Former Melford Motors615-645 Elizabeth Street, Melbourne

Heritage Council Registration CommitteeHearing – 23 November 2012Members – Ms Helen Lardner (chair), Mr Jon Hickman, Mr Donald Kerr

DECISION OF THE HERITAGE COUNCILAfter considering a recommendation and the submissions and conducting a hearing into those submissions, pursuant to Section 42(1)(b) the Heritage Council has determined that part of the place is of cultural heritage significance to the State of Victoria and should be included in the Heritage Register.

Helen Lardner (Chair)

Jon Hickman Donald Kerr

Decision Date – 26 February 2013

APPEARANCES

Executive Director, Heritage Victoria

Dr Kerry Jordan, Heritage Officer (Architectural History) appeared on behalf of the Executive Director.

Nominator

The president of the Art Deco and Modernism Society, Mr Robin Grow appeared. Mr Grow called Mr Simon Reeves of Built Heritage Pty Ltd as an expert witness.

Owner

Mr Paul Chiappi (instructed by Michael Hazell of Kelly Hazell Quill Lawyers) appeared for Toyota Australia and called Mr Peter Lovell of Lovell Chen Architects and Heritage Consultants as an expert witness.

2February 2013

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND

The Place

1 The Former Melford Motors complex at 615-645 Elizabeth Street, Melbourne (‘Melford Motors’) is on a prominent corner site bounded by Elizabeth, Queensberry and O'Connell Streets. The place comprises three buildings:

a two-storey building from 1928 (remodelled in 1936-7, including a third storey);

a three-storey wing built in 1936-7; and

a three-storey service centre built in 1955-7.

2 In this report, the 1928 and 1936-7 buildings are collectively referred to as ‘the 1936 building’. The 1955-7 service centre is referred to as ‘the 1955 building’. The place does not include the caryard and c1970s building to the north of the 1955 building.

3 Melford Motors is listed as an individual place with a ‘C’ grading in the heritage overlay to the Melbourne Planning Scheme as HO294.

Nominations

4 Melford Motors was nominated for inclusion in the Victorian Heritage Register (‘the Register’) by the Art Deco and Modernism Society on 2 April 2012.

Recommendation of the Executive Director

5 On 18 May 2012, the Executive Director recommended that Melford Motors be included in the Register.

6 A submission requesting a hearing and objecting to the recommended extent of registration and permit policy and exemptions was received from Toyota Australia on 16 July 2012. Pursuant to section 41(6) of the Heritage Act 1995 (‘the Heritage Act’), the Heritage Council was required to conduct a hearing.

Site Inspection

7 The Committee inspected the site on 19 November 2012 accompanied by Mr Barton Cottle of Bishops Real Estate Pty Ltd and the Hearings Officer. No submissions were received during the course of the inspection.

Preliminary Matters

8 The Executive Director’s submission noted that ‘the nomination was for all of the buildings on the site’. Dr Jordan advised the Committee that the assessed place did not include the c1970s building at the south of the car yard.

9 A submission was received from the Art Deco and Modernism Society one day after initial submissions were due. This submission was circulated to all parties prior to the hearing. No objections to the Committee considering this material were received.

3February 2013

ISSUES10 This section is not intended to be a complete record of submissions that were

made to the Committee. It is a summary of what the Committee considers to be the key issues, followed by an explanation of the position the Committee takes on each issue.

11 Any reference to Criteria refers to the ‘Heritage Council Criteria for Assessment of Places of Cultural Heritage Significance’ (see Attachment 1 to this report). The Committee acknowledges that it is possible for values to contribute to more than one criterion. The Committee has therefore assigned submissions to the criteria that it believes to be relevant, as in some instances parties have addressed the same issue, but applied different criteria.

Summary of issues

12 The main issue of contention between the parties was the appropriate extent of registration:

Built Heritage submitted that the recommended extent satisfies criteria A, B, C, E and F. Similarly, the Executive Director submitted that the recommended extent satisfies criteria A, D and H.

Lovell Chen were of the view that a reduced extent of the place could satisfy criteria A, B, D and E; and argued that the 1955 building should be excluded from the registration.

13 Lovell Chen also argued for amendments to the Statement of Significance and the permit policy and exemptions.

Criterion A - Importance to the course, or pattern of Victoria’s cultural history

14 The parties disagreed about what makes the place of importance to the course or pattern of Victoria’s cultural history.

Submissions and evidence

15 The Executive Director submitted that Melford Motors is of historical significance as a reflection of the rapid expansion of the automotive industry, and associated retailing, in Victoria in the 1930s. According to Dr Jordan, a surge in car production and ownership in the interwar period resulted in a need for new buildings for manufacture, sales, services, fuel sales and parking. She argued that this had an enormous effect on the way of life of Victorians, including on the development of urban form.

16 Dr Jordan submitted that Ford was the best-selling vehicle brand in Australia in the early twentieth century and Melford Motors (its name a contraction of Melbourne and Ford) was formed in response to the need for expanded sales and service facilities.

17 Built Heritage submitted that Melford Motors is significant for its association with the expansion of automotive retailing in Melbourne not only during the 1930s but also into the 1950s. Both Dr Jordan and Mr Reeves submitted that it was the

4February 2013

largest and grandest car showroom of the era. Mr Reeves also argued that its ongoing use as a motor showroom is notable.

18 In Mr Lovell’s view, the 1936 building clearly relates to a period of significant expansion in the automotive industry in Victoria. In his view, this building could be considered to meet Criterion A on the basis of its comparatively large scale and association with the growth of Ford’s local manufacturing operation. He did not consider the aspects of the place’s history relating to the 1950s to be of state level significance.

19 According to the Executive Director, Melford Motors is significant for its location: motor showrooms were typically located along the northern edge of the city, close to the main vehicle entrance to Melbourne, Sydney Road, and its southern extension, Elizabeth Street. Mr Lovell submitted that the location of the place does not make it significant at a state level. His view was that the association of car sale yards with this area of Melbourne is of interest, but can only be considered to be of local significance.

20 The Executive Director also identified the following historical themes (from Victoria’s Framework of Historical Themes) as relevant: linking Victorians by road in the 20th century; and marketing and retailing.

Discussion and conclusion

21 The Committee finds that the 1936 building satisfies Criterion A. The Committee is satisfied that the growth of the car industry in the interwar period is of significance to the state and that the construction of the Melford Motors building is an important expression of this growth.

22 The Committee recognises that the continued growth of the car industry in the 1940s-60s is also significant, but does not believe that the 1955 building is sufficiently illustrative of this phase to warrant registration.

Criterion B – Possession of uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of Victoria’s cultural history

23 The parties disagreed about the significance of the rarity of the place.

Submissions and evidence

24 The Executive Director submitted that the place is an outstanding and largely intact example of a motor vehicle showroom and put to the Committee that it is one of the last remaining substantially intact such buildings in Melbourne.

25 Lovell Chen submitted that this criterion could be met in relation to the 1936 building; however, this assessment cannot be said to relate to the 1955 building.

Discussion and conclusion

26 The Committee finds that the 1936 building satisfies Criterion B as it demonstrates aspects of the growth of the car industry from the interwar period that are now rare. It was not satisfied that the 1955 building showed aspects of the history that were uncommon at a state level.

5February 2013

Criterion D - Importance in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a class of cultural places and objects

27 The parties disagreed about whether the place is a significant example of a motor vehicle showroom, the Streamlined Moderne style or 1950s architecture.

Submissions and evidence

Motor vehicle showrooms

28 The Executive Director submitted that Melford Motors is of architectural significance as an outstanding and largely intact example of a motor vehicle showroom, a new building type appearing in the interwar period. According to the Executive Director, the showroom was unusual at the time of its construction for its considerable size. The Executive Director submitted that this is one of few surviving examples from this era and that none of the other known examples have the landmark architectural qualities demonstrated by Melford Motors.

29 The Executive Director conceded that no analysis of motor showrooms in regional Victoria has been carried out; however, she submitted that it is unlikely that any outside Melbourne would be as large. In any event, according to the Executive Director, most country car dealerships were combined with other car-related functions and one can assume that showroom facilities would have been minimal and much less architecturally accomplished.

30 Built Heritage submitted that Melford Motors and the former Commonwealth Motors in A’Beckett Street are among the few intact 1930s motor showrooms remaining in Melbourne

31 Lovell Chen generally agreed that Criterion D is met in relation to motor vehicle showrooms, but wished to qualify the Executive Director’s recommendation. Mr Lovell was not convinced that the place is an outstanding example of a motor showroom, and although he agreed it was a large-scale one, he argued that scale was not a strong argument for significance. In his view, the Executive Director’s assessment under this criterion is not applicable to the 1955 building.

Streamlined Moderne

32 The Executive Director submitted that Melford Motors is significant as an outstanding example of the Streamlined Moderne style, epitomising the characteristic features and exhibiting a less common emphasis on the horizontal. She submitted that the place makes the most of its corner location with strong horizontal elements and a curved window into the showroom. Dr Jordan pointed out that Streamlined Moderne was considered to be particularly appropriate for building types associated with new and modern products such as cars.

33 In Mr Reeves’ view, ‘no other pre-war motor showroom in Melbourne could compare with the reductive functionalism exhibited by the Melford Motors building’ and other inner city showrooms had little opportunity to display dynamic horizontal expression. In his view, comparable showrooms can only be found when one looks outside Melbourne, for example Hastings Deering Pty Ltd in Sydney.

6February 2013

34 Lovell Chen submitted that the 1936 building is one of a substantial group of interwar multi-storey commercial buildings in the Streamlined Moderne style standing in central Melbourne. Mr Lovell submitted that the application of the Streamlined Moderne style to a motor showroom, with its suggestion of modernity, efficiency and speed, is of interest but in the context of other examples such as Burnham Beeches (H0868) and the United Kingdom Hotel (H0684), he argued that it would be difficult to elevate Melford Motors to a level of state significance on stylistic grounds alone. In Mr Lovell’s view, a case has not been made for the 1936 building to be included in the Register as an example of Streamlined Moderne.

1950s buildings

35 The Executive Director submitted that the 1955 building is a very good example of 1950s architecture and argued that the association between the 1930s and 1950s buildings is significant. Dr Jordan conceded that the 1955 building is not significant in its own right.

36 Mr Lovell put to the Committee that the 1955 building ‘stands as a relatively conventional utilitarian example of industrial/commercial architecture of the 1950s and is in no way noteworthy in terms of its external presentation when considered against other such buildings of the period.’ He was of the view that this building should not be included just because 1950s architecture is underrepresented on the register.

Discussion and conclusion

37 The Committee finds that Criterion D is satisfied and that the 1936 portion of Melford Motors is significant:

as a largely intact example of a motor vehicle showroom, a new building type appearing in the interwar period; and

as an example of Streamlined Moderne applied to a commercial building, using stylistic devices to achieve maximum exposure for the car showroom.

38 The Committee finds that the place is not of state significance as an example of 1950s architecture. Underrepresentation of a class of places is not considered to be a valid reason for inclusion in the Register.

39 The Committee finds that the exterior of the 1955 building exhibits a design sympathetic to its neighbours and has some significance. The Committee is of the view that its grading in the heritage overlay to the Melbourne Planning Scheme should be increased from C to A.

Criterion E - Importance in exhibiting particular aesthetic characteristics

40 The parties disagreed about whether the place is important for its aesthetic characteristics.

7February 2013

Submissions and evidence

41 Built Heritage submitted that the place satisfies Criterion E due to its vast scale, elongated facades and prominent curved corner. Mr Reeves argued that the building remains a major landmark.

42 Lovell Chen submitted that the 1936 building could be seen to satisfy Criterion E, but not as an outstanding example.

Discussion and conclusion

43 The Committee finds that Criterion E is not satisfied. The Committee was not convinced that the aesthetic values of the place are at such a level as to warrant inclusion in the register under this criterion.

Criterion F - Importance in demonstrating a high degree of creative or technical achievement at a particular period

44 The parties disagreed about whether Criterion F is satisfied.

Submissions and evidence

45 Mr Reeves submitted that the place satisfies Criterion F as an outstanding example of Streamlined Moderne. He argued that the building ‘provided the perfect distillation of pure functional design, with a dynamic horizontal expression creating a sense of sweeping movement across the facades and around the corner, heightened by the merest suggestion of ornamentation by the use of shadowlines, recesses, tapered and splayed edges in place of traditional applied ornament’.

46 In Lovell Chen’s view, criterion was F not satisfied.

Discussion and conclusion

47 The Committee finds that Criterion F is not satisfied. The Committee was not convinced that the place demonstrates a degree of creative or technical achievement sufficient to warrant its inclusion in the Register.

Criterion H - Special association with the life or works of a person, or group of persons, of importance in Victoria’s history

48 The parties disagreed about whether the place’s association with architect Harry Norris elevated it to a state level of significance.

Submissions and evidence

49 The Executive Director submitted that Melford Motors is architecturally significant for its association with architect Harry Norris, one of Victoria's leading designers of office buildings, shops and showrooms in the interwar period.

50 Built Heritage made some mention of Norris in their submissions but it was not clear from their evidence whether they believe this criterion to be satisfied.

51 Lovell Chen submitted that the association with Norris is of note, but that in itself this association would not elevate the place to a state level of significance. Mr

8February 2013

Lovell argued that when compared with other Norris buildings of the period, this is not an outstanding example.

Discussion and conclusion

52 The Committee finds that Criterion G is not satisfied and was not convinced by arguments that the place is of state significance for its association with Harry Norris. The Committee agreed with Lovell Chen that there are better examples of Norris’s work.

Extent of registration

53 The parties disagreed about the appropriate extent of registration for the place, in particular whether the 1955 building should be included.

Submissions and evidence

54 The Executive Director’s recommended extent of registration included the 1936 and 1955 buildings (see Attachment 4) and she argued that together they are important in understanding the history of the Ford Motor Company and the motor industry in Australia from the interwar period until after World War II. The Art Deco and Modernism Society concurred, submitting that the 1955 building is part of an integrated whole.

55 Similarly, Mr Reeves argued that the 1955 addition is an integral part of the complex, exhibiting a design sympathetic in scale, form and detailing to the 1936 building. He argued that the vast scale of service facilities in the 1955 building demonstrates the ongoing dominance of Melford Motors during the second wave of car ownership in the postwar period.

56 According to Mr Reeves, the inclusion of the 1955 building in the extent of registration lends weight to the overall significance of the site. However, he conceded that it does not have a high level of historical or architectural significance in its own right and was of secondary importance to the 1936 building. In his view, the 1936 building would not be detrimentally affected if it were registered without the 1955 building.

57 Mr Lovell submitted that the core heritage values of the Melford Motors site relate to the 1936 building as a relatively rare example of a large-scale and largely intact example of an interwar motorcar showroom. In his view, the recommended extent of registration includes land and built fabric which is not of state significance. Mr Lovell argued that no case has been made by the Executive Director for the inclusion of the 1955 building in the extent of registration - there is little or no reference to the 1955 building in the Executive Director’s recommendation and no suggestion that it makes an important contribution to the significance of the place.

Discussion and conclusion

58 The Committee is of the view that the heritage values of state significance identified at the Melford Motors site are not embodied in the 1955 building. The

9February 2013

Committee has therefore amended the extent of registration to exclude all land and buildings to the north of the 1936 building (see Attachment 5).

Permit policy and exemptions

59 The parties disagreed about the adequacy of the recommended permit policy and exemptions.

Submissions and evidence

60 During advertising of the Executive Director’s recommendation, the owners submitted that the proposed permit policy and exemptions did not adequately address operational needs. The Executive Director opposed any changes being made to the permit policy and exemptions and submitted that it is not the intent of the policy to address all potential operational needs. The Executive Director argued that it is particularly important that original fabric illustrative of the place’s original use is retained.

61 In relation to the exterior, Lovell Chen submitted that the permit policy should be amended if the 1955 building is excluded from the statement of significance.

62 In terms of the interiors, Lovell Chen questioned the significance of the open space and interior columns of the ground floor showroom. Mr Lovell argued that the interior of this building is completely utilitarian on all floors. He put to the Committee that the only details of interest are the ceiling to the ground floor level, and the circular panel over the rotating display. He argued that the sense of a showroom is demonstrated through the external presentation of the building, especially the showroom windows. Mr Lovell recommended that the references to the interior in the policy be removed or amended to be less prescriptive.

63 Mr Lovell also questioned the recommendation that the internal ramps be retained. He put to the Committee that the concrete ramps are conventional and simply a stair for vehicles. According to Mr Lovell they are not a structural innovation and there are earlier and contemporary examples. He noted that they cannot be viewed from outside the building or from the ground floor showroom. He submitted that they are not considered to be such a core element in terms of significance as to warrant retention.

Discussion and conclusion

64 In the Committee’s view the important interior features of the 1936 building are those which demonstrate its original function, on the ground floor being the open showroom, the decoration, interior of the facade and the turntable. The Committee is also of the view that a permit should be required for works to the concrete ramps between the floors and the exposed trusses.

65 The Permit Exemptions have been amended accordingly (see Attachment 3).

CONCLUSION66 The Committee finds that part of the Former Melford Motors is of

architectural and historical significance to the State of Victoria. It

10February 2013

meets the significance threshold for inclusion in the Victoria Heritage Register according to the Heritage Council's criteria A, B and D.

67 The extent of registration, statement of significance and permit policy and exemptions for the place has been amended to reflect the Committee’s decision (see Attachments 2-5).

68 The Committee is of the view that the grading of the 1955 building in the heritage overlay to the Melbourne Planning Scheme should be increased from C to A.

11February 2013

ATTACHMENT 1

HERITAGE COUNCIL CRITERIA FOR ASSESSMENT OF PLACES OF CULTURAL HERITAGE SIGIFICANCE

CRITERION A Importance to the course, or pattern, of Victoria’s cultural history.

CRITERION B Possession of uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of Victoria’s cultural history.

CRITERION C Potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of Victoria’s cultural history.

CRITERION D Importance in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a class of cultural places or objects.

CRITERION E Importance in exhibiting particular aesthetic characteristics.

CRITERION F Importance in demonstrating a high degree of creative or technical achievement at a particular period.

CRITERION G Strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group for social, cultural or spiritual reasons. This includes the significance of a place to Indigenous peoples as part of their continuing and developing cultural traditions.

CRITERION H Special association with the life or works of a person, or group of persons, of importance in Victoria’s history.

These were adopted by the Heritage Council at its meeting on 7 August 2008, and replace the previous criteria adopted by the Heritage Council on 6 March 1997.

12February 2013

ATTACHMENT 2

Statement of Significance

What is significant?

The former Melford Motors complex at 615-645 Elizabeth Street, Melbourne is a Streamlined Moderne style building on a prominent corner site bounded by Elizabeth, Queensberry and O'Connell Streets Melbourne. It was designed by Harry Norris and built in 1936-7 as which housed Victoria's largest showroom and service facility for Ford vehicles. The complex comprises a three-storey wing built in 1936-7 and a two-storey building (dating from 1928) that was remodelled at the same time, both to the design of prominent Melbourne architect, Harry Norris.

In the early twentieth century Ford vehicles were the best-selling in Australia, but they were imported from the USA and Canada until 1928, when the first locally-made Ford was produced at a new factory in Geelong. The need grew for authorised dealers and service facilities and Melford Motors, the name a contraction of Melbourne and Ford, founded in 1930 by the Melbourne businessman Arthur Fenton, became the exclusive dealer for Ford vehicles in inner Melbourne. By 1932 the firm operated from several premises around the city, including rented two-storey premises in Elizabeth Street. With sales booming as the effects of the Depression eased, Melford Motors purchased the Elizabeth Street building and the adjacent block on the corner of Queensberry Street and engaged the prominent Melbourne architect Harry Norris to design a new building, incorporating the earlier one. The new building, constructed by Swanson Brothers, was described in the Argus as the 'finest car showrooms in the Commonwealth'. The ground floor was used for showrooms and offices, with used cars and the delivery department on the first floor and vehicle storage and servicing on the second floor. By In 1953 Melford Motors was described as one of the world's biggest Ford distributors. In 1955 Norris was commissioned to design a substantial addition to the north, designed to blend with the older building. Melford Motors continued to operate from the building until 1990, when the company was sold to Melbourne City Toyota.

The former Melford Motors building is composed of two parts: the remodelled 1920s building in the centre;to the north and the 1936-7 section on the corner to the south; and at the north end the 1955 addition. It is a three-storey building with a pale-coloured rendered facade. The continuous banding with incised shadow lines at the spandrel and parapet levels, and the wide bands of windows, broken only by curved piers, give a marked horizontal emphasis. The dominant feature is the curved corner, which on the ground floor level has a sixteen metre long showroom window made up of five individually curved panes of glass, which wraps around a display turntable (now not operative) above which is a circular suspended panel with recessed lighting. The ground floor on the Elizabeth and Queensberry Street elevations is made up of a series of wide showroom windows, which remain largely intact, apart from the replacement of some of the etched glass panels and the removal of the window boxes from the interior. The ground floor is still used as a showroom, and retains the original pillars, some with their fluted terracotta cladding, and the Moderne-style cornices, but the original offices have been replaced. The floors above, connected by concrete ramps, are used for the storage and servicing of cars and are largely open spaces with no decorative detailing.

This site is part of the traditional land of the Kulin Nation.

13February 2013

How is it significant?

The former Melford Motors is of architectural and historical significance to the state of Victoria.

Why is it significant?

The former Melford Motors is significant at the State level for the following reasons:

The former Melford Motors is of historical significance as a reflection of the rapid expansion of the automotive industry, and of automotive retailing, in Victoria in the 1930s. Ford was the best-selling vehicle brand in Australia in the early twentieth century, and a boom in sales followed the beginning of local production in 1928 and the easing of the Depression. Melford Motors was formed in response to the need for expanded sales and service facilities, and its showroom was the largest and grandest motor vehicle showroom built in Victoria in the inter-war period. The former Melford Motors is significant for its location: motor showrooms were typically located along the northern edge of the City close to the main vehicle entrance to Melbourne, the Sydney Road, and its southern extension, Elizabeth Street.

The former Melford Motors is of architectural significance as an outstanding and largely intact example of a motor vehicle showroom, a new building type which appeared in the interwar period. It is one of the last remaining substantially intact such buildings in Melbourne. It is significant as an outstanding example of the Streamlined Moderne style in a commercial setting, which made making the most of its wide street frontages to produce a building with a marked horizontal expression sweeping around the prominent curved corner. It is architecturally significant for its association with the eminent architect Harry Norris, who was Victoria's leading designer of office buildings, shops and showrooms in the inter-war period.

The former Melford Motors is also significant for the following reasons, but not at the State level:

The former Melford Motors is significant for its location: motor showrooms were typically located along the northern edge of the city close to the main vehicle entrance to Melbourne, the Sydney Road, and its southern extension, Elizabeth Street.

It is architecturally significant for its association with the eminent architect Harry Norris, who was one of Victoria's leading designers of office buildings, shops and showrooms in the interwar period.

14February 2013

ATTACHMENT 3

PERMIT POLICY and PERMIT EXEMPTIONS

Permit policy

The purpose of the Permit Policy is to assist when considering or making decisions regarding works to the place. It is recommended that any proposed works be discussed with an officer of Heritage Victoria prior to making a permit application. Discussing any proposed works will assist in answering any questions the owner may have and aid any decisions regarding works to the place. It is recommended that a Conservation Management Plan is undertaken to assist with the future management of the cultural significance of the place.

The extent of registration covers the site of the 1928 and 1936 buildings. The addition of new buildings to the site may impact upon the cultural heritage significance of the place and requires a permit. The purpose of this requirement is not to prevent any further development on this site, but to enable control of possible adverse impacts on heritage significance during that process. All of the registered building is integral to the significance of the place and any external or internal alterations are subject to permit application.

The significance of the place lies in its rarity and intactness as an outstanding example of a building associated with the booming motor vehicle industry in Victoria in the inter-war period, and of the Streamlined Moderne style.

Any changes to the exterior of the building require a permit. The removal of the metal cladding added to the spandrel above the ground floor would be encouraged.

The most significant interior space is the open showroom on the ground floor adjacent to Queensberry Street. which The decoration, interior of the facade, the turntable, open space and columns of the ground floor showroom demonstrates the original function of the building. A permit is required for works to the interior of the building, the as do the concrete ramps between the floors and the exposed trusses . The open space and interior columns of the original ground floor showroom and the ramps between the floors should be retained. The offices have all been modernised and works to these office spaces which did not impact on original fabric or extend into the open showroom space are permit exempt. Works to the interiors of the first and second floors which do not impact on original fabric and are not visible from the exterior of the building are permit exempt.

Permit exemptions

General Conditions: 1. All exempted alterations are to be planned and carried out in a manner which prevents damage to the fabric of the registered place or object.

General Conditions: 2. Should it become apparent during further inspection or the carrying out of works that original or previously hidden or inaccessible details of the place or object are

15February 2013

revealed which relate to the significance of the place or object, then the exemption covering such works shall cease and Heritage Victoria shall be notified as soon as possible.

General Conditions: 3. If there is a conservation policy and plan all works shall be in accordance with it. Note: A Conservation Management Plan or a Heritage Action Plan provides guidance for the management of the heritage values associated with the site. It may not be necessary to obtain a heritage permit for certain works specified in the management plan.

General Conditions: 4. Nothing in this determination prevents the Executive Director from amending or rescinding all or any of the permit exemptions.

General Conditions: 5. Nothing in this determination exempts owners or their agents from the responsibility to seek relevant planning or building permits from the responsible authorities where applicable.

Public Safety and Security : The following public safety and security activities are permit exempt under section 66 of the Heritage Act 1995, a) public safety and security activities provided the works do not involve the removal or destruction of any significant above-ground structures or sub-surface archaeological artefacts or deposits; b) the erection of temporary security fencing, scaffolding, hoardings or surveillance systems to prevent unauthorised access or secure public safety which will not adversely affect significant fabric of the place including archaeological features; c) development including emergency stabilisation necessary to secure safety where a site feature has been irreparably damaged or destabilised and represents a safety risk to its users or the public. Note: Urgent or emergency site works are to be undertaken by an appropriately qualified specialist such as a structural engineer, or other heritage professional.

Minor Works : Note: Any Minor Works that in the opinion of the Executive Director will not adversely affect the heritage significance of the place may be exempt from the permit requirements of the Heritage Act. A person proposing to undertake minor works must submit a proposal to the Executive Director. If the Executive Director is satisfied that the proposed works will not adversely affect the heritage values of the site, the applicant may be exempted from the requirement to obtain a heritage permit. If an applicant is uncertain whether a heritage permit is required, it is recommended that the permits co-ordinator be contacted.

Internal works: The offices adjacent to the ground floor showroom have all been modernised and works to these office spaces which did do not impact on original fabric or impinge on the open showroom space are permit exempt. Works to the interiors of the first and second floors which do not impact on original fabric and are not visible from outside the building are permit exempt.

16February 2013

ATTACHMENT 4

EXTENT OF REGISTRATION RECOMMENDED BY THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

1. All of the land marked L1 on Diagram 2306 held by the Executive Director, being part of the land described in plan CP151687.

2. All of the building marked B1 on Diagram 2306 held by the Executive Director.

17February 2013

ATTACHMENT 5

EXTENT OF REGISTRATION

1. All of the land marked L1 on Diagram 2306 held by the Executive Director, being part of the land described in plan CP151687.

2. All of the building marked B1 on Diagram 2306 held by the Executive Director.

18February 2013