Introduction The table below provides a summary of the overall position of each submission and any specific requests raised. Submissions have been summarised, with an officer response provided. Changes recommended by officers as a result of submissions are recorded in the final column. Abbreviations Abbreviated terms for documents referred to in this summary: Study: Gisborne and Kyneton Heritage Study, December 2017 (proposed Reference Document), as exhibited HO: Heritage Overlay (HO numbers refer to those used in entries in the Schedule to the HO and on the HO maps in the Planning Scheme) Controls: Specific controls listed in the Schedule to the HO, e.g. controls over internal alterations or external painting Sub Submitter Submission summary and key Officer response Recommended change No. issues raised 1 Owner of Overall: The usefulness of applying The consultant’s expert assessment is that the heritage affected the HO to the property is values of the property, while made less visually prominent by ‘Eblana’ property questioned, given the diminished past subdivision, still has merit to apply a HO. The residence heritage values of the site. If it is to is largely intact and clearly reflective of its architectural and Reference to be applied, some changes are historical associations 59 Howey requested to the Study (G2, p.16-22) Street, (Note also that responses to Submission 2, 5, 10 and 11 also and controls (HO281). Gisborne. relate to this site) HO281. 1.1 Request that internal controls not be A previous heritage report noted the importance of the No change applied interior. In the absence of an interior inspection (the owner has not granted access) it is recommended that these interior controls remain in the amendment. 1.2 Request removing reference to The wording in the citation can be amended for clarification. On p.21 of the Study, under Discussion, replace Weeping Chinese Cypress tree from wording under Dot Point 6 as follows: the citation for the property This tree however is known to be aggressive in p.20). its root system and has been planted within 10 meters of the house. By its regrowth pattern, it would have been a hedge. Its current size is beyond return to this state. The veracity of this species identification, however, has been questioned. Its regrowth pattern indicates that it would have been a hedge but its current
Introduction The table below provides a summary of the overall position of each submission and any specific requests raised. Submissions have been summarised, with an officer response provided. Changes recommended by officers as a result of submissions are recorded in the final column. Abbreviations Abbreviated terms for documents referred to in this summary: Study: Gisborne and Kyneton Heritage Study, December 2017 (proposed Reference Document), as exhibited HO: Heritage Overlay (HO numbers refer to those used in entries in the Schedule to the HO and on the HO maps in the Planning Scheme) Controls: Specific controls listed in the Schedule to the HO, e.g. controls over internal alterations or external painting Sub No. Submitter Submission summary and key issues raised Officer response Recommended change 1 Owner of affected property Reference to 59 Howey Street, Gisborne. HO281. Overall: The usefulness of applying the HO to the ‘Eblana’ property is questioned, given the diminished heritage values of the site. If it is to be applied, some changes are requested to the Study (G2, p.16-22) and controls (HO281). The consultant’s expert assessment is that the heritage values of the property, while made less visually prominent by past subdivision, still has merit to apply a HO. The residence is largely intact and clearly reflective of its architectural and historical associations (Note also that responses to Submission 2, 5, 10 and 11 also relate to this site) 1.1 Request that internal controls not be applied A previous heritage report noted the importance of the interior. In the absence of an interior inspection (the owner has not granted access) it is recommended that these interior controls remain in the amendment. No change 1.2 Request removing reference to Weeping Chinese Cypress tree from the citation for the property p.20). The wording in the citation can be amended for clarification. On p.21 of the Study, under Discussion, replace wording under Dot Point 6 as follows: This tree however is known to be aggressive in its root system and has been planted within 10 meters of the house. By its regrowth pattern, it would have been a hedge. Its current size is beyond return to this state. The veracity of this species identification, however, has been questioned. Its regrowth pattern indicates that it would have been a hedge but its current
10.-summary-of-submissions-with-council-officer-response-and-recommended-changes-as-attached-to-council-report-25-07-2018.docx