Rogers Memorial Reserve
109 Cumberland Road, Pascoe Vale
Heritage Council Registrations Committee
Hearing – 23 April 2015
Lindsay Merritt (Chair), Jon Hickman, Trish Vejby
Decision of the Heritage Council
After considering the Executive Director’s recommendation, submissions received, and conducting a hearing into those submissions, pursuant to Section 42(1)(d)(i) of the Heritage Act 1995, the Heritage Council has refused to register the Place and refers the recommendation and submissions to the Moreland City Council for consideration for an amendment to the Moreland Planning Scheme.
Lindsay Merritt (Chair) / Jon Hickman / Trish Vejby23 June 2015
APPEARANCES
Executive Director, Heritage Victoria
The Executive Director was represented by Dr Marina Larsson, Manager – Assessments, Heritage Victoria.
Protectors of Public Lands Victoria
The Place was jointly nominated to the Register by Ms Julianne Bell and Mr Paul Gavin, on behalf of the Protectors of Public Lands Vic Inc (PPLV) and Save Rogers Memorial Reserve Group respectively. PPLV was represented by Ms Bell, Mr Gavin, Ms Vita Mezzatesta, Mr Ernest Healy and Ms Amanda Burgess at the hearing. No representative from Save Rogers Memorial Group appeared at the hearing, although Mr Gavin (and other members of the Save Rogers Memorial Group) made submissions on behalf of PPLV.
Moreland City Council
The owner of the Place, the Moreland City Council, was represented at the hearing by Mr Mark Marsden, Unit Manager – Amendments. Moreland City Council’s substantive written submission was prepared by Ms Annabel Neylon of Context Pty Ltd (Context). Ms Neylon also attended the hearing and presented this material on behalf of Moreland City Council.
Introduction
The Place
1The Place comprises the major portion of a municipal reserve (the Reserve) located at 109 Cumberland Road, Pascoe Vale and is described in Certificates of Title Volume 04381 Folio 124; Volume 08530 Folio 082; Volume 05349 Folio 685; Volume 06422 Folio 368, with abuttals to Cumberland Road and Norton Street. The Place is zoned PPRZ (Public Park and Recreation Zone) in the Moreland Planning Scheme. There is a Heritage Overlay (HO291) applied to a small area of land on the Cumberland Road abuttal. The Heritage Overlay includes a memorial drinking fountain and its immediate paved setting. It is listed in the Moreland Planning Scheme as 109 Cumberland Road (Rogers Reserve), Pascoe Vale – World War I Soldiers’ Memorial.
Nomination
2The Place was jointly nominated to the Victorian Heritage Register on 14 May 2014 by Mr Paul Gavin on behalf of Save Rogers Memorial Reserve Group and Ms Julianne Bell on behalf of PPLV. The joint nomination argued that the Place satisfied Criteria A, B, C, E, F, G and H at a state level and should be included on the Victorian Heritage Register. A letter of support from Mr Kelvin Thomson MP, Member for Wills was included in the nomination. The letter indicated Mr Thomson’s support for the inclusion of the Place to be included on the Register, but did not specifically identify the Criteria that he believed the Place satisfied.
Recommendation of the Executive Director
3On 25 July 2014, the Executive Director recommended that the Place not be included in the Victorian Heritage Register, pursuant to Section 32 (1)(b) of the Heritage Act 1995. An objection to the recommendation was received from Ms Julianne Bell on behalf of PPLV and a hearing was required to be held. Notice of the hearing was sent out on 3 October 2014 and an advertisement was also placed in the Moreland Leader for the week commencing 6 October 2014.
Site Inspection
4A site inspection of the Place was conducted by the three members of the Committee and the hearings officer immediately following the hearing. No other parties were present.
Preliminary Matters
5The matter was originally scheduled to be heard on 6 February 2015, but it was discovered that one of the co-nominators, Mr Paul Gavin, had not been independently advised of the hearing process, despite him having already lodged a submission with Ms Bell. The Committee determined that in the interests of fairness the matter should be adjourned to allow Mr Gavin additional time to lodge a submission of his own. The hearing was re-scheduled for 23 April 2015. No further material was lodged by Mr Gavin during this time.
6Two requests for an adjournment were received. One from Mr Paul Gavin and one from Ms Julianne Bell. The Committee considered both requests and weighed up the nature of the request, the impact of the proposed delay and the views of other parties. The Committee decided that both requests should be refused and the hearing proceeded as planned on 23 April 2015.
7Some submissions made mention of the potential development of a Community Centre on part of the Place. The Committee appreciates that there is concern about the proposed development of the Reserve. However, the role of this Committee is to determine the cultural heritage significance of the Place in its current state. It is not the Committee’s task to consider the future development or use. Submissions dealing with these matters have not been considered by the Committee in reaching its decision.
8At the hearing, representatives of PPLV sought to submit additional material that had not been included with its submissions. Dr Larsson (on behalf of the Executive Director) and Mr Marsden (on behalf of Moreland City Council) both objected to the consideration of the additional material on the basis that it had not been circulated previously (in accordance with the Heritage Council’s hearings protocols). The Committee considered the request and decided that, in the interests of fairness, the request should be refused. The material was not circulated and has not been considered by the Committee in reaching this decision.
9At the hearing, Mr Ernest Healy, Mr Paul Gavin, Ms Vita Mezzatesta and Ms Amanda Burgess all sought leave to address the Committee. As none of them had lodged independent submissions, the Committee determined that they could only speak, with PPLV’s consent, as representatives of PPLV and could only address the points raised in PPLV’s submission. PPLV consented to this arrangement and Mr Healy, Mr Gavin, Ms Mezzatesta and Ms Burgess were all permitted to address the Committee.
10Submissions lodged dealt with both the significance of the war memorial and the balance of the Place (Nominated Portion). Where necessary, the Committee’s consideration of each Criterion has been broken into two parts, to deal with the arguments raised in relation to both parts of the Place. Together the war memorial and Nominated Portioncomprise ‘the Place’.
ISSUES
11This 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.
12Any reference to Criteria refers to the ‘Heritage Council Criteria for Assessment of Places of Cultural Heritage Significance’ (see Attachment 1 to this determination).
13Any reference to Criteria and Threshold Guidelines refers to the ‘The Victorian Heritage Register Criteria and Threshold Guidelines’ (as adopted by the Heritage Council on 6 December 2012, reviewed and updated 5 June 2014).
Summary of issues
14All parties agreed that parts of the Place were of cultural heritage significance, but there were differences of opinion as to the level and extent of the cultural heritage significance. The Executive Director and Moreland City Council argued that neither the war memorial nor the Nominated Portion were of significance at a state level. PPLV submitted that both the war memorial and Nominated Portion were of significance at a state level.
15PPLV’s submissions in relation to the war memorial centred around it being unusual because it commemorated both participants in overseas wars and peacekeeping activities. In verbal submissions representatives from PPLV drew attention to the broad range of people named, noting that many had come from beyond the Pascoe Vale district. PPLV also noted the presence of the Aleppo Pine and an olive tree planted by the Cretan community, which it argued were both unusual and added to the memorial’s significance.
16PPLV’s submission in relation to the Nominated Portion centred around the importance of the Councillor – Councillor Harry Rogers – after whom it was named and the central role that it had played in the community life of Pascoe Vale, both as a space for ANZAC Day and Remembrance Day commemorations and community recreation.
Criterion A – Importance to the course, or pattern of Victoria’s cultural history
17The Parties disagreed as to whether the Place satisfies Criterion A.
18The Executive Director and Moreland City Council both argued that the Criterion was not satisfied. PPLV argued that both the war memorial and the Nominated Portion satisfied Criterion A at a state level.
Submissions and evidence
19In relation to the war memorial, the Executive Director acknowledged that the memorial was important to the local community, but disputed the assessment of PPLV that it was of significance to the state. In the view of the Executive Director, it was just one of over a thousand war memorials throughout Victoria ‘commemorating servicemen and women within the communities they are located’.
20In relation to the Nominated Portion, the Executive Director noted that that it was named after prominent local Councillor Harry Rogers of the former City of Coburg, but disputed PPLV’s assessment that Councillor Rogers was a figure of sufficient significance for any part of the Reserve (named after him) to satisfy the Criterion at a state level.
21Submissions prepared by Context on behalf of the City of Moreland noted that both the war memorial and Nominated Portion satisfied Criterion A at a local level, but agreed with the Executive Director to the extent that there was nothing to elevate the war memorial or the Nominated Portion to state level significance.
22In relation to the war memorial, PPLV’s submissions asserted that it was ‘unique in that it commemorates those Victorians who have served in overseas wars plus United Nations peace keeping forces’ and is not just ‘dedicated to local residents who fought in World War I’.
23In relation to the Nominated Portion, PPLV’s joint nomination notes that it ‘has remained largely undisturbed in recognition of its memorial significance’and provides a ‘quiet, peaceful space’ which serves as a ‘natural extension of the cenotaph’.
Discussion and conclusion
24The Criteria and Threshold Guidelines indicate that to satisfy the Criterion at a state level, a place has to have a clear association with an event, the association has to be evident in the fabric of the place, the event itself has to be of historical importance and the place allows the event ‘to be readily appreciated better than most places or objects in Victoria with substantially the same association’.
25In relation to the war memorial and Nominated Portion, the Committee agrees with the assessment of the Executive Director. The war memorial is a significant local feature and one that commemorates local loss and provides a space for local commemorations. It is not, however, unusual or in the words of the Criteria and Threshold Guidelines– is not ‘readily appreciated better than most places in Victoria with substantially the same association’. As the Executive Director has noted, it is simply one of thousands of war memorials throughout the state.
26In relation to the Nominated Portion, the Committee acknowledges the contribution made by Councillor Rogers to the former City of Coburg and notes the ongoing use of the Place as a commemorative and recreational space. The Committee does not believe that either of these things makes the Place of significance to the State. It is simply one of many reserves throughout Victoria named after a notable local figure and used by the local community in a variety of ways.
27The Committee concludes that Criterion A is not satisfied at a state level.
Criterion B – Possession of uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of Victoria’s cultural history
28The Parties disagreed as to whether the Place satisfied Criterion B. The Executive Director and Moreland City Council argued that neither the war memorial nor the Nominated Portion satisfied Criterion B. PPLV argued that both the war memorial and Nominated Portion satisfied Criterion B at a state level.
Submissions and evidence
29In relation to the war memorial, the Executive Director argued that it was not ‘rare or uncommon’. In reaching his recommendation, the Executive Director noted that ‘there are hundreds of local war memorials in Victoria, similar to the memorial within the Rogers Memorial Reserve, commemorating local servicemen and women who served in wars and peacekeeping efforts since 1914’.
30In relation to the Nominated Portion, the Executive Director noted that there were no unusual features that would satisfy Criterion B at a state level. The Executive Director also specifically considered the status of the Aleppo Pine, concluding that the tree was likely a third or fourth generation Aleppo Pine and just one of ‘numerous’ such trees planted around the state.
31The Moreland City Council supported the Executive Director’s recommendation in relation to both the war memorial and Nominated Portion. In relation to the Nominated Portion, submissions lodged on behalf of the Moreland City Council noted ‘there are many reserves and parks of its type, layout and form which express similar values and associations across the municipality and the state. There are no aspects of the Reserve which are considered to be unusual or rare’. Moreland City Council’s submissions also considered the status of the Aleppo Pine and olive tree. In relation to the Aleppo Pine, concluding that ‘the planting of the Lone Pine species is common to many memorial spaces’. In relation to the planting of the olive tree, the submission noted it is more unusual ‘but not so rare or special as to make it of state significance’.
32The submissions of PPLV focussed predominantly upon the war memorial. PPLV argued that the memorial is unique because it commemorates ‘those Victorians who have served in overseas wars plus UN peacekeeping forces’.
Discussion and conclusion
33The Committee has reviewed the material presented to it in relation to the war memorial. The Committee accepts PPLV’s submission that the list of names on the memorial is unique and its assertion that a number of the individuals commemorated came from beyond the local district. However, this is true of many of the thousands of war memorials located throughout the state. The Committee does not believe this provides a basis for satisfying the Criterion at a state level.
34In relation to the Nominated Portion, the Committee agrees with the submissions put forward by Moreland City Council to the effect that there are many similar reserves throughout the state. The Committee is satisfied with the assessment made by the Executive Director and Moreland City Council that neither the Aleppo Pine nor the olive tree is sufficiently rare to satisfy the Criterion at a state level.
35The Committee concludes that Criterion B is not satisfied at a state level.
Criterion E – Importance in exhibiting particular aesthetic characteristics
36The Parties disagreed as to whether the Place satisfied Criterion E. The Executive Director and the Moreland City Council argued that the neither the war memorial nor Nominated Portion satisfied the Criterion at a state level. PPLV argued that both the war memorial and Nominated Portion satisfied the Criterion at a state level.
Submissions and evidence
37In relation to the war memorial and the Place, the Executive Director submitted that no evidence had been put forward to indicate that either was of aesthetic significance at a state level. In this respect, the Executive Director noted that there was no indication that the aesthetic values were recognised by the wider Victorian community and no recognition of either within a relevant art, design, architectural or related discipline.
38Submissions lodged on behalf of the Moreland City Council concurred that neither the war memorial nor the Nominated Portion satisfied the Criterion at a state level (although it did maintain that the Criterion was satisfied at a local level). In relation to the Nominated Portion, the submissions commented that ‘Rogers Reserve is typical of many other parks of its period within the municipality, all being similar in their aesthetic sensibility.’
39PPLV submitted that the Nominated Portion and the war memorial both satisfied the Criterion at a state level. Little commentary was provided that explained why the group believed the war memorial to be of aesthetic significance to the state. However, in relation to the Nominated Portion, PPLV’s nomination noted that ‘the reserve was chosen for its open space vista.’
Discussion and conclusion
40The Committee acknowledges that the Nominated Portion and the war memorial possess aesthetic qualities, but there is nothing to suggest that those qualities are sufficient to satisfy the Criterion at a state level.
41The Committee finds that the Criterion is not satisfied at a state level.
Criterion F – Importance in demonstrating a high degree of creative or technical achievement of a particular period
42The Parties disagreed as to whether the Place satisfied Criterion F. The Executive Director and Moreland City Council argued that neither the war memorial nor the Nominated Portion satisfied the Criterion at a state level. PPLV argued that both the war memorial and Nominated Portion satisfied the Criterion at a state level.
Submissions and evidence
43The Executive Director submitted that the Nominated Portion did not satisfy the Criterion. Submissions lodged by Moreland City Council concurred with the Executive Director’s assessment, noting that ‘the Reserve is a fairly standard and unremarkable suburban reserve with very little design creativity of technical achievement for the time in which it was created’.
44PPLV argued that the Criterion was satisfied because ‘it houses a rare heritage listed memorial and the Aleppo Pine.’
Discussion and conclusion
45The Committee concurs with the Executive Director’s assessment that the Nominated Portion is unremarkable in terms of its design. The Committee has not been presented with evidence to suggest that either the war memorial itself or the planting of the Aleppo Pine indicates ‘a high degree of creative or technical achievement’ and finds that the Criterion is not satisfied at a state level.