08 9284 0910


DISCLAIMER The professional analysis and advice in this document has been prepared by Creating Communities for the exclusive use of the client in accordance with the terms of engagement. While we have tried to ensure the accuracy of the information of this publication, Creating Communities does not and shall not assume any responsibility or liability for any errors, omissions or resultant consequences including any loss or damage arising from reliance on the content of this document. As the document takes into account the particular instructions and requirements of our client, it is not intended for and should not be relied upon by any third party and no responsibility is undertaken to any third party. This document has been prepared by Creating Communities. © Creating Communities. All rights reserved. For information or permission to reprint, please contact Creating Communities at: Email [email protected] Phone +61 8 9284 0910 Fax +61 8 9284 0912 Mail 100 Jersey Street, Jolimont, WA 6014 Web www.creatingcommunities.com.au

mailto:[email protected]



http://www.creatingcommunities.com.au/

Community Engagement Report PAGE 2

Project Details ............................................................................................. 2

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 3

2. METHODOLOGY .................................................................................. 4

3. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ..................................................................... 6

3.1 Overall Key Findings ...................................................................................... 7

3.2 Unique Aspects of Heritage .......................................................................... 8

3.3 Recognise and Celebrate Heritage ................................................................ 8

3.4 Heritage Issues .............................................................................................. 8

3.5 Place Removal Nominations ......................................................................... 9

3.6 Place Nominations ......................................................................................10

4. DETAILED FINDINGS .......................................................................... 11

4.1 Community Information Session ................................................................11

4.2 Community Survey ......................................................................................14

5. APPENDICES ...................................................................................... 39

5.1 Community Engagement Plan ....................................................................39

5.2 Promotional Flyer .......................................................................................43

5.3 Heritage Information Sheet ........................................................................44

5.4 TPSRSC Presentation ...................................................................................48

5.5 Community Information Session Presentation ...........................................58

5.6 Question Cards ............................................................................................71

CONTENTS


1. INTRODUCTION

Hocking Heritage Studio and Creating Communities were engaged to review the existing Local

Government Inventory (LGI) and prepare a Heritage List for the Town of Cambridge, including a

community engagement process to inform this review.

The LGI is a local heritage survey that identifies local heritage assets in a systematic fashion, and

provides the base information needed for local heritage planning to achieve consistency, strategic

direction, and community support. They identify the places that are of cultural heritage significance

for each local government district.

Creating Communities facilitated the community engagement process to inform the preparation of

the LGI. The community engagement activities undertaken were a valuable addition to the process,

as they educated the community about heritage and created greater awareness, understanding and

support for the review process. The process also provided the community with the opportunity to

give input into the identification of heritage places, with their feedback informing the LGI review.

This is an interim report that includes all of the findings of the engagement process to date, as at

June 2017. In the final stage of engagement property owners whose property is nominated for

inclusion on the LGI will be invited to meet with the project team to discuss their particular situation.

These meetings will be conducted following the completion of the draft LGI, anticipated to occur

later in 2018. Following these meetings this report will be updated.


2. METHODOLOGY

Creating Communities facilitated the community engagement process to educate the community

about heritage and to seek feedback and input regarding heritage places. The information gleaned

from the process will be used by Hocking Heritage Studio to review the LGI.

To date the engagement process has included a community survey and information session. Owner

meetings are also planned for the later stages of the review, once the Draft LGI is produced, at which

time this report will be updated.

Community Engagement Plan

Creating Communities developed a comprehensive Community Engagement Plan to guide the

process. Key content of the Plan included:

Aims and objectives

Key messages

Target audiences

Schedule of activities

Roles and responsibilities

The Community Engagement Plan is provided in Section 5.

Town Planning Scheme Review Steering Committee (TPSRSC)

Creating Communities and Hocking Heritage Studio attended a TPSRSC meeting on Tuesday 2 May

2017 to brief elected members on the proposed Community Engagement Plan. This included

presentation of the aims and objectives, key messages, communication materials and engagement

schedule.

Following this briefing, there were amendments to the draft materials and messages.

The TPSRSC Presentation is provided in Section 5.

Community Information Session

A Community Information Session was held on Saturday 27 May 2017 from 10:00am to 12:00pm at

The Boulevard Centre. The session included a presentation from Creating Communities and Hocking

Heritage Studio on the project, the heritage review process, different types of heritage listing, and

the current Inventory.

Participants completed group discussion activities, discussing the following questions in small groups

before sharing back with the whole group:

What is unique about heritage in the Town of Cambridge?

What can the Town of Cambridge do to celebrate and recognise its heritage?

What issues or other ideas do you have about heritage in the Town of Cambridge?

A map of the current places listed on the Inventory was also displayed at the session (see Section 5).

Participants were able to use Question Cards to ask specific questions they may have about their

own property or situation, and provide their details to be contacted by the Town of Cambridge.

These questions were only use in the workshop and not in other engagement activities.


Community Survey

A survey was produced which was open for a period of four weeks from Friday 12 May to Friday 9

June 2017. The survey was available to complete online, hardcopy surveys were able to be provided

on request. The survey was also available to complete at the Community Information Session on

tablet devices.

The survey consisted of the following questions:

1. What is unique or what do you like most about the Town of Cambridge’s heritage?

2. Below are all the places or properties currently included on the Heritage Inventory. Choose

those places that you think should be removed from the list (if any). Please describe why this

place should be removed:

3. If there is an important place or property that has heritage value that is not currently on the

Heritage Inventory? If so, please nominate this place below and explain why you think it has

important heritage value:

4. Are there other comments you would like to make about heritage in the Town of

Cambridge?

Communication Materials and Promotion

Creating Communities designed a DL Flyer to promote the survey and information session. The Town

of Cambridge printed and distributed this flyer via letter drop to all properties in the Town, mail out

to approximately 3,000 property owners with service address' outside the Town, and provided to

local schools, community facilities and shopping centres.

Creating Communities and Hocking Heritage Studio developed a Heritage Information and Frequently

Asked Questions Booklet, which was provided in hardcopy at the Information Session and available

online on the Town of Cambridge website.

A Public Notice was published in the Cambridge Post newspaper on Saturday 13 May 2017 to

coincide with the start of the online survey. A link to the online survey along with the Heritage

Frequently Asked Questions and Answers document, and the State Heritage Office guidelines were

available on the Town's website. The online survey and Community Information Session were also

promoted on the Town's social media pages and circulated to the Cambridge News email database.

The communication materials are provided in Section 5.

Property Owner Meetings

The current interim report is based on engagement activities to date, as at June 2017. Property

owners whose property is nominated for inclusion on the LGI will be invited to meet with the project

team to discuss their particular situation. These meetings will be conducted following the completion

of the draft LGI, anticipated to occur later in 2018. Following these meetings this report will be

updated.


3. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Below is a summary of the key findings from the engagement activities to date. The summary draws

on findings from both the Community Information Session and the Community Survey. A final stage

of engagement is yet to occur, which is meeting with landowners whose properties have been

identified for potential inclusion in the LGI. Findings from these meetings will be included in the final

report.

The Community Information Session was held on Saturday 27 May, 2017 from 10:00am to 12:00pm.

There was a total of 22 participants. Participants completed group discussion activities in small

groups, and then shared with the whole group.

Overall 181 participants completed the Community Survey, which was open for a period of four

weeks from Friday 12 May to Friday 9 June 2017. The survey was available to complete online,

hardcopy surveys were able to be provided on request. The survey was also available to complete at

the Community Information Session on tablet devices. The survey asked the community to nominate

new places to be included on the Inventory, indicate what places should be removed, and provide

feedback on the unique heritage values of the Town of Cambridge.

The community survey attracted 181 participants, and the community information session was

attended by 22 community members. Approximately 50 new places were nominated to be

considered for inclusion in the LGI, whilst 40 places in the current LGI were nominated for removal.

Hocking Heritage Studio is currently reviewing the nominations, and this information will feed into a

draft revised LGI.

Detailed findings are provided in Section 4.


3.1 Overall Key Findings

The below is an overview of the key themes and findings, based on combined feedback from the

Community Survey and Community Information Session for each of the Focus Areas. Further detail is

provided in Section 3 and Section 4.

The following are listed in order of frequency.

PARTICIPANTS

181 Community Survey Participants

22 Community Information Session Participants

UNIQUE AND MOST VALUED ASPECTS OF HERITAGE

Parks, beaches, trees, greenery and open space

Older style homes and housing

The sense of space and character that the suburb has because of the parks, open space and ‘garden suburb’ design

WAYS TO RECOGNISE AND CELEBRATE HERITAGE

Community events and activities that celebrate heritage, such as information sessions and talks, exhibitions and displays and forming a historical society

Recognising and celebrating Aboriginal history and culture

Engage with the community to find out more about history

Include heritage protections and considerations in policies

HERITAGE ISSUES

Over-development and development being a threat to public open space

Heritage protections not being in place, i.e. in Town Planning Scheme

Implications for property owners, including resale value, market price and ability to modify/develop

Needs to be consideration of incentives, offsets and compensation to property owners

PLACE REMOVALS

Total Removal Nominations 209

Individual Places Nominated for Removal

40

Area with Most Nominations Floreat (68; 33%)

Area with Least Nominations West Leederville (41; 20%)

Overall most common removal nominations:

Floreat Forum Shopping Centre

City Beach High School

Model Brick Home

House and Surgery (West Leederville)

Kapinara Primary School

Overall most common reasons for removal:

Concern about listing limiting contemporary use or progress/development

Places being “ugly”, unattractive or run down

Places being private or commercial buildings and not “public places”

Places not being unique, important or significant

PLACE NOMINATIONS

Total Nominations 82

Number of Places Nominated for Consideration

50

Most Common Place Type Nominated

Landmarks & Reserves (32%)

Area with Most Nominations West Leederville (30%)

Top Nominations:

City Beach kiosk and change rooms

Land/reserves along West Coast Highway, including Templetonia Park and “Endowment Land”

Garden Suburb

101 Northwood St, West Leederville

Olive tree in private home - 9 Abbotsford Street

House on Abbotsford Private Hospital

Former home of Iwan Iwanoff

Overall, common themes/reasons for inclusion:

Importance of parks, public open spaces and reserves for recreation, liveability and character of the area

The sense of space and character of the area because of the parks and greenery (“garden suburb”)

The unique older style homes and buildings, including areas as well as individual homes and homes designed and lived in by Iwan Iwanoff


3.2 Unique Aspects of Heritage

In both the Community Survey and the Community Information Session, participants were asked

what is unique or what they like the most about heritage in the Town of Cambridge.

Overall, across both formats, there were several aspects that came through as strong themes and

highly valued aspects of the Town’s heritage. Overall, the most common themes were parks, trees,

greenery and open space; older style home and housing; and, the sense of space that the suburb

has because of the parks and ‘garden suburb’ design.

MOST COMMON THEMES

Community Information Session (22 attendees) Community Survey (181 Responses)

Significant trees, including those on St Leonards Ave, Callington St, Moreton Bay Fig Trees, Beecroft Park Tuart Trees (4)

Parks, greenery and open spaces are important and an important part of the character of the area (4)

Older/historical houses, including 1930s and 1950s/60s houses (4)

Perry Lakes Reserve, including old score board and history of original Limekilns Estate (3)

City Beach, including old kiosk, history of the hitch back wagon roads and beach generally, and should be protected (3)

Parks and public open space (91)

Residential blocks are big, have large setbacks/verges and are generally low density/low scale (59)

Trees/significant trees (41)

Older style houses generally (37)

"Garden suburb" (33)

3.3 Recognise and Celebrate Heritage

At the Community Information Session, participants were asked to discuss their ideas for what the

Town of Cambridge can do to recognise and celebrate its heritage.

A wide range of suggestions were discussed, mostly relating to community events and activities. The

most common suggestions were:

Create a history of the Town of Cambridge, such as through a book or photo display (5)

Information sessions and talks (4)

Celebrate and recognise Aboriginal history, especially at the lakes (4)

Engage with home owners to get a history of individual houses and the community to find

out about heritage (3)

Form a historical society (3)

Incorporate heritage protections and policies into Town Planning Scheme (3)

Preserve trees, parks, lakes and unique natural landscape (3)

3.4 Heritage Issues

In the Community Information Session participants discussed any issues related to heritage in the

Town of Cambridge. Overall, most responses related to concerns about over-development, heritage

protections and implications for property owners.

The most common responses were:


Financial implications to owner of property, including resale value and market price (5)

Too much development/stop development/leave things as they are (4)

Town Planning Scheme does not protect/include heritage (3)

Development pressure/threat to public open space and significant trees (2)

Consider incentives, offsets and compensation to property owners e.g. money for

maintenance (2)

3.5 Place Removal Nominations

In the Community Survey, participants were able to nominate places for removal from the inventory,

and were asked to provide a reason for the removal.

Overall, 26% of participants responded to the Question and there were 40 places nominated for

removal. Places within Floreat received the most removal nominations overall (68), accounting for

33% of all removal nominations. Places within West Leederville received the least nominations (41;

20%).

Overall, most common reasons for removal included:

Concern about listing limiting contemporary use or progress/development

Places being “ugly”, unattractive or run down

Places being private or commercial buildings and not ‘public places’

Places not being unique, important or significant

Below are the top two most frequent removal nominations for each area.

PLACE NO. OF NOMINATIONS

FOR REMOVAL

FLOREAT

Floreat Forum Shopping Centre - 5 Howtree Place, Floreat 24

Model Brick Home - 6 The Boulevard, Floreat 10

CITY BEACH

City Beach High School - 20-22 Kalinda Drive, City Beach 14

Kapinara Primary School - 2 Catesby Street, City Beach 9

WEST LEEDERVILLE

House and Surgery - 3 Kimberley Street, West Leederville 9

West Leederville Primary School - 58 Northwood Street, West Leederville 7

WEMBLEY

Wembley Primary School - 41 Grantham Street, Wembley 7

Wembley Theatre and Gardens (also known as Wembley Catering Lodge) - 202 Cambridge Street, Wembley

6


3.6 Place Nominations

Through the Community Survey, participants were able to nominate new places for inclusion on the

inventory, and asked to provide the place name, address and reason for inclusion.

Overall, 30% of participants nominated one or more places for inclusion, with a total of 50 places

nominated for inclusion in the LGI.

The most common place type nominated was parks and reserves (32%) and residential buildings

(28%). The suburbs with the most place nominations were West Leederville (30%) and City Beach

(24%).

In general, common themes that emerged via the nominations were the importance of parks, public

open spaces and reserves; the sense of space and character of the area because of the parks and

greenery (“garden suburb”); and the older style homes and buildings, including areas as well as

individual homes and homes designed and lived in by Iwan Iwanoff.

Overall, the most common place nominations were:

City Beach kiosk and change rooms (7)

Land/reserves along West Coast Highway, including Templetonia Park and “Endowment

Lands” (5)

Garden Suburb (5)

101 Northwood St, West Leederville (4)

Olive tree in private home (3)

House on Abbotsford Private Hospital (3)

Former home of Iwan Iwanoff (3)


4. DETAILED FINDINGS

4.1 Community Information Session

A Community Information Session was held on Saturday 27 May, 2017 from 10:00am to 12:00pm.

There was a total of 22 participants. Participants completed group discussion activities in small

groups.

The detailed findings from each of these questions is provided below.

Q1. What’s unique about heritage in the Town of Cambridge?

Overall, most responses related to the trees, parks and greenery in the Town.

The most common responses were:

Significant trees, including those on St Leonards Ave, Callington St, Moreton Bay Fig Trees,

Beecroft Park Tuart Trees (4)

Parks, greenery and open spaces are important and an important part of the character of the

area (4)


Responses are provided below according to theme, the number below refers to the frequency of the

response.

THEME RESPONSE

Trees. Parks and Greenery (17)

Significant trees, including those on St Leonards Ave, Callington St, Moreton Bay Fig Trees, Beecroft Park Tuart Trees (4)

Parks, greenery and open spaces are important and an important part of the character of the area (4)

Perry Lakes Reserve, including old score board and history of original Limekilns Estate (3)

City Beach, including old kiosk, history of the hitch back wagon roads and beach generally, and should be protected (3)

Lake Monger (2)

Alderbury Reserve (1)

Style/Architecture (8)


West Leederville houses, including Woolwich St, weatherboard homes and brick and iron homes (2)

Art deco buildings, such as the Luna Theatre (1)

California Bungalows in Wembley (1)

Specific Buildings/Places (8)

Churches, including St Barnabas (2)

Old Plank Road/Oceanic Drive (1)

Floreat Forum Shopping Centre (1)

West Leederville Town Hall (1)

Plastone Building West Leederville (1)

Games Village (1)

WWII history: Submarine lookout and bomb shelter at 2 Hoven Crescent (1)

Aboriginal heritage (2) Lake Monger, Aboriginal hunting ground (1)

Early Aboriginal history of area (1)


Q2. What can the Town of Cambridge do to recognise and celebrate its heritage?

Overall, most responses related to suggested events and activities, such as a photo history of the

Town, information sessions, home owner stories and a historical society.

The most common responses overall were:





response.

THEME RESPONSE

Events and Activities (19)



Engage with home owners to get a history of individual houses and the community to find out about heritage (3)

Historical society (3)

Heritage tours and walks (2)

Heritage Open Days and events (1)

Aboriginal heritage events, such as bush tucker walks (1)

General (9)


Respect and celebrate the past in general (2)

Preserve heritage generally (1)

Involve/engage with young people on heritage (1)

Provide more 'plain text' information about heritage (1)

Planning and Policy (8)

Incorporate heritage protections and policies into Town Planning Scheme (3)

Restrict or limit demolition/provide guidelines on demolition (2)

Melbourne is a good example of mix of old and new buildings (1)

Develop a long term plan for heritage ("100 year plan") (1)

Engage with experts on heritage protections and best practice (1)

Built Form and Architecture (4)

Keep the façade of older buildings (1)

Celebrate modern architecture as well, such as City Beach (1)

Conduct architectural survey (1)

Maintain good mix of diverse housing and styles (1)

Parks and Streetscapes (4) Preserve trees, parks, lakes and unique natural landscape (3)

Preserve character of streetscapes (1)

Other (3) “Give the heritage council teeth” (2)

“New Empire Village is truly a celebration” (1)


Q3. Are there any issues about heritage in the Town of Cambridge that you’d like to

discuss?

Overall, most responses related to concerns about over-development, heritage protections and

implications for owners.

The most common responses overall were:


Too much development/Stop development/leave things as they are (4)



response.

THEME RESPONSE

Development and Protections (11)

Too much development/Stop development/leave things as they are (4)


Development pressure/threat to public open space and significant trees (2)

Protect beaches and natural areas (1)

Consider impact of increased density on heritage (1)

Owner Issues (8)


Owner should be involved in process and must agree to listing/not be forced (1)

Owners have right to protect their own interests (1)

Heritage listing restricts what owner can do to home/property (1)

Incentives (2) Consider incentives, offsets and compensation to property owners e.g. money for maintenance (2)

Communication (1) Public should see the draft Heritage List (1)


4.2 Community Survey

Overall 181 participants completed the survey, which was open for a period of four weeks from

Friday 12 May to Friday 9 June 2017. The survey was available to complete online. Hardcopy surveys

were able to be provided on request, however no hardcopy surveys were requested or submitted.

The survey was also available to complete at the Community Information Session on tablet devices.

The detailed findings from the survey are provided below according to question.

Q1. What is unique or what do you like most about the Town of Cambridge’s

heritage?

92% of participants responded to Question One. Overall, most responses related to parks, trees and

open space and residential housing styles.

The most common specific responses were:


Residential blocks are big, have large setbacks/verges and are generally low density/low

scale (59)





response.

THEME RESPONSE

Parks, Trees and Open Space (254)




Perry Lakes, including old score board (21)

The beach/coastline, including City Beach and Floreat Beach (16)

Bold Park (15)

Lake Monger (12)

Preserved bushland (10)

Reabold Hill (7)

Sporting precincts and recreation areas (3)

Alderbury Reserve (2)

Wembley Golf Course (2)

Herdsman Lake (1)

Residential Housing (112)

Residential blocks are big, have large setbacks/verges and are generally low density/low scale (59)


Federation style houses (5)

California Bungalows (4)

Pre-war houses (3)

Area is known for housing styles (2)

Houses of significant people/houses built by significant people (2)


Precincts and Streetscapes (48)

Sense of space in area, with wide and open streets (19)

Streetscapes are unique, especially tree lined streets (12)

West Leederville housing and streetscape (9)

Precincts with whole streets with older houses intact (2)

Suburb layout and road network (2)

Ruislip St (2)

Holyrood St (1)

St Leonards Ave (1)

General Building Styles (15)

Mix of different styles of architecture, and both modern and older style alongside each other (9)

Art deco (3)

Edwardian architecture (2)

Post War (1)

Specific Buildings (6) Cambridge Town Hall, Leederville Town Hall or unspecified Town Hall (5)

Wembley Hotel (1)

History of Area (5) Aboriginal cultural heritage and history, and use of local environment (3)

Early settlement buildings in Town some of earliest in Perth / early expansion/history of Perth (2)

Other Comments (28) Other/Negative Comment (18)

Better infill design

Unfortunately, buildings have been allowed over heights that I feel have detracted from feel of these suburbs, particularly The Cube apartments on Cambridge St and I am not looking forward to the seeing the apartments on the old nursery site along Salvado Rd because of their height!!

The Parks and open spaces e.g. Perry Lakes, Monger Lake, Alderbury St Reserve bold Park etc. - so not spoil these places by developing them any further e.g. new sport facilities at Alderbury Reserve, cafe at Mongers Lake. Sort out the Water Levels at Perry Lakes

I find the soul of suburbs like Wembley are being destroyed when enormous 2 storey dwellings are built on small blocks many of which tower over the quant bungalows. I would like to see more restrictions on the demolition of these period homes. I would like to see the facades restored enabling owners to modernise the rear- incorporating old and new. There aren't too many of these homes left in Australia and I believe they need to be protected. Areas like Wembley will not hold the same appeal as more blocks are flooded with houses more suitable to city beach and the northern suburbs.

The ongoing homogenisation of new buildings is losing all this history.

The historical value of Floreat and City Beach is too often disregarded by the Town in preparation of policy and determination of development applications and a rediscovery of just what Gardens Suburbs means needs to occur and be reflected in all Policy and in the Town Planning Scheme. Whilst many of the original values have been compromised the overall integrity of this approach to suburban development in these locations remains even more relevant than ever as infill agendas are pursued and over development is often encouraged. The public realm and the private interface needs far more thought and effort in the Town of Cambridge.

My question is: What is the Town of Cambridge? Yes, older buildings etc. do play a part but what is the use of respecting and revering these if they can be bulldozed? The T of C also has many newer edifices that require acknowledgement as heritage examples. And so do its parks - e.g. Beecroft Park, Ocean Village Park to name 2 - we love them so please protect them as they are.

And indigenous heritage is also so important to our history - Botanic Gardens & Parks Authority has information about areas around Bold Park"

There are NO heritage private dwellings. Hands OFF!!!

Town of Cambridge doesn't seem to have any apart from the Leederville town hall and Holyrood Street

I value investment in archives, including aural histories, and celebration of history.

There are many beautiful Art deco homes and so many of them have been knocked down for cheap ugly McMansions.

The Town of Cambridge is varied in age and so historical locations and architecture varies through a long timeline. Unfortunately very little work has been done by council to research or preserve these sites. Particularly in West Leederville where density goals by planning has ignored heritage value and the architectural value of the area.


The variety of heritage in the town, from Art Deco to federation style property's each are an important time in WA's history and should be preserved, cause once knocked down it's gone forever

The sort of house which typified Floreat is being rapidly destroyed by the new McMansions which are being approved even though they frequently exceed guidelines.

Pity about the loss of water and destruction of trees nearby [Perry Lakes].

Why change what works and is unique and beautiful. Our Natural environment is what works and makes us so special. Less scale of building and more emphasis on our natural setting. Other councils would love to have what we have.

The modernist houses in the area west of the Forum create a unique precinct under threat from tacky oversized McMansions. Again, west of the Forum the garden suburb is being ruined by absence of trees and gardens due to the building of oversized houses that require tree demolition.

Generally should respect and preserve heritage (6)

Quiet and peaceful (2)

ANZAC services (1)


Q2. Place Removals

Below are all the places or properties currently included on the Heritage Inventory. Choose only

those places that you think should be removed from the list (if any). Please describe why this place

should be removed:

For this question participants were provided with a list of all those places currently on the LGI

according to suburb. Participants were asked to select which, if any, should be removed and if so, to

describe why.

Response Rate

Overall, there was not a strong response from participants on the removal nominations. Just over a

quarter (26%) of survey participants responded to any or all the removal nomination questions.

Survey participants were able to select as many of the current places as they wished, resulting in a

total of 209 removal nominations.

Area Comparison

Places in Floreat received the highest number

of nominations for removal overall, and

accounted for 33% of nominations. West

Leederville had the lowest number of removal

nominations. In addition, 9 survey participants

provided comment to this question that none

of the current LGI places should be removed.

AREA TOTAL NUMBER

OF REMOVAL NOMINATIONS

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL REMOVAL NOMINATIONS

Floreat 68 33%

Wembley 57 27%

City Beach 43 21%

West Leederville 41 20%

Total 209 100%

Figure 1. Percentage of total removal nominations for

each area.


Figure 2. Removal nominations according to area.

WEST LEEDERVILLE WEMBLEY

FLOREAT CITY BEACH


Figure 3. Frequency of place removal nominations.


Removal Nominations

Detailed removal nominations are provided below, including the place, number of nominations

received and the reasons provided for removal.

Note that some participants did not provide a reason for removal, and some participants provided

multiple reasons. It should also be noted that some participants provided the same reason for each

removal nomination (i.e. response repeated verbatim for each nomination), these are marked in

italics in the below table.

Responses below have been provided in their raw form, and have not been summarised.

PLACE FREQUENCY REASON FOR REMOVAL

WEST LEEDERVILLE

House and Surgery - 3 Kimberley Street, West Leederville

9

I don't believe that is a particularly attractive building, and the site would be more suitable for a higher use than what is currently there. Any amenity that this building projects to the surrounding area would be outweighed by a functional higher use development on the same site.

No private house should be listed

These are not iconic buildings that should disrupt progress

Cannot see the reason

Not a public building

West Leederville Primary School - 58 Northwood Street, West Leederville

7

Primary schools have to grow and adapt to more student, change to provide an up to date learning environment, much of the original school has been modified already

Should have the option to be updated and have modern facilities for school children

The school should not be constrained by the implications of heritage if it needs to develop in line with student needs

Primary schools are for educating children not for looking at

Schools are supposed to be a place our young children are well educated and develop curious minds which explore possibilities, not a place where innovation and progress are stopped. Schools should be maintained and upgraded by the Education Department as the need arises. They should serve the community as it changes demographically so need to have the flexibility to grow and shrink over generations. The Council role should be to ensure there are enough schools of high quality to serve their community. If this means lobbying for upgrades please get active.


Cannot see the reason

Uniting Church and Hall - Corner Woolwich Street & Kimberley Street, West Leederville

5

Not a particularly attractive example of a church and hall

Ugly and not needed


Churches should fund and look after their own properties without imposing the expense on others in the community. They should also be able to choose when to replace them if they own them, so not our business what is done with them.

Henderson Memorial Presbyterian Church - 101 Kimberley Street, West Leederville

5

Not a particularly attractive example of a church

Ugly and not needed


Churches should fund and look after their own properties without imposing the expense on others in the community. They


should also be able to choose when to replace them if they own them, so not our business what is done with them.

Catholic Education Centre Church (also known as Church of St Michael the Archangel) - 50 Ruislip Street, West Leederville

4

Why does this need to be included twice? Is this building not covered under the "Ruislip Street Catholic Precinct"?


Leederville Fire Station No.2 - 65 Kimberley Street, West Leederville

3

I had no idea that is building was a fire station, or held any heritage value


Ruislip Street Catholic Precinct (also known as Catholic Education Centre) - 50 Ruislip Street, West Leederville

3



Leederville Fire Station No.3 - 2 McCourt Street, West Leederville

2 These are not iconic buildings that should disrupt progress

Leederville Town Hall and Recreation Complex - 82-84 Cambridge Street, West Leederville


Leederville War Memorial and Rose Garden - 78-80 Cambridge Street, West


WEMBLEY

Wembley Primary School - 41 Grantham Street, Wembley

7 While prominent buildings, do not exhibit a particular style of architecture worthy of heritage listing

Schools are supposed to be a place our young children are well educated and develop curious minds which explore possibilities, not a place where innovation and progress are stopped. Schools should be maintained and upgraded by the Education Department as the need arises. They should serve the community as it changes demographically so need to have the flexibility to grow and shrink over generations. The Council role should be to ensure there are enough schools of high quality to serve their community. If this means lobbying for upgrades please get active.


Just because something has been there for a long time in a suburb it does not mean it has heritage value. It should have some intrinsic value that has some long term value which justifies its long term retention and not a reason for no change

The above, while prominent buildings, do not exhibit a particular

style of architecture worthy of heritage listing

Wembley Theatre and Gardens (also known as Wembley Catering Lodge) - 202 Cambridge Street, Wembley

6 My responses to the Town of Cambridge made reference to: Poor representation of Art Deco style. Significantly modified. No longer being used for its initial intended purpose, being a theatre or function centre. Unable to ever be returned to its initial intended use or supportive of future local needs. Non-compliant to Building Code and currently unacceptable OHS standards. Unable to be modified for disabled access to the heritage-listed area. Poor quality and unsympathetic addition to the rear in the 1980’s. Does not add value to the streetscape, actually devalues. Creates, rather than alleviates, traffic congestion and parking issues. Attracts vandals, graffiti and antisocial behaviour to the area. Not in keeping with the Town of Cambridge long term planning and housing density requirements. Limits opportunity of the owners to develop to meet the needs of the Town of Cambridge.

Do not think this is of heritage interest Poor representation of Art Deco style. Significantly modified. No longer being used for its initial intended purpose, being a theatre or function centre.

This building is no longer a theatre nor has it been for a long


time. It has become more iconic as life care a physiotherapy practice in the middle of a medical precinct

The building no longer is representative of its initial design. Substantially and unsympathetically added and modified. Doesn't suit the purpose of the area. Substantial modification would be required to restore to its initial addition to the heritage inventory. No longer consistent with the area or the intentions of Cambridge street planning development for the community. Staircase no longer meets current building codes and OHS requirements. Unable to be modified to meet these. Heritage listing prevents modification for disabled access. Attracts graffiti, vandalism and antisocial behaviour. Removal affords opportunity to develop the site in keeping with the Town's planning requirements.


Our Lady of Victories Roman Catholic Church - 364 Cambridge Street, Wembley

5 Churches should fund and look after their own properties without imposing the expense on others in the community. They should also be able to choose when to replace them if they own them, so not our business what is done with them.


The above, while prominent buildings, do not exhibit a particular style of architecture worthy of heritage listing

St Edmund's Anglican Church - 54 Pangbourne Street, Wembley



Wembley Uniting Church - 35 Pangbourne Street, Wembley

5 Churches should fund and look after their own properties without imposing the expense on others in the community. They should also be able to choose when to replace them if they own them, so not our business what is done with them.



The above, while prominent buildings, do not exhibit a particular style of architecture worthy of heritage listing

Wembley Church of Christ - 61-63 Nanson Street, Wembley

5 I don't know why the Wembley Church of Christ - 61-63 Nanson Street, Wembley is of significant value



Wembley Hotel - 344 Cambridge Street, Wembley 4 Not sure that has any great architectural merit & recent alterations were not sympathetic to its original form (i.e. the drive through bottle shop)



Henderson Park - Cnr Salvado Road & Jersey Street, Jolimont


The Meyer House - 64 Reserve Street, Wembley 3 These are not iconic buildings that should disrupt progress

The Orr House - 66 Reserve Street, Wembley 3 These are not iconic buildings that should disrupt progress


Catherine McAuley Centre The Old Chapel - 18 Barrett Street, Wembley



Rutter Park - Between Alexander Street & Jersey Street, Wembley


Catherine McAuley Centre St Vincent's Foundlings Home - 18 Barrett Street, Wembley


Catherine McAuley Centre Stables - 18 Barrett Street, Wembley


Catherine McAuley Centre Olive Trees - 18 Barrett Street, Wembley


1 St Columbas Avenue Olive Trees - 1 St Columbas Avenue, Wembley


Lake Monger - Lake Monger Drive, Wembley 0

FLOREAT

Floreat Forum Shopping Centre - 5 Howtree Place, Floreat

24 All the best bits have gone

I am not sure why this area should be o the heritage list to start with

Floreat Forum is ideally placed to become a major hub of ToC -the potential for providing for residential and many types of commercial and community amenities for the whole of ToC with excellent access potentials between North and South while giving Wembley and West Leederville a breathing space from the ill-thought developments to date -with the high probability of decreasing the traffic issues in ToC's Eastern suburbs. Not long ago FF had a major change -i.e. nothing there is of value either historically or visually; it stands in the way of sensible, inclusive progress. I see no heritage value in its recent form -certainly its value as a centre is hampered by the restrictions of its form

This is a commercial shopping mall

It's been substantially changed over the years and I'm happy for it to be updated or redeveloped if required

Not removed, but needs to be modernised whilst capturing heritage aspects through photographs.

The original Floreat Forum shopping centre was a magnificent example of 1960s architecture, the current renovated Forum looks nothing like the original and currently has little architectural or heritage value. It’s a shame the original building wasn't preserved, view the photos online, it was stunning

Floreat forum is a shit heap - there's absolutely nothing there of significance. I would have no problem (and would encourage) it to be rebuilt into a better shopping centre. It should, however, remain a shopping centre and not be sold off for crappy modern housing like Perry Lakes.... That was a terrible decision.

Don't know why a shopping centre is listed. Presumably this would limit future development.

There is nothing unique or worth specifically preserving at the forum.

It’s a shopping centre for god’s sake.

I would like the Floreat Forum Shopping Centre to be retained in its current function, but cannot see why it should not be updated from its current form to keep it viable.

Floreat Forum is unattractive and insignificant. I would rather a nicer shopping complex with more street appeal and facade.


It’s been changed a lot

These buildings have no value to me or anyone I know

? reason Private property


Model Brick Home - 6 The Boulevard, Floreat 10 Ugly and not needed


I don't know what they are, or why they would be historic.

These buildings have no value to me or anyone I know.


The retention of "niche" man-made constructions as "heritage" on the basis that they are interesting to a small minority, while being inaccessible to the majority, should be questioned. I have lived in the area for 12 years and never knew that 6 and 12 The Boulevard were heritage listed. I don't see their listing as "heritage" having any positive effect on the area. This is in stark contrast with the likes of Perry Lakes, Bold Park, etc. which have shaped, and continue to shape the nature, culture and appeal of the area. As regard the former Perry Lakes Sporting Complex, if this refers to the site of the former Empire Games Stadium, I would question what value Heritage Listing provides if the stadium was demolished and the site has now been turned into housing estate. I would be interested to know what difference there would have been if the site had not been Heritage Listed.


Model Timber Home - 12 The Boulevard, Floreat 8 Ugly and not needed


I don't know what they are, or why they would be historic.

These buildings have no value to me or anyone I know.


The retention of "niche" man-made constructions as "heritage" on the basis that they are interesting to a small minority, while being inaccessible to the majority, should be questioned. I have lived in the area for 12 years and never knew that 6 and 12 The Boulevard were heritage listed. I don't see their listing as "heritage" having any positive effect on the area. This is in stark contrast with the likes of Perry Lakes, Bold Park, etc. which have shaped, and continue to shape the nature, culture and appeal of the area. As regard the former Perry Lakes Sporting Complex, if this refers to the site of the former Empire Games Stadium, I would question what value Heritage Listing provides if the stadium was demolished and the site has now been turned into housing estate. I would be interested to know what difference there would have been if the site had not been Heritage Listed.


Floreat Park Primary School - 38 Chandler Street West, Floreat

8 Retaining Floreat Park Primary School is reasonable but, like other buildings there is the emotional as well as heritage and even commercial reasons for considering whether to retain on the list -I'm somewhat ambivalent on that one.

Floreat Park Primary School is of non-descript architecture.

Floreat Park Primary School was built in the late 1960s and some areas are very difficult to utilise well with current teaching methods and tools. The under croft areas are too small for effective classrooms and very expensive to install wiring to. It is supposed to be a place our young children are well educated and develop curious minds which explore possibilities, not a place where innovation and progress are stopped. Schools should be maintained and upgraded by the Education Department as the need arises. They should serve the community as it changes demographically so need to have the flexibility to grow and shrink over generations. The Council role


should be to ensure there are enough schools of high quality to serve their community. If this means lobbying for upgrades please get active.

These buildings have no value to me or anyone I know


Perry Lakes Sporting Complex (former) - Underwood Avenue, Floreat

8 The Perry Lakes sporting complex no longer exists - demolished

I see little heritage value in Perry Lakes Sporting Complex as far as the built scenario -the value is in the open spaces: I'm unfamiliar with the conditions of that area that specifically relate to being on the Heritage List

It doesn't exist anymore


St Cecilia's Roman Catholic Church - 47 Peebles Road, Floreat

7 Personally I think it is fine to preserve the older churches in the greater city area and for old but not the oldest church in small suburbs, that are small and I would assume a higher cost to maintain are not necessary. Churches should not primarily be about the building.

Why is the church at 47 Peebles Road, Floreat interesting?



Perry House - 165-167 Oceanic Drive, Floreat 3 These buildings have no value to me or anyone I know


Bold Park & Adjacent Bushland - Oceanic Drive, Floreat 0

Perry Lakes - Perry Lakes Drive, Floreat 0

CITY BEACH

City Beach High School - 20-22 Kalinda Drive, City Beach

14 New and appropriate buildings for education use

CB High School -once again I don't know the conditions for inclusion on the heritage list: it is arguable in my mind as to why it was ever placed there.

This site should be developed to provide a new high school in the area

Should be able to update the old school so that it is an up to date high school, as we don't have many in the area

Most of these buildings have no value and limiting development to retain these items is regressive and does not consider development adds value through renewal and reinvigoration. Therefore assets and suburbs need to change


Kapinara Primary School - 2 Catesby Street, City Beach 9 New and appropriate buildings for education use



City Beach Primary School - 30 Marapana Road, City Beach

8 I'm indifferent




Commonwealth Games Village Precinct (former) - Btwn The Boulevard, Tilton Terrace, Pandora Drive & Dupont Avenue, City Beach

6 The houses are all too old. They should be removed and allow bigger houses on them. Do not subdivide the blocks. Leave to block sizes as they are. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Games Village -please don't remove the park from heritage listing. But the actual village, i.e. the homes that were built specifically for athletes, are 'discussable'. Many have been replaced with more modern places. The Empire Shopping Centre is poorly planned and should not be on the list - the NE entrance/exit is dangerous as are the roads surrounding that area, the pedestrian access is also not particularly safe, the parking is insufficient, the non-connection between north and south shops is not conducive for visual overview nor good for business etc. etc.; the whole complex needs consideration -certainly not with heritage listing conditions hanging over it.


Happy Tree Tuart - 9 Hovea Crescent, City Beach 3 Most of these buildings have no value and limiting development to retain these items is regressive and does not consider development adds value through renewal and reinvigoration. Therefore assets and suburbs need to change


Holy Spirit School & War Memorial Church - 2 Keaney Place, City Beach


City Beach Foreshore - Challenger Parade, City Beach 1 Most of these buildings have no value and limiting development to retain these items is regressive and does not consider development adds value through renewal and reinvigoration. Therefore assets and suburbs need to change

Quarry Amphitheatre - 145 Oceanic Drive, City Beach 0

OTHER COMMENTS

Other Comments

(where none of the above were selected for removal)

14 Again adding homes with great architecture to the list!

All should remain on the heritage list

Can’t comment - don't know many of these places as I live on the coastal part of Cambridge. However, I view the Town as having mainly 'natural' as opposed to 'built' heritage values.

I do not think any should be removed. In fact it would be

wonderful to find other homes that could be added to the list!

I view the Town as having mainly 'natural' as opposed to 'built' heritage values

Keep them all, please!

None of the above should be removed. There is too much imbalance of new buildings V's heritage & will lose the old charm

None of these places should be removed.

None of this should be touched

None, all should be preserved.

Please do not remove any!!!

There is not enough community knowledge about the historical value of any of these sites to make such a decision. There are very few houses like one of the first houses in the area - 101 Northwood. Council should have added this to their list.

Why would any of these need to be removed from the heritage list? They are all important in their own way

You need to take into account the owners of these properties - as them what they want


Q3. Place Nominations

If there is an important place or property that has heritage value that is not currently on the Heritage Inventory, please nominate this place below and

explain why you think it has important heritage value:

Participants were able to nominate up to three places for inclusion on the Inventory. Overall, 30% of participants responded to this question and nominated

one or more places for inclusion, with a total of 82 nominations. Two additional nominations which were received during the survey period directly via the

Town of Cambridge are included in the findings. Of these 82 nominations, 9 were for places on or associated with places already listed on the LGI and a

number of places were nominated multiple times, resulting in approximately 50 places nominated for heritage assessment.

Place Types

Overall, the most common place type nominated for inclusion was parks

and landmarks, accounting for 32% of nominations. This is consistent with

the overall findings, with parks and reserves a strongly valued local

amenity and feature.

TYPE TOTAL NUMBER OF

NOMINATIONS PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL

NOMINATIONS

Landmarks and Reserves 26 32%

Residential 23 28%

Commercial 9 11%

Institutional and Community Facilities

13 16%

Areas 11 13%

Total 82 100%

Figure 4. Percentage of nominations for each place type.


Place Locations

West Leederville and City Beach were the suburbs with the most place

nominations. Note the below table includes where place nominations

were located in more than one suburb. The percentage is provided as an

indicative measure, and calculated using the overall total number of

nominations (50), to show the proportion of nominations for each area.

AREA NUMBER OF PLACES

NOMINATED PERCENTAGE OF

NOMINATED PLACES

West Leederville 15 30%

City Beach 12 24%

Floreat 11 22%

Wembley 7 14%

Not specific 5 10%

50 100%

Figure 5. Percentage of place nominations from each area.


Figure 6. Nominations according to area.

WEST LEEDERVILLE WEMBLEY

FLOREAT CITY BEACH


NOT SPECIFIC


Place Nominations

In general, common themes that emerged via the nominations were the importance of parks, public open spaces and reserves; the sense of space and

character of the area because of the parks and greenery (“garden suburb”); and the older style homes and buildings, including homes designed and lived in

by Iwan Iwanoff.

Overall, the most common place nominations were:

City Beach kiosk and change rooms (7)

Land/reserves along West Coast Highway, including Templetonia Park and “Endowment Land” (5)

Garden Suburb (5)

101 Northwood St, West Leederville (4)

Olive tree in private home (3)

House on Abbotsford Private Hospital (3)

Former home of Iwan Iwanoff (3)

Nominations are provided below according to type, along with the frequency of the nomination. Note that some participants did not provide a reason for

nomination. Responses below have been provided in their raw form, and have not been summarised. Missing information, such as a place address, has

been included where the nomination clearly identified this location.

*Use of an asterisks indicates that this place is already listed, or associated with a place, on the LGI.

FREQUENCY PLACE NAME ADDRESS REASON FOR NOMINATION

LANDMARKS AND RESERVES Total Nominations: 26

5 Endowment Land/reserves along West Coast Highway, including Templetonia Park and “Endowment Land”

West Coast Highway It's an iconic historic part of Cambridge

For its public amenity, sporting, recreation and environmental aspects.

It is a natural vegetation that provides a unique viewpoint of city beach.

Preserve for nature

A useful park has been decimated against the wishes of the City Beach and nearby Residents and there is room to e increased towards the Ocean.

3 Olive tree 100+ years old in the rear yard of private home

9 Abbottsford Street, West Leederville

This olive tree would have to be among the oldest and largest example of the species in West Leederville and a lovely amenity to our suburb.

The tree is over 100 years old


The olive street in the rear year of this private home must be close to 100 years old. It’s very unique in the sense that you don’t often see olive trees of this size.

2 * City Beach Groyne and Lookout tower, and Floreat groyne

Challenger Pde, City Beach An iconic image which represents many people's memories of visit the beach. The tower represents the importance of surf lifesavers and the services they provide to keep the community safe whilst swimming.

Obviously they define the two beaches, provide valuable recreation for protected swimming, good surfing sand banks, fishing, etc. More groynes would be welcome as would extensions to make the existing groynes longer

2 Ocean Village Park Brompton/Drabble Road, City Beach

This area includes both parkland and remnant bush land particularly a fenced area and on the north east side of the park. Scattered through the bush land which surrounds the grassed area there is a number of very old tuarts (eucalyptus gamphocephala). According to the Department of Conservation website: These trees provide important biological and ecological values and habitats for many animal and fungal species. Aboriginal people valued tuart woodlands for hunting and gathering and used bark from trees to make weapons and tools. And further: Tuart trees and their communities are under threat from urban development. As there is higher density residential building on the west and northern sides of this park and there will almost certainly be higher density residential development on the southern side which is at present the Ocean Village shopping center, it is felt that this area will come under increasing pressure and requires some status to protect the unique features of this smaller area of bush land within the Town. This area is habitat for a wide variety of bird species including honey eaters, wattle birds, owls, magpies and carnaby parrots. At one point on the south western side of the park there is a sign which reads: This Remnant Bush environment is protected and rehabilitate by Council and the local community for the benefit of current and future generations. The preservation of this site can assist in the following functions; - provide and area of habitat for native flora and fauna; provide the community with a glimpse of what naturally existed in the area prior to development; provide educational institutions the opportunity to study the area; provide a reserve of indigenous plant species for use by future generations.

Our parks are important and this one contains wonderful Tuarts - trees indigenous to the area

2 Floreat Oval, Floreat Park and McLean Park; Floreat primary school and McLean Park

All of the land between Oceanic Dve, The Boulevard, Ulster Rd and Howtree Plce

For its public amenity, sporting, recreation and environmental aspects.

I think McLean Park should be reserved for the school (they are losing a lot of their "green space"), social sport (not grade) _ and community activities (dog walking, runners etc.)

2 * Bold Park Bold Park It's an iconic historic part of Cambridge

Industrial and Indigenous heritage

2 * Perry Lakes Perry Lakes It's an iconic historic part of Cambridge

Perry Lakes, parks and bush areas are vital to our way of life in Cambridge

1 City Beach ovals West Coast Highway / Fred Burton Way

Sport throughout the years a + worth protecting such a useful sporting and dog walking and exercise place that has lovely beach and sunset views.

1 Beecroft Park Oban Road, City Beach Our parks are important and this one is loved by many

1 Cowden Park between Northwood and Kimberley Streets, West Leederville

It has been an open play space for generations of children in West Leederville. Its proximity to the Anglican Church and the heritage listed West Leederville Primary School. The presence of old Moreton Bay Fig Trees. Its location on the top of the hill may be relevant to the story of Aboriginal settlement in the area.

1 Park Area between The Boulevard and Bourneville Street, Floreat

This as park area, "formerly", in the time of the 2nd World War, was deemed an underground air shelter ground cordon; fittingly "a" bunker shelter.


1 Fire pit at Perry Lakes near the Scout Hall

Perry Lakes reserve Commonwealth games significance

1 * Lake Monger South Foreshore

Lake Monger Drive, West Leederville

Specifically the lawns and the historic and intentional planting of the palms, willows and plane trees to create the unique landscape that is the dominant icon of the lake. Listing of this landscape continues the legacy of the design and maintains the experiences (black swan interaction, picnics, relaxing under the trees on the lawn) for the generations to come.

1 * The big fir tree that is lit up with lights at Christmas - South side of Lake Monger

Lake Monger Drive, West Leederville

It is the Christmas Tree in this area

1 Wembley golf course 200 The Boulevard, Wembley It has been an institution for several generations now.

RESIDENTIAL Total Nominations: 23

4 101 Northwood St 101 Northwood Street, West Leederville; 104 Northwood Street, West Leederville

One of the first grand homes built in its time - as a display home and also the long term residence of the head of the local fire bridges and the organization for over 40 years.

Each of the four houses reflects a different architectural styles, and from a slightly different period.

One of the grandest private homes in west Leederville

This is a beautiful home over 100 years old.

3 Former home of Iwan Iwanoff - Lifford Road Floreat

16 Lifford Road, Floreat Iwanoff is an important architect and this was his private home and studio. It tells stories of migration, discrimination, strength, uniqueness and design.

Renowned architect Ivan Iwanoff designed and built this house for himself and his own family and lived there for a number of years. It is a wonderful example of brutalist architecture.

2 Roberts House 12 Yanagin Crescent, City Beach An important example of the work of Iwanoff.

2 Paganin House 165 The Boulevard, Floreat An important example of the work of Iwanoff.

2 97 Northwood St, West Leederville

97 Northwood Street, West Leederville

A particularly fine example of an Edwardian timber cottage


1 Private homes 4, 10, 19 Branksome Gardens, City Beach

These 3 houses are examples of the original South City Beach homes which gave the area its character. Most of the old beach houses have been demolished to make way for modern developments so it's important to keep some examples of what was.

1 House 14 Marimba Crescent, City Beach Early modernist house. I am a previous owner of the house and am happy to be contacted for further information.

1 House 314 Railway Parade, West Leederville

The home is a beautiful example of Federation architecture, constructed from solid limestone blocks and featuring a wide wrap-around veranda.

1 Four houses on each corner of Northwood and Ruislip Streets

97, 98, 101, 104 Northwood Street, West Leederville


1 Cnr Blencowe Ruislip St - large heritage house

92 Blencowe Street, West Leederville

Architectural and period value

1 A "war home" 83 Evandale Street, Floreat Brick tile home built 1959 with tuart trees in garden.


1 17 Tate Street 17 Tate Street, Wembley A rare two storey terrace

1 3 Donegal Road, Floreat This house was built by a cinema owner in the 1950s. It has its own screening room and in the garage below a sprung dance floor. The interior windows of etched glass speak of the night of entertaining prior to the screening of new movies, of glamour, of exclusivity and post war optimism. It is a celebratory house.

1 Iwanoff house - Glengarriff Drive, Floreat

Glengarriff Drive, Floreat Iconic example of 50s architecture

1 All Ivan Iwanoff homes in Floreat & City Beach

AREAS Total Nominations: 11

5 Garden Suburb Floreat/City Beach The garden suburbs were a carefully crafted unique development concept for Perth based on the garden city philosophy of providing a model environment to produce a model citizen. This planning and design philosophy was based on ideas developed in the UK and was regarded as a progressive town planning concept for the time.

Unique town Planning "garden" suburb.

International garden design suburb for Floreat and City Beach with open spaces, setbacks and lower density.

garden suburbs, their historic subdivision pattern and contribution to town planning history

I think it is important as in early garden suburb.

2 Floreat- west of forum (between the boulevard, oceanic drive and ulster road)

Area bounded by The Boulevard (North), Oceanic Drive (South), Ulster Road (East) and Bold Park Drive (West), Floreat

It appears to be unchanged from the time it was originally built. I.e., the streets are the same, there is no subdivision and the setbacks etc. appear as they were originally intended. This area should have a protection on the setbacks and subdivision potential- to preserve it as the quintessential garden suburb. It is only a small area, and will therefore have limited effect on overall density targets.

This precinct was designed as a garden suburb with no footpaths to interrupt the garden aesthetic. It has a strong presence of modernist houses from the 1950s/60s. Current planners are allowing oversized houses to be built that result in tree demolition, permit building over setbacks (e.g. 33 Ulster Rd) and are poorly designed in both an aesthetic and environmental manner. These McMansions are ruining the garden suburb design and having an adverse effect on the existing housing stock. In particular there should be design guidelines that prevent the construction of poorly designed and inappropriate houses and ban faux Federation and other inappropriate designs. It should be an area for forward looking architectural practice as demonstrated by the modernist houses of the 50s and 60s.

1 * Holyrood Street Holyrood Street maintain the heritage facades of the street

1 Tram/Trolleybus Way Woolwich Street As an original tram Trolleybus route through west leederville that connected Perth to the western Suburbs

1 Pre-war buildings along Cambridge Street

Provides the historic village atmosphere of the area. New buildings need to be integrated into and not detract from these pre-war buildings which need protection.

1 Residential streets in all suburbs

Look and feel of the suburbs should be retained in the era they were built, with building retained where possible to preserve the areas, and facades kept where buildings are not able to be retained in full.

COMMERCIAL Total Nominations: 9

3 House on Abbotsford Private Hospital

61- 69 Cambridge Street, West Leederville

The House was built in the late 1800's


The old heritage character home located on the Abbotsford Private Hospital complex was constructed circa 1890 and is a beautiful example of classic heritage character homes in the West Leederville area. There are not many examples as fine as this old residence.

Part of the existing development from the early 1900's forms part of the current recently developed hospital. The older house was kept and forms and has a Cambridge Street frontage for all to see. It adds a historic aesthetic to the street in an area made up of modern buildings and soon to come new development on Cambridge Street

1 Commercial buildings - Along Cambridge St Wembley between Holland St and Essex St

284-304 Cambridge Street, Wembley

They have been there for many years and are significant in maintaining the heritage feel of Wembley

1 Commercial buildings - Along Cambridge St between Simper St and Jersey St (both sides of Cambridge St)

332-363 Cambridge Street, Wembley

They have been there for many years and are of heritage value; the Jade Flower Restaurant is a Wembley institution!!

1 Commercial buildings - Along Grantham St between Alexander St and Essex St

38-42, 46-56 Grantham Street. They have been there many years and are part of the heritage of Wembley as they maintain the older feel of the suburb

1 JB O’Reilly pub 99 Cambridge Street, West Leederville

It's been a West Leederville institution for generations of Western Suburbs folk.

1 Old Petrol Station - cnr Blencowe St and Cambridge St

144 Cambridge Street, West Leederville

The architecture is very period (art deco?) and has no equivalence in the wider area, speaking to a time of glamour and the introduction of the automobile.

1 Row of shops between Northwood Street and Rosslyn Street, directly over the road from the West Leederville Railway Station

254, 256, 262, 264, & 276 Railway Parade, West Leederville

They reflect the development of commerce along the railway line. And changing use of the buildings.

INSTITUTIONAL AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES Total Nominations: 13

7 City Beach kiosk and change rooms

South City Beach The destruction of the original City Beach Surf Club just a few years ago was an act of wanton vandalism by the Town and it should be ashamed of taking such a cavalier approach to heritage. The City Beach Kiosk is one of the few remaining structures from that period and must be saved

It is of significance as a minor work of prominent WA architect Tony Brand in the brutalist style. It is associated with the provision of extensive public infrastructure by the City of Perth Council into its primary beach following the success of the expansion of its suburbs extending to the coast.

A beautiful and rare piece of 1960s architecture with its curved walls and roof

original architectural form

It's iconic for early users of city beach. a funky building that if restored would be very popular

Iconic Building could be restored and put to good use


Important history - these type of buildings will never be built again. Means a lot to people like myself that spent all summer at City Beach. A unique building has potential.

2 Floreat Beach Kiosk Challenger Pde, Floreat Beach For the same reasons as discussed above.

A beautiful and rare piece of 1960s architecture with its curved walls and roof

1 The Civic Centre 33 Templetonia Crescent, City Beach

The architecture of the time and that it is a civic centre for the use of the community. This place should be renovated to its original condition and the gardens need attention so it can better service the surrounding community.

1 * Quarry amphitheatre Bold Park Industrial and Indigenous heritage

1 * West Leederville Primary School

58 Northwood St, West Leederville

Important Landmark with long term connection to the community, place of education for at least one prime minister (Bob Hawke)

1 * West Leederville Bowling Club

78 Cambridge Street, West Leederville

Classic building and part of our history

OTHER COMMENTS

I feel older homes should be preserved. There are beautiful residences but I imagine they are privately owned, so do not wish to list them. Negotiation between the Council and residents would be required I am sure.


Q4. Are there any other comments you would like to make about heritage in the

Town of Cambridge?

Overall, most comments related to the importance of parks, trees, greenery and open space, and

suggested planning practices and policies.

The most common comments were:

Preserve trees, greenery and parks; parks and open spaces make it a desirable place to

live/are important to character of area (19)

Protect garden suburb / recognise historical significance of garden suburb (17)

Generally protect and preserve heritage, including older style homes (12)


response.

THEME RESPONSE

Parks, Trees, Greenery and Open Space (45)

Preserve trees, greenery and parks; parks and open spaces make it a desirable place to live/are important to character of area (19)

Protect garden suburb / recognise historical significance (17)

Preserve beaches (8)

Heritage tree register / policy about significant trees (1)

Planning and Policy (45)

Maintain large blocks and setbacks / don't reduce block size or setbacks (10)

Don't increase density or subdivisions (7)

Implement restrictions on changes/development of heritage properties (6)

Incorporate heritage in all planning decisions/policies (5)

Don't over-develop or destroy/demolish heritage (5)

Reject in-fill policy/negative comment about in-fill (4)

Formally incorporate the Heritage List into the Town Planning Scheme to give more protection (3)

Programs that support heritage property owners, including incentives, rate/fee relief and grants for maintenance/improvements/preservation (3)

Don't put private residences on LGI, and/or without owner consent (2)

General Comments about Heritage (28)

Generally protect and preserve heritage, including older style homes (12)

Area has unique character (6)

Protect Empire Games Precinct / Games Village (3)

Consider how to protect streetscapes, not just individual properties (2)

Conduct historical study of area and properties (2)

Incorporate multicultural heritage (1)

Include streetscapes and precincts in LGI (1)

History of sporting precinct (1)

Communication and Community Engagement (4)

Respect community feedback and consider this in decision making (2)

Engage with the community on heritage, such as via community events and activities (1)

Make it easier to access information (1)

Other (18)

Other/Negative Comments (13)

There is nothing wrong with different suburbs having different features/feels. Not everyone aspires to live in high density apartment spaces and not everyone wants a large open high maintenance house. It's ok to provide multiple options.

West of Floreat forum also has important houses designed by Iwan Iwanoff- Paganin house, Iwanoff studio and German consul

Do you have any staff with formal qualifications in heritage? I see a need to professionalize in this


management field. We lag behind other developing countries in the protection and promotion of our suburban settler heritage and our urban Indigenous heritage

Why aren't the Endowment Lands included in the survey?

The appalling list of so called heritage buildings etc. some so recent its madness. Every so often the Town/City of Perth steps up and starts the exercise, not very successfully. Another waste of money - never get it right!!!!

I do not understand why the civic centre in City Beach is not already listed.

In general the early 20th century architecture is disappearing from our neighbourhood as McMansions invade, especially as the infill policies take hold.

Cambridge gives lip service only to heritage I have seen the demolition of many heritage homes worthy of listing in west Leederville. The council allowing a developer who has a reputation for bowling over west Leederville’s home to develop the home on the corner of Ruislip and Northwood St is a disgrace. I moved from west Leederville to Claremont 3 years ago because of this councils attitude to heritage homes

Yes this survey is poorly constructed. Poorly advertised to achieve a desired outcome. I.e. To justify limiting change. Council needs to get on with progressing a plan to allow for change and stop deferring it. Asked on excuses such as heritage plans. These are not mutually exclusive activities

Our heritage should not be decided on financial considerations

Believe the elected officials must adhere to the desires of their constituents and nothing else

Leave well alone!

A lot has already been lost, and it seems the ToC is intent on destroying more.

Positive comment about engagement process/heritage review (2)

Thank you for the invitation and opportunity to comment.

Although I have lived in the area for 3 years, I don't have much point of view. Coming from a European background, I am realising the differences of meaning of "heritage" in diverse cultures. I am pleased to receive the survey link from my mailbox.

Positive comment about current heritage approach/good developments (2)

The recent upgrades to Bold Park pool, City Beach surf club and Boulevard Shopping Centre are excellent, well done all responsible. The plans for Beecroft Park look promising. Keep up the good work

Pleased to hear this is happening

Town is a great place to live (1)


5. APPENDICES

5.1 Community Engagement Plan

Town of Cambridge: Local Government Inventory and Heritage List

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PLAN

Purpose of the Plan

This document outlines the aims and objectives, key messages, target audience and schedule of

activities for community engagement as part of the review of the Town of Cambridge Local

Government Inventory and development of a Heritage List.

Aim and Key Objectives

To educate and inform the general Cambridge community about:

o what heritage means and local heritage in Cambridge

o the purpose, aims and processes of heritage in local government

o the difference between heritage and character

o the different aspects of heritage, including the Heritage List and the State Register

o the Local Government Inventory and Heritage List, including:

the process of review;

the previous Municipal Inventory;

identification of local heritage assets and the process of categorisation/ranking;

and,

implications of identification and inclusion in the Inventory for commercial or

residential owners.

To enable the community to provide input into the review of the Local Government

Inventory and Heritage List

To alleviate concerns about the potential impact of local places being identified as a heritage

asset and included on the Inventory

To provide an opportunity to nominate local places to be included or excluded from the

Inventory

To ensure internal alignment and buy-in from internal stakeholders, including elected

members

Key messages

The below includes the key overarching messages that will be communicated in the engagement

process.

Note. See also attached Heritage Frequently Asked Questions.

Heritage

Heritage places are those places which help to tell the story of the development of a town or

district.

Each town or district has its own story which contributes to the unique identity of a place.


Heritage and character are different, but complimentary qualities, of a street or townscape.

Local Government Inventory and Heritage List

The Heritage Inventory is simply a list of places that have been identified as having heritage

value.

Assessment of places for possible inclusion on the heritage inventory or heritage list is largely

based on an external assessment and a brief history of each place.

The Heritage List includes places from the inventory that have the highest heritage value to

the Town of Cambridge. Places on the Heritage List receive some protections under the

Town of Cambridge Planning Scheme.

Owners will have the opportunity to contribute to the assessment process.

Development is still possible if a place is included on the Heritage List.

Community Engagement

The community can provide input into the Inventory and Heritage List by nominating local

heritage places for inclusion.

All nominations for inclusion will be considered by the Town of Cambridge and assessed

against standard criteria.

Target stakeholders

General community within the Town of Cambridge

Councillors and key internal stakeholders

Schedule of proposed activities, including timing and responsibilities

Engagement activities are specified below with individual tasks, deadlines and responsibilities

indicated. Note the below is subject to change, and can be adjusted based on the Town of

Cambridge’s requirements.

In order to ensure the best possible participation rate and opportunity for community input the

below schedule takes into account the Easter Public Holidays (14-17 April), ANZAC Day Public Holiday

(25 April) and the school holidays (8-23 April).

Key Dates

KEY ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITY DATES

TPSRSC* Tuesday 2 May

Community Dl Flyer Drop Monday 8 May

Online Community Survey Opens Monday 8 May

Community Information Session Saturday 27 May

Online Community Survey Closes Monday 29 May


The below schedule is based on all materials being drafted by the date of the Council Briefing, to

allow for these materials to be presented.

Engagement Schedule

ITEM DATE RESPONSIBLE

TPSRSC*

Draft Community Engagement Plan (this document) Completed CC/HHS

Project team final approval of CEP Completed TOC

TPSRSC, including presentation of all drafted materials Tuesday 2 May TOC / CC/HHS

Council approval/any resulting amendments Friday 5 May TOC

Community DL Flyer Drop

Draft DL Flyer content Tuesday 4 April CC

Approval of content Monday 10 April TOC

Design DL Flyer Thursday 13 April CC

Final approval of Dl Flyer (by project team) Friday 28 April TOC

Council approval of DL Flyer Tuesday 2 May TOC

Print, and distribution via post and/or email Monday 8 May TOC

Online Community Survey

Design survey questionnaire Tuesday 4 April CC / HHS

Approval of survey questionnaire (by project team) Monday 10 April TOC

Approval of survey questionnaire by Council Friday 5 May TOC

Upload survey to Engagement HQ Monday 15 May TOC

Survey opens Monday 8 May TOC

Survey closes Monday 29 May TOC

Provide raw data from survey Tuesday 30 May TOC

Analyse survey data Wednesday 7 June CC

Heritage Fact Sheet*

Draft Fact Sheet content Thursday 13 April HHS/CC

Approval of Fact Sheet content Friday 21 April TOC

Design Fact Sheet Wednesday 26 April CC

Approval of Fact Sheet (by project team) Friday 28 April TOC

Approval of Fact Sheet by Council Tuesday 2 May TOC

Print Fact Sheet Friday 26 May TOC

Distribute Fact Sheet at Community information Session Saturday 27 May CC/HHS

Community Information Session

Confirm date, venue and all other logistical requirements Monday 10 April TOC

Draft PowerPoint Presentation/Agenda Friday 21 April HHS/CC

Final approval of PowerPoint Presentation/Agenda Friday 28 April TOC

Provide all equipment, infrastructure and/or catering for session Friday 26 May TOC

Set-up Community Information Session Saturday 27 May CC

Facilitate Community Information Session

Note. CC to facilitate, with support from HHS. It is suggested that TOC

staff attend.

Saturday 27 May CC/HHS

Meetings with affected owners

To include letter drop to affected owners

TBC – 1 week from date of release of the

Draft LGI

Consultation Report TBC – Following the conclusion of all

consultation activities

Formal advertisement period TBC

*Note this item is subject to a variation.


Engagement Tools and Activities

The below outlines each engagement tool or activity specified in the Engagement Schedule.

ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION RATIONALE

Community DL Flyer Drop Mail out to all residents of a DL Flyer to promote

the upcoming Community Information Session,

Survey and draw attention to the opportunity for

affected landowners to participate in one-on-one

meetings with a member of the project team.

To be printed and distributed by Town of

Cambridge.

Inform community of engagement process

Promote survey

Promote Community Information Session

Provide early communication that affected landowners will have an opportunity to have a one-on-one meeting

Community Information

Session

This information session will aim to explain and

educate interested community members about

the purpose and process of creating Inventory and

Heritage Lists.

Information will be presented on each of the key

areas outlines in the Key Messages of this

document.

The venue will be a local community facility as

recommended by the Town of Cambridge.

The online community survey will also be

promoted at this Community Information Session

and an electronic tablet will be available on the

day for participants to complete the survey

immediately.

Promote Community Information Session

Provide and promote survey

To educate and inform the general Cambridge community about heritage (see Aims for complete list)

To obtain community input into the review

To alleviate concerns about the potential impact of local places being identified as a heritage asset and included on the Inventory

To provide an opportunity to nominate local places to be included or excluded from the Inventory

Online Community Survey An online survey to obtain input into the review of

the LGI and general community perceptions of

heritage in the Town of Cambridge.

The survey would include up to four (4) questions

to obtain feedback on: the important heritage

places in Town of Cambridge; and, nominations

for heritage places not included in the current LGI.

The survey will be uploaded onto the Town of

Cambridge’s Engagement HQ platform.

To provide an opportunity to nominate local places to be included or excluded from the Inventory

To obtain community input into the review

To allow those unable to attend the CIS to provide feedback and input

To maximise community participation and response rate

Heritage Fact Sheet A Fact Sheet that provides answers to frequently asked questions about heritage in general, as well as in relation to planning and the Inventory. To be distributed at the Community Information Session and used ongoing as a communication tool.

To provide answers to frequently asked questions about heritage


To provide a communication tool for any future engagement with the community regarding heritage

Letter Drop Once affected owners are identified, a letter will be sent that provides information on the Inventory and implications of listing, and offers a one-on-one meeting to discuss their specific feedback, needs and concerns.

To alleviate concerns about the potential impact of their property or place being identified on the Inventory

Invite affected owners to attend a one-on-one meeting

One-on-one Meetings with

Affected Owners

Project team to meet with affected owners face-

to-face to discuss their specific feedback, needs

and concerns.

Meeting content will include providing

information on the Draft LGI, discussing the

expected impact on the owner and providing the

To discuss specific concerns or issues for affected landowners

To manage and maintain good relationships with affected landowners



opportunity for the owner to provide feedback on

the Draft LGI.

Consultation Summary Report Creating Communities to provide a Consultation

Summary Report that includes the key findings

from each of the consultation activities.

To inform the finalisation of the Heritage Inventory

To provide a record of consultation

5.2 Promotional Flyer


5.3 Heritage Information Sheet


5.4 TPSRSC Presentation


5.5 Community Information Session Presentation


5.6 Question Cards


100 Jersey St Jolimont 6014

PERTH | WESTERN

AUSTRALIA

creatingcommunities.com.au +61 8 9284 0910

local government inventory and ... - town of cambridge · of cambridge printed and distributed this...

Documents