The Age (8 July) article 'Faux heritage versus contemporary home design' gave several photographic examples of each. Is the argument really as polarised as that?
The purpose of heritage policy is 'To conserve and enhance heritage places of natural or cultural significance'. Planners use a range of decision guidelines to assess applications but the guideline of greatest interest to observers of Port Melbourne's streetscapes is likely to be 'Whether the location, bulk, form and appearance of the proposed building is in keeping with the character and appearance of adjacent buildings and the heritage place.'
The planning scheme map of Port Melbourne shows the areas covered by a heritage overlay. In a heritage overlay area, a planning permit is required for most changes. In Port, there are many examples of additions to
heritage places and new houses that have replaced heritage buildings. Some of the additions pre-date the current policy or pre-date
guidelines or studies for particular areas such as
Garden City and planning amendment C89 which implemented the recent review of Port Melbourne's heritage overlay.
As with all planning matters, there is vigorous contention. Some people prefer additions to look pretty much the same
as the original house, whereas others favour contemporary additions. The intention of contemporary additions, supported by the Burra Charter, is to leave an observer, now or in the future, in no doubt as to which is the original fabric and which is the new.
cnr Graham and Dow St, Port Melbourne |
Knowing that people have different views about planning and particularly on this matter, this is an invitation for you to nominate your best and worst examples in Port Melbourne.
No comments:
Post a Comment