//
[489]
austlii:vic/PPV/2025/34
General information, not legal advice.
PPV
2025-07-09
Original judgment source is linked above.
The application of the Heritage Overlay to the SRWSC Precinct is justified because it meets the threshold of Local Significance under the following criteria:
It is appropriate to amend the Statement of Significance as proposed by Council (Document 40) to improve clarity.
It is appropriate to apply the Heritage Overlay to 2 Kurrajong Street and 501 High Street, Golden Square as part of the SRWSC Precinct as the properties contribute to its heritage significance. However, it is not appropriate to apply tree controls at 2 Kurrajong Street because the identified trees are not original plantings.
Trees on private land, where tree controls are proposed to apply in the Heritage Overlay Schedule, should be reviewed regarding their heritage significance if views of the tree were obstructed as identified in the Tree Study (trees 183, 184, 185, 195, 196, 197, 198 and 199).
Outbuilding and fence controls are appropriate at 501 High Street as the original garages contribute to the heritage significance of the Precinct.
It is appropriate to remove reference to subdivision in the Statement of Significance and allow subdivision applications to be considered on their merits.
Girton Grammar School, 83-119 Mackenzie Street, Bendigo (HO990)
The Statement of Significance for 83-119 Mackenzie Street, Bendigo should be amended to more accurately describe the property and its significant features.
These changes should be in accordance with Council's Part B version of the Statement of Significance (Document 28.1), but further modified to:
It is not appropriate to introduce a new category, 'historical interest', and apply it to elements of a place in the Statement of Significance for 83-119 Mackenzie Street, Bendigo.
References to the term 'historical interest' should be removed from the Statement of Significance.
The citation in the Heritage Study Stage 2 should be amended accordingly.
The Heritage Overlay should be applied to 130 High Street, Bendigo as a historically significant example of commercial development which occurred on the principal roads outside the central district of Bendigo in the early twentieth century.
The Statement of Significance for 130 High Street should be amended to:
The citation in the Heritage Study Stage 2 should be amended accordingly.
The exhibited Statement of Significance for 40 Mackenzie Street, West Golden Square should be amended to more accurately describes the evolution of the hotel's construction, including elements that are not significant (being the opaque glass in some lower sash windows) and noting the replacement roof.
The importance of the hotel to the past mining community should be described as part of Criterion A (historical significance) and not Criterion G (social significance).
The citation in the Heritage Study Stage 2 should be amended accordingly.
Golden Square Fire Station, 260 High Street, Golden Square (HO965)
It is appropriate to remove the bell and hose drying tower as significant elements from the Statement of Significance for 260 High Street, Golden Square as they were not part of the original fabric of the Fire Station.
The Statement of Significance should be revised to remove reference to the Fire Station still being in use.
The social (associative) significance of the place should be reassessed now the Fire Station has ceased operation, and if this is no longer relevant this reference should be removed from the Statement of Significance.
The citation in the Heritage Study Stage 2 should be amended accordingly.
The Statement of Significance for 24 Booth Street should be amended to:
The citation in the Heritage Study Stage 2 should be amended accordingly.
Existing Rowan Street Precinct (HO11) and 46-48 Old Violet Street, Bendigo
The streetscapes along Old Violet Street, Olive Street and Pitt Street exhibit features that continue to reflect their history. Development in these streetscapes could influence the heritage significance of the streetscapes and proposed adjoining precincts.
Properties along Old Violet Street, Olive Street and Pitt Street, including 46-48 Old Violet Street, Bendigo, should not be removed from the Heritage Overlay and should be included in the Old Violet Street Precinct (HO957).
46-48 Old Violet Street should be recommended for inclusion in the Victorian Heritage Inventory.
Tree 147 identified in the Golden Square Heritage Tree Study 2021 should be included in the Heritage Overlay as part of the Old Violet Street Precinct (HO957).
It is appropriate to review all statements of significance to ensure boundaries shown in the significant tree aerial mapping aligns with the precinct boundary mapping and to remove notations (green dots) illustrating significant trees which are outside the precinct.
Clause 11.03-1L should not be reworded to include the southern part of 2-20 Chum Street, Golden Square within the St John of God Activity Centre because the Structure Plan does not specify this outcome.
It is not necessary to include a place-based policy in Clause 11.03-6L and strategies are appropriately captured under thematic headings throughout the Planning Policy Framework.
A new strategy should be included under 'Centre specific strategies' at Clause 11.03-1L to encourage redevelopment of activity centres in accordance with the Structure Plan.
Clause 16.01-1L should be reworded to better reflect the intended future development of the land at 2-20 Chum Street.
Update the Golden Square Structure Plan to be consistent with the wording of Clause 16.01-1L in relation to land at 2-20 Chum Street.
Land on Panton Street between Maple and Laurel Streets should not be rezoned from Commercial 1 Zone to a residential zone as part of this Amendment. The approach to progress the rezoning of this land through proposed Amendment C293gben is supported.
The Amendment will assist in implementing a vision for Golden Square which facilitates revitalisation and growth in a manner that respects and complements its valued heritage character. The Amendment should proceed subject to addressing the more specific issues raised in submissions as discussed in this report.
Based on the reasons set out in this Report, the Panel recommends that Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C270gben be adopted as exhibited subject to the following:
(a) review trees 183, 184, 185, 195, 196, 197, 198 and 199 in the Golden Square Heritage Tree Study 2021 to determine whether they are original plantings and contribute to the heritage significance of the State Rivers and Waters Supply Commission Residential Precinct.
Encourage redevelopment of activity centres in Golden Square in accordance with the Golden Square Structure Plan.
Support the redevelopment of land on the Southern Cross Austereo site at 161 Lily Street and 2-20 Chum Street, for mixed use, residential, short-term accommodation and aged care or medical related facilities.
(a) remove outbuilding and fence controls from the driveway gates at 96 Rowan Street, Bendigo in the Garden Gully Residential Precinct (HO951)
(b) remove tree controls from 2 Kurrajong Street, Golden Square in the State Rivers and Waters Supply Commission Residential Precinct (HO948).
a) categorise 30 Honeysuckle Street, Bendigo as Contributory > > b) include Non-contributory properties along Old Violet Street, Olive Street and Pitt Street, including 46-48 Old Violet Street, Bendigo, proposed to be removed from the Heritage Overlay (HO11).
(a) include significant street trees on Figure 2
(b) remove the word 'contributory' from the first sentence under 'What is significant'
(c) include reference to original garages and front fences under 'What is significant'
(d) include a reference to the date of construction of the houses under 'Why is it significant'
(e) remove descriptive information from 'Why is it significant'
(f) exclude 1 Kurrajong Street from the list of places with an intact front fence
(g) remove tree controls from 2 Kurrajong Street
(h) remove the sentence "Further subdivision would destroy much of this, along with the ambience of the original layout of the estate".
a) add information about the additional stages of development of Glendure House being constructed by 1858, then rebuilt/remodelled and extended several times in 1861, 1868, 1871 and 1876 > > b) indicate that most likely the half of Glendure House facing Don Street was built first (c1868-71 with an earlier core) and the half facing Vine Street built in 1876 > > c) remove reference to the term 'historical interest'.
a) clarify in 'What is significant?' the date the shop was likely constructed and remove reference to the clock as a significant feature, include the clock, rear shed and later additions to the shop front façade and plinth as non-significant elements. > > b) remove from 'How is it significant?' reference to rarity significance. > > c) include in 'Why is it significant' more detail to: > > * specify the date the building was constructed > * remove reference to the clock.
a) note in 'What is significant?' the opaque glazing to some lower sashes is recent and not significant. > > b) remove from 'How is it significant?' reference to social significance. > > c) include in 'Why is it significant' more detail to reflect the evolution of the hotel's construction, note the replacement roof and reference its community significance as part of Criterion A.
a) remove all references to the bell and hose drying tower > > b) remove reference to the Fire Station being "still in use".
a) remove reference to weatherboard additions and clarify the significance of the door only relates to the door opening from 'What is significant?' > > b) clarify in 'Why is it significant' the building is rare because of its "largely" unaltered state.
The purpose of the Amendment is to implement the recommendations of the following documents into the Planning Scheme:
The Amendment applies to land in Golden Square and parts of surrounding suburbs of Bendigo, Ironbark and West Bendigo described in Chapter 1.1 (i).
The Structure Plan outlines a vision for revitalising and transforming Golden Square over time by:
The UDF, prepared in conjunction with the Structure Plan, sets out an integrated vision for the Golden Square Town Centre, future Station Precinct and strategic redevelopment sites.
The Heritage Study Stage 2 was prepared at a similar time as the Structure Plan and was an input into its development. The Heritage Study Stage 2 forms the justification for changes to the application of the Heritage Overlay in Golden Square, and sought to:
Council tabled a report prepared by Ms Howe (Document 19.1), Council's Heritage Advisor, responding to Panel Direction 9a(iii) which requested:
an explanation of the approach to the heritage studies, with regard to the Council's report of 16 December 2024 (page 132) which states "this framework has evolved since the previous studies were prepared" and confirming the version and date of Heritage Study relied on for the Amendment.
The report provided a comprehensive overview of the background and methodology undertaken in preparing the Heritage Study Stage 2.
Ms Howe explained the Eaglehawk and Bendigo Heritage Study, 1993 (EBHS) formed the basis for the existing application of the Heritage Overlay, and while considered excellent by the standards of the time used a very different set of criteria to the current approach. Since the EBHS was prepared there have been changes to what is considered significant in a heritage context and there is now a more prescriptive approach to the application of the Heritage Overlay set out in PPN1.
The Heritage Study Stage 2 was preceded by the Heritage Gap Analysis, 2019 (Gap Study) which identified the need for review of areas included in the EBHS. This included revisiting places graded D (contributory significance), C (individual significance) and above, in recognition that appreciation of heritage typologies has shifted since 1993. It also recommended a thorough review of all precincts to ensure statements of significance aligned with current standards or were prepared where there wasn't one.
The next step was the preparation of the Chronological and Thematic History of Golden Square, 2019 (Heritage Study Stage 1). This comprised a review of existing literature with a focus on Golden Square and preparation of a chronological history identifying key events in development of the suburb. It identified additional places for investigation and assessment.
The Heritage Study Stage 2 was prepared by Council officers, alongside heritage consultants, Minerva Heritage, Homewood Consulting and Context (GML). It recommended:
The Heritage Study Stage 2 provided the strategic justification for the heritage provisions proposed in the Amendment.
A heritage gap analysis was prepared by the City of Greater Bendigo and Landmark Heritage to identify gaps in current protection afforded to post-contact heritage (Gap Study)
Golden Square Heritage Study Stage 1 - Chronological and Thematic History (Heritage Study Stage 1) was completed partly to inform development of the Structure Plan
The draft Structure Plan and UDF were publicly exhibited
Golden Square Heritage Study - Stage 2, Volumes 1 and 2 (Heritage Study Stage 2), City of Greater Bendigo and Minerva Heritage, Context and Homewood Consulting were completed
Council adopted the Structure Plan and UDF and resolved to request the Minister for Planning to authorise preparation of an amendment
The Department of Transport and Planning (DTP) issued a letter to Council with pre-authorisation conditions
Amendment C270gben was submitted to the DTP for authorisation with changes responding to the pre-authorisation conditions
Council received authorisation from the Minister for Planning subject to further conditions
AmendmentC270gben was submitted to the Minister for Planning, with changes responding to the authorisation conditions
20 submissions received in response to the Amendment, with six in support or raising no objection to the Amendment
Council engaged Natica Schmeder of Landmark Heritage to undertake a peer review of heritage issues raised in submissions and assess the appropriateness of the Council officer's responses to submissions (Document 8c)
Council became aware of an irregularity in notice provided of the Amendment and subsequently undertook direct notice to landowners who were not provided with notice of the Amendment at the time of public exhibition
Due to the delay of the Hearing and availability constraints the Panel was reconstituted twice. Lisa Kendall was appointed as the Chair initially, followed by John Roney and then Sally Conway.
Council received 20 submissions to the Amendment. Of these:
At its meeting on 16 December 2024, Council resolved to:
Following the Directions Hearing on 18 February 2025, the Panel confirmed it is required to consider all submissions referred to it, including issues Council considers resolved with submitters. The Panel advised the merits of the proposed changes considered to resolve the submitters' concerns will be assessed by the Panel and included in the Panel Report.
The Panel makes no comment on matters raised in the submission that was withdrawn.
(iii) Exhibition of the Amendment and postponement of Panel Hearing
During the Directions Hearing on 18 February 2025, Council advised it had recently identified that several potentially affected parties were not directly notified during exhibition of the Amendment. Specifically, while the occupants were notified, the owners of six properties[1] proposed for inclusion in the Mackenzie Street Precinct (HO954) were not provided with direct notification of the Amendment.
Initially, Council proposed to make post exhibition changes to the Amendment to remove these properties. However, subsequently Council decided to provide notice to the affected owners and provide them with an opportunity to lodge a submission before the Panel Hearing. Council wrote to the Panel and requested the Panel Hearing dates be rescheduled to accommodate the additional notice time (Document 2).
The Panel wrote to all parties on 26 February 2025 to advise:
On 2 April 2025, Council advised that further notification had been undertaken, and no submissions were received from the affected owners.
On 24 April 2025, the Panel wrote to all parties to advise that due to further availability constraints the Panel for the matter had been reconstituted a second time and it would be unable to commence the Panel Hearing until the week commencing 2 June 2025. In response, Council circulated proposed new Hearing dates to all parties, commencing on 4 June 2025. A second Directions Hearing was held online on Tuesday 29 April 2025 where alternative dates for the Hearing were discussed. It was agreed that the Panel Hearing would commence on Wednesday 4 June 2025. No party objected to the revised Hearing dates.
(iv) Parties to the Panel process, expert witnesses and submissions resolved during the Panel process
Following the first Directions Hearing, six parties were recorded as parties to the Panel process. At the second Directions Hearing, the Panel confirmed with Mr Rice that he also sought to become a party to the process but did not wish to make an oral presentation at the Hearing. Mr Rice made a subsequent written submission to the Panel, which was circulated to all parties on 21 May 2025 (Documents 25, 25.1 and 25.2).
Majex Pty Ltd and Girton Grammar School both initially indicated an intention to call an expert witness in heritage. However, both parties advised the Panel before the Hearing they had reached resolution with Council about their submissions (subject to changes to the Amendment) and would no longer be presenting an oral submission to the Panel or calling an expert witness.
Ophir Holdings Pty Ltd advised on 4 June 2025 it continued to support the Amendment in principle, while identifying two outstanding matters requiring the further consideration of the Panel. It confirmed it intended to rely on written submissions to the Panel and would no longer be presenting an oral submission.
Council clarified Ms Howe (Council's Heritage Advisor) would give a presentation as part of its submission but would not be called as an independent expert. Council called Ms Schmeder as an expert witness on heritage.
The Panel undertook an accompanied site inspection of Girton Grammar School on Tuesday 3 June 2025, with a representative from Girton Grammar School and Ms Tonney from Council in attendance.
Unaccompanied site inspections of other sites that were the subject of submissions were also undertaken on 3 June 2025 and throughout Golden Square generally, including sites nominated by Council in the itinerary provided (Document 26).
The Panel has assessed the Amendment against the principles of net community benefit and sustainable development, as set out in Clause 71.02-3 (Integrated decision making) of the Planning Scheme.
The Panel considered all written submissions made in response to the exhibition of the Amendment, observations from site visits and submissions, evidence and other material presented to it during the Hearing. It has reviewed a large volume of material, and has had to be selective in referring to the more relevant or determinative material in the Report. All submissions and materials have been considered by the Panel in reaching its conclusions, regardless of whether they are specifically mentioned in the Report.
This chapter identifies planning context relevant to the Amendment. Appendix B highlights key imperatives of relevant provisions and policies.
Submissions raising concerns with the Amendment were mostly directed to confined heritage issues and there were no submissions questioning the broader strategic basis for the Structure Plan, UDF or the rationale for implementation of the Heritage Study Stage 2.
Council submitted the methodology used in the Heritage Study Stage 2 was rigorous and based on the approach outlined in Planning Practice Note 1: Applying the Heritage Overlay (PPN1) and:
Council explained that after completing the Heritage Study Stage 2, and publicly exhibiting the Amendment, Ms Schmeder, an expert heritage consultant, was engaged to undertake a peer review of submissions which raised heritage issues, Council's proposed response and associated citations and statements of significance (Document 8c). Council's position on the Amendment at the Panel Hearing incorporated Ms Schmeder's recommendations.
Council submitted the assessment of the heritage significance of places and precincts in the Amendment was professional, thorough, considered and objective.
One submission questioned the more specific methodology for proposing to remove properties from the Heritage Overlay. This is discussed in Chapter 7.
The strategic justification for the Amendment is established through the:
Together these plans promote urban renewal of underutilised land, create employment opportunities and encourage new and diverse infill housing, while ensuring the protection of Golden Square's valued heritage. Undertaking development and implementation of these documents together has allowed for a balanced approach towards different, sometimes competing, planning policy objectives.
Considering the extent of properties affected by the Amendment, there were very few submissions and these were mostly confined to site specific issues.
The Amendment will assist in implementing a vision for Golden Square which facilitates revitalisation and growth in a manner that respects and complements its valued heritage character.
For the reasons set out in this report, the Panel concludes the Amendment:
This chapter refers to issues which apply across more than one individual place or precinct.
The issue is whether building condition, building maintenance costs and housing affordability are relevant when assessing the heritage significance of an individual place or a precinct.
Some submissions considered that applying the Heritage Overlay would:
Property values, maintenance costs and building alterations are frequently raised in submissions where a planning scheme amendment is proposing to apply the Heritage Overlay. Panels have consistently found these issues are not relevant when considering whether a property meets the threshold of local heritage significance to apply the Heritage Overlay.
The purpose of the Heritage Overlay is primarily to:
There are other objectives in the Planning Scheme that consider different matters, such as housing affordability. The Amendment also proposes to implement the recommendations of the Structure Plan and UDF which address other planning imperatives.
PPN1 does not include building condition, building maintenance costs and housing affordability as criteria for assessing whether to apply the Heritage Overlay. It notes that when introducing the Heritage Overlay a Council should consider whether it is necessary to provide assistance and advice to affected property owners, including access to a heritage adviser or other technical or financial assistance. Council has indicated this type of assistance is available.
The Panel concludes that building condition, building maintenance costs and housing affordability are not relevant when assessing the heritage significance of an individual place or a precinct.
To reduce the electronic size of this document, this image has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
The Mackenzie Street Precinct, which includes sections of Old High Street, Mackenzie Street, Booth Street, Ophir Street, Rowan Street and Wade Street, is significant.
Street trees (English Elm) and native trees on both private and public land, as shown on the map, have been identified as significant.
The Mackenzie Street Precinct is of local historical, research potential and representative significance to the City of Greater Bendigo.
Mackenzie Street Precinct is of historical significance as a typical suburban area developed alongside mining areas. It demonstrates the egalitarian mix of upper and lower levels of society found on the Bendigo goldfield. The precinct reflects the shifts in development patterns from throughout the whole gold era, from Victorian cottages, through the booms and busts that followed into the short-lived 1930s revival. Street trees reflect this development pattern, with English Elms lining the more formal street alignment at the intersection of Wade and Mackenzie Streets, but a variety of native trees (Yellow Gum, Sugar Gum, River Red Gum and Red Ironbark) being found in the more meandering streets at the north of the precinct (Booth and Ophir Street). Sugar Gums at 11a Ophir Street also contribute to the heritage setting. (Criterion A)
The Mackenzie Street Precinct is significant for the research potential of the high number of highly intact or original sites throughout the area, which may yield information that contributes to the understanding of life on the early goldfields. (Criterion C)
The Mackenzie Street Precinct is significant as a representative sample of a residential area developed on gold bearing ground to provide housing for miners and their families. The precinct has a more organic street pattern and variation in size and alignment of lots, as well as a broader period given the subsequent subdivision of the former miners' residency areas, but similarities of building scale and form provides a consistent sense of place. (Criterion D)
The issue is whether it is justified and appropriate to apply the Heritage Overlay to 296 Rowan Street, Golden Square.
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Figure 1 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
In relation to 296 Rowan Street, Golden Square, the Amendment proposes to:
The landowner of 296 Rowan Street submitted the Heritage Overlay should not be applied to the property because:
The landowner requested the current NCO applying to the property be retained.
After reviewing the submission, Council initially recommended the Heritage Overlay be removed from 296 Rowan Street and the two adjoining properties at 294 Rowan Street and 45 Booth Street because all three properties are located at the edge of the precinct and categorised as Non-contributory.
Ms Schmeder explained including Non-contributory properties (those with low or no heritage value) in Heritage Overlay precincts is a means of ensuring their future redevelopment does not have a negative impact on the heritage significance of the precinct as a whole.
She agreed with removing the Heritage Overlay from 294 and 296 Rowan Street on the basis that there are no Contributory or Significant places facing Rowan Street between Wade and Booth Streets and therefore removing these properties would not have any undue heritage impacts.
Ms Schmeder did not agree with removing the Heritage Overlay from 45 Booth Street because:
Figure 2 West side of Booth Street showing 45 Booth Street (centre) between two Contributory buildings
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Figure 2 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
Source: Document 20: N Schmeder Expert Statement, 2 June 2025
Council agreed with Ms Schmeder's analysis and revised its position to recommend not applying the Heritage Overlay to 294 and 296 Rowan Street. It noted the owner of 45 Booth Street did not make a submission to the Amendment.
The dwelling at 296 Rowan Street, Golden Square is clearly of recent modern construction and does not contribute to the heritage significance of the Mackenzie Street Precinct (HO954). There is no disagreement, that the dwellings at 294 Rowan Street and 45 Booth Street also do not in themselves contribute to the heritage significance of the precinct.
Ms Schmeder undertook a considered analysis of these Non-contributory properties in terms of the potential impact of their redevelopment on the precinct. The Panel agrees it is appropriate to remove 294 and 296 Rowan Street from the precinct, but to retain 45 Booth Street as a Non-contributory property due to its key position within the heritage streetscape.
The NCO should be retained at 294 and 296 Rowan Street. Its removal was based on guidance in PPN1 that the Heritage Overlay and NCO should not be applied to the same site. As it is not recommended the Heritage Overlay be applied to the properties there is no reason to remove the NCO.
Amend the Statement of Significance for the Mackenzie Street Precinct (HO954) to remove 294 and 296 Rowan Street, Golden Square.
Delete the Heritage Overlay from 294 and 296 Rowan Street, Golden Square (HO954).
To reduce the electronic size of this document, this image has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
The built form and streetscapes of the Old Violet Street Precinct, bounded by Don Street, Pitt Street, Mackenzie Street, Violet Street, Rowan Street, Thistle Street, Shamrock Street and High Street, are significant.
Street trees (English Elm, Sugar Gum, Red Ironbark, Yellow Gum, Manna Gum, River Red Gum) in Honeysuckle, Thistle, Shamrock and High Streets and on the Lily Street drainage reserve (Black Locust, Peppercorn Tree) are also contributory to the understanding of the heritage setting for the precinct.
The Old Violet Street Precinct is of local historical, research potential, representative and aesthetic significance to the City of Greater Bendigo.
The Old Violet Street Precinct offers a cross section of Early Bendigo development, with many miners' cottages and early houses set alongside the later infill Edwardian and Interwar development that took up land from the large early allotments. The precinct offers insight into settlement patterns from the 1860s to the 1940s, providing examples of workers housing throughout the "gold era" of Bendigo. (Criterion A)
The Old Violet Street Precinct has research potential as the location of early settlement in the area. Many of the sites remain largely as they were in the 1860s and there is the potential for archaeology to reveal details of how early settlers lived and worked in the area. (Criterion C)
The Old Violet Street Precinct incorporates representative examples of typical workers housing across Bendigo's "gold era", from 1860s miners' cottages to Interwar bungalows, and provides a typical example of the type of diversity of building types found in streetscapes as a result of the characteristic settlement patterns across central Bendigo. Early and original tree plantings on both private and public land contribute to the understanding of the heritage setting int he precinct. (Criterion D)
The cluster of Federation houses at 73-77 Thistle Street are of aesthetic significance as one of the few identified clusters of Federation styles in Greater Bendigo, demonstrating a range of features found throughout the period and including transitional details seen in nearby housing at 16-18 Honeysuckle Street. The streetscapes are connected by the contemporaneous former St Ambrose Church and Hall at 168-170 Mackenzie Street. (Criterion E)
The issue is whether it is appropriate to categorise 30 Honeysuckle Street, Bendigo as a Significant property in the Old Violet Street Precinct.
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Figure 3 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
The Heritage Overlay currently applies to 30 Honeysuckle Street as part of the Rowan Street Precinct (HO11). The Amendment proposes to:
The Heritage Study Stage 2 defines the categories as:
The landowner of 30 Honeysuckle Street submitted the property should not be recategorised from Contributory to Significant because:
The submission supported categorisation of the property as Contributory within the precinct, consistent with the Draft Golden Square Heritage Study, April 2021.
For context, Council noted the property was identified with a C grading (Individually Significant) in the EBHS and subsequently included in the Rowan Street Precinct.
Ms Howe explained that while an early draft of the precinct citation included the property as Contributory, further comparative analysis across both the precinct and wider area changed the categorisation to Significant.
Council said categorisation of the property in the Heritage Study Stage 2 was inconsistent between the precinct map and schedule and this was an error.
Ms Schmeder noted a few inconsistencies in the Heritage Study Stage 2 regarding the categorisation of properties on the map and in the schedules and said it would be advisable to correct the report to prevent confusion amongst readers in the future.
Both Ms Howe and Ms Schmeder presented additional assessments of 30 Honeysuckle Street at the Hearing, having regard to the Hercon criteria upon which the Old Violet Street Precinct is considered significant (Criterion A, C, D and E) and including comparative analysis.
Ms Howe did not recommend any change to the categorisation of the property or the Statement of Significance and concluded:
30 Honeysuckle Street is a largely intact example of an early miners' cottage upgraded with the growth of Bendigo's middle class in the wake of the quartz boom. It has been somewhat altered, but these alterations have not diminished its significance. The combination of mining origins and subsequent middle-class alterations in a timber dwelling has not previously been captured in the Heritage Overlay, elevating the significance of this site above that of either a typical miners' cottage or a similar 1880s villa.
Ms Schmeder said both phases of the house illustrate the historical significance (Criterion A) and representativeness (Criterion D) of the precinct as they are "part of the 'miner's cottages and early houses' dating from the valued development period of 'the 1860s to the 1940s'". For this reason, the house clearly contributes to the significance of the Old Violet Street Precinct.
To determine whether it met the threshold of Local Significance on its own (and therefore could be categorised as Significant), comparative analysis was required. Ms Schmeder identified a small and distinctive group of houses in (and next to) the Old Violet Street Precinct displaying a clear two-stage development during the valued periods and concluded that 30 Honeysuckle Street is not one of the above-average examples of this type. Ms Schmeder said:
The two Significant examples, 48 Shamrock Street (also noted by Ms Howe as a comparator) and 120 Lily Street (across the street but not formally part of Old Violet Street Precinct) are far superior examples to 30 Honeysuckle Street. This is the case in their materiality - more expensive masonry, their design and craftsmanship, and their overall intactness.
She did not agree there was evidence the property was individually Significant for its research potential (Criterion C) due to the subdivision of the land and loss of backyard containing early outbuildings, particularly the 'dunny', which is often valuable as a repository of archaeological deposits.
Ms Schmeder disagreed with Ms Howe's assessment that the property would be significant as a rare example of a timber miners' cottage substantially upgraded by later owners (Criterion B). She said it was not an above-average example and would not meet the threshold of Local Significance for rarity. Nor did she agree there was "any argument to mount that it is of aesthetic significance" (Criterion E).
Council did not support changing the categorisation of 30 Honeysuckle Street to Contributory but proposed to amend the heritage citation for the Old Violet Street Precinct in the Heritage Study Stage 2 to rectify errors identified by Ms Schmeder (noting the errors had already been corrected in the exhibited Statement of Significance).
The comprehensive additional analyses prepared by Ms Howe and Ms Schmeder for 30 Honeysuckle Street greatly assisted the Panel's understanding of the significance of the property.
Both assessments clearly establish the property contributes to the precinct in terms of its historical and representative value, and reflects early settlement patterns where miners were gradually displaced by people with no mining association and original dwellings altered as this occurred.
In considering whether the property is individually significant within the precinct, the Panel notes Ms Howe distinguished the dwelling from other examples due to it being the only significant timber example representing the settlement pattern. Ms Schmeder however, considered the materiality of other dwellings, such as more expensive masonry, along with their design, craftsmanship, and overall intactness were elements that led to a higher level of significance. The Panel supports Ms Schmeder's position. An individually significant building must be a better than average example exhibiting the heritage values significant to the precinct.
The Panel accepts Ms Schmeder's evidence that the property does not meet the threshold of Local Significance on its own in relation to the Hercon criteria A, C, D or E referenced in the Old Violet Street Precinct Statement of Significance, or Criterion B, but rather contributes to the historical and representative significance of the precinct and should be categorised as Contributory.
The Heritage Study Stage 2 should be amended to ensure all categorisations in the mapping and schedules align with the Amendment citations for the Old Violet Street Precinct, and for all precincts in the study.
Amend the Statement of Significance for the Old Violet Street Precinct (HO957) to categorise 30 Honeysuckle Street, Bendigo as Contributory.
To reduce the electronic size of this document, this image has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
The Garden Gully Residential Precinct, incorporating Vine Street between Rowan and Barnard streets, and the ends of the block facing each of those streets, is significant.
Non-contributory elements include later carports forward of the building line and places constructed outside the period of significance 1936-1955, including:
The Garden Gully Residential Precinct is of local historical, research potential and representative significance to the City of Greater Bendigo.
The Garden Gully Residential Precinct was established on land associated with the Garden Gully United Mine following the closure of the mine. The development is typical of one type of re-purposing of mining land in the mid-twentieth century as mine sites ceased operation, opening up tracts of land in the central Bendigo area. Occupants of the houses provide insight into the shifting economic base of Bendigo in the wake of mine closures, with increasing numbers of white-collar workers moving to the centre of Bendigo. (Criterion A)
The southern end of the Garden Gully Residential Precinct has significant research potential, with unmapped traces of mining activity in the backyards of some properties. Investigation of these areas could yield further information on the workings of the Garden Gully United mine, and earlier independent workings (Criterion C
The precinct is significant as a representation of the types of housing produced in the lead up to and immediately following the Second World War. During this time, suburban residential designs evolved into the double fronted brick veneer forms that would linger over the next several decades, with slight variations in external detailing to differentiate them from their neighbours. This detailing was then included in the front boundary fences and garages attached to the houses, many of which remain intact in the precinct. The white cedar street trees are original plantings from the initial development of the subdivision and are representative of a shift away from exotic plantings and an increased appreciation for native species that developed in the mid-twentieth century. The Deodar Cedar at 89A Vine Street is an early or original planting and contributes to the understanding of the setting of the heritage place. (Criterion D)
The issue is whether outbuilding and fence controls in the Heritage Overlay Schedule should be removed from 96 Rowan Street, Bendigo.
The Heritage Overlay currently applies to 96 Rowan Street as part of the Rowan Street Precinct (HO11). The Amendment proposes to:
The landowners requested the outbuilding and fence controls be removed from the driveway gates at 96 Rowan Street as they are in the process of replacing the gates. The new gates would match a proposed picket style fence to increase security and functionality purposes.
Council supported the request and submitted this was necessary to support an ongoing permit application aimed at improving accessibility and upgrading of features beyond practical restoration.
Ms Schmeder supported Council's position and said while the gates are likely original to the house, the rest of the fence is gone and the gates are of a common and utilitarian type (Document 8c).
The Panel accepts Ms Schmeder's evidence regarding the gates, noting they are no longer in place. The significance of the gates is lesser due to the absence of the accompanying original fence and their common type. Therefore, it is reasonable to not apply the outbuilding and fence controls to the property regarding the gates.
Amend the Heritage Overlay Schedule to remove outbuilding and fence controls from the driveway gates at 96 Rowan Street, Bendigo in the Garden Gully Residential Precinct (HO951).
Amend the Statement of Significance for the Garden Gully Residential Precinct (HO951) to remove outbuilding and fence controls from the driveway gates at 96 Rowan Street, Bendigo.
5 State Rivers and Waters Supply Commission Residential Precinct (HO948)
5.1 State Rivers and Waters Supply Commission Residential Precinct
To reduce the electronic size of this document, this image has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
The contributory houses and garden plantings within the State Rivers and Water Supply Commission Residential Precinct are locally significant to the City of Greater Bendigo.
Street trees in Kurrajong Street (Brush Cherry, Flowering Gum, Lilly Pilly) are contributory to the precinct.
The State Rivers and Water Supply Commission Residential Precinct is of historical (Criterion A), aesthetic (Criterion E) and technical (Criterion F) significance to the City of Greater Bendigo.
The houses at 495, 499, and 501 High Street, 1-6 Kurrajong Street; and 1, 3 and 5 Mimosa Street, Golden Square were constructed by the State Rivers and Water Supply Commission to house staff at the Alder Street Depot. The contributory buildings in Mimosa and Kurrajong Streets form a consistent streetscape of intact single storey Post War dwellings with consistent setbacks and complementary roof forms and finishes. The few non-contributory buildings are of a similar scale, except for the two-storey building at 1A Mimosa Street and are not particularly intrusive. The extant houses of weatherboard and corrugated iron construction were at least partly prefabricated at the nearby SRWSC workshops. The contributory houses in Mimosa and Kurrajong Streets are of Historical significance as a reminder of the post war housing boom as men returned from service in WWII wishing to settle down into civilian life and work, and the infrastructure projects embarked upon by the State Government post war. Of particular note are surviving original plantings and garden layout. Further subdivision would destroy much of this, along with ambience of the original layout of the estate. Street plantings are all original especially in Kurrajong Street. (Criterion A)
The intact streetscapes within the precinct have been enhanced by all the Kurrajong and Mimosa street houses being constructed to two or three designs by the SRWSC. The houses reflect post war austerity- comfortable but inexpensive, with brick houses facing the main road especially on corners. The three houses facing High Street of red brick construction are of individual designs and perhaps intended for more senior staff. Most retain original plantings of trees and shrubs in their gardens, and original plantings of street trees are extant in Kurrajong Street and Mimosa Street. All properties except 495 High Street and 1 Mimosa Street retain an original front fence comprised of a low stone wall. These combine to give an aesthetic unity to the precinct that allows a clear understanding of the original scheme for the precinct. (Criterion E)
The houses are of technical interest due to the method of their manufacture and construction by pre-fabrication at the SRWSC workshops in Golden Square, using the least materials to create the most house, whilst maintaining a high standard of finish despite shortages. The fact that they were prefabricated in the nearby SRWSC workshops sets them apart from the pre-fabricated buildings imported from England seen at Eildon and elsewhere. (Criterion F)
The issue is whether it is justified and appropriate to apply the Heritage Overlay to the State Rivers and Waters Supply Commission Residential Precinct (SRWSC) Precinct) (HO948).
The SRWSC Precinct was first identified in the Heritage Study Stage 1. It was further researched and included in the Heritage Study Stage 2.
Table 3 Categories and Additional Controls SRWSC Precinct
Outbuildings or fences not exempt under Clause 43.01-04 (Garage, front boundary fence): Tree controls (Narrow Leaf Ash, Plum, Eucalyptus sp.)
Outbuildings or fences not exempt under Clause 43.01-04 (Garage, front boundary fence): Tree controls (Liquidambar)
Outbuildings or fences not exempt under Clause 43.01-04 (Front boundary fence): Tree controls (Peppercorn Tree, Red Ironbark)
Outbuildings or fences not exempt under Clause 43.01-04 (Front boundary fence, garage)
Outbuildings or fences not exempt under Clause 43.01-04 (Front boundary fence)
Outbuildings or fences not exempt under Clause 43.01-04 (Front boundary fence, garage)
Outbuildings or fences not exempt under Clause 43.01-04 (Garage)
Outbuildings or fences not exempt under Clause 43.01-04 (Garage, front boundary fence and gates): Tree controls (Privet)
Outbuildings or fences not exempt under Clause 43.01-04 (Front boundary fence): Tree controls (Black Locust, West Australian Willow Myrtle)
Source: Exhibited Statement of Significance: SRWSC Precinct, January 2022 (HO948)
One submission requested the Heritage Overlay not be applied to the SRWSC Precinct and properties assessed for inclusion in the Heritage Overlay on individual merit.
Several concerns were raised that applying the Heritage Overlay was not justified because:
It was submitted the SRWSC Precinct failed to meet the threshold for Criterion A because the streetscapes are not more intact or better than other local examples (numerous photos were provided showing similar houses in other areas of Greater Bendigo).
Ms Howe said the establishment of the SWRSC Central Plant Works in 1947, and associated housing, was noted as an important development for Bendigo in the Heritage Study Stage 1.
Ms Schmeder acknowledged there were other streetscapes of early post-war housing elsewhere in Greater Bendigo, but few were cohesively planned government developments like this one. Ms Schmeder said the reason for its historical significance is encapsulated in the following sentence:
The contributory houses in Mimosa and Kurrajong Streets are of Historical significance as a reminder of the post war housing boom as men returned from service in WWII wishing to settle down into civilian life and work, and the infrastructure projects embarked upon by the State Government post war.
Council submitted many of the other examples referred to by the submitter exhibit only single design weatherboard houses, whereas the SRWSC Precinct exhibits two tiers of worker / employee housing, with the brick residences likely for more senior staff and the timber residences for other employees, further elevating the historical significance of this precinct.
Council submitted the examples provided are similar housing types but the setting is less significant.
It was submitted the Precinct fails to meet the threshold for Criterion E (aesthetic significance) because:
Ms Schmeder said the key attribute is the aesthetic unity created by repetitive housing types in largely intact garden settings and the granite front fences which provide strong visual cohesion and aesthetic distinctiveness.
Council submitted the consistent and fine fences visually tie the precinct together and set it apart from most other post-war development.
It was submitted the Precinct fails to meet the threshold for Criterion F (technical significance) because:
Ms Schmeder said the citation and Statement of Significance unequivocally state the SRWSC built some of the prefabricated houses, that this is rare within the City of Greater Bendigo and thus the technical significance of the precinct at the local level has been demonstrated.
Council agreed the timber houses were a mass-produced type, noting this is the nature of prefabrication in that it can be used in a bulk manner. It said the citation noted this housing model was used by the SRWSC elsewhere and it is possible the SRWSC factory produced the timber housing in the precinct, but this would need to be determined by additional research.
Proposed changes to the Statement of Significance
Ms Schmeder recommended the Statement of Significance be changed to:
In closing, Council proposed some further changes to the Statement of Significance for the precinct to:
PPN1 states each place must include a statement of significance that:
The history of the SRWSC central plant in Alder Street, Golden Square to Bendigo is set out in the citation and documented with reference to newspaper articles and copies of titles. The relationship of the SRWSC Precinct to the plant is illustrated in the diagram in the Heritage Study Stage 2, sourced from the Bendigo Sewerage Authority (refer to Figure 4).
Figure 4 SRWSC Precinct and the SRWSC workshop buildings in Alder Street (Bendigo Sewerage Authority, undated)
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Figure 4 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
Source: Golden Square Heritage Study Stage 2, Volume 2, page 31
The Panel considers the Precinct meets the threshold for Local significance under Criterion A. While there are many other examples throughout Bendigo of weatherboard houses similar to those in Kurrajong and Mimosa Streets, this Precinct is distinguished in its historical significance as a planned post war government development associated with a significant employer in town. Of note, it comprised two tiers of employee housing, illustrated through the brick and timber dwellings. The stone fences clearly delineate the extent of the Precinct and tie it together.
The Panel considers the Precinct meets the threshold for Local significance under Criterion E based on the presentation of the dwellings and street tree plantings as intact streetscapes with unifying front granite fencing.
Some of the buildings and fences are not pristine but the Panel immediately noted the aesthetic cohesion of the Precinct upon site inspection due to the consistent granite front fences and uniformity of housing type and design. That some of the fences no longer exist detracts little from the Precinct as most are still present and continue to provide visual unity.
The Panel notes Ms Schmeder's observation that while several original windows have been replaced this has generally been done within existing openings, and the Panel agrees the houses remain sufficiently intact to contribute to the significance of the Precinct.
Issues of affordability and maintenance costs are discussed at Chapter 3 and not repeated here.
The Panel is not convinced that all garden plantings are original and this is discussed in Chapter 5.3. However, the Panel accepts street trees are original plantings and add to the aesthetic significance of the Precinct.
The Panel considers the Precinct meets the threshold of Local Significance under Criterion F, as it has been demonstrated that at least some of the houses were constructed in the SRWSC workshops in Golden Square (refer Figure 5).
The Statement of Significance specifically mentions their construction at the local workshops as a factor that sets them apart from other prefabricated dwellings imported from England.
The citation refers to photos held by the Rural Water Corporation Collection. While it mentions that some photos were unable to be accessed due to COVID-19 restrictions at the time of assessment, it contains one photo which clearly refers to construction of dwellings in Mimosa Street (refer Figure 5). This is sufficient evidence to support the claim at least some buildings were manufactured locally.
Figure 5 Bendigo mechanical plant constructing the prefabricated houses facing Mimosa Street, c1947-50 (SRWSC c1947-1962)
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Figure 5 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
Source: Golden Square Heritage Study Stage 2, Volume 2, page 33
The Panel agrees with Council's proposed changes to the Statement of Significance (as shown in Document 40) to improve clarity as follows:
Amend the Statement of Significance for the State Rivers and Waters Supply Commission Residential Precinct (HO948) as shown in Council's final version (Document 40) to:
a) include significant street trees on Figure 2
b) remove the word 'contributory' from the first sentence under 'What is significant'
c) include reference to original garages and front fences under 'What is significant'
d) include a reference to the date of construction of the houses under 'Why is it significant'
e) remove descriptive information from 'Why is it significant'
f) exclude 1 Kurrajong Street from the list of places with an intact front fence
g) remove tree controls from 2 Kurrajong Street.
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Figure 6 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
Source: Document 20: N Schmeder Expert Statement, 2 June 2025
The Amendment proposes to apply the Heritage Overlay to 2 Kurrajong Street as part of the SRWSC Precinct as:
The landowner objected to applying the Heritage Overlay to 2 Kurrajong Street for the reasons set out in Chapter 5.2, relating to the SRWSC Precinct more generally.
It was submitted the Peppercorn Tree and Red Ironbark are not original plantings and this can be confirmed by viewing Google street images, with the Ironbark less than 20 years old.
Ms Schmeder said a comparison of images from 2007 and 2023 in Google Maps indicated that the trees are not original plantings. It was noted that the Golden Square Heritage Tree Study 2021 (Tree Study) included the following comment in relation to both trees:
Limited inspection, tree view significantly obstructed, all dimensions estimated.
Ms Schmeder concluded the trees did not contribute to the significance of the Precinct and recommended that tree controls not be introduced for these trees at 2 Kurrajong Street.
In response to the Panel's question whether all trees nominated to be included in heritage tree controls in the proposed SRWSC Precinct should be reviewed, Ms Schmeder said there would be value in reviewing all trees in the Precinct and clarified that only trees planted before 1980 would contribute to the significance of the Precinct.
Council agreed it would be appropriate to review trees in the Precinct before adopting the Amendment and submitted there were approximately six trees which would require review as they were not readily visible from the public realm.
2 Kurrajong Street is a relatively intact example of one of the timber dwellings constructed as part of the SRWSC Precinct. No evidence was presented that contradicts this assessment. As a Contributory dwelling, it is appropriate to include 2 Kurrajong Street in the SRWSC Precinct and apply the Heritage Overlay to the property.
The two trees identified for the tree controls are not original plantings as evident through images readily available online. The tree controls should not be applied to these trees.
The Statement of Significance refers to the 'garden layout' and 'original plantings' as important features adding to the heritage significance of the Precinct. The Panel notes from the Tree Study that a 'Significance Statement' was provided for each tree. For the SRWSC Precinct, several trees on private property were identified as:
This tree may be an early planting associated with property and precinct
Accompanied by a comment that inspection of the tree was limited with the tree view 'significantly obstructed' or 'obstructed'.
Excluding the trees at 2 Kurrajong Street, which have been confirmed as non-original plantings, the Panel identifies eight trees where the view of tree was somewhat obstructed and considers it appropriate to review the significance of the tree before finalising the Amendment. This includes tree numbers 183, 184, 185, 195, 196, 197, 198 and 199. Proposed tree controls in the Heritage Overlay should be updated following this review.
Amend the Statement of Significance for the State Rivers and Waters Supply Commission Residential Precinct as shown in Council's final version (Document 40).
Amend the Heritage Overlay Schedule to remove tree controls from 2 Kurrajong Street, Golden Square in the State Rivers and Waters Supply Commission Residential Precinct (HO948).
Before finalising the Amendment, undertake a review of trees 183, 184, 185, 195, 196, 197, 198 and 199 in the Golden Square Heritage Tree Study 2021 to determine whether they are original plantings and contribute to the heritage significance of the State Rivers and Waters Supply Commission Residential Precinct.
The Amendment proposes to apply the Heritage Overlay to 501 High Street as part of the SRWSC Precinct as:
The landowner of 501 High Street submitted that while the importance of preserving the area's heritage character was understood, the ability to subdivide the property should not be removed due to the application of the Heritage Overlay.
It was submitted subdivision of the property was appropriate because:
Council submitted it was appropriate to include 501 High Street in the SRWSC Precinct and the Heritage Overlay does not prevent subdivision of the property. Ms Howe noted subdivision that has already occurred in the Precinct and said this had not had a severe impact on the proposed precinct and would likely be generally in keeping with the recommendations of the Heritage Design Guidelines.
The exhibited Statement of Significance included the following statements:
Of particular note are surviving original plantings and garden layout. Further subdivision would destroy much of this, along with ambience of the original layout of the estate.
Council proposed to remove the second sentence from the final version Statement of Significance (Document 40):
Further subdivision would destroy much of this, along with the ambience of the original layout of the estate.
The submission also raised health and safety concerns and submitted the shed in the backyard has been assessed as containing asbestos, is in a state of disrepair and should be removed.
Ms Schmeder observed that upon site inspection the:
...surviving garages are consistent in form, with their hipped roofs, and recognisable as an early element of the precinct. Many are visible down the two-track side driveways, contributing to the streetscapes of the precinct
Her written evidence included an early photograph showing the new development in 1956 with a garage for each dwelling.
Figure 7 Aerial view of the SRWSC Precinct (Landata, Bendigo City Project, April 1956)
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Figure 7 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
Source: Document 20: N Schmeder Expert Statement, 2 June 2025
501 High Street is a relatively intact example of one of the brick dwellings constructed as part of the SRWSC Precinct. No evidence was presented that contradicts this assessment. As a Contributory dwelling, it is appropriate to include 501 High Street in the SRWSC Precinct and apply the Heritage Overlay to the property.
Subdivision that has occurred in the Precinct to date has had a minimal impact on the Precinct. The exhibited Statement of Significance sought to discourage further subdivision due to its potential impact on original plantings and garden layout. The Panel agrees it is appropriate to remove reference to this statement on the basis that the impact of a future subdivision on elements of heritage significance within a property can be appropriately assessed at the time of a planning application. It should not be assumed that subdivision of a property would necessarily have a detrimental impact.
The Panel agrees the original garages contribute to the heritage significance of the Precinct and it is therefore appropriate to include additional controls in the Heritage Overlay where garages are present.
Further subdivision would destroy much of this, along with the ambience of the original layout of the estate.
Amend the Statement of Significance for the State Rivers and Waters Supply Commission Residential Precinct as shown in Council's final version (Document 40) to remove the sentence:
Further subdivision would destroy much of this, along with the ambience of the original layout of the estate.
6.1 Girton Grammar School, 83-119 Mackenzie Street, Bendigo (HO990)
Figure 8 83-119 Mackenzie Street, Bendigo (front of former Glendure House)
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Figure 8 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
Source: Exhibited Statement of Significance: 83-119 Mackenzie Street, Bendigo, January 2022 (HO990)
The Heritage Overlay currently applies to 89-119 Mackenzie Street is currently as an individually significant place (HO172 - identified as 105 Mackenzie Street, Bendigo).
The Amendment proposes to apply the Heritage Overlay to the site as an individually significant place with a slightly amended boundary in the south (HO990).
The place does not currently have its own Statement of Significance or citation.
Girton Grammar School (the landowner of the site) supported the objectives of the Amendment and requested several changes to the Statement of Significance and citation to clarify and more accurately reflect the heritage values of the place.
It was suggested a base plan be prepared to show all buildings and landscape elements of significance.
Council sought advice from the heritage consultant who authored the citation and consequently proposed several refinements to the Statement of Significance and citation to address the concerns raised in the submission. This included a site plan clearly identifying all elements contributing to the significance of the place. These amendments were generally supported by the landowner.
The proposed changes to the Statement of Significance:
Ms Schmeder's evidence responded to issues not resolved between Council and the landowner before the Hearing. Ms Schmeder provided a detailed review, which included an analysis of the citation and a heritage assessment provided by Girton Grammar School, prepared by heritage consultant, Mr Peter Barrett, (Document 21)[2], and her own research. In summary, Ms Schmeder concluded:
Ms Schmeder recommended the citation and Statement of Significance be amended to:
The 1922 addition to the Girton House is of historical interest because it illustrates contributes to the understanding of the early adaptive use and expansion of the school in this site following the relocation in 1916
Regarding the term 'historical interest', Council proposed to include a definition at Section 2.6 'Gradings within precincts' of the Heritage Study Stage 2. Ms Schmeder agreed the proposed definition accords with the standard use in current heritage practice, indicating "a place whose heritage value falls below the threshold for statutory protection (that is, not Contributory, not Significant)". Both the landowner and Ms Schmeder suggested further refinements to the definition to be clear about this position.
In response to a question from the Panel at the Hearing as to how this new term 'historical interest' is different from contributory or non-contributory, Ms Schmeder explained it sits between them and illustrates part of the history but applies to something that doesn't have sufficient intactness to be worthy of protection. Ms Schmeder agreed it would be introducing a new category, but said such a feature would be officially Non-contributory but this would signal to a landowner that there could be value in interpreting what was there.
The final version of the definition clarified that elements of 'historical interest' are not intended to have statutory protection as follows:
These gradings may also be used to categorise define significant elements within a larger or more complex site listing, such as a school. Some elements of such sites may be considered to have historical interest, meaning that they provide evidence of the evolution of the site and complement the site's overall heritage value, but do not themselves meet the threshold for protection as significant or contributory, and therefore do not meet the threshold for statutory protection.[3]
Council supported these findings and submitted the outcome would be consistent with the PPN1 and Heritage Study Stage 2.
The Statement of Significance for 83-119 Mackenzie Street, Bendigo should be amended to more accurately describe the property and its significant features in accordance with further information provided by Girton Grammer School and subsequent analysis by Ms Schmeder. This will require further changes in references to Glendure House than shown in the revised Statement of Significance (Document 28.1). While the Panel acknowledges the current agreement between Council and the landowner on the revised wording, it considers this would be improved by the updates as recommended by Ms Schmeder based on her further analysis and research, specifically to:
The Panel has given much consideration to the proposed use of the term 'historical interest' in the Statement of Significance.
PPN1 provides guidance on how to write a Statement of Significance. It states that identification of 'What is significant' about a place should:
The Panel does not agree the proposed use of the term 'historical interest' is consistent with PPN1. It may cause confusion about whether such elements have some level of significance, notwithstanding the inclusion of a definition in the Heritage Study Stage 2, which sits outside the Planning Scheme as a background document.
It accepts that when it comes to redevelopment proposals for more complex sites with multiple buildings, such as a school, there is likely to be a need for some nuanced classification of the relative significance of various parts within a site. However, the proposal to use the term 'historical interest' which has been clarified by Council to be used for elements that are not significant in a statutory sense, effectively introduces a new sub-category that has no additional statutory function.
PPN1 recognises that planning is about managing the environment and its changes. The purpose of the Planning Scheme is to provide a clear and consistent framework within which decisions about the use and development of land can be made. While the Panel does not dispute the specified features have historical interest, if they are not significant in terms of needing statutory protection, then it would be more appropriate to discuss them in the citation in the Heritage Study Stage 2 and not the Planning Scheme, or to explicitly state they are not significant elements. At present, the Statement of Significance gives the impression they are significant in some way, and this is very likely to lead to confusion for a future permit application.
It may be appropriate to retain reference to these elements in the section 'Why is it significant' where it assists in understanding the evolution of the site and which parts are significant, however they should clearly be identified as non-contributory elements of the place.
The proposal to include a map which clearly identifies the different buildings and trees on site referred to in the Statement of Significant is supported.
Amend the Statement of Significance for 83-119 Mackenzie Street, Bendigo based on the Part B version (Document 28.1) and modified to:
a) add information about the additional stages of development of Glendure House being constructed by 1858, then rebuilt/remodelled and extended several times in 1861, 1868, 1871 and 1876
b) indicate that most likely the half of Glendure House facing Don Street was built first (c1868-71 with an earlier core) and the half facing Vine Street built in 1876
c) remove reference to the term 'historical interest'.
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Figure 9 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
Source: Document 20: N Schmeder Expert Statement, 2 June 2025
The Heritage Overlay currently applies to 130 High Street as part of the Rowan Street Precinct (HO11).
The Amendment proposes to remove the property from the Rowan Street Precinct (HO11) and include it as a site with individual significance in the Heritage Overlay (HO986).
It was submitted the Heritage Overlay should not be applied to 130 High Street based on the poor condition of the building and plans for demolition and redevelopment of the site.
In reviewing the Rowan Street Precinct, Ms Howe explained the area between Don and Vine Streets was considered not cohesive enough for inclusion in a heritage precinct and led to several potentially significant places in these areas being assessed for individual significance. 128 High Street was assessed as not meeting the threshold for individual significance. 130 High Street was identified as having significance under Hercon Criterion A (historical), B (rarity) and D (representative).
Council referred to further discussions with the landowner and proposed changes to the Statement of Significance and commensurate changes to the Heritage Study Stage 2. These changes included several clarifications as follows:
Ms Schmeder assessed the property having regard to these proposed changes and undertook a comparative analysis to confirm it met the threshold of Local Significance. Ms Schmeder concluded:
Ms Schmeder recommended the history and description for the place should be revised to reflect these findings in the Statement of Significance and heritage citation in the Heritage Study Stage 2.
Council supported this position and submitted these changes would be consistent with PPN1. A revised Statement of Significance showing these changes was tabled as Document 19, Attachment 3. The landowner wrote to the Panel expressing support for the Amendment with the changes as proposed.
The comparative analysis undertaken by Ms Schmeder supports the local significance attributable to the property in relation to Criterion A and D as a historically significant example of commercial development which occurred on the principal roads outside the central district of Bendigo in the early twentieth century. The application of the Heritage Overlay is considered appropriate.
The Panel understands the clock was the only reason it was considered to have significance for Criterion B (rarity) and given it has been established the clock could not have been original this criterion is not applicable.
Ms Schmeder's additional investigations have provided further information to clarify the likely date of construction of the shop and distinguish elements of the place that do not contribute to its significance. It is appropriate to amend the Statement of Significance and heritage citation in the Heritage Study Stage 2 to reflect this information.
Amend the Statement of Significance for 130 High Street, Bendigo as shown in Appendix C1 to:
a) clarify in 'What is significant?' the date the shop was likely constructed and remove reference to the clock as a significant feature, include the clock, rear shed and later additions to the shop front façade and plinth as non-significant elements.
b) remove in 'How is it significant?' reference to rarity significance.
c) include in 'Why is it significant' more detail to:
- clarify the date the building was constructed
- remove reference to the clock.
6.3 40 Mackenzie Street West, Golden Square (HO978)
The issue is whether the Statement of Significance for 40 Mackenzie Street, West Golden Square should be amended to more accurately describes the property and its significant features.
Figure 10 40 Mackenzie Street West, Golden Square
To reduce the electronic size of this document, Figure 10 has been removed from this version of the report. Contact Planning Panels Victoria to obtain a complete copy of the report.
Source: Document 20: N Schmeder Expert Statement, 2 June 2025
It is proposed to apply the Heritage Overlay to 40 Mackenzie Street West as an individually significant property (HO978). The property contains the former Gladstone Hotel.
The landowner of 40 Mackenzie Street West submitted the description of the building in the Statement of Significance is incorrect, specifically the reference to it having remained relatively unaltered since its construction and misrepresents alterations undertaken on the building. The submission noted changes including:
The submission pointed out the door on the left-hand side of the building (when viewed from the street) which has been removed and replaced with bricks, suggesting a later extension to the building.
Following further investigation, Council agreed to amend the Statement of Significance to further clarify the evolution of the hotel's construction and to indicate the roof cladding and opaque glazing are not original.
Ms Schmeder noted the detailed history provided in the Stage 2 Heritage Study. Following review of this information, the submission and Council's proposed response, Mr Schmeder concluded:
In relation to the last point, Ms Schmeder explained the Heritage Council of Victoria expressly revised this Hercon Criterion (Criterion G) to avoid the mistake of applying it to places with past social significance, and while noting this is not yet specified in PPN1, the criterion in PPN1 is intended to have the same meaning as Hercon.
Ms Schmeder proposed several changes to the Statement of Significance to reflect these findings which Council supported at the Hearing.
The Panel agrees the history presented in the Stage 2 Heritage Study could be more clearly expressed in the Statement of Significance and supports proposed changes to further explain the evolution of the hotel's construction.
It accepts that the opaque glazing to lower sashes of some windows is not original, and it is appropriate to identify these in the Statement of Significance as non-significant elements.
Reference to the recent replacement of the roof is also appropriate.
The Panel accepts Ms Schmeder's evidence that Criterion G (social significance) should only be applied where there is current community attachment to a place. The social significance described in the citation refers only to past significance and on this basis it does not meet Criterion G. Reference to the past community use of the former hotel should be included as part of its historical significance in relation to Criterion A.
Amend the Statement of Significance for 40 Mackenzie Street West, Golden Square as shown in Council's Part B version (Document 28.1) to:
a) note in 'What is significant?' the opaque glazing to some lower sashes is recent and not significant.
b) remove in 'How is it significant?' reference to social significance.
c) include in 'Why is it significant' more detail to reflect the evolution of the hotel's construction, note the replacement roof and reference its community significance as part of Criterion A.
6.4 Golden Square Fire Station, 260 High Street, Golden Square (HO965)
The issue is whether the Statement of Significance for 260 High Street, Golden Square should be amended to remove the following features from descriptions of significant elements:
Source: Exhibited Statement of Significance: 260 High Street, Golden Square, January 2022 (HO965)
It is proposed to apply the Heritage Overlay to 260 High Street as an individually significant property (HO965). The property contains the Golden Square Fire Station.
The citation for 260 High Street in the Heritage Study Stage 2 (Volume 2) says the Long Gully Fire Station donated its tower and bell to the Golden Square Station in 1934 after it closed. It further notes:
This Bell and its original tower was relocated to the Golden Square Fire Station in 1934 after the closure of the Long Gully Fire Brigade
This Bell was remounted by members of the Brigade to commemorate 125 years of service to the Golden Square Community
Unveiled by CFA Deputy Chief Officer Craig Lapsley 26th March 2006
Ms Howe said it was reasonable to remove these elements from the Statement of Significance given the importance of these traditions to heritage.
In the Peer Review document, Ms Schmeder notes the tradition is supported by the heritage citation in the Heritage Study Stage 2 (Volume 2) and said as neither are part of the original 1909 station design, their removal does not have a large impact on its significance (Document 8c).
Ms Schmeder recommended reviewing the wording of the Statement of Significance should the Fire Station close to reflect that it is no longer operational and notes this may impact on whether it retains ongoing social significance (Criterion G).
Council submitted the fire bell and hose drying tower should be removed from the Statement of Significance for 260 High Street.
Information about the Golden Square Fire Station in the citation is evidence of the tradition of the relocation of fire bells and towers to other fire stations in the event a station is relocated, and importantly for this particular bell and tower.
The citation also refers to the ringing of a fire bell at the opening of the station in August 1909, which infers there was an original bell, prior to the donation of the Long Gully bell in 1934[4].
The Panel notes Ms Schmeder did not consider the removal of the bell or hose drying tower would have a large impact on the significance of the place because they were not part of the original station fabric. The Panel therefore agrees it is appropriate to remove them from the Statement of Significance on this basis.
The Fire Station has ceased operation and the fire bell and tower have been removed. The Statement of Significance should be revised to reflect this status. The Panel supports Ms Schmeder's recommendation that it also be reassessed in regard to Criterion G (social significance), referred to in the Statement of Significance as 'associative significance', as this should only be applied where there is current community attachment to a place.
Reassess the social (associative) significance of 260 High Street, Golden Square now the Fire Station has ceased operation, and if no longer relevant remove this reference to Criterion G from the Statement of Significance.
Amend the Statement of Significance for 260 High Street, Golden Square to:
a) remove all references to the bell and hose drying tower
b) remove reference to the Fire Station being "still in use".
The issues are whether the Statement of Significance for 24 Booth Street, Golden Square should be amended to:
Source: Exhibited Statement of Significance: 24 Booth Street, Golden Square, January 2022 (HO962)
The Heritage Overlay currently applies to 24 Booth Street as part of the Rowan Street Precinct (HO11). The Amendment proposes to remove the property from the Rowan Street Precinct (HO11) and include it as a site with individual significance in the Heritage Overlay (HO962).
The landowner of 24 Booth Street submitted the Statement of Significance should be revised for this property to:
Ms Howe said further assessment of the property confirmed:
On this basis, Council submitted the Statement of Significance should be amended to remove reference to the weatherboard additions and rephrase reference to the original door as 'door opening'. It also proposed to revise wording to include the word 'largely' before 'unaltered state' in relation to Criterion B (rarity) to reflect this position.
The Panel accepts further investigation clarified non-significant elements of the building and agrees the Statement of Significance should be updated to reflect these findings.
Amend the Statement of Significance for 24 Booth Street, Golden Square as shown in Appendix C to:
a) remove in 'What is significant?' reference to weatherboard additions and clarify the significance of the door only relates to the door opening.
b) clarify in 'Why is it significant' the building is rare because of its 'largely' unaltered state.
7 Existing Rowan Street Precinct (HO11) and 46-48 Old Violet Street, Bendigo
The issues are whether the Heritage Overlay should be:
The Heritage Overlay currently applies to 46-48 Old Violet Street and surrounding properties as part of the Rowan Street Precinct (HO11). The Amendment proposes to remove several properties from the Heritage Overlay along Old Violet Street, Olive Street and Pitt Street, and no longer include them in the Rowan Street Precinct (HO11).
Figure 15 shows boundaries for proposed new heritage precincts in the area (HO956 Nettle Street and HO957 Old Violet Street) and the area between proposed to be removed from the Heritage Overlay (except for 3 Reef Street (HO387) and 3 Pitt Street (HO11), which both retain the Heritage Overlay). 46-48 Old Violet Street is the large rectangular site on the corner of Old Violet Street and Olive Street.
Figure 13 Proposed new heritage precincts in the Old Violet Street area (46-48 Old Violet Street highlighted yellow)
One submission submitted the scope and content of supporting documents for the Amendment do not justify the removal of the Heritage Overlay from properties along Old Violet Street, Olive Street and Pitt Street, currently with the Rowan Street Precinct (HO11).
The submitter made a further written submission to the Panel (Documents 25, 25.1 and 25.2), which included a significant volume of information about the history of 46-48 Old Violet Street as a legacy mine (Monument Hill). It was submitted 46-48 Old Violet Street:
Ms Howe explained the existing Rowan Street Precinct:
In reviewing the Rowan Street Precinct, Ms Howe said:
Ms Schmeder noted initial precinct boundaries were considered to have very diverse characters as well as areas of low cohesion and were reviewed with the goal of identifying smaller, more cohesive precincts. Areas with few contributory properties were recommended for removal from the Precinct.
Regarding 46-48 Old Violet Street, and following the provision of extensive further information by the submitter through the Hearing process, Ms Schmeder said:
In response to a Panel question about whether development of sites to be removed from the Heritage Overlay would impact on views of the heritage places when coming up Olive Street, Ms Schmeder said development close to the frontage of sites could potentially impact views of the cottage on Pitt Street.
Council acknowledged the discrepancy between the Precinct boundary mapping and significant tree mapping in the Old Violet Street Precinct and submitted it would review all relevant statements of significance to ensure boundaries were aligned and to remove notations (green dots) illustrating significant trees which are outside the precinct.
The heritage basis of the revised boundaries for the Rowan Street Precinct (HO11), proposed new Nettle Street Precinct (HO956) and Old Violet Street Precinct (HO957) is not readily apparent in the Heritage Study Stage 2. Ms Howe's explanation assisted the Panel's understanding of how the process evolved and the need for review of the existing Rowan Street Precinct. The Panel accepts the proposed new precincts provide clearer, more distinct statements of significance.
46-48 Old Violet Street was clearly once an important mine site, Monument Hill, and it is acknowledged archaeological fabric remains underground. The Panel agrees it should be recommended for inclusion in the Victorian Heritage Inventory.
Properties along Old Violet Street, Olive Street and Pitt Street proposed to be removed from the Heritage Overlay either do not, or no longer, contain buildings of heritage significance and would not individually meet the threshold for inclusion in the Heritage Overlay.
The Panel has considered at length whether it is appropriate to remove these properties from the Heritage Overlay due to their lack of heritage significance, or whether they should remain in the Heritage Overlay as Non-contributory places.
As noted in Chapter 4.1, Ms Schmeder explained including Non-contributory properties in a Heritage Overlay precinct is a means of ensuring their future redevelopment does not have a negative impact on the heritage significance of the precinct as a whole.
The Panel appreciates it is not sensible to apply the Heritage Overlay to large strips of Non-contributory places. PPN1 does not provide guidance on the inclusion of Non-contributory places in a heritage precinct. The relevance of the streetscapes where these properties are located is considered an important factor in determining whether to include these particular Non-contributory properties.
While the properties proposed to have the Heritage Overlay removed no longer contain buildings of heritage significance, the general streetscapes exhibit features that continue to reflect their history and link with the proposed adjoining heritage precincts, including:
It is apparent that development in these streetscapes could influence the heritage significance of the streetscapes and proposed adjoining heritage precincts. 46-48 Old Violet Street is a large site sitting further up the hill when viewed from the bottom end of Olive Street. Ms Schmeder acknowledged its future development could impact on views of a heritage dwelling on Pitt Street if sited close to the frontage. This could also be the case for other properties along Olive Street proposed to be removed from the Heritage Overlay.
The Panel considers the Old Violet Street Precinct should be extended to include these properties and does not agree their inclusion would undermine the cohesion of the Precinct. The Statement of Significance for the Old Violet Street Precinct includes 'streetscapes' in 'What is Significant' and refers to streetscape elements including early and original tree plantings.
The NCO may have been an acceptable alternative planning tool to manage development of these properties within their heritage setting. However, this was not contemplated as part of this Amendment.
The Panel agrees that the purpose of the Heritage Overlay does not extend to identifying and managing potentially contaminated land. Ministerial Direction 1 applies to potentially contaminated land and requires such land to be further considered when preparing an amendment which allows land to be used for a sensitive use. Applying or removing the Heritage Overlay does not change permitted use of the land (which is governed by land use zones). Similarly Ministerial Direction 19 is not applicable.
It was recommended in the Tree Study to apply tree controls to Tree 147. This tree was assessed as meeting the following criteria:
The Old Violet Street Precinct (HO957) includes Tree 146, and the boundary should be extended to include Tree 147.
Retain the Heritage Overlay over Non-contributory properties along Old Violet Street, Olive Street and Pitt Street, including 46-48 Old Violet Street, Bendigo, proposed to be removed from the Heritage Overlay (HO11).
Amend the Statement of Significance for the Old Violet Street Precinct (HO957) to:
a) include Non-contributory properties along Old Violet Street, Olive Street and Pitt Street, including 46-48 Old Violet Street, Bendigo, proposed to be removed from the Heritage Overlay (HO11).
Amend the boundary of the Old Violet Street Precinct (HO957) to include Tree 147.
Review all relevant statements of significance to ensure boundaries shown in the significant tree aerial mapping aligns with the precinct boundary mapping and to remove notations (green dots) illustrating significant trees which are outside the precinct.
Ophir Holdings Pty Ltd (Ophir) generally supported the Amendment however requested three changes to the Planning Policy Framework. It noted an amendment request had been lodged to rezone land at 2-20 Chum Street to the Mixed Use Zone.
Firstly, Ophir submitted land at 2-20 Chum Street should be explicitly referenced at Clause 11.03-1L, potential under 'Centre specific strategies' to tie in the designation of the land within the St John of God Activity Centre to:
Ophir noted proposed changes to Clause 19.02-1L (below) which refer to this strategic intent, but submitted a cross-reference at Clause 11.03-1L would strengthen policy clarity.
Council did not agree to include a reference to the land at Clause 11.03-1L and submitted:
Ophir also suggested Clause 11.03-1L could be amended under the 'Centre specific strategies' to include text that seeks to "encourage redevelopment to occur as per the specific precinct plans of the Golden Plains [Square] Structure Plan".
Alternatively, Ophir requested additional sub-clauses (i.e. a place-based policy) at Clause 11.03-6L to more clearly incorporate the objectives and strategies of the Structure Plan submitting this would:
Council explained the Amendment was originally drafted with a proposed sub-clause at Clause 11.03-6L (Golden Square) which included all relevant strategies from the Structure Plan. However, Council received a letter from the DTP on 2 June 2023 with pre-authorisation conditions requiring (among other things) the redistribution of local planning policies from proposed Clause 11.03-6L to thematically appropriate clauses in the PPF, and provided an example document to demonstrate. Council revised the Amendment in response to this pre-authorisation condition.
Ophir stated it would have supported the original intent of the Amendment wording proposed by Council and said this approach was consistent with the Practitioner's Guide to Victoria's Planning Schemes (Practitioner's Guide) regarding place-based policy formulation and that distributing policy across multiple themes dilutes the Structure Plan's strategic weight.
The third request by Ophir was to amend Clause 16.01-1L to better reflect the intended future development of the land at 2-20 Chum Street.
Council supported this request and proposed the following wording as set out in the Part B submission (Document 28):
Support the redevelopment of land on the Southern Cross Austereo land at 161 Lily Street and 2-20 Chum Street for mixed use, residential, short-term accommodation and aged care or medical-related facilities.
Ophir confirmed its support of this wording and noted the Structure Plan should be updated to reflect the revised wording. Council supported this change to the Structure Plan.
The Structure Plan refers to significant opportunities to redevelop land at 2-20 Chum Street, including for "mixed use residential, short-term accommodation, aged care or medical related facilities" that could "link to St John of God Hospital" (page 22) or "integrate with and service the medical related facilities currently occurring in the area" (page 25). It does not provide specific guidance to include the site within the St John of God Activity Centre but does provide the opportunity for a potential association. It would be premature to reference the site as part of the St John of God Activity Centre in Clause 11.03-1L through this Amendment.
In considering Ophir's request to include a place-based policy for Golden Square in Clause 11.03-6L, the Panel notes Council's original intention to do so and the DTP's direction (as a pre-authorisation condition) to redistribute the policy to thematically appropriate clauses in the PPF. The Practitioner's Guide states a place-based policy must:
In this circumstance, particular consideration is given to whether the proposed strategies have a common objective specific to Golden Square that would require an integrated policy rather than placement under relevant thematic headings. From a review of the proposed strategies through the PPF, the Panel could not readily identify a common objective specific to Golden Square that would require the strategies to be considered in an integrated policy. Therefore, the Panel does not agree a place-based policy at Clause 11.03-6L is necessary.
Notwithstanding, the Structure Plan does include precinct-based guidance for different areas in Golden Square that is not easily captured by the structure of the PPF. This includes guidance for several activity centres captured somewhat through proposed strategies under relevant thematic headings. However, the Panel considers this could be strengthened by including an additional strategy under the 'Centre specific strategies' at Clause 11.03-1L to encourage redevelopment of activity centres in accordance with the Structure Plan.
The Panel supports the proposed change to the wording of Clause 16.01-1L as agreed between Council and Ophir to improve clarity about the future development of 2-20 Chum Street. It is appropriate to update the Structure Plan with the same wording for consistency.
Amend Clause 11.03-1L to include a new strategy under 'Centre specific strategies' as follows:
Encourage redevelopment of activity centres in Golden Square in accordance with the Golden Square Structure Plan.
Amend Clause 16.01-1L to reword the last dot point as follows:
Support the redevelopment of land on the Southern Cross Austereo site at 161 Lily Street and 2-20 Chum Street, for mixed use, residential, short-term accommodation and aged care or medical related facilities.
The issue whether land on Panton Street between Maple and Laurel Streets should be rezoned from Commercial 1 Zone to a residential zone as part of the Amendment.
One submission requested properties in Panton Street, between Laurel Street and Maple Street be rezoned to a residential zone, submitting that development of the land with a commercial business would:
Council explained the Structure Plan recommends rezoning the Panton Street properties to a residential zone. However, the DTP recommended all residential rezoning should be undertaken through the planning scheme amendment to implement Council's Managed Growth Strategy, which is the long-term residential planning framework for Bendigo. Council is progressing the rezoning of these properties through Amendment C293gben, which is currently in drafting stage.
The Panel supports Council's approach to progressing the rezoning of Panton Street properties between Maple and Laurel Streets as part of Amendment C293gben in accordance with advice from the DTP. It is logical to implement land use changes relating to residential development as part of a consolidated municipal growth strategy when possible as this allows for a comprehensive understanding of how residential growth is planned to occur throughout Bendigo.
The Panel concludes land on Panton Street between Maple and Laurel Streets should not be rezoned from Commercial 1 Zone to a residential zone as part of this Amendment. The approach to progress the rezoning of this land through proposed Amendment C293gben is supported.
Panel Directions version 1 and Hearing Timetable version1
Letter from Council proposing revised Hearing dates
4.1 Heritage Submissions Peer Review by Natica Schmeder, 5 February 2025
4.2 Table showing heritage places, Hercon criteria, HO reference and submission numbers
4.3 Post exhibition revised ordinance (tracked changes)
4.4 Post exhibition changes to Statements of Significance (tracked changes):
4.5 Post exhibition changes to Golden Square Heritage Study (Stage 2, Vol1) - Section 2.6 (tracked changes)
Letter from Panel regarding timing of Hearing and reconstitution of Panel
Email confirming no objection to revised Hearing dates and expert witness details
Email from Panel confirming second Directions Hearing and revised Hearing dates.
Letter from Council regarding completion of additional notification
Email confirming second Directions Hearing arrangements
Letter from Panel regarding reconstitution of Panel and timing of Hearing
Email from Council regarding draft proposed dates for Panel Hearing
Panel Directions version 2 and Hearing Timetable version 2
19.1 Ms K Howe Report, Council Heritage Advisor, 19 May 2025
19.1.1 Appendix A - Additional Assessment of 30 Honeysuckle Street, Bendigo
19.1.2 Appendix B - Informal Statements of Significance for HO11
19.2 Golden Square Heritage Study Stage 1 - Thematic and Chronological History, 27 June 2019
19.3 City of Greater Bendigo Heritage Gap Analysis, 28 May 2019
Heritage Assessment of Girton Grammar School, Bendigo, P Barrett, March 2023
Letter from Majex Pty Ltd informing of agreement with Council and resolution of submission
23.1 Revised Statement of Significance 130 High Street - Majex Pty Ltd
23.2 130 High Street - Clock and Rear Yard - Notes and Photos
23.3 Emails - Majex Pty Ltd and Council - Correspondence thread
23.4 Letter from Harwood Andrews to Maddocks 16.5.25 - 130 High Street
Girton Grammar School response to Direction 6 - details for accompanied site inspection
Council response to Direction 7 - site inspections itinerary
28.1 Part B - Revised Statements of Significance (HO954, HO990, HO948, HO978, HO951, HO986, HO965, HO962), and ordinance revisions
28.2 Letter from the Department of Transport and Planning dated 2 June 2023
28.3 Attachment to Department of Transport and Planning letter
Letter clarifying position of Girton Grammar School
Email to clarify Heritage Study wording at section 2.6 in response to Girton Grammar position
H7724-0187 Monument Hill Mine - Site Register Sheet
Listing of addresses associated with photos of houses
Updated Statement of Significance: HO948 State Rivers and Water Supply Commission Residential Precinct
Council submitted that the Amendment is supported by various clauses in the Planning Policy Framework, which the Panel has summarised below.
The Amendment will implement section 4(1)(a), (c), (d) and (g) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (the Act) to:
Clause 15.03-1L requires consideration of the Heritage Design Guidelines (City of Greater Bendigo, September 2020) and any statements of significance.
The Amendment proposes to rezone land in two locations to the Industrial 3 Zone to support the separation of industrial uses requiring buffers from residential areas.
The Heritage Overlay requires a planning permit to demolish, subdivide, build or carry out works. The Heritage Overlay enables its Schedule to specify additional controls for specific trees, painting previously unpainted surfaces, internal alterations and an incorporated plan (which may exempt buildings and works and other changes from requiring a planning permit). The Schedule may also identify if a place can be considered for uses that are otherwise prohibited, subject to a planning permit.
The Amendment proposes to apply the DDO34 to properties in the commercial precinct to support appropriately designed commercial development in the activity centre.
The Explanatory Report discusses how the Amendment meets the relevant requirements of:
Planning Practice Note 1 (Applying the Heritage Overlay), August 2018
Planning Practice Note 1 provides guidance about using the Heritage Overlay. It states that the Heritage Overlay should be applied to, among other places:
Places identified in a local heritage study, provided the significance of the place can be shown to justify the application of the overlay.
Planning Practice Note 1 specifies that documentation for each heritage place needs to include a statement of significance that clearly establishes the importance of the place and addresses the heritage criteria. It recognises the following model criteria (the Hercon criteria) that have been adopted for assessing the value of a heritage place:
Criterion A: Importance to the course or pattern of our cultural or natural history (historical significance).
Criterion B: Possession of uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of our cultural or natural history (rarity).
Criterion C: Potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of our cultural or natural history (research potential).
Criterion D: Importance in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a class of cultural or natural places or environments (representativeness).
Criterion E: Importance in exhibiting particular aesthetic characteristics (aesthetic significance).
Criterion F: Importance in demonstrating a high degree of creative or technical achievement at a particular period (technical significance).
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 (social significance).
Criterion H: Special association with the life or works of a person, or group of persons, of importance in our history (associative significance).
A Practitioner's Guide to Victorian Planning Schemes (Practitioner's Guide) sets out key guidance to assist practitioners when preparing planning scheme provisions. The guidance seeks to ensure:
Appendix C Panel recommended version of the Statements of Significance
The single-storey brick shop with timber parapet at 130 High Street, Bendigo, a single-storey brick shop with timber parapet, likely built by 1866 with alterations in 1902, is significant.
Elements that contribute to the significance of the place include:
The following elements do not contribute to the Significance of the place:
The brick shop with timber parapet at 130 High Street, Bendigo, is of local historical, rarity and representative significance to the City of Greater Bendigo.
The shop at 130 High Street, Bendigo, is historically significant as an example of the commercial development that occurred on the principal roads outside the central district of Bendigo in the nineteenth century. Bendigo's primary commercial precinct had developed around Pall Mall and the surrounding streets in the 1850s; however, as the town began to expand in the following decades, smaller commercial groups and individual shops were established along the main thoroughfares that led to its centre. This sporadic commercial development serviced both the surrounding suburban areas and travellers to Bendigo. High Street was one of the primary routes to Bendigo, and the subject site, constructed in 1866 and renovated in 1902, reflects the continuing importance of commerce on this road through the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. 130 High Street is an example of the type of modest shops that were constructed on main routes into Bendigo. Many of these shops were generally less ornate in size and decoration than those located in the city. With its modest size and timber parapet, the subject site is a remaining example of the type of small-scale commercial development that occurred on the outskirts of the city. (Criteria A and D)
The shop at 130 High Street, Bendigo, is significant for its rare clock set within the transom window of the shopfront. The clock, believed to date to the 1902 alterations undertaken by owner and tenant William Bartle, a watchmaker, is an uncommon addition to a shopfront. It was likely an early form of advertising for Bartle's shop at the site and has remained in situ since. (Criterion B)
Citation for 130 High Street, Bendigo from the Golden Square Heritage Study - Stage 2, Volume 1: Place and Precinct Citations, 2020 by City of Greater Bendigo with Minerva Heritage, Context and Homewood Consulting.
The brick shop and house (known as 24 Booth Street) is located on the corner of Mackenzie and Booth Streets, was built between 1872 and 1874, and is significant.
The elements of significance are the unpainted red brick building and weatherboard additions, and its primary components: hipped corrugated iron roof, cream brick facing around windows and doors, original door opening and stone steps, door opening leading to residence and two double hung sash windows, stucco cornice and parapet with traces of buff coloured limewash. The corner location (and view) of the brick shop and house contributes to the significance of the place.
The brick shop and house at 24 Booth Street, Golden Square, is of local historical and rarity significance to the City of Greater Bendigo.
The brick shop and house at 24 Booth Street is historically significant as a testament to how Bendigo grew as a city through the emergence of unplanned villages, such as Golden Square, in the scattered gold bearing gullies. These communities developed around concentrations of hotels, shops, churches and manufacturing businesses. (Criterion A)
The brick shop and house at 24 Booth Street is architecturally significant as an original corner shop and residence associated with the late 19th-century growth of Bendigo. Comparison with other places of a similar age and type in Bendigo shows that 24 Booth Street is rare because of its largely unaltered state. (Criterion B)
Citation for 24 Booth Street Golden Square from the Golden Square Heritage Study - Stage 2, Volume 2: Place and Precinct Citations, 2020 by City of Greater Bendigo with Minerva Heritage, Context and Homewood Consulting.
[2] Mr Barrett's report was tabled for information purposes and not as evidence.
[4] Golden Square Heritage Study - Stage 2, Volume 2, page 132