Former Melford Motors
615-645 Elizabeth Street, Melbourne
Heritage Council Registration Committee
Hearing – 23 November 2012
Members – Ms Helen Lardner (chair), Mr Jon Hickman, Mr Donald Kerr
DECISION OF THE HERITAGE COUNCIL
After considering a recommendation and the submissions and conducting a hearing into
those submissions, pursuant to Section 42(1)(b) the Heritage Council has determined
that part of the place is of cultural heritage significance to the State of Victoria and
should be included in the Heritage Register.
Helen Lardner
(Chair)
Jon Hickman
Decision Date – 26 February 2013
Donald Kerr
APPEARANCES
Executive Director, Heritage Victoria
Dr Kerry Jordan, Heritage Officer (Architectural History) appeared on behalf of the
Executive Director.
Nominator
The president of the Art Deco and Modernism Society, Mr Robin Grow appeared. Mr
Grow called Mr Simon Reeves of Built Heritage Pty Ltd as an expert witness.
Owner
Mr Paul Chiappi (instructed by Michael Hazell of Kelly Hazell Quill Lawyers) appeared
for Toyota Australia and called Mr Peter Lovell of Lovell Chen Architects and Heritage
Consultants as an expert witness.
2
February 2013
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
The Place
1
The Former Melford Motors complex at 615-645 Elizabeth Street, Melbourne
(‘Melford Motors’) is on a prominent corner site bounded by Elizabeth,
Queensberry and O'Connell Streets. The place comprises three buildings:

a two-storey building from 1928 (remodelled in 1936-7, including a third
storey);

a three-storey wing built in 1936-7; and

a three-storey service centre built in 1955-7.
2
In this report, the 1928 and 1936-7 buildings are collectively referred to as ‘the
1936 building’. The 1955-7 service centre is referred to as ‘the 1955 building’.
The place does not include the caryard and c1970s building to the north of the
1955 building.
3
Melford Motors is listed as an individual place with a ‘C’ grading in the heritage
overlay to the Melbourne Planning Scheme as HO294.
Nominations
4
Melford Motors was nominated for inclusion in the Victorian Heritage Register
(‘the Register’) by the Art Deco and Modernism Society on 2 April 2012.
Recommendation of the Executive Director
5
On 18 May 2012, the Executive Director recommended that Melford Motors be
included in the Register.
6
A submission requesting a hearing and objecting to the recommended extent of
registration and permit policy and exemptions was received from Toyota Australia
on 16 July 2012. Pursuant to section 41(6) of the Heritage Act 1995 (‘the Heritage
Act’), the Heritage Council was required to conduct a hearing.
Site Inspection
7
The Committee inspected the site on 19 November 2012 accompanied by Mr
Barton Cottle of Bishops Real Estate Pty Ltd and the Hearings Officer. No
submissions were received during the course of the inspection.
Preliminary Matters
8
The Executive Director’s submission noted that ‘the nomination was for all of the
buildings on the site’. Dr Jordan advised the Committee that the assessed place
did not include the c1970s building at the south of the car yard.
9
A submission was received from the Art Deco and Modernism Society one day
after initial submissions were due. This submission was circulated to all parties
prior to the hearing. No objections to the Committee considering this material
were received.
3
February 2013
ISSUES
10
This section is not intended to be a complete record of submissions that were
made to the Committee. It is a summary of what the Committee considers to be
the key issues, followed by an explanation of the position the Committee takes on
each issue.
11
Any reference to Criteria refers to the ‘Heritage Council Criteria for Assessment
of Places of Cultural Heritage Significance’ (see Attachment 1 to this report). The
Committee acknowledges that it is possible for values to contribute to more than
one criterion. The Committee has therefore assigned submissions to the criteria
that it believes to be relevant, as in some instances parties have addressed the
same issue, but applied different criteria.
Summary of issues
12
13
The main issue of contention between the parties was the appropriate extent of
registration:

Built Heritage submitted that the recommended extent satisfies criteria A, B,
C, E and F. Similarly, the Executive Director submitted that the
recommended extent satisfies criteria A, D and H.

Lovell Chen were of the view that a reduced extent of the place could satisfy
criteria A, B, D and E; and argued that the 1955 building should be excluded
from the registration.
Lovell Chen also argued for amendments to the Statement of Significance and the
permit policy and exemptions.
Criterion A - Importance to the course, or pattern of Victoria’s cultural history
14
The parties disagreed about what makes the place of importance to the course or
pattern of Victoria’s cultural history.
Submissions and evidence
15
The Executive Director submitted that Melford Motors is of historical significance
as a reflection of the rapid expansion of the automotive industry, and associated
retailing, in Victoria in the 1930s. According to Dr Jordan, a surge in car
production and ownership in the interwar period resulted in a need for new
buildings for manufacture, sales, services, fuel sales and parking. She argued that
this had an enormous effect on the way of life of Victorians, including on the
development of urban form.
16
Dr Jordan submitted that Ford was the best-selling vehicle brand in Australia in
the early twentieth century and Melford Motors (its name a contraction of
Melbourne and Ford) was formed in response to the need for expanded sales and
service facilities.
17
Built Heritage submitted that Melford Motors is significant for its association with
the expansion of automotive retailing in Melbourne not only during the 1930s but
also into the 1950s. Both Dr Jordan and Mr Reeves submitted that it was the
4
February 2013
largest and grandest car showroom of the era. Mr Reeves also argued that its
ongoing use as a motor showroom is notable.
18
In Mr Lovell’s view, the 1936 building clearly relates to a period of significant
expansion in the automotive industry in Victoria. In his view, this building could
be considered to meet Criterion A on the basis of its comparatively large scale and
association with the growth of Ford’s local manufacturing operation. He did not
consider the aspects of the place’s history relating to the 1950s to be of state level
significance.
19
According to the Executive Director, Melford Motors is significant for its
location: motor showrooms were typically located along the northern edge of the
city, close to the main vehicle entrance to Melbourne, Sydney Road, and its
southern extension, Elizabeth Street. Mr Lovell submitted that the location of the
place does not make it significant at a state level. His view was that the
association of car sale yards with this area of Melbourne is of interest, but can
only be considered to be of local significance.
20
The Executive Director also identified the following historical themes (from
Victoria’s Framework of Historical Themes) as relevant: linking Victorians by
road in the 20th century; and marketing and retailing.
Discussion and conclusion
21
The Committee finds that the 1936 building satisfies Criterion A. The Committee
is satisfied that the growth of the car industry in the interwar period is of
significance to the state and that the construction of the Melford Motors building
is an important expression of this growth.
22
The Committee recognises that the continued growth of the car industry in the
1940s-60s is also significant, but does not believe that the 1955 building is
sufficiently illustrative of this phase to warrant registration.
Criterion B – Possession of uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of Victoria’s
cultural history
23
The parties disagreed about the significance of the rarity of the place.
Submissions and evidence
24
The Executive Director submitted that the place is an outstanding and largely
intact example of a motor vehicle showroom and put to the Committee that it is
one of the last remaining substantially intact such buildings in Melbourne.
25
Lovell Chen submitted that this criterion could be met in relation to the 1936
building; however, this assessment cannot be said to relate to the 1955 building.
Discussion and conclusion
26
The Committee finds that the 1936 building satisfies Criterion B as it
demonstrates aspects of the growth of the car industry from the interwar period
that are now rare. It was not satisfied that the 1955 building showed aspects of the
history that were uncommon at a state level.
5
February 2013
Criterion D - Importance in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a class
of cultural places and objects
27
The parties disagreed about whether the place is a significant example of a motor
vehicle showroom, the Streamlined Moderne style or 1950s architecture.
Submissions and evidence
Motor vehicle showrooms
28
The Executive Director submitted that Melford Motors is of architectural
significance as an outstanding and largely intact example of a motor vehicle
showroom, a new building type appearing in the interwar period. According to the
Executive Director, the showroom was unusual at the time of its construction for
its considerable size. The Executive Director submitted that this is one of few
surviving examples from this era and that none of the other known examples have
the landmark architectural qualities demonstrated by Melford Motors.
29
The Executive Director conceded that no analysis of motor showrooms in regional
Victoria has been carried out; however, she submitted that it is unlikely that any
outside Melbourne would be as large. In any event, according to the Executive
Director, most country car dealerships were combined with other car-related
functions and one can assume that showroom facilities would have been minimal
and much less architecturally accomplished.
30
Built Heritage submitted that Melford Motors and the former Commonwealth
Motors in A’Beckett Street are among the few intact 1930s motor showrooms
remaining in Melbourne
31
Lovell Chen generally agreed that Criterion D is met in relation to motor vehicle
showrooms, but wished to qualify the Executive Director’s recommendation. Mr
Lovell was not convinced that the place is an outstanding example of a motor
showroom, and although he agreed it was a large-scale one, he argued that scale
was not a strong argument for significance. In his view, the Executive Director’s
assessment under this criterion is not applicable to the 1955 building.
Streamlined Moderne
32
The Executive Director submitted that Melford Motors is significant as an
outstanding example of the Streamlined Moderne style, epitomising the
characteristic features and exhibiting a less common emphasis on the horizontal.
She submitted that the place makes the most of its corner location with strong
horizontal elements and a curved window into the showroom. Dr Jordan pointed
out that Streamlined Moderne was considered to be particularly appropriate for
building types associated with new and modern products such as cars.
33
In Mr Reeves’ view, ‘no other pre-war motor showroom in Melbourne could
compare with the reductive functionalism exhibited by the Melford Motors
building’ and other inner city showrooms had little opportunity to display
dynamic horizontal expression. In his view, comparable showrooms can only be
found when one looks outside Melbourne, for example Hastings Deering Pty Ltd
in Sydney.
6
February 2013
34
Lovell Chen submitted that the 1936 building is one of a substantial group of
interwar multi-storey commercial buildings in the Streamlined Moderne style
standing in central Melbourne. Mr Lovell submitted that the application of the
Streamlined Moderne style to a motor showroom, with its suggestion of
modernity, efficiency and speed, is of interest but in the context of other examples
such as Burnham Beeches (H0868) and the United Kingdom Hotel (H0684), he
argued that it would be difficult to elevate Melford Motors to a level of state
significance on stylistic grounds alone. In Mr Lovell’s view, a case has not been
made for the 1936 building to be included in the Register as an example of
Streamlined Moderne.
1950s buildings
35
The Executive Director submitted that the 1955 building is a very good example
of 1950s architecture and argued that the association between the 1930s and 1950s
buildings is significant. Dr Jordan conceded that the 1955 building is not
significant in its own right.
36
Mr Lovell put to the Committee that the 1955 building ‘stands as a relatively
conventional utilitarian example of industrial/commercial architecture of the
1950s and is in no way noteworthy in terms of its external presentation when
considered against other such buildings of the period.’ He was of the view that
this building should not be included just because 1950s architecture is
underrepresented on the register.
Discussion and conclusion
37
The Committee finds that Criterion D is satisfied and that the 1936 portion of
Melford Motors is significant:

as a largely intact example of a motor vehicle showroom, a new building type
appearing in the interwar period; and

as an example of Streamlined Moderne applied to a commercial building,
using stylistic devices to achieve maximum exposure for the car showroom.
38
The Committee finds that the place is not of state significance as an example of
1950s architecture. Underrepresentation of a class of places is not considered to be
a valid reason for inclusion in the Register.
39
The Committee finds that the exterior of the 1955 building exhibits a design
sympathetic to its neighbours and has some significance. The Committee is of the
view that its grading in the heritage overlay to the Melbourne Planning Scheme
should be increased from C to A.
Criterion E - Importance in exhibiting particular aesthetic characteristics
40
The parties disagreed about whether the place is important for its aesthetic
characteristics.
7
February 2013
Submissions and evidence
41
Built Heritage submitted that the place satisfies Criterion E due to its vast scale,
elongated facades and prominent curved corner. Mr Reeves argued that the
building remains a major landmark.
42
Lovell Chen submitted that the 1936 building could be seen to satisfy Criterion E,
but not as an outstanding example.
Discussion and conclusion
43
The Committee finds that Criterion E is not satisfied. The Committee was not
convinced that the aesthetic values of the place are at such a level as to warrant
inclusion in the register under this criterion.
Criterion F - Importance in demonstrating a high degree of creative or technical
achievement at a particular period
44
The parties disagreed about whether Criterion F is satisfied.
Submissions and evidence
45
Mr Reeves submitted that the place satisfies Criterion F as an outstanding
example of Streamlined Moderne. He argued that the building ‘provided the
perfect distillation of pure functional design, with a dynamic horizontal expression
creating a sense of sweeping movement across the facades and around the corner,
heightened by the merest suggestion of ornamentation by the use of shadowlines,
recesses, tapered and splayed edges in place of traditional applied ornament’.
46
In Lovell Chen’s view, criterion was F not satisfied.
Discussion and conclusion
47
The Committee finds that Criterion F is not satisfied. The Committee was not
convinced that the place demonstrates a degree of creative or technical
achievement sufficient to warrant its inclusion in the Register.
Criterion H - Special association with the life or works of a person, or group of
persons, of importance in Victoria’s history
48
The parties disagreed about whether the place’s association with architect Harry
Norris elevated it to a state level of significance.
Submissions and evidence
49
The Executive Director submitted that Melford Motors is architecturally
significant for its association with architect Harry Norris, one of Victoria's leading
designers of office buildings, shops and showrooms in the interwar period.
50
Built Heritage made some mention of Norris in their submissions but it was not
clear from their evidence whether they believe this criterion to be satisfied.
51
Lovell Chen submitted that the association with Norris is of note, but that in itself
this association would not elevate the place to a state level of significance. Mr
Lovell argued that when compared with other Norris buildings of the period, this
is not an outstanding example.
8
February 2013
Discussion and conclusion
52
The Committee finds that Criterion G is not satisfied and was not convinced by
arguments that the place is of state significance for its association with Harry
Norris. The Committee agreed with Lovell Chen that there are better examples of
Norris’s work.
Extent of registration
53
The parties disagreed about the appropriate extent of registration for the place, in
particular whether the 1955 building should be included.
Submissions and evidence
54
The Executive Director’s recommended extent of registration included the 1936
and 1955 buildings (see Attachment 4) and she argued that together they are
important in understanding the history of the Ford Motor Company and the motor
industry in Australia from the interwar period until after World War II. The Art
Deco and Modernism Society concurred, submitting that the 1955 building is part
of an integrated whole.
55
Similarly, Mr Reeves argued that the 1955 addition is an integral part of the
complex, exhibiting a design sympathetic in scale, form and detailing to the 1936
building. He argued that the vast scale of service facilities in the 1955 building
demonstrates the ongoing dominance of Melford Motors during the second wave
of car ownership in the postwar period.
56
According to Mr Reeves, the inclusion of the 1955 building in the extent of
registration lends weight to the overall significance of the site. However, he
conceded that it does not have a high level of historical or architectural
significance in its own right and was of secondary importance to the 1936
building. In his view, the 1936 building would not be detrimentally affected if it
were registered without the 1955 building.
57
Mr Lovell submitted that the core heritage values of the Melford Motors site relate
to the 1936 building as a relatively rare example of a large-scale and largely intact
example of an interwar motorcar showroom. In his view, the recommended extent
of registration includes land and built fabric which is not of state significance. Mr
Lovell argued that no case has been made by the Executive Director for the
inclusion of the 1955 building in the extent of registration - there is little or no
reference to the 1955 building in the Executive Director’s recommendation and no
suggestion that it makes an important contribution to the significance of the place.
Discussion and conclusion
58
The Committee is of the view that the heritage values of state significance
identified at the Melford Motors site are not embodied in the 1955 building. The
Committee has therefore amended the extent of registration to exclude all land
and buildings to the north of the 1936 building (see Attachment 5).
9
February 2013
Permit policy and exemptions
59
The parties disagreed about the adequacy of the recommended permit policy and
exemptions.
Submissions and evidence
60
During advertising of the Executive Director’s recommendation, the owners
submitted that the proposed permit policy and exemptions did not adequately
address operational needs. The Executive Director opposed any changes being
made to the permit policy and exemptions and submitted that it is not the intent of
the policy to address all potential operational needs. The Executive Director
argued that it is particularly important that original fabric illustrative of the place’s
original use is retained.
61
In relation to the exterior, Lovell Chen submitted that the permit policy should be
amended if the 1955 building is excluded from the statement of significance.
62
In terms of the interiors, Lovell Chen questioned the significance of the open
space and interior columns of the ground floor showroom. Mr Lovell argued that
the interior of this building is completely utilitarian on all floors. He put to the
Committee that the only details of interest are the ceiling to the ground floor level,
and the circular panel over the rotating display. He argued that the sense of a
showroom is demonstrated through the external presentation of the building,
especially the showroom windows. Mr Lovell recommended that the references to
the interior in the policy be removed or amended to be less prescriptive.
63
Mr Lovell also questioned the recommendation that the internal ramps be
retained. He put to the Committee that the concrete ramps are conventional and
simply a stair for vehicles. According to Mr Lovell they are not a structural
innovation and there are earlier and contemporary examples. He noted that they
cannot be viewed from outside the building or from the ground floor showroom.
He submitted that they are not considered to be such a core element in terms of
significance as to warrant retention.
Discussion and conclusion
64
In the Committee’s view the important interior features of the 1936 building are
those which demonstrate its original function, on the ground floor being the open
showroom, the decoration, interior of the facade and the turntable. The Committee
is also of the view that a permit should be required for works to the concrete
ramps between the floors and the exposed trusses.
65
The Permit Exemptions have been amended accordingly (see Attachment 3).
CONCLUSION
66
The Committee finds that part of the Former Melford Motors is of architectural
and historical significance to the State of Victoria. It meets the significance
threshold for inclusion in the Victoria Heritage Register according to the Heritage
Council's criteria A, B and D.
10
February 2013
67
The extent of registration, statement of significance and permit policy and
exemptions for the place has been amended to reflect the Committee’s decision
(see Attachments 2-5).
68
The Committee is of the view that the grading of the 1955 building in the heritage
overlay to the Melbourne Planning Scheme should be increased from C to A.
11
February 2013
ATTACHMENT 1
HERITAGE COUNCIL CRITERIA FOR ASSESSMENT OF PLACES OF
CULTURAL HERITAGE SIGIFICANCE
CRITERION A
Importance to the course, or pattern, of Victoria’s cultural
history.
CRITERION B
Possession of uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of
Victoria’s cultural history.
CRITERION C
Potential to yield information that will contribute to an
understanding of Victoria’s cultural history.
CRITERION D
Importance in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a
class of cultural places or objects.
CRITERION E
Importance in exhibiting particular aesthetic characteristics.
CRITERION F
Importance in demonstrating a high degree of creative or
technical achievement at a particular period.
CRITERION G
Strong or special association with a particular community or
cultural group for social, cultural or spiritual reasons. This
includes the significance of a place to Indigenous peoples as
part of their continuing and developing cultural traditions.
CRITERION H
Special association with the life or works of a person, or group
of persons, of importance in Victoria’s history.
These were adopted by the Heritage Council at its meeting on 7 August 2008, and replace the
previous criteria adopted by the Heritage Council on 6 March 1997.
12
February 2013
ATTACHMENT 2
Statement of Significance
What is significant?
The former Melford Motors complex at 615-645 Elizabeth Street, Melbourne is a Streamlined
Moderne style building on a prominent corner site bounded by Elizabeth, Queensberry and
O'Connell Streets Melbourne. It was designed by Harry Norris and built in 1936-7 as which
housed Victoria's largest showroom and service facility for Ford vehicles. The complex
comprises a three-storey wing built in 1936-7 and a two-storey building (dating from 1928) that
was remodelled at the same time, both to the design of prominent Melbourne architect, Harry
Norris.
In the early twentieth century Ford vehicles were the best-selling in Australia, but they were
imported from the USA and Canada until 1928, when the first locally-made Ford was produced
at a new factory in Geelong. The need grew for authorised dealers and service facilities and
Melford Motors, the name a contraction of Melbourne and Ford, founded in 1930 by the
Melbourne businessman Arthur Fenton, became the exclusive dealer for Ford vehicles in inner
Melbourne. By 1932 the firm operated from several premises around the city, including rented
two-storey premises in Elizabeth Street. With sales booming as the effects of the Depression
eased, Melford Motors purchased the Elizabeth Street building and the adjacent block on the
corner of Queensberry Street and engaged the prominent Melbourne architect Harry Norris to
design a new building, incorporating the earlier one. The new building, constructed by Swanson
Brothers, was described in the Argus as the 'finest car showrooms in the Commonwealth'. The
ground floor was used for showrooms and offices, with used cars and the delivery department
on the first floor and vehicle storage and servicing on the second floor. By In 1953 Melford
Motors was described as one of the world's biggest Ford distributors. In 1955 Norris was
commissioned to design a substantial addition to the north, designed to blend with the older
building. Melford Motors continued to operate from the building until 1990, when the company
was sold to Melbourne City Toyota.
The former Melford Motors building is composed of two parts: the remodelled 1920s building in
the centre;to the north and the 1936-7 section on the corner to the south; and at the north end
the 1955 addition. It is a three-storey building with a pale-coloured rendered facade. The
continuous banding with incised shadow lines at the spandrel and parapet levels, and the wide
bands of windows, broken only by curved piers, give a marked horizontal emphasis. The
dominant feature is the curved corner, which on the ground floor level has a sixteen metre long
showroom window made up of five individually curved panes of glass, which wraps around a
display turntable (now not operative) above which is a circular suspended panel with recessed
lighting. The ground floor on the Elizabeth and Queensberry Street elevations is made up of a
series of wide showroom windows, which remain largely intact, apart from the replacement of
some of the etched glass panels and the removal of the window boxes from the interior. The
ground floor is still used as a showroom, and retains the original pillars, some with their fluted
terracotta cladding, and the Moderne-style cornices, but the original offices have been replaced.
The floors above, connected by concrete ramps, are used for the storage and servicing of cars
and are largely open spaces with no decorative detailing.
This site is part of the traditional land of the Kulin Nation.
13
February 2013
How is it significant?
The former Melford Motors is of architectural and historical significance to the state of Victoria.
Why is it significant?
The former Melford Motors is significant at the State level for the following reasons:
The former Melford Motors is of historical significance as a reflection of the rapid expansion of
the automotive industry, and of automotive retailing, in Victoria in the 1930s. Ford was the bestselling vehicle brand in Australia in the early twentieth century, and a boom in sales followed the
beginning of local production in 1928 and the easing of the Depression. Melford Motors was
formed in response to the need for expanded sales and service facilities, and its showroom was
the largest and grandest motor vehicle showroom built in Victoria in the inter-war period. The
former Melford Motors is significant for its location: motor showrooms were typically located
along the northern edge of the City close to the main vehicle entrance to Melbourne, the Sydney
Road, and its southern extension, Elizabeth Street.
The former Melford Motors is of architectural significance as an outstanding and largely intact
example of a motor vehicle showroom, a new building type which appeared in the interwar
period. It is one of the last remaining substantially intact such buildings in Melbourne. It is
significant as an outstanding example of the Streamlined Moderne style in a commercial setting,
which made making the most of its wide street frontages to produce a building with a marked
horizontal expression sweeping around the prominent curved corner. It is architecturally
significant for its association with the eminent architect Harry Norris, who was Victoria's leading
designer of office buildings, shops and showrooms in the inter-war period.
The former Melford Motors is also significant for the following reasons, but not at the State
level:
The former Melford Motors is significant for its location: motor showrooms were typically located
along the northern edge of the city close to the main vehicle entrance to Melbourne, the Sydney
Road, and its southern extension, Elizabeth Street.
It is architecturally significant for its association with the eminent architect Harry Norris, who was
one of Victoria's leading designers of office buildings, shops and showrooms in the interwar
period.
14
February 2013
ATTACHMENT 3
PERMIT POLICY and PERMIT EXEMPTIONS
Permit policy
The purpose of the Permit Policy is to assist when considering or making decisions regarding
works to the place. It is recommended that any proposed works be discussed with an officer of
Heritage Victoria prior to making a permit application. Discussing any proposed works will assist
in answering any questions the owner may have and aid any decisions regarding works to the
place. It is recommended that a Conservation Management Plan is undertaken to assist with the
future management of the cultural significance of the place.
The extent of registration covers the site of the 1928 and 1936 buildings. The addition of new
buildings to the site may impact upon the cultural heritage significance of the place and requires
a permit. The purpose of this requirement is not to prevent any further development on this site,
but to enable control of possible adverse impacts on heritage significance during that process.
All of the registered building is integral to the significance of the place and any external or
internal alterations are subject to permit application.
The significance of the place lies in its rarity and intactness as an outstanding example of a
building associated with the booming motor vehicle industry in Victoria in the inter-war period,
and of the Streamlined Moderne style.
Any changes to the exterior of the building require a permit. The removal of the metal cladding
added to the spandrel above the ground floor would be encouraged.
The most significant interior space is the open showroom on the ground floor adjacent to
Queensberry Street. which The decoration, interior of the facade, the turntable, open space and
columns of the ground floor showroom demonstrates the original function of the building. A
permit is required for works to the interior of the building, the as do the concrete ramps between
the floors and the exposed trusses. The open space and interior columns of the original ground
floor showroom and the ramps between the floors should be retained. The offices have all been
modernised and works to these office spaces which did not impact on original fabric or extend
into the open showroom space are permit exempt. Works to the interiors of the first and second
floors which do not impact on original fabric and are not visible from the exterior of the building
are permit exempt.
Permit exemptions
General Conditions: 1. All exempted alterations are to be planned and carried out in a manner
which prevents damage to the fabric of the registered place or object.
General Conditions: 2. Should it become apparent during further inspection or the carrying out
of works that original or previously hidden or inaccessible details of the place or object are
revealed which relate to the significance of the place or object, then the exemption covering
such works shall cease and Heritage Victoria shall be notified as soon as possible.
15
February 2013
General Conditions: 3. If there is a conservation policy and plan all works shall be in accordance
with it. Note: A Conservation Management Plan or a Heritage Action Plan provides guidance for
the management of the heritage values associated with the site. It may not be necessary to
obtain a heritage permit for certain works specified in the management plan.
General Conditions: 4. Nothing in this determination prevents the Executive Director from
amending or rescinding all or any of the permit exemptions.
General Conditions: 5. Nothing in this determination exempts owners or their agents from the
responsibility to seek relevant planning or building permits from the responsible authorities
where applicable.
Public Safety and Security : The following public safety and security activities are permit exempt
under section 66 of the Heritage Act 1995, a) public safety and security activities provided the
works do not involve the removal or destruction of any significant above-ground structures or
sub-surface archaeological artefacts or deposits; b) the erection of temporary security fencing,
scaffolding, hoardings or surveillance systems to prevent unauthorised access or secure public
safety which will not adversely affect significant fabric of the place including archaeological
features; c) development including emergency stabilisation necessary to secure safety where a
site feature has been irreparably damaged or destabilised and represents a safety risk to its
users or the public. Note: Urgent or emergency site works are to be undertaken by an
appropriately qualified specialist such as a structural engineer, or other heritage professional.
Minor Works : Note: Any Minor Works that in the opinion of the Executive Director will not
adversely affect the heritage significance of the place may be exempt from the permit
requirements of the Heritage Act. A person proposing to undertake minor works must submit a
proposal to the Executive Director. If the Executive Director is satisfied that the proposed works
will not adversely affect the heritage values of the site, the applicant may be exempted from the
requirement to obtain a heritage permit. If an applicant is uncertain whether a heritage permit is
required, it is recommended that the permits co-ordinator be contacted.
Internal works: The offices adjacent to the ground floor showroom have all been modernised
and works to these office spaces which did do not impact on original fabric or impinge on the
open showroom space are permit exempt. Works to the interiors of the first and second floors
which do not impact on original fabric and are not visible from outside the building are permit
exempt.
16
February 2013
ATTACHMENT 4
EXTENT OF REGISTRATION RECOMMENDED BY THE EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR
1. All of the land marked L1 on Diagram 2306 held by the Executive Director, being part of the
land described in plan CP151687.
2. All of the building marked B1 on Diagram 2306 held by the Executive Director.
17
February 2013
ATTACHMENT 5
EXTENT OF REGISTRATION
1. All of the land marked L1 on Diagram 2306 held by the Executive Director, being part of the
land described in plan CP151687.
2. All of the building marked B1 on Diagram 2306 held by the Executive Director.
18
February 2013