Group v precinct listing Summary A group of houses by the same designer-builder was originally proposed as a precinct, but this was not supported by Heritage Victoria. They were then proposed for individual listing. The Panel accepted this approach but suggested that a serial listing, which linked them all with a single HO number and Statement of Significance, might have been a better approach. Name of Panel report and page number: Whitehorse C74 Part 2 (2008) pp.36-38. Summary Various thematically-related rural properties were proposed for individual listing under the HO. When queried about the potential for using a group or serial listing, the consultants who prepared the study advised that they were not aware that this option was open to them. Name of Panel report and page number: Melton C71 (2009) p.33. Summary Are collections of buildings really a precinct or could they be defined as a group? If the buildings and other associated heritage items are reasonably proximate then the delineation of a heritage precinct is perhaps the preferable approach. It allows heritage input to decisions about changes to non-contributory properties adjoining or near the buildings that are of significance. This can reinforce and enhance the values of the precinct as a whole by ensuring that extensions, alterations and redevelopments of non-contributory properties are done in a way which complements the contribution made to the place as a whole by the contributory buildings. If instead the significant buildings are very dispersed and well in a minority in the totality of buildings in the area in question, it may be better to give them a serial or group listing in order to avoid the inclusion in a precinct of an excessive number of intervening non-contributory properties. Too many non-contributory buildings can lead to a dilution of the sense of precinct and cause an unnecessary administrative requirement for permit processing. Serial listing is especially appropriate if the places have a recognisably common building form such as the East Echuca miners’ cottages. While the term ‘group listing’ is sometimes used in relation to this type of listing, the Panel suggests that it is better applied to small proximate collections of properties which do not necessarily have the same built form and are too few to create a sense of precinct, but which share a common history. Name of Panel report and page number: Campaspe C50 pp.49-50. See also Melbourne C186 pp.50.
Group v precinct listing Summary A group of houses by the same designer-builder was originally proposed as a precinct, but this was not supported by Heritage Victoria. They were then proposed for individual listing. The Panel accepted this approach but suggested that a serial listing, which linked them all with a single HO number and Statement of Significance, might have been a better approach. Name of Panel report and page number: Whitehorse C74 Part 2 (2008) pp.36-38. Summary Various thematically-related rural properties were proposed for individual listing under the HO. When queried about the potential for using a group or serial listing, the consultants who prepared the study advised that they were not aware that this option was open to them. Name of Panel report and page number: Melton C71 (2009) p.33. Summary Are collections of buildings really a precinct or could they be defined as a group? If the buildings and other associated heritage items are reasonably proximate then the delineation of a heritage precinct is perhaps the preferable approach. It allows heritage input to decisions about changes to non-contributory properties adjoining or near the buildings that are of significance. This can reinforce and enhance the values of the precinct as a whole by ensuring that extensions, alterations and redevelopments of non-contributory properties are done in a way which complements the contribution made to the place as a whole by the contributory buildings. If instead the significant buildings are very dispersed and well in a minority in the totality of buildings in the area in question, it may be better to give them a serial or group listing in order to avoid the inclusion in a precinct of an excessive number of intervening non-contributory properties. Too many non-contributory buildings can lead to a dilution of the sense of precinct and cause an unnecessary administrative requirement for permit processing. Serial listing is especially appropriate if the places have a recognisably common building form such as the East Echuca miners’ cottages. While the term ‘group listing’ is sometimes used in relation to this type of listing, the Panel suggests that it is better applied to small proximate collections of properties which do not necessarily have the same built form and are too few to create a sense of precinct, but which share a common history. Name of Panel report and page number: Campaspe C50 pp.49-50. See also Melbourne C186 pp.50.
Heritage-issues-summary-of-Panel-Reports.docx