- Published on
Most of us assume the owner of a heritage-listed building has to protect it. Geoff Ellis discovers it isn’t so.
By Geoff Ellis
RECENTLY in the Post, Pete Granger wrote about St Paul’s Boys' Home in Newhaven. Despite being listed on the Victorian Heritage Register it is heading toward ruination.
Pete mentioned the council’s failure to make the owners protect the site from vandalism and the elements.
Sadly, under state planning and heritage laws, councils have no power to compel owners of historic properties to protect them.
RECENTLY in the Post, Pete Granger wrote about St Paul’s Boys' Home in Newhaven. Despite being listed on the Victorian Heritage Register it is heading toward ruination.
Pete mentioned the council’s failure to make the owners protect the site from vandalism and the elements.
Sadly, under state planning and heritage laws, councils have no power to compel owners of historic properties to protect them.
Five years ago the Wonthaggi community rallied to save the historic co-operative bakery, a fine old building that had fallen into disrepair.
A report by the Wonthaggi Historical Society at the time pointed out its historical importance: “All the detail in the document is further argument – nay, conclusive argument – that the building must not be demolished. A photocopy of the original specification document – the Bake Hall and Loading Yard, the construction of the building, including roof trusses, flashing, spouting, purlins, windows, sashes, doors, plinths – is available in the museum for members and visitors to study.”
Pictures and words are all that’s left of it now. So what went wrong? A regulated process!
The council of the day had no valid reason not to approve an application to redesign the bakery conditional on retention of the façade.
After the roof started leaking, the building began quietly decomposing. As it fell into further decline, part of the rear of the building collapsed. The façade took on a dangerous lean toward the road as well as separating along its length.
Council issued a “make safe” order that specified emergency works, including shoring up the façade. When the owner applied to demolish the building as the ultimate iteration of “making it safe”, it was impossible to argue against.
Hopefully the new building will give a nod to what’s been lost but that’s up to the owners and architects. Legally, the only condition we can apply to preserve the history would be to include a condition to mount a plaque or a similar marker of the past.
Grandma’s axe rule (three new handles and two new heads but it’s still Grandma’s axe!) has never been legislated.
A report by the Wonthaggi Historical Society at the time pointed out its historical importance: “All the detail in the document is further argument – nay, conclusive argument – that the building must not be demolished. A photocopy of the original specification document – the Bake Hall and Loading Yard, the construction of the building, including roof trusses, flashing, spouting, purlins, windows, sashes, doors, plinths – is available in the museum for members and visitors to study.”
Pictures and words are all that’s left of it now. So what went wrong? A regulated process!
The council of the day had no valid reason not to approve an application to redesign the bakery conditional on retention of the façade.
After the roof started leaking, the building began quietly decomposing. As it fell into further decline, part of the rear of the building collapsed. The façade took on a dangerous lean toward the road as well as separating along its length.
Council issued a “make safe” order that specified emergency works, including shoring up the façade. When the owner applied to demolish the building as the ultimate iteration of “making it safe”, it was impossible to argue against.
Hopefully the new building will give a nod to what’s been lost but that’s up to the owners and architects. Legally, the only condition we can apply to preserve the history would be to include a condition to mount a plaque or a similar marker of the past.
Grandma’s axe rule (three new handles and two new heads but it’s still Grandma’s axe!) has never been legislated.
*****
Two years ago, a concerned resident took me on an inspection tour of the St Paul’s Boys' Home. With no security fence, we could see the broken windows and concrete cancer at close quarters. The windows were boarded up after that.
A planning permit has been issued to convert the buildings into apartments. As with the old bakery, however, we can’t force the owners to start rebuilding though time extensions for commencements have been approved.
Obviously there is a public safety regulation to enforce, which amounts to securing the building so people can’t illegally enter.
This week I visited the site again and noted that the lawns had recently been mown and boards replaced on the doors and windows. My understanding is that this is done on a regular basis by a local maintenance company.
There’s still no fence but it’s private property and we can’t force the owners to build one. Such a fence could provide a challenge, both to willing trespassers and enforcement officers on the lookout for squatters and anti-social behaviour.
A public document lists all properties in Bass Coast that are under a council heritage overlay. There are 182 of them, including a surprising number of farm houses across the shire.
There is another list of properties nominated by Heritage Victoria which includes Wonthaggi Railway Station and the recently re-assembled goods crane. Any application to alter or demolish buildings on that list can only be approved by the Executive Director of Heritage Victoria.
People often refer to “council” as if it is a monolith that needs to be persuaded, poked or punished. Here’s the truth – it’s a collection of people. We get disheartened, too, when history, any history, is lost to a commercial imperative.
As a council, we’re committed to preserving the character of the buildings we own, such as Wonthaggi’s old Post Office, while putting them to good use.
Parks Victoria also has a mandate for preservation and is progressively repairing the Rescue Station, as well as preserving the State Coal Mine. Across the state, Parks Victoria is responsible for protecting around 3000 historic assets.
Planning is never simple and can become a system under which everyone loses. Demolition by neglect is a phrase we often hear. As councillors, however, we have to make decisions on the bare, indisputable facts presented to us.
I sometimes feel our job isn’t done until everyone is just a little bit pissed off.
Geoff Ellis is a Bass Coast councillor. The St Paul’s Boys' Home is in his ward.
A planning permit has been issued to convert the buildings into apartments. As with the old bakery, however, we can’t force the owners to start rebuilding though time extensions for commencements have been approved.
Obviously there is a public safety regulation to enforce, which amounts to securing the building so people can’t illegally enter.
This week I visited the site again and noted that the lawns had recently been mown and boards replaced on the doors and windows. My understanding is that this is done on a regular basis by a local maintenance company.
There’s still no fence but it’s private property and we can’t force the owners to build one. Such a fence could provide a challenge, both to willing trespassers and enforcement officers on the lookout for squatters and anti-social behaviour.
A public document lists all properties in Bass Coast that are under a council heritage overlay. There are 182 of them, including a surprising number of farm houses across the shire.
There is another list of properties nominated by Heritage Victoria which includes Wonthaggi Railway Station and the recently re-assembled goods crane. Any application to alter or demolish buildings on that list can only be approved by the Executive Director of Heritage Victoria.
People often refer to “council” as if it is a monolith that needs to be persuaded, poked or punished. Here’s the truth – it’s a collection of people. We get disheartened, too, when history, any history, is lost to a commercial imperative.
As a council, we’re committed to preserving the character of the buildings we own, such as Wonthaggi’s old Post Office, while putting them to good use.
Parks Victoria also has a mandate for preservation and is progressively repairing the Rescue Station, as well as preserving the State Coal Mine. Across the state, Parks Victoria is responsible for protecting around 3000 historic assets.
Planning is never simple and can become a system under which everyone loses. Demolition by neglect is a phrase we often hear. As councillors, however, we have to make decisions on the bare, indisputable facts presented to us.
I sometimes feel our job isn’t done until everyone is just a little bit pissed off.
Geoff Ellis is a Bass Coast councillor. The St Paul’s Boys' Home is in his ward.
Comments are closed.
A heritage listing means that the community has asserted its rights over the property and if these are to be mean anything then owners should maintain the properties or their rights should be forfeited. Just as if you don't pay your rates...
Now I don't think council should have to foot the bill for these repairs unless there is a democratic groundswell to do so. However, volunteer organisations should have the legal justification to intervene where neglect is clear. The St Paul’s Boys' Home in Newhaven sounds like a good place to demonstrate that a heritage listing means something.
If you think its worth saving then speak up and get organised. If you are loud enough you might not even need to go to court
It can appear in any issue that the minority with the loudest voices are the ones who get the most attention.
The biggest challenge for any councillor is planning now for the type of community we all want in the decades to come, rather than just keeping a few loud voices quiet today.
1. Can Council apply a heritage overlay for the area encompassing the Boys Home. Just as they might apply heritage overlays for (say) miners cottages in Wonthaggi? They are both streetscapes of historical and architectural importance.
2. If council can apply such a heritage overlay, can it incorporate protection against ‘demolition by neglect’? If not, what is the process required to obtain such eligibility. Should we be talking to the State Government instead ?
3. If a resident or visitor were to injure themselves on the (unsecured) Boys Home, is council possibly liable for failing to ensure such vacated properties are secure against trespass? Forgive my layman reasoning, but owners could well argue they have diminished liability because neither local or state governments compel them to secure their properties.