MELBOURNE METRO RAIL PROJECT INQUIRY AND ADVISORY COMMITTEE Historical Heritage August 2016 Peter Lovell and Kate Gray
Impacted heritage places • Buildings and structures • Precincts • Monuments and memorials • Landscapes and trees • Archaeological sites
Existing statutory recognition and control Relevant listing Number of sites within the concept design/ground settlement zone of influence (5mm) Commonwealth Heritage List – Environment 1 place Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 Victorian Heritage Register (listed and Tunnels Precinct ‐ 15 + 2 nominated places recommended for listing) – Heritage Act 1995 Station Precincts ‐ 37 places (includes some tunnel places) Victorian Heritage Inventory and unidentified Tunnels Precinct – 67 sites archaeological relics and sites – Heritage Act 1995 Station Precincts – 90 sites Heritage Overlay – Planning and Environment Act Tunnels Precinct ‐ 18 individual places, 8 HO 1987 precincts, 71 graded buildings within HO precincts Station Precincts ‐ 27 individual places, 11 HO precincts, 64 graded buildings within HO precincts (includes some tunnel places)
EES objective: cultural heritage – to avoid or minimise adverse impacts on Aboriginal and historical cultural heritage values Actions as part of Melbourne Metro: • Demolition or part demolition • Alterations to a heritage place • Works in proximity to heritage places (tunnelling and additional works) • Tree removal • Temporary or permanent relocation of monuments or memorials • Permanent above ‐ ground structures within or in proximity to heritage places
Response Avoid impacts where possible Document change to affected heritage places and interpret lost values in accordance with good practice Undertake archaeological investigation to realise research potential Minimise physical and visual impacts through design refinement: • Construction areas • Design of new infrastructure Reinstate valued landscape character Identify Environmental Performance Requirements and mitigation measures which apply across the project or are tailored to individual places
POST HHIA VARIATIONS Changes in statutory controls Melbourne Planning Scheme Amendments C207 and C258 • Melbourne Planning Scheme Heritage Inventory • Stonnington Planning Scheme Amendment C132 • Predictive archaeological assessments (Melbourne University and Ford) Tunnels Precinct Modification of EPR AR2 to address ground consolidation • CBD South Station Recording of ungraded buildings in HO505, Flinders Gate • Charles Bush Sculpture future ownership • Victorian Heritage Register nominations Fawkner Park • St Kilda Road • Conservation Management Plans Domain Parklands • South African Soldiers’ Memorial •
Key issues raised in submissions and expert evidence • Risk to buildings and heritage places from construction vibration and ground settlement • Loss of trees in heritage landscapes • How are heritage issues to be addressed in project delivery • Issues related to specific places and locations
Tunnels precinct: Domain Parklands and Fawkner Park
Tunnels precinct: Domain Parklands
Tunnels precinct: Domain Parklands and Fawkner Park
Tunnels precinct: key heritage issues Domain Parklands
Tunnels precinct: key heritage issues Domain Parklands King Edward VII Memorial viewed from the south in Linlithgow Avenue, proposed site for the emergency access shaft in the Concept Design
Tunnels precinct: key heritage issues Domain Parklands Tom’s Block looking north, Linlithgow Avenue is at right, this is an alternative location for the required emergency access shaft
Tunnels precinct: key heritage issues Domain Parklands View north towards the general location of the proposed emergency access shaft
Tunnels precinct: key heritage issues Domain Parklands Aerial view of the north ‐ eastern part of Fawkner Park (VHR PROV H2361)
Tunnels precinct: key heritage issues Submissions Response Potential for ground improvement works in Existing EPRs seek to avoid or minimise these • • Tom’s Block – tree loss and impact on potential impacts landscape reinstatement, potential impact on memorials and statues Works to be conducted in a manner which • allows for tree retention and/or reinstatement Strong preference for above CityLink option • (agreed in conclave) Emergency access shaft structures in Queen Preference for Tom’s Block location (agreed in • • Victoria Gardens (Concept design) and Tom’s conclave) Block (alternative option) Impact of proposed structures will depend on • Emergency access shaft structures in Fawkner footprint, size, character and siting (agreed in • Park conclave) No change proposed to EPRs other than CH17 • to reference final Domain CMP EPR CH9 should apply to the emergency • access shafts
Western portal The Western Portal includes: Decline structure to portal • Cut and cover tunnel construction •
Western portal: key heritage issues Residences within HO9 Kensington Precinct at 1 to 5 Childers Street Kensington (left) and 133 Ormond Street (right), all D grade, Level 3 streetscape, proposed for demolition in the Concept Design
Western portal submissions and expert evidence and response Submissions Response Alternative design option would not The loss of the four (4) graded • • require demolition of heritage houses buildings in the Kensington precinct and should be adopted (HO9) is not desirable but would not compromise the core values of the precinct HHIA prefers alternative design option, • which would not require demolition of graded buildings No change proposed to EPRs •
Arden station Arden station: Construction site • New station • Substation location •
Arden station: key heritage issues Railways Reserve Precinct, 173 ‐ 199 Laurens Street, North Melbourne (was proposed as HO1093 in Amendment C207) Buildings are proposed for demolition with associated recording and interpretation.
Arden station – submissions and expert evidence and response Submissions Response Adverse heritage impact from The loss is one of a locally significant • • demolition of former railways sheds heritage place, to be recorded (no heritage control) Relocation / salvage could be • Significant Flax Store not assessed considered but is not justified on the • basis of significance Avoidance or relocation preferred • No change proposed to EPRs •
Parkville station Parkville Station is proposed to be constructed using the cut and cover method Entrances to serve the • health and education precinct Connections to existing • tram and bus routes along Royal Parade
Parkville station: key heritage issues Royal Parade (VHR H2198) view looking north from the intersection of Grattan Street. The area will be impacted by limited tree removal and the new tram stop
Parkville station Main Entrance Gates (Gate 6), Pillars and Gatekeeper’s Cottage, The University of Fence The University of Melbourne (VHR Melbourne (VHR H0919), new build in H0918). Abuttal of station box to the proximity, archaeological potential within heritage fabric may require dismantling and grounds reconstruction
Parkville station – submissions and expert evidence and response Submissions Response Loss of elms in Royal Parade HHIA assesses loss of trees in Royal • • Parade and provides guidance Entrance structures should be including mitigation through • sympathetic to heritage context ‐ replanting, see tailored EPR CH12 additional EPR CH2 ‐ B (Mr Briggs) requiring design briefs would provide Design of new structures in the • greater certainty for a good outcome, precinct is guided by EPR CH1, CH9 amendments to CH9 (Mr Briggs) (new build responsive to heritage would more detailed guidance places) and CH13 (set off from Gatekeeper’s Cottage) Archaeological potential on University • of Melbourne land Additional archaeological site • assessed No change proposed to EPRs •
CBD North station The CBD North Station is proposed to be constructed using the mined cavern construction method Two entrances connecting to • existing public transport links Ventilation and maintenance • shafts located in Franklin and A’Beckett Street
CBD North station: key heritage issues City Baths ‐ proposed works include excavation of road and abuttal of new underground works with the Baths, and construction of a station entry and vent within the road reserve, adit at depth below building
CBD North station submissions and expert evidence and response Submissions Response Potential damage to City Baths from Procedures in relation to potential • • construction in proximity impact from ground movement and vibration are addressed by others Additional EPR (GM1 ‐ C, Mr Briggs) • proposed to require an independent The design of new structures in • audit and consultation with owners proximity to existing heritage places is where vibration and/or ground guided by EPR CH1, CH9 (new build movement could pose an impact responsive to heritage places) Visual impact of new above ‐ ground No change proposed to EPRs • • entry and other structures in proximity to City Baths (see additional EPR CH2 ‐ B and amended CH9, Mr Briggs)
Recommend
More recommend
