Analysis of proposed works at 164 Ingles Street, Port Melbourne with respect to heritage issues - Assessment of Heritage Impacts - City of Port ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Analysis of proposed works at
164 Ingles Street, Port Melbourne with
respect to heritage issues
Assessment of Heritage Impacts
March 2016
B R Y C E R A W O R T H PTY LTD
Conservation Consultants
Architectural Historians
164 Ingles Street, Port Melbourne
Assessment of Heritage Impacts
March 2016
1.0 Introduction
This report to Council was commissioned by the owners of the former J. Kitchen &
Sons Pty Ltd factory site at 164 Ingles Street, Port Melbourne. It comments on the
significance of the former Administrative Offices Building, and the heritage impacts
arising from a proposal to convert the building into residential apartments.
2.0 Sources of Information
The analysis below draws upon relevant documents, including the Port Phillip
Planning Scheme Heritage Overlay (Clause 43.01); Port Phillip’s Heritage Policy
(Clause 22.04), and the Port Phillip Heritage Review - Volumes 1-6 (Version 15, August
2011), an incorporated document that includes the City of Port Phillip Heritage Policy
Map. Several site visits and external inspections have been undertaken in the
preparation of this report. Referenced historical sources include MMBW Plans, the
Victorian Historical Journal, Advance (Journal), Argus and historical images from the
State Library of Victoria’s Online Picture Collection.
Bryce Raworth Conservation previously prepared a heritage analysis of the subject
site (April 2013), and this report draws on that previous document in part in
relation to the history and significance of the place.
It should also be read in conjunction with the drawings and other documents
prepared by Brenchley Architects submitted with respect to this application.
Bryce Raworth Pty Ltd Conservation Urban Design 1
3.0 History
The subject site contains the former administrative offices of the Kitchen and Sons
Pty Ltd Factory. The company had its origins in the mid-nineteenth century. Mr
J. Kitchen arrived in Australia in 1856 and together with his three sons established
the firm of J. Kitchen and Sons. Although the Kitchen family began making tallow
candles from butchers' scraps in the backyard of their Emerald Hill (South
Melbourne) house, they were soon ordered out as a noxious trade.1 The company
moved its operations to Sandridge – now Port Melbourne – in late 1858 or early
1859, at a site located at the corner of Sandridge and Emerald Hill Roads, now
Crockford and Ingles Streets respectively. After these premises were gutted by fire
in 1860 – the first of a number of large fires that were to occur over the years – the
company relocated to its current site in 1860, within close proximity to the South
Melbourne Abattoir on Boundary Road.2 Within thirty years, John Kitchen &
Sons had become the chief manufacturers of candles and soap in the eastern
mainland colonies, making products such as Velvet Soap and Electrine Candles.
Figure 1 The Administrative Offices Building, c1925. Source: Advance, Vol 2 No 7, July
1925, p17.
In 1870 the Kitchens acquired the Gossage Bros. soap and candle factory at
Footscray, to which they duly transferred their boiling-down operations. A factory
was established in Wellington, New Zealand, in 1876, and competitors were
progressively acquired: at Sandhurst (Bendigo) in 1878, Echuca in 1887, and
Wangaratta the same year. By the early 1880s the firm employed some 300
workers in Melbourne. Although the Kitchens initially leased the land in
Sandridge, in May 1882 the whole area bounded by Ingles, Boundary and
1 Their original house was a small rented building at the corner of Moray and York Streets, South
Melbourne. In 1856 they moved to a dwelling on Bridport St. Colin Kitchen, ‘John Kitchen Chemical
Industry Pioneer: a Soap Story’, Victorian Historical Journal, Vol.64, No.1, April 1993, p7.
2 For example, one large fire occurred in June 1930 (with damage estimated to be between £4,000 and
£5,000) and another in December 1953.
Bryce Raworth Pty Ltd Conservation Urban Design 2
Woodruff Streets was officially transferred from the Crown to J.Kitchen & Sons.3 When the company merged with the Apollo Stearine Candle Co. in February 1885, Kitchen & Sons and Apollo Company Limited became the pre-eminent soap and candle manufacturer in the eastern mainland colonies.4 MMBW Detail Plans dating from c1894 show the site at Ingles Street at that time labelled ‘Apollo Stearine Candle Co’. The name Apollo was dropped from the awkward title in 1901. By 1902, the company had expanded to Western Australia and South Australia. Velvet Soap was introduced as a brand name by 1906 and Solvol by 1915. Other products included Witch and Anchor laundry soaps, and Persil, ‘the modern oxygen washer.’ One of the by-products of the manufacturing process was glycerine: this was used for explosives, medicinal purposes and in the tobacco industry. The expansion of the company was largely directed by John Ambrose Kitchen, founder John Kitchen’s second son. By the time the company merged with the British firm Lever Bros in 1914, it employed over 1000 workers across Australia.5 With expansion of the company, more office space was required, and in 1908 the offices were relocated to premises at 10 Queen Street where they occupied part of the second floor. As the company continued to grow it bought the building and turned out all other tenants: however, eventually this too proved inadequate. It was decided that a new purpose-built office building be constructed where, as Advance stated, ‘works and offices could be under one administration, and where the staff could increase almost without limitation.’6 The new Administrative Offices Building was to be located in on the eastern side of Ingles Street, at the northeast corner of where it intersected with Quin Street (no longer extant). Although the architect of these offices is not definitively known, it is interesting to compare the design of the Administrative Offices Building with the design of the building that neighboured the Queen Street offices. Designed by the architectural practice of H.W. and F.B. Tompkins, the former Yorkshire Fire & Life Insurance building at 20 Queen Street (c1922) and the Administrative Offices Building share many architectural similarities. An article in The Argus dating from July 1925 shows a perspective drawing of the building, noting that the new offices were ‘now regarded as the permanent home of the firm.’7 The building as realised was little changed from that depicted in The Argus with the exception of the windows on the front facade being divided with masonry mullions and additional brackets to the side elevations. An article in the Advance – a ‘journal of interest to all employees of J Kitchen & Son Pty Ltd throughout Australia' – states that '...the firm may well claim to have built one of 3 Colin Kitchen, ‘John Kitchen Chemical Industry Pioneer: a Soap Story’, Victorian Historical Journal, Vol.64, No.1, April 1993, p9. 4 The two amalgamated companies were then known by the somewhat unwieldy title of J. Kitchen & Sons and Apollo Company Limited. Colin Kitchen, ‘John Kitchen Chemical Industry Pioneer: a Soap Story’, Victorian Historical Journal, Vol.64, No.1, April 1993, p13. 5 The Australian subsidiary, however, remained under Kitchen family control. 6 Advance, Vol 2 No 7, July 1925, p17. 7 ‘New Offices of Kitchen and Sons Pty. Ltd.’, The Argus, Monday 6 July 1925, p17. Held in Trove. Bryce Raworth Pty Ltd Conservation Urban Design 3
the most up-to-date blocks of offices in the Commonwealth, combining loftiness,
dignity and stability.’8
Figure 2 Perspective drawing of the Administrative Offices Building. Source: ‘New Offices
of Kitchen and Sons Pty. Ltd.’, The Argus, Monday 6 July 1925, p17. Held in
Trove.
Figure 3 J. Kitchen & Sons Factory site in Port Melbourne, January 1931.
8 Advance, Vol 2 No 7, July 1925, pp17-18. Advance was the name given to a journal produced by J.
Kitchen & Sons during the second half of the 1920s, into the 1930s. Held at the Port Melbourne
Historical Society.
Bryce Raworth Pty Ltd Conservation Urban Design 4
Figure 4 J. Kitchen & Sons Factory site in Port Melbourne, February 1939. Source:
State Library of Victoria Online Picture Collection.
The interiors were also worthy of note. Inside the main entrance, the vestibule was
accessed through revolving storm doors and was described as having its 'mosaic
floor in a shining pattern, having the monogram of J Kitchen & Sons worked into
the centre.’ Mosaic tiles covered the walls to the staircases. The main office spaces
were located on the first floor, Directors, the Secretary's Department, Advertising
Department and Branch Inspector, all of which opened out 'onto a balcony
overlooking the ground floor.'9 A large boardroom was also located on this floor.
The article notes that ‘the afternoon sun’s direct rays will not penetrate into the
office, as special balconies have been built with windows opening from them, and
the heat is deflected before it reaches the offices.’10 Interior fittings were of the
highest quality with doors of 'polished maple and plate glass.'
The second floor contained a 'spacious hall for social purposes designed to
accommodate 700 people' with a kauri dance floor.’11 The Social Club organised
dances, smoke nights, table tennis competitions and picnics. There was also a
tennis club, a cricket club and a football club which on the King's Birthday took on
another large Port Melbourne company, the biscuit-makers Swallow & Ariel, at the
Port Melbourne football ground.
9 Advance, Vol 2 No 7, July 1925, p18.
10 Advance, Vol 2 No 7, July 1925, p18.
11 Advance, Vol 2 No 7, July 1925, p19.
Bryce Raworth Pty Ltd Conservation Urban Design 5
Figure 5 Photograph of the front entrance, c1925. Source: Advance, Vol 2 No 7, July
1925, p17.
Figure 6 View of the main interior space, the General Office Floor, of the Administrative
Offices Building from the front balcony, c1925. Source: Advance, Vol 2 No 7,
July 1925.
Bryce Raworth Pty Ltd Conservation Urban Design 6
An aerial photo from the (ripped) cover of the January 1931 edition of Advance
shows the factory premises in Ingles Street as it existed at that time.12 Of particular
note is the street – then known as Quinn Street – that then ran along the southern
facade of the Administration Building. In 1923, J. Kitchen & Sons requested that
Port Melbourne Council reduce the width of Quinn Street by 33 feet to enable
further expansion of their works. Quinn Street was at the time 99 feet wide,
unmade and little used, so Council agreed to the request on the proviso that the
company purchase the 33 feet wide strip of land. A newspaper report printed over
ten years later in October 1937 records that Council rescinded a motion from July
that year allowing J Kitchen and Sons to take over the remaining 66 feet of Quinn
Street.13 The motion was rescinded on issues relating to the cost of construction
and the land value, enabling Council to negotiate afresh. These negotiations must
have been successful as there is now little obvious sign that Quinn St ever existed.
Figure 7 The Secretary’s office, c1925. Source: Advance, Vol 2 No 7, July 1925.
Figure 8 View of the General Office Floor, looking towards the front door, c1925. Source:
Advance, Vol 2 No 7, July 1925.
12 Advance, Vol 7 No 27, January 1931.
13 http://artdecobuildings.blogspot.com.au/2009/06/j-kitchen-sons-port-melbourne.html
Bryce Raworth Pty Ltd Conservation Urban Design 7
Figure 9 View of the hall with its ‘floor laid out for dancing’, c1925. Source: Advance,
Vol 2 No 7, July 1925, p18.
Figure 10 The rear of the Administrative Offices Building can be seen in the photograph
above, c1930. It seems likely that the building shown here in the foreground was
attached to the Administrative Offices Building and that its side wall can be seen
at ground level today. Source: Front cover of Advance, Vol.7 No.26 October
1930.
Bryce Raworth Pty Ltd Conservation Urban Design 8
By 1924, Lever had fully acquired the business. In recent decades, John Kitchen &
Sons became known as Kitchen & Lever, then Unilever and, most recently in 1976,
Unichema. Lever & Kitchen soaps became Lever Rexona.
4.0 Description
The former John Kitchen & Sons Factory at 164 Ingles Street, Port Melbourne,
originally occupied the entire block bounded by Ingles Street to the west, Munro
Street to the south, Woodruff Street to the north, and Boundary Street to the east.
The former Adminstrative Offices Building, the subject of this assessment, occupies
a small, rectangular portion of land in the southern corner of the site fronting Inglis
Street to the west. The site and its surroundings are flat in topography.
The c.1925 former Administrative Offices Building is a three-storeyed stuccoed
brick building designed in the interwar Classical revival manner. The symmetrical
front facade is flanked by rusticated corner elements, that are pierced with
continuous narrow steel-framed vertical windows. (The windows to the street
façade are currently bordered up). The elevations are divided into vertical bays
with pilaster-like elements that stand slightly proud of the banks of steel-framed
windows and spandrel panels which run horizontally across the facade. The overall
composition is crowned with a bracketed cornice and plain parapet, though
projecting raised elements at the corners of the parapet have been removed. A
number of steps lead to the central entrance doors: these are surrounded by a
stepped reveal in buff coloured cement with a polished granite architrave. An early
photograph, captioned 'imposing main entrance', shows a lamp on either side of the
doorway. These are no longer extant. The same article states that the building was
constructed of ‘cement-faced brick and steel built on piles, some of which were
driven to a depth of 60 feet.’ Overall, the building remains readily legible to its
original form, both internally and externally.
The interior retains a great deal of original fabric, albeit fabric that is not
necessarily in good condition. The overall spaces to the ground and first floors
remain largely as first constructed, although some partitioning has been added to
create offices between the windows and the columns on the ground floor, and the
hall on the second floor has been partitioned over and the original coved ceiling
(shown in Figure 9) clad over. The partitioning appears to have been added
relatively early, possibly during the 1930s. The vestibule to the front of the building
remains, as do the original revolving doors.
Some of the building’s fabric is in poor condition and in need of repair or
replacement. Much of the timber – said to be Maple – is showing signs of termite
infestation, and the timber floor to the ground floor requires replacement and has
been in part removed. Water ingress, presumably owing to failure of the
bituminous roof above, has resulted in visible damage to plaster and probable
damage to structural elements. Vandalism appears also to have been a major issue
Bryce Raworth Pty Ltd Conservation Urban Design 9in recent times. Many windows have been smashed, carpets ripped up, surfaces
spray-painted, and the copper stripped from the building.
Having regard for the poor condition of the building, Council has previously
permitted removal of some internal fabric of low significance and fabric that is in
particularly poor condition.
Inglis Street is a relatively broad two-way street featuring parallel parking on each
side. It is edged by concrete gutters and kerbing, with grassed nature strips and
concrete footpaths. The nature strip along the east side includes intermittent
plantings of street trees.
Most of the surrounding land on the block adjacent to the subject site was left
vacant after the demolition of most of the factory complex. Construction works
associated with the redevelopment of this land has commenced, including a multi-
storey building immediately adjacent to the subject building to the east. The
opposite west side of Ingles Street borders the eastern side of the Port Melbourne
Cricket Ground. The subject site is therefore characterised by large areas of open
space rather than existing built form with which the former Administrative Building
has an architectural relationship.
Figure 11 The primary façade to the Administrative Offices Building at 164 Ingles St, Port
Melbourne..
Bryce Raworth Pty Ltd Conservation Urban Design 10Figure 12 Corner view of the street frontage with the west elevation at left.
Figure 13 The rear of the Offices Administration Building, c.2013. Even this elevation
remains largely intact to its original form, although the second floor balcony has
been enclosed. (This elevation remains unchanged since this image was taken).
Bryce Raworth Pty Ltd Conservation Urban Design 11Figure 14 View looking across the roof from the front of the building. The pitched gabled
section is at a setback from the Ingles Street frontage.
Figure 15 Construction of a multi-storey development has commenced on the adjacent site to
the east of the Administrative Offices Building along Ingles Street, concealing views
of the east elevation from the street.
Bryce Raworth Pty Ltd Conservation Urban Design 12Figure 16 View across the ground floor lobby toward the main entry doors (now externally
boarded).
Figure 17 View looking north across the ground floor lobby.
Bryce Raworth Pty Ltd Conservation Urban Design 13Figure 18 Part of the main stair at the front of the building with decorative terrazzo dados
visible.
Figure 19 Another view of the main stair.
Bryce Raworth Pty Ltd Conservation Urban Design 14Figure 20 View of the General Office Floor of the Administrative Offices Building.
5.0 Significance
The Statement of Significance for the former John Kitchen & Sons offices as
provided in Volume 1 of the Port Phillip Heritage Review (Version 16, 2013) reads as
follows:
The former administrative offices and staff amenities building of John Kitchen and Sons
Pty. Ltd., is historically significant (Criterion A) for its capacity to demonstrate the scale
of the company’s undertaking in Port Melbourne as well as its long standing presence at
this site, commencing c.1858 when it was seen to be sufficiently remote from settled areas
for a noxious industry. It is important also for its capacity to demonstrate the company’s
enlightened attitude to workers’ conditions, accommodating a social hall for their
enjoyment. The building is important for its capacity to indirectly recall the products
manufactured at this site which became in many instances household words throughout the
nation. Together with the former premises of Felton Grimwade and Co., John Kitchen
and Sons’ operations survive as the principal industrialists in Ingles Street during the
nineteenth century. Finally, the building has architectural significance as an exceptionally
imposing commercial building in the Classical Revival manner of the inter-war period
outside of the City centre.
The subject building is included in the larger former John Kitchen and Sons site
that is identified as a significant heritage place on the City of Port Phillip Heritage Policy
Map. Under Clause 22.04-5, significant heritage places are defined as:
Significant heritage places include buildings and surrounds that are individually
important places of either State, regional or local heritage significance and are places that
together within an identified area, are part of the significance of a Heritage Overlay.
These places are included in a Heritage Overlay either as an area or as an individually
Bryce Raworth Pty Ltd Conservation Urban Design 15listed heritage place and are coloured “red” on the City of Port Phillip Heritage Policy
Map in the Port Phillip Heritage Review, Volume 1-6.
Figure 21 Extract from the City of Port Phillip Heritage Policy Map showing the subject site
(denoted by the black arrow) as ‘individually significant’.
6.0 Heritage Status
The property at 164 Ingles Street is subject to a site-specific heritage control
identified as HO164 in the schedule to the heritage overlay of the Port Phillip
Planning Scheme. This overlay extends over the whole of the much larger former
John Kitchen & Sons Factory site. However, the citation associated with the
heritage overlay makes it clear that the intent of the overlay is to conserve the
former Administrative Offices and Staff Amenities Building facing Ingles Street
(which dates from 1925). Paint controls and internal controls apply under HO164,
although tree controls do not.
Although the subject site is not included on the Victorian Heritage Register or the
Register of the National Trust of Australia (Victoria), the citation states that the site is:
Recommended for inclusion on the Register of the National Estate. Recommended, subject
to an interior inspection, for inclusion on the Victorian Heritage Register.
Bryce Raworth Pty Ltd Conservation Urban Design 16HO164
164 Ingles Street
HO447
Figure 12 Map showing extent of HO164 and location of subject site.
7.0 Heritage Overlay
As noted above, the land is subject to a site-specific heritage overlay identified as
HO164 in the schedule to the Port Phillip Planning Scheme. It is therefore subject to
the provisions of Clauses 43.01 and 22.04 of the Port Phillip Planning Scheme. The
purpose of the heritage overlay under Clause 43.01 is as follows:
• To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy
Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.
• To conserve and enhance heritage places of natural or cultural significance.
• To conserve and enhance those elements which contribute to the significance of heritage
places.
• To ensure development does not adversely affect the significance of heritage places.
• To conserve specifically identified heritage places by allowing a use that would otherwise
be prohibited if this will demonstrably assist with conservation of the significance of
heritage places.
Before deciding on an application, in addition to the decision guidelines in Clause
65, the responsible authority must consider, as appropriate:
• The State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework,
including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.
• The significance of the heritage place and whether the proposal will adversely affect the
natural or cultural significance of the place.
• Any applicable heritage study and any applicable conservation policy.
• Whether the location, bulk, form or appearance of the proposed building will adversely
affect the significance of the heritage place.
• Whether the location, bulk, form or appearance of the proposed building is in keeping
with the character and appearance of adjacent buildings and the heritage place.
Bryce Raworth Pty Ltd Conservation Urban Design 17• Whether the demolition, removal or external alteration will adversely affect the
significance of the heritage place.
• Whether the proposed works will adversely affect the significance, character or
appearance of the heritage place.
• Whether the proposed subdivision will adversely affect the significance of the heritage
place.
• Whether the proposed subdivision may result in development which will adversely affect
the significance, character or appearance of the heritage place.
• Whether the proposed sign will adversely affect the significance, character or appearance
of the heritage place.
• Whether the pruning, lopping or development will adversely affect the health, appearance
or significance of the tree.
Any future proposal for the site must also be assessed against Council’s local
heritage policy which provides more specific guidance as to the forms of
development that might be appropriate in Heritage Overlay areas. Specifically, the
relevant sections of Council’s heritage policy as set out under Clause 22.04 are set
out below:
22.04-2 Objectives
• To retain and conserve all significant and contributory heritage places.
• To discourage the demolition of significant and contributory heritage places.
• To ensure all new development and redevelopment of significant and contributory places
is respectfully and harmoniously integrated with the surrounding character.
• To promote design excellence (in terms of building siting, scale, massing, articulation and
materials) which clearly and positively supports the heritage significance of all Heritage
Overlay areas.
• To ensure that new development and any publicly visible additions and/or alterations in
or to a heritage place maintains the significance of the heritage place and employs a
contextual design approach.
• To encourage development, in particular use of materials, that responds to the historic
character of laneways and to minimise elements that adversely impact on that character.
• To ensure that reconstruction and repair of significant heritage bluestone kerb and
channelling, bluestone laneways and significant concrete kerb and channel is carried out
in a way that reflects as closely as possible the original appearance.
22.04-3 Policy
General
It is policy to:
• Encourage the restoration and reconstruction of heritage places (including the accurate
reconstruction of original streetscape elements such as verandahs) in all areas, and in
particular, in intact or substantially consistent streetscapes in the South Melbourne,
Albert Park, Middle Park and St Kilda West Heritage Overlay areas (HO440,
HO441, HO442, HO443, HO444, HO445 or HO446).
• Encourage the removal of alterations and additions that detract from the heritage
significance of a heritage place.
• Encourage new development to be respectful of the scale, form, siting and setbacks of
nearby significant and contributory buildings.
• Disregard the impact of buildings that are obviously atypical to the character of the
streetscape when determining the appropriate mass and scale for new buildings or
extensions or upper storey additions.
• Encourage a contextual design approach for additions and/or alterations to a heritage
place or for new development. A contextual approach is where the alteration, addition or
new development incorporates an interpretive design approach, derived through
comprehensive research and analysis. New development should sit comfortably and
harmoniously integrate with the site and within the streetscape and not diminish, detract
Bryce Raworth Pty Ltd Conservation Urban Design 18from or compete with the significance of the heritage place or streetscape character. This
approach can include
o Contemporary architecture and innovative design which is an important part
of the contextual approach because it adds to the existing diversity and layering
of styles through time. This layering is a defining feature in a number of areas
and is therefore an important component of Port Phillip’s heritage.
o Accurate reproduction architecture may be employed in limited instances where
detailed evidence, such as photographic evidence, exists for that alteration,
addition or new development. This approach may be more appropriate in the
South Melbourne, Albert Park, Middle Park and St Kilda West Heritage
Overlay areas (HO440, HO441, HO442, HO443, HO444, HO445 or
HO446), but may have limited application elsewhere.
Additions and/or Alterations to Heritage Places
It is policy that:
Additions and alterations:
• Do not change the original principal facade(s) or roof.
• Are distinguishable from the original parts of the heritage place to be conserved, if a
contemporary architectural approach is used.
• Are based on research that can identify the elements, detailing and finishes originally
employed.
• Do not obscure or alter an element that contributes to the significance of the heritage
place.
• Maintain an existing vista or viewlines to the principal facade(s) of a heritage place.
• An upper storey addition is sited and massed behind the principal facade so that it
preferably is not visible, particularly in intact or consistent streetscapes (see Performance
Measure 1).
Performance Measure 1
Upper storey additions may meet the above policy for siting and massing if the following
measures, as appropriate, are achieved:
• They are sited within an “envelope” created by projecting a sight line from 1.6 metres
above ground level (this being the eye level of an adult person of average height) to the
front parapet or gutter on the main facade and taken from a point where the footpath
meets the property line directly opposite the site, where the property has a frontage to a
narrow street (5 metres or less) or laneway (illustration 1), or
• They are sited within an “envelope” created by projecting a line of 10 degrees from the
height of the base of the front parapet or gutter line on the main facade and extending to
the rear of the heritage place (illustration 2 or 3), or
• In exceptional cases where the heritage place is located in a diverse streetscape and the
design of the proposed addition is considered to be an appropriate contextual response,
they are sited within an “envelope” created by projecting a line of up to 18 degrees from
the height of the base of the front parapet or gutter line on the main facade of the heritage
place.
• If visible from the front (principal) street, the roof of any addition is related to that of the
heritage place in terms of form, pitch and materials.
Bryce Raworth Pty Ltd Conservation Urban Design 19• Where the property is located on a corner site, the upper storey addition is sited and
massed so it is visually recessive from the front of the building, so that the scale of the
heritage place is the dominant element in the front (principal) streetscape.
• In cases where the original heritage place has been altered, the previous alterations and
additions are retained and conserved where they help to interpret the history of its
development and they contribute to the significance of the heritage place.
• New openings in the principal facade(s) visible from the street are avoided, or if openings
are visible, they are proportionally related to those of the heritage place.
• Walls, windows, roofs and fences are complementary to the heritage place in terms of
materials, finishes, textures and paint colours and are appropriate to its architectural
style.
• New development achieves environmentally sustainable outcomes, including upgrading
existing fabric to reduce operational environmental impact of existing buildings, which is
balanced with protecting the heritage significance of the site.
[…]
Demolition
Where a permit is required for demolition of a significant or contributory building, it is policy to:
• Refuse the demolition of a significant building unless and only to the extent that:
o the building is structurally unsound;
o the replacement building and/or works displays design excellence which
clearly and positively supports the ongoing heritage significance of the area.
• Refuse the demolition of a contributory building unless and only to the extent that:
o the building is structurally unsound, and either
o the replacement building and/or works displays design excellence which
clearly and positively supports to the ongoing heritage significance of the area,
or
o in exceptional circumstances the streetscape is not considered intact or
consistent in heritage terms.
• Require all applications for demolition of significant or contributory buildings to be
accompanied by an application for new development.
• Allow the demolition of part of a heritage place if it will not affect the significance of the
place and the proposed addition is sympathetic to the scale and form of the place.
8.0 Development Proposal
The current proposal seeks to adaptively reuse the retained volume of the former
Administrative Offices by converting the building into residential apartments.
The principal south facade overlooking Ingles Street will be retained and restored.
The boarded windows will be uncovered and restored, repaired or replaced to their
original presentation. The east side elevation will also be retained in its original
form and restored. Changes to the west side elevation will include the removal of
external stairs, the insertion of new window openings at second floor level to match
those on the east elevation and the construction of a carport along the north side
containing car stackers. The rear north elevation will be the most altered, with
glass balustrades and retractable privacy screens to the external terraces at each
level.
Internally, the original front entry lobby and stairwell will be retained. A small
representative section of the west end of the double-height General Office Floor
space will be retained. At second floor level the front lobby and stair will also be
Bryce Raworth Pty Ltd Conservation Urban Design 20retained. The balance of the building at ground to second floor levels will be converted into residential apartment spaces. Some of the existing partition walls to the offices around the perimeter of the building will be retained. The staircases and void at the east end of the building will be converted into outdoor terrace spaces at each level. The existing pitched roof will be largely removed to create a communal rooftop garden. The steel roof trusses currently concealed within the roof structure will be retained and repurposed into pergolas in a manner that is interpretative of the original roof form. The retained original front stairwell will be extended to roof level and enclosed with glazing. A narrow glazed roof will extend eastwards from this across the full width of the roof. Discussion The proposed changes retain the original external character of the building as viewed from Ingles Street. The street facade will be restored to its original character, with the boarded opening reopened and returned to their original appearance. Views of the retained side east and west elevations will be largely concealed from views along Ingles Street by the adjacent built form currently under construction. Change will be limited to the west elevation, and will be relatively modest in extent. The carport proposed for the northern end of the west elevation will be set back from the street in a manner that reduces its visibility. The rear or south elevation is of no architectural note and is not visible from the public realm. On this basis, the external changes to that part of the building are acceptable. The proposed rooftop changes will similarly have limited visibility from street level. Activity at rooftop level will generally not be visible from the street due to the considerable setback of the new roof garden behind the front parapet. Similarly, the pitched roof form is sufficiently set back from the building frontage that its conversion into exposed steel roof truss pergolas will also have little (if any) visibility from street level. It is possible that existing views of this roof form from more distant vantage points along Ingles Street in each direction will be largely concealed by the adjacent developments, but any oblique distant views that survive will have a positive interpretive character in relation to these elements. Council policy recommendations under Clause 22.04 relating to alterations include • Do not change the original principal facade(s) or roof, • Maintain an existing vista or viewlines to the principal facade(s) of a heritage place and • Do not obscure or alter an element that contributes to the significance of the heritage place. The proposed external changes are generally consistent with these guidelines, upholding the key elements of the building’s public presentation. The changes to the pitched roof form are in a location that is not prominently visible from Ingles Street. The extent of external change is modest, particularly noting that the setting to the exterior is undergoing fundamental change of a transformative nature. The retention of the front internal spaces including the lobbies and the main stairwell is a positive heritage outcome. These are the more formal, decorative Bryce Raworth Pty Ltd Conservation Urban Design 21
spaces within the building and they will continue to serve a comparable in the new
scheme as they did in the original building.
Only a restricted, representative section of the General Office Floor will be retained
in the development scheme to demonstrate the original appearance of this space,
with most of its volume infilled to accommodate apartments. While it would
desirable to retain more if not all of its original double-height volume, the large,
high proportions of this space make it difficult for it to be adapted to a new,
economically viable use in its current form. Apart from its large size and central
location, the General Office Floor is not notably decorative or architecturally
distinguished in character.
Given that the site as a whole has changed from industrial to residential use, and
that no use similar to the original administrative use can be contemplated for the
site in the future, it is a reasonable and balanced adaptive reuse outcome for this
building that this element of the interior should be represented in a limited form,
with interpretation providing an opportunity for an enhanced understanding of the
space’s original configuration, extent and overall appearance.
Similarly, the office spaces and associated spaces including bathrooms located
around the perimeter of the General Office Floor at ground and first floor level are
relatively plain and generic in character for the period. These are less significant
spaces relative to the more obviously decorative character of the front lobbies and
main stairwell. It is not practical to retain the existing fabric and plan form of these
spaces in the new scheme in new apartments that meet contemporary lifestyle
expectations. Their loss will represent a relatively minor loss of significance relative
to the building overall.
The statement of significance for the former Administrative Offices Building
identifies its significance as architectural and historic. The architectural
significance relates to it being ‘an exceptionally imposing commercial building in
the Classical Revival manner of the inter-war period’, a character principally
demonstrated by the building’s external street frontage rather than its interiors.
While the history of the Kitchen and Sons Pty Ltd on the site is of interest, the
internal spaces are conventional and generic for the period and are not specifically
demonstrative of the activities the company undertook or the products for which it
was best known.
Internal controls under the provisions of the Heritage Overlay do not necessarily
imply complete retention of all internal fabric. Similarly, policy (reproduced below)
does allow for the possibility of partial demolition depending on the degree to
which it affects the overall significance of the place.
Demolition
Where a permit is required for demolition of a significant or contributory building, it is policy to:
[…]
• Allow the demolition of part of a heritage place if it will not affect the significance of the
place and the proposed addition is sympathetic to the scale and form of the place.
Bryce Raworth Pty Ltd Conservation Urban Design 22In this context, the loss of some interior spaces including the General Office Floor and offices can be reasonably contemplated given the development scheme upholds the contribution the building makes to its adjacent streetscape and the wider heritage overlay, will enable restoration works to be undertaken to the retained parts of the building and ensure its long term, economically viable occupancy. In conclusion, the proposed development scheme represents a considered balance between the need to retain the significant external architectural qualities of the former Administrative Offices Building and some of its key internal spaces, while allowing for its reuse in a way will ensure its long term occupancy and enable conservation works to be undertaken. Having regard for all the above, the scheme has been prepared with appropriate regard for Council Policy under Clauses 43.01 and 22.04, and on this basis should be seen to be acceptable. Bryce Raworth Pty Ltd Conservation Urban Design 23
You can also read
