Tag Archives: Heritage


We’ve been contacted by a resident who is concerned that Glen Eira is again likely to lose forever a property of historic and architectural significance.   As per the below Domain article Council has applied to the Minister for Planning for an Interim Heritage Protection Order for the property – GERA applauds Council’s action and hopes that Council has also sought Heritage Victoria’s involvement.

The ‘Lind House’, at 450 Dandenong Road, Caulfield North is described as one of the best and most intact examples of Melbourne’s “mid-century design movement”.  Designed by Anatol Kagan, one of the best architects from the Melbourne mid-century movement, it is an architectural treasure.

Documentation and pictures supporting the significance of the “Lind House” and Designer Anatol Kagan are presented in article published on the Australian Modern website.

We encourage residents to show support for the preservation of the “Lind House” by emailing the Mayor (MDelahunty@gleneira.vic.gov.au) re Planning Permit GE/PP-30607/2017.


Modernist Caulfield North house faces wrecking ball as council calls for urgent interim protection

An iconic modernist Caulfield North house is under threat of demolition, prompting the local council to seek an urgent interim protection from the planning minister.

Designers and modernist architecture enthusiasts have taken to social media to express their dismay at the fate of the Lind House, bought last year by a developer for just over $2.1 million.

The five-bedroom house at 450 Dandenong Road was designed by Russian-born architect Anatol Kagan, and is a classic example of mid-century modern architecture.

But locals and design experts fear the property could soon be demolished by its new owner, who applied for planning permit to build eight dwellings in its place.

There are no heritage controls on the property, and the two week public notice for objections ended on Tuesday.

Glen Eira mayor Mary Delahunty moved an urgent motion at a meeting on Tuesday night to write to the planning minister Richard Wynne for interim protection.

“Although a permit would have to be requested for it to be demolished, we really wouldn’t have any grounds to refuse that,” she said.

“I’m just trying to make sure that time is given for a proper assessment to be done of its historical significance so that we don’t get faced with this really unfortunate situation where it might be knocked down at any minute.”

​​Cr Delahunty said a major heritage review was underway and encouraged people to alert the council to other significant properties in the area they might not be aware of.

She said heritage experts would examine the Caulfield North house, and they would take into consideration the advice of other experts of modernist-era architecture.

As pressure mounts to increase density across the city, experts say more post-war homes should also be considered for heritage protection.

When Robin Boyd’s Blott house in Chirnside Park hit the market earlier this year, it also triggered fears the property, without heritage protection, might face the wrecking ball if it sold to a developer.

National Trust of Australia, Victoria, advocacy manager Felicity Watson believed Lind House and Blott House highlighted a major gap in the state’s heritage protection.

“When people think about heritage in Melbourne, they often think about Marvellous Melbourne and the gold rush, and the amazing Victorian architecture that we have,” she said. “But what people sometimes forget is that the post-war period in Melbourne was a period of enormous cultural and physical transformation, really of a scale not seen since the gold rush.”

Ms Watson said the heritage system had not caught up with the understanding of the importance of post-war architecture.

“It’s really time to … protect these vulnerable places and do some strategic work to look at that before we lose them,” she said.

“With development pressure increasing and density increasing, all of these places are becoming vulnerable, so we really need to identify which are the best examples that we need to protect.”

Tim Ross, comedian and presenter of TV show Streets of Your Town, said post-war buildings should be given the same respect the terrace houses and California bungalows received.

“Our suburbs should reflect all periods of our history because that’s what gives them their character,” he said.

“Kagan’s work is finally starting to get the recognition that it deserves. We don’t save buildings for today or tomorrow. We save them for 20, 30 years time and beyond.”

Craig Guthrie, a landscape architect and urban designer at Hassell, is also among the experts trying to raise awareness about the potential demolition.

“Melbourne’s growing a lot and we do need to increase density in the inner suburbs, where we have good infrastructure, schools and transport,” he said.

“But we need to protect some of the special places that we have. When 80 per cent of housing is probably mediocre to sometimes poor, we got to keep the good ones.”

A spokesman for Planning Minister Richard Wynne said he had not yet received a request from the Glen Eira Council, and would consider it on its merits if he did.


GERA supports the National Trust, RSL and the Glen Eira Historical Society in urging residents to  contact Council/Councillors to request

  • An independent heritage advisors assessment of the historical significance of a rare World War 1 Soldiers Rest Home located at 294 Kooyong Road, Caulfield, within the context of the City of Glen Eira. This Rest Home, built by public subscription and known as the Caulfield Rest Home (later Montgomery House), was formerly operated by the Red Cross and staffed by volunteer nurses.  The building is not currently protected by a Heritage Overlay.
  • Deferring the decision on Planning Permit Application (GE/PP-28748/2015), beyond 17th May, 2016, to allow for
    • Preparation and assessment of an Independent Heritage Advisor’s Report on the historic significance/merits of the Caulfield Rest Home within the context of the City of Glen Eira, and
    • Heritage Victoria to receive submission and assess the historic significance/merits of Montgomery House within the context of Victoria.

The above planning permit seeks to demolish the Caulfield Rest Home (in 2017) to provide an additional 30 beds within a planned new Aged Care/Dementia  Facility, operated by an independent Christian charity (HammondCare) and located adjacent to the Caulfield Hospital.

Those advocating retention of the Caulfield Rest Home are not opposing the continuation of the site’s usage for the provision of aged and/or dementia care.  Rather they are advocating that the development of the new facility should not be at the expense of heritage and that the Caulfield Rest Home could and should be integrated within the proposed development.   Such integration would be in accordance with the heritage and planning objectives included in

  • The Victorian the 1987 Planning and Environment Act and
  • Glen Eira’s Planning Scheme
    • Municipal Strategic Statement, and
    • Heritage Clause 21.10, and
    • Local Policies

While HammondCare is proposing a pictorial record, memorial pavilion and poppy garden instead of incorporating the Rest Home within the proposed new facilities this is seen as a poor substitute when  the “real thing” could be retained rather than lost forever.

Recent media and internet articles referring to the historic significance of the Caulfield Rest Home are:

A summary of the above articles is as follows:

Today T

  • The Caulfield Rest Home is the last intact building from Caulfield Hospital’s era as one of Australia’s biggest World War I repatriation hospitals.  Built in 1916 entirely by funds and materials raised/donated by the local community, it was an outpatient home for World War 1 soldiers, providing support, comfort and friendship for recovering soldiers.  Prior to the advent of purpose built rest homes, convalescing (from major/catastrophic injuries) soldiers were inappropriately housed in the verandahs and dinning rooms of military hospitals with little opportunity to socialize (with families or fellow patients) or to acquire new skills to aid their re-entry into the community.


  • The Caulfield Rest Home continued to play an important part in Red Cross Services during and between two world wars. From 1958 it operated as a handicraft centre in the grounds of the then Southern Memorial Hospital, until the Red Cross’ lease expired in 1976. In 2000 it was renovated and re-opened in 2001 as Montgomery Nursing Home with 30 beds for dementia and aged care patients. In 2015 the site was leased by HammondCare.
  •  The Caulfield Rest Home is believed to be the only purpose-built rest home remaining in Victoria and one of the only surviving tangible links to a highly significant period of Caulfield’s history.

 For readers wishing to contact Council/Councillors and object to this planning permit application, a proposed objection and Council/Councillor contact details are available on the Trust Advocate website.

Coming less than 12 months after the appalling  loss of Frogmore, GERA urges readers ensure their views are made known to Council.


Many readers will remember GERA’s unsuccessful “ Save Frogmore Campaign” (1 Wahgoo Road, Carnegie) and Glen Eira Council’s shameful 9/6/2015 decision to abandon applying heritage protection to Frogmore House before it could be assessed by an Independent Planning Panel (effectively denying all stakeholders access to the appropriate due planning scheme amendment process). The end result being the demolition of Frogmore House occurring in July, 2015.

Unfortunately, it appears that an addendum has recently been added to the shameful Frogmore Saga.   This time it is related to processing the of the planning permit application for a two storey Aged Care Facility which includes a proposal to remove 88 trees from the site.


The 9/6/2015 decision to abandon heritage decision for Frogmore was made

  • despite
    • a Council commissioned Independent Heritage Expert Assessment (Jan, 2015), which unequivocally recommended Heritage Protection at the Municipal Level.
    • it being inconsistent with the Glen Eira Municipal Strategic Statement, Glen Eira Planning Scheme and the 1987 Planning and Environment Act objectives of planning for Victoria. Inadequate strategic justification was provided to support this inconsistency.
    • a recommendation from the National Trust
    • considerable community support for Heritage Protection to be applied to Frogmore (petition of approx. 1000 signatures, planning conference 300+ letters of support for protection vs. 2 against protection)
    • Council’s
      • Instigation (reportedly by Mayor Magee) of an Interim Protection Order for Frogmore in Jan, 2015
      • 2/2/2015 6 to 3 decision to proceed with Heritage Protection based on the January, 2015 Heritage Advisor’s Report (For Protection Crs. Sounness, Okotel, Lobo, Delahunty, Esakoff and Magee; Against Protection Crs. Pilling, Hyams and Lipshutz)
  • based on
    • reliance on an inappropriate process (the planning permit approval process) to determined Heritage Values vs. the appropriate Planning Scheme Amendment process
    • reliance on an outdated (2002) Municipal Wide Heritage Assessment that recognised Frogmore as significant but excluded it from Heritage Protection in part because in was not located in a heritage protection area.   This flawed 2002 application of  the “safety in numbers” concept to heritage determination overrode the January 2015 assessment (which in addition to many other factors), recommended protection due to it’s individual location (rarity) and took into account social and demographic changes that had occurred since 2002. “It’s a victim of it’s own rarity”
    • that the potential purchaser (Jewish Care) had acted in good faith and undertaken significant expenditure in identifying and negotiating the site for re-development as an Aged Care Facility. FYI – caveat emptor is not listed as either a planning or heritage consideration
    • an unsubstantiated determination of Net Community Benefit of 120 beds. With 120 beds equating Jewish Care’s assessment of site potential if Frogmore wasn’t retained.  Clearly, this net community benefit calculation ascribes a zero value to heritage.
    • the decision of Heritage Victoria not to award State Level Protection to Frogmore which was a decision based on an assessment at the broader State Level rather than smaller Municipal Level. Council’s use of the Heritage Victoria decision as a justification, ignores the fact that Heritage Protection, within Australia, provides for heritage recognition and protection at the Municipal Level. It also ignores the fact that Council’s commissioned 01/ 2015, Heritage Advisors Assessment was undertaken at the Municipal Level and recommends protection at that level

 “Frogmore is significant to the locality of Carnegie and Murrumbeena and City of Glen Eira and should be conserved as one of the cultural assets of the city   … Frogmore House should be included in the schedule to heritage over lay clause 43.01 by the Glen Eira Planning Scheme”.

  • a casting vote – in the absence of the Mayor (Magee) and declarations of conflicts of interest (arising since February, 2015) from the Deputy Mayor (Delahunty) and Cr. Esakoff, the immediate past Mayor Cr. Pilling took and chair and exercised his casting vote. (For Protection Crs. Sounness, Okotel, Lobo; Against Protection Crs. Pilling (2 votes), Hyams and Lipshutz)


9/6/2015              Decision to abandon heritage protection

17/6/2015           Planning Permit Application for a 2 storey Aged Care Facility at 1 Wahgoo Road, Carnegie, lodged with Council for Council review.

21/7/2015            Frogmore House Demolished

13/9/2015            1 Wahgoo Road, Carnegie site aerial photo ex Nearmap

wahgoo spetember 2015

15/9/2015           Advertising period for Planning Permit Application commenced, ie. plans made available for residents review and possible objections.

Included in the permit documentation provided for residents review is a proposal for the removal of 88 trees – we’d appreciate readers assistance in finding them in the above 13/9/2015 aerial photograph.

To aid you below is a aerial picture of the site circa January, 2015.

Frogmore H&L

And a picture taken during the July 2015 demolition works

012 T

29/9/2015           Advertising period completed. Objections received to be considered by Council in near future.

FROGMORE – Department of Planning Appeal

Demolition on Frogmore House itself has started – on the southern side of the house the verandah has been removed and trees are being sawn down.   On the northern side the 1960’s-1990’s extensions (of no heritage merit) are rapidly being demolished.

At the end of last week GERA spoke with an Advisor in the Department of Planning – it seems despite the our assertions (which are supported by presented documentation and the National Trust*) that Council’s 9/6/2015 decision was fundamentally flawed**,  the Department of Planning is reluctant to get involved in a decision that has already been made by another level of government.

Many of the Save Frogmore supporters are wondering why

  • ministerial approval is required for either a Municipal Planning Scheme and Planning Scheme amendments, and
  • a provision for a Ministerial Direction was included in the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

Please keep calling/emailing the Minister for Planning’s office so that our next posting is not entitled “Vale Frogmore”.  Your calls/emails are having an impact.

 Email:                    richard.wynne@parliament.vic.gov.au

 Telephone:         (03) 8392 6175



National Trust Letter* (click to enlarge)NT Letter P1 TNT Letter P2 Fundamental Flaws**

  • Disregards accredited Independent Heritage Advice received in January, 2015
  • lacks adequate strategic justification, particularly with regards the determination of net community benefit
  • is inconsistent with the Glen Eira Planning Scheme (Heritage and Aged Care) and the 1987 Planning and Environment Act objectives of planning for Victoria
  • denies all stakeholders access to the appropriate due planning scheme amendment process,







Fundamental Flaws*

  • Disregards accredited Independent Heritage Advice received in January, 2015
  • lacks adequate strategic justification, particularly with regards the determination of net community benefit
  • is inconsistent with the Glen Eira Planning Scheme (Heritage and Aged Care) and the 1987 Planning and Environment Act objectives of planning for Victoria
  • denies all stakeholders access to the appropriate due planning scheme amendment process,



FROGMORE – D-Day Countdown

Update – 1/7/2015 – Buildings included in yesterday’s first photo now rubble.




It appears the Victorian Department of Planning is “caught up in red tape” and even though aware that demolition is imminent, has yet to review Glen Eira Council’s highly questionable decision to abandon heritage protection for Frogmore House.

 Frogmore Demolition Works – 30/6/2015

 Demolition works are currently concentrated on the 1960’s – 1990’s Aged Care Extensions which were superficially connected to Frogmore and were not to be included in the Heritage Overlay. (Frogmore’s iconic tower is visible in the background)



 Surrounding residents’ report that Frogmore House currently remains externally intact, however, internally doors, stairs and various other fittings have been removed.  Their “D-day” estimate, based on progress to date, is that Frogmore may well be “gone” by the end of the week (at the latest early next week).

 Apparently, the slow pace of the Department of Planning is attributable to a need for a specific rationale for a State Government Department to get involved in a decision that has already been made by another level of government.

Of course GERA believes that Glen Eira’s decision to abandon the heritage protection doesn’t stand up to planning scrutiny. The arguments presented on this site have also been presented to the Minister (14/6), together with relevant documentation (ie. January, 2015 Council commissioned Heritage Advisor’s Report and Recommendation, Council’s 3/2/2015 rationale to protect and 9/6/2015 rationale not to protect) and approximately 350 signed form letters from the community. We are also aware of that a large number of our readers (both within the Glen Eira community and the broader community) have also contacted the Department of Planning in support of heritage protection for Frogmore.

Given the recently announced State Heritage Review, residents are now wondering why the Department is not making the review of Frogmore a priority.   After all in January, 2015 Frogmore was unequivocally recommended for Heritage Protection at the Local Level (historic significance, architectural merit, rarity and associations), yet in making it’s 9/6/2015 abandon decision Council ignored that expert report and reverted to Council’s 2003 dubious decision not to apply heritage protection as Frogmore was not located within an identified heritage area.  Frogmore hasn’t moved but heritage standards and social attitudes have.

We know it’s a repetitive ask but clearly the above photo’s show that this really is your last chance to save Frogmore.   Please contact the Planning Minister to lobby for urgent action.

 Contact details

Email:                    richard.wynne@parliament.vic.gov.au

Telephone:         (03) 8392 6175

Mail:                      Level 20, 1 Spring Street, Melbourne, VIC 3000

Twitter:                http://twitter.com/rwynnemp


To assist you, please feel free to cut and paste the following guideline

Hon. Richard Wynne, Minister for Planning

Request to review Glen Eira City Council Planning Scheme Amendments 136 (interim Protection) and C137 (Local Heritage Overlay) for 1 Wahgoo Road, Carnegie (a.k.a. Frogmore)

I request that you urgently act to re-instate interim protection for Frogmore while Department of Planning reviews the strategic justifications presented by Glen Eira City Council in support of it’s 9/6/2015 resolution to abandon heritage protection for 1 Wahgoo Road, Carnegie (a.k.a. Frogmore).

Glen Eira Council has not addressed key planning issues and disregarded accredited heritage advice. The end result being a resolution to withdraw/abandon planning scheme amendments C136 (interim protection) and C137 (heritage protection) that

  • denies all stakeholders access to the appropriate due planning scheme amendment process,
  • lacks adequate strategic justification, and
  • is inconsistent with the Glen Eira Planning Scheme and the 1987 Planning and Environment Act objectives of planning for Victoria


Frogmore in summer w T

Frogmore – October, 2014

Less than 10 days after Council’s seriously flawed 9/6/2015 resolution to abandon local heritage protection for Frogmore its days are clearly numbered.

  • Vegetation has been cleared, fences erected and portable toilets installed.
  • Planning Permit (GE/PP-28101/2015) for “Redevelopment of existing site for a new residential aged care facility” has been lodged.

As per our previous posting, GERA has been lobbying, Richard Wynne, Minister for Planning, to act to re-instate interim protection for Frogmore, to enable his Department’s review of the strategic justifications presented by Council in support of it’s 9/6/2015 abandon heritage protection resolution.

Clearly, time is of the essence and we again urge the community to email or call the Minister to request him to act.

PLEASE EMAIL OR CALL NOW – otherwise, the next time you hear of Frogmore it will be in a demolition announcement.

Contact details

Email:                    richard.wynne@parliament.vic.gov.au

Telephone:         (03) 8392 6175

Mail:                      Level 20, 1 Spring Street, Melbourne, VIC 3000

Twitter:              http://twitter.com/rwynnemp

 To assist you, please feel free to use the following guideline

Hon. Richard Wynne, Minister for Planning

Request to review Glen Eira City Council Planning Scheme Amendments 136 (interim Protection) and C137 (Local Heritage Overlay) for 1 Wahgoo Road, Carnegie (a.k.a. Frogmore)

I request that you urgently act to re-instate interim protection for Frogmore while Department of Planning reviews the strategic justifications presented by Glen Eira City Council in support of it’s 9/6/2015 resolution to abandon heritage protection for 1 Wahgoo Road, Carnegie (a.k.a. Frogmore).

Glen Eira Council has not addressed key planning issues and disregarded accredited heritage advice. The end result being a resolution to withdraw/abandon planning scheme amendments C136 and C137 that

  • denies all stakeholders access to the appropriate due planning scheme amendment process,
  • lacks adequate strategic justification, and
  • inconsistent with the Glen Eira Planning Scheme and the 1987 Planning and Environment Act objectives of planning for Victoria


RIP Frogmore T

We regret to inform readers that at last Tuesday’s (9/6/2015) Council Meeting, Councillor’s resolved to withdraw/abandon heritage protection for Frogmore via the planning scheme amendment process (ie. heritage overlay).

Thus, Frogmore’s future will now be inappropriately determined by a planning permit approval process which does not consider heritage unless that heritage has been previously recognised via a heritage overlay.

The Age – 11/6/2015

National Trust 10/6/2015

Historic Home to face the wrecking ball – 11/6/2015 – Magic1278 (linked added 16/6/2015).

Glen Eira Leader – articled added 16/6/2015.

Leader on Frogmore Decision T

GERA believes that the resolution to halt the amendment process

  • does not give appropriate consideration to the heritage retention values shown by the significant community support for the preservation of Frogmore.
  • does not recognise that the Planning Scheme Amendment process is the appropriate  heritage recognition process
  • has disregarded current expert heritage advice without sound reasons
  • has not provided adequate strategic justification for withdrawing/abandoning the amendments


These amendments were initiated by residents (ie. a petition comprising approximately 1,000 signatures) in December, 2014, and resulted in a Council decision to commission an Independent Local Heritage Assessment of Frogmore.  Council defined the Assessment’s terms of reference.

On 3/2/2015, based on the findings and recommendation of that Independent Local Heritage Assessment, Council initiated amendments C136 (Interim Protection) and C137 (Heritage Overlay, ie. permanent protection).

 “Frogmore is significant to the locality of Carnegie and Murrumbeena and City of Glen Eira and should be conserved as one of the cultural assets of the city.  …  Frogmore House should be included in the schedule to heritage over lay clause 43.01 by the Glen Eira Planning Scheme”.

 The above 2015 Frogmore Independent Heritage Assessment (a.k.a. Graeme Butler Report) recommendation was based on a detailed analysis of

  • Frogmore’s heritage merits (historic, architecture, rarity and associations) in its own right, and
  • in comparison with Glen Eira’s identified historic building stock

and measured the analysis results against the assessment criteria

  • applicable to Glen Eira’s 1996-2003 Municipal Heritage Survey and
  • Heritage Victoria’s current heritage criteria, assessed within the context of the Glen Eira municipality (5 of 8 criteria satisfied, only 1 is required to be met)

 The National Trust supports the findings and recommendation of the 2015 Frogmore Independent Local Heritage Assessment.

 On 9/6/2015, although nothing has occurred that would alter the 2015 Frogmore Local Heritage Assessment findings or recommendation, the resolution not to proceed to a hearing before an Independent Planning Panel was made, based on a casting vote.  In the absence of 3  Councillors which included the Mayor and Deputy Mayor (apologies from the Mayor and Deputy Mayor Delahunty and Cr. Esakoff declaring conflicts of interest which had arisen since their participation in the 3/2/2015 resolution to commence the protection process), the immediate past Mayor (Cr. Pilling) took the chair and the casting vote.   The voting was 4 to 3.

Voting for withdrawal/abandon – Crs. Hyams, Lipshutz and Pilling (2 votes)

Voting to continue the amendment process – Crs. Sounness, Okotel and Lobo.


  • The 2015 Frogmore Independent Heritage Advisor’s Local Assessment should supersede the 1996-2003 Glen Eira Municipal Heritage Survey, which excluded Frogmore from a local heritage overlay.   However, support for the withdrawal/abandoning of the Amendments C136 and C137, is reliant upon the 1996-2003 Heritage Survey.  A survey which contradicts the findings and recommendation of the 2015 Independent Heritage assessment.
  • The need to consider Frogmore in the context of the municipality (9/6/2015 Officer’s Report) does not justify abandoning the planning scheme amendments. Nor does it recognise that the detailed 2015 Frogmore Heritage Assessment was undertaken at the Local Level.
  • Asserting that the 2015 Frogmore Local Assessment recommended protection “because” of associations (refer Officers Report – 9/6/2015) “downplays” the 2015 Local Heritage Assessment’s recommendation that is based on a detailed assessment of Frogmore’s historic significance, architectural merit, rarity and associations.
  • Inappropriately referencing Heritage Victoria’s March, 2015 Assessment (which did not recommend State Level Protection), “blurs the line” between State and Local Assessments. When a State Assessment recommends State Level Protection, local level protection automatically follows. Conversely, the absence of State Level protection does not, and should not, impact recognition of significance at the Local Level.
  • The 1996-2003 decision not to include Frogmore in a heritage overlay was based on
    • Frogmore not being located in an “identified heritage area” – this is not a current heritage assessment criteria and arguably a stand-alone location enhances, rather than diminishes, heritage value.
    • Addition of extensions (1960’s – 1990’s) surrounding the building – Amendment C137 does not apply to these extensions which are described as being “superficial” in the 2015 Frogmore Local Assessment
    • Obscured street visibility (due to extensions) – not a heritage assessment criteria and able to be addressed during re-development.
    • Non original modifications – the 2015 Frogmore Local Assessment did not find these modifications significant.
  • Does not adequately consider the National Trust’s recommendation to preserve Frogmore via the applying a local heritage overlay.


  • Given the 2015 Frogmore Independent Heritage Advisor’s Local Assessment findings and recommendation, Glen Eira Council’s decision not to proceed with local heritage protection for Frogmore is inconsistent with the

– purpose and objectives of the Glen Eira’s Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS – Clause 21.10) and

– Glen Eira’s Planning Scheme (GEPS – Clause 41.01 – Purpose) and

– objectives of planning for Victoria, as identified by the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

The supporters of these amendments (C136 and C137) agree with the objectives and purposes of these documents and have consistently argued that good planning should result in an outcome that would retain Frogmore for current and future residents without preventing redevelopment (Aged Care or other permitted use), albeit a “scaled back” development. The protection of heritage values is a valid planning consideration in planning decisions.

  • The site is a large site (8,000 sqm, of which approximately 1,000 sqm accommodates Frogmore House and its significant vegetation identified in the 2015 Frogmore Local Heritage Assessment) that presents a unique opportunity for a good planning outcome that caters for multiple community usages, ie. preservation of heritage and redevelopment as an Aged Care Facility that is consistent with and encouraged by the above documents.

Abandoning Amendment C137 will not put in place orderly planning controls that conserve and enhance buildings identified as significant while also providing for sympathetic redevelopment that balances the present and future interests and needs of Glen Eira’s residents.

  • The suggestion that planning issues (particularly those related to heritage issues on large lots) are more appropriately addressed during the planning permit approval process (Officer’s Reports 3/2/2015 and 9/6/2015) is inconsistent with the above documents and will result in ad hoc, piecemeal decisions. The planning permit process only considers planning controls that are in place – no heritage controls = no Frogmore.

Abandoning Amendment C137 will not provide an appropriate forum to consider Frogmore’s heritage.

  • It is extremely difficult to see “The Minister for Planning has, to date, not responded to Council’s request of 4 February 2015 to place interim heritage control over the land” as a justification to withdraw/abandon the amendments.

Additional comments

  • No plans for the proposed redevelopment have been lodged with Council and, contrary to Officer’s Reports (3/2/2015 & 9/6/2015), the site has yet to be acquired by the potential developer. The sales agreement is conditional upon obtaining planning approval.
  • Net Community Benefit (NCB) – refer 9/6/2015 Officer’s Report (Section 6 Public Notice – Objectors), is frequently mentioned yet rarely documented or quantified. Recent discussions determine its value as being 120 beds.
    • No detailed professional analysis substantiating this determination (that NCB = 120 beds) has been presented.  The potential developer’s optimal proposed development comprises a 120 bed facility and the loss of Frogmore. Despite the 2015 Frogmore Local Heritage Assessment, this NCB determination clearly assigns a zero value to heritage.
    • Neither the Officer’s Report (9/6/2015) or Councillor discussion refer to the proposed developer’s planning conference comment that while their analysis indicated that a 60 bed facility was viable and would enable Frogmore to be retained, the developer was not interested in a lesser development and would prefer to look for an alternative site
  • That the potential developer had acted in good faith, undertaken due diligence and incurred significant costs in identifying the property as suitable and plan preparation (Officer’s Report’s 3/2/2015 & 9/6/2015 and Councillor discussion). While this is a regrettable situation, it is however, not a strategic justification for abandoning the heritage protection process.
  • That by abandoning the heritage overlay process, the potential developer avoids lengthy delays in site redevelopment. This is not a strategic justificiation for abandoning the heritage protection process.

It sets a dangerous precedent if unsubstantiated Net Community Benefit, “good faith”, costs incurred by the developer and the avoidance of developmental delays are deemed to provide sufficient justification for abandoning the planning scheme amendments. The protection of heritage values is a valid planning consideration in planning decisions.

In conclusion,

  • we re-iterate our earlier comments that Glen Eira Council has not addressed key planning issues and disregarded accredited heritage advice. The end result being a decision to withdraw/abandon planning scheme amendments C136 and C137 that is without adequate strategic justification and denies all stakeholders access to the appropriate due planning scheme amendment process, and

– reviews the 2015 Local Heritage Assessment and the withdraw/abandon justifications

– decides an appropriate course of action ie. either deny Council’s application to withdraw or abandon Amendments C136 & C137 or use Ministerial Direction to ensure that an appropriate heritage recognition process is undertaken.

SAVE FROGMORE – HELP!!!!! (Part 4)

On behalf of the Save Frogmore campaigners, GERA is asking readers to assist in lobbying Councillors, prior to next Tuesday’s (9/6) meeting, to reject a recommendation to abandon Planning Scheme Amendment C137 which applies a Heritage Overlay (HO154) on Frogmore House (1 Wahgoo Street, Carnegie).

The recommendation to abandon Heritage Protection for Frogmore is found in the Officer’s Report  included as Item 9.6  in the Meeting Agenda and reads as follows:


                 That Council

  1. Abandons Planning Scheme Amendment C137 and advises the Minister for Planning, and
  2. Writes to the Minister for Planning withdrawing the request for interim heritage controls over the land (Amendment 136)”

The information presented to support abandoning the Heritage Overlay is highly questionable (and will be questioned in our next posting).  A vote accept the äbandonment will see Frogmore disappear forever in the “figurative blink of an eye“.   On the other hand, a vote to reject the recommendation to abandon the amendment will

  • acknowledge the key issue of heritage and it’s value to the community by
    • re-affirming the findings of the council commissioned Independent Heritage Advisor’s Assessment, which deemed Frogmore as meeting the threshold for inclusion in the local heritage overlay under Clause 21.10 of the Local Planning Policy Framework – a framework which Council has a responsibility to uphold.
    • allowing the planning approval process, as recommended by the Independent Heritage Advisor Assessment, and voted for by Council on 3/2/2015, to run its due course (and save Frogmore for at least as long as the planning approval process takes).
  • be accordance with
    • Council’s heritage policies and strategies of
      • Protecting places identified as having architectural, cultural or historical significance.
      • Ensuring sympathetic redevelopment and renovation of areas and places identified as having architectural, cultural or historic significance in the municipality.
    • the objectives of planning for Victoria (as identified in the Planning and Environment Act 1987) of
      • Conserving and enhancing those buildings, areas or other places which are of scientific, aesthetic, architectural or historical interest, or otherwise of special cultural value; and
      • Balancing the present and future interests of all Victorians.

Details of significance of Frogmore are available in GERA’s earlier postings

Save Frogmore, Save Frogmore – Part 2Save Frogmore – Part 3 – The Planning Conference

As previously mentioned our next posting will review and question the Officers Report and it’s recommendation, however, at this stage that is a secondary concern.  Right now our primary concern is “getting the word out” and encouraging readers to contact each Councillor, either by phone (leave a voice message if necessary) or email (to each Councillor individually – if the email is addressed to multiple Councillors only first Councillor will respond), prior to next Tuesday’s Council Meeting.   Please do not rely on others to do the lobbying – they are relying on you.

Councillor Contact detailsCouncillor Contact Details0001 – click to enlarge




At tonight’s Council Meeting, Councillors voted 6 to 3 to proceed with

Option A – Initiate a heritage protection process (which recognises Frogmore’s significance at the municipal level as per the   January, 2015 Heritage Advisor’s Recommendation)

 As per the reasons outlined in our below posting, Option A was the preferred option for the Petition Organisers, GERA and the community.

The voting pattern was

For:  Crs. Sounness, Okotel, Lobo, Delahunty, Esakoff and Magee (and against Option B).

Against:   Crs. Pilling, Hyams and Lipshutz (and for Option B).

 GERA congratulates Council for this decision and the Petition Organisers for their significant efforts in highlighting the issue and striving for this outcome.

No doubt further efforts, related to providing additional information to Heritage Victoria and preparing for the Planning Amendment Process will again require significant efforts on the part of the Petition Organisers.  GERA will continue our support and urges readers and residents to do likewise.

PS.  Urging the inclusion of a Vegetation Protection Overlay (VPO) for the identified, yet again overlooked, significant trees would also be a good idea.


The agenda for the this Tuesday’s (3/2/15) Council Meeting includes item 9.2 – 1 Wahgoo Road Carnegie – Heritage Assessment (2015 02 03 EXTRACT of Council AGENDA and relates to Frogmore House (refer GERA’s previous post).

The Independent Heritage Advisor’s Report (which did not involve an internal or structural review)

  • differs from the residents’ submission on when the existing house was built (ie. that the Lyall commissioned working farm and family residence, designed by Joseph Reed (1857) was demolished and rebuilt by Archibald McLaurin – 1880) and also
  • differs with Council’s 1996 – 2003 Heritage Survey which although recognising Frogmore’s “local significance” determined that since the building was not within an identified historic area it was not recommended for inclusion the resulting heritage overlay.
  • recognises significant vegetation on the property – two Canary Island Palms and one Silky Oak

The organisers of the petition, are appreciative of Council undertaking the reassessment which not only considers the significance of the existing house but also the house’s historical associations and makes the following recommendations and conclusions:

  • Recommendations

 “Frogmore is significant to the locality of Carnegie and Murrumbeena and City of Glen Eira and should be conserved as one of the cultural assets of the city.”

  •  Conclusion

 “Frogmore House should be included in the schedule to heritage over lay clause 43.01 by the Glen Eira Planning Scheme”.

 With regards the differences in date of construction, the organisers of the petition have advised GERA that additional 1850 – 1860’s documents, contained in the Lyall Family Archives, will be submitted to Heritage Victoria for inclusion in their assessment of Frogmore House. This documentation reportedly includes comments on the house and tower that closely aligns with that which currently exists and, therefore, supports the “linkage” to Lyall and Reed.  The documentation also supports their contention that although Archibald McLaurin may have altered the house he did not demolish and rebuild Frogmore. If accepted this documentation emphasises Frogmore House’s significance at the State Level.


While GERA still congratulates  Council for initiating an Interim Protection Order on Frogmore and undertaking the a professional heritage assessment, GERA is concerned about the comments and recommendations included in the submitted Officer’s Report.

  •  The Report is not focussed on the key issue of heritage – is Frogmore House of historic significance to Glen Eira and does it warrant heritage protection?  The independent heritage assessment clearly identifies the municipal significance of both the house and three trees and recommends heritage protection, by inclusion in the Glen Eira Planning Scheme.
  • However rather than focussing on the heritage issues, the Officer’s Report appears to be focussed on
    • the differing heritage findings of 1996-2003 Heritage Survey (which did not consider historical associations of the property) vs. the current (February, 2015) heritage assessment (which did consider historical associations) and various mentions of no objections to Frogmore’s exclusion being received in 2003.
    • planning issues (eg. land size and proposed land use) which are more appropriately addressed during the planning permit approval process. With regards the Officer’s Report, the analysis associated with these issues is apparently slanted to a total redevelopment of this large (approx. 8,000 sqm) site – the opportunity that a site of this size presents for a redevelopment that incorporates a historically significant house is not mentioned. Likewise, no mention is made of significant trees.
    • the site’s recent change of ownership and that the new owner acted in good faith in committing significant funds on the basis of Council’s planning scheme – no mention is made that both the Vendor Purchasers Statement indicate that the proposed sale was conditional upon receiving planning approval or that to date, as per Council’s  Planning Applications Register 2,no planning permit application has been received.  While changes to the announced conditions of sale are entirely within the rights of the contracting parties, it does raise serious questions re the validity of disadvantage to the purchaser being included in the Officers Report.
  • The Officer’s Report gives two options to redress this situation

However, before considering these two options readers should note that within Australia there are three levels of Heritage Protection or Registration, each undertaken by different authorities with varying assessment criteria and focus:

  • Australian – National Trust – significance assessed at the National Level
  • State – Heritage Victoria and the Heritage Council – significance assessed at the State Level
  • Local – Local Authorities (Councils) – significance assessed at the Municipal Level

As a general rule, heritage protection works on a “top-down” basis (if a property is significant at the national level then it is also significant at the lower levels) rather than a “bottom-up” basis (if a property is significant at the local level it does not necessarily follow that it is significant at the higher levels).

The two options provided are

  • Option A Option A T

Council is then advised that

“If Council favours Option A, the terms of a possible decision would be

That Council request the Minister for Planning to impose interim heritage controls over 1 Wahgoo Road, Carnegie and authorise the exhibition of a planning scheme amendment to place heritage controls over the property.”

  • Option B Option B T

Council is then advised that

 “If Council favours Option B, the terms of a possible decision would be

That Council

  • Note the heritage process over the period 1996 to 2003 which provided the appropriate opportunity to put views for or against the heritage status of 1 Wahgoo Road, Carnegie;
  • Note that the current owner of the property has acted in good faith and committed significant funds on the basis of Council’s planning scheme; and
  • Forwards the attached consultant report to the Heritage Council and agrees to abide by the Heritage Councils decision in this matter.”

 GERA believes that Option A should be the preferred option as Heritage Victoria, in response to the previously mentioned residents submissions, will be undertaking an State Level assessment of the property which should include the property’s

  • interior and structural conditions
  • historical association with Joseph Reed (Architect) and William Lyall (original owner)

Depending on the assessment findings

  • If the assessment records the property as being significant at the State Level, then heritage protection will be applicable at both the State and Municipal Level.   Thus, the planning scheme amendment process can be halted.
  • If the assessment records the property as significant at a Municipal Level rather than at a State Level, that finding should not preclude Council recognising the Heritage Advisor’s Statement of Municipal Significance and enacting a Heritage Overlay on the property. In this case, the planning scheme amendment process would continue
    • Readers should note that the planning scheme amendment process, is by the “nature of the beast” and regardless of the request, a lengthy process with varying degrees of certainty. The heritage advisor’s report justifies the amendment and, as such, should reduce the uncertainty mentioned in the Officer’s Report.
    • The community consultation, incorporated in the amendment process, ensures that all interested parties (stakeholders) have input into the outcome.
    • Not to continue the Planning Scheme amendment, in the light of the Heritage Advisors Report, would give rise to the same criticisms of Council’s heritage management process as those included in the 2011 Independent Planning Panel Report (Amendment C83 – Removal of Heritage Overlay on a Caulfield South property – Cnr. Hawthorn Road and Seaview Street):
      • Planning authorities have a responsibility to ensure that planning schemes have a sound basis. There should be good reasons when … expert advice is disregarded but none were provided in this instance.Council responded to the query from the Panel about why the Council did not accept the expert advice provided by stating that Council may form its own view.
      • It would set ‘a dangerous precedent’ if a strategic designation for more intense redevelopment was deemed sufficient justification for removing (or not adding) heritage overlays. The protection of heritage values remains a valid planning consideration in planning decisions.
      • The Panel does not accept the argument put by Council that removal of HO114 is justified by the fact that one quite different example of development influenced by Frank Lloyd Wright will be retained and all examples would not be lost. … It is apparent that the Site is a rare example in the locality and its heritage values should be taken into account in future planning decisions.
    • Widely spread, unconfirmed rumours indicate this option is recommended by Heritage Victoria.
  • Is in line with the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) – Councillor Training Program‘s recognition that Questioning and Challenging Officers Reports is an integral part of a Councillors role.
  • Both the 2011 Amendment C83 and this current issue indicates a review of the 2003 Heritage Assessments and associated administrative processes are warranted. This is an issue which is not addressed in the Officer’s Report.

GERA and many members believe that this is an unfortunate situation that may involve a significant disadvantage to the purchaser of the 1 Wahgoo Road, Carnegie. Equally, it is also unfortunate that residents were not aware that Frogmore House was not included in the 2003 Heritage Overlay. That being said, it is even more unfortunate that the wording of the Officers Report of the 2003 consultation process (exemplified in Options A and B above) is considered inappropriate and does not reflect the level of responsiveness (frequently claimed by Council) that can reasonably be expected of a Council fully attuned to the dynamic demographic, communication and social changes that have occurred since 2003.



At the last Council Meeting (16/12/2014), a petition (with approximately 1,000 verified signatures), was submitted to Council requesting that a heritage survey be conducted of the little known Frogmore House (1857) in Wahgoo Road, Carnegie.  A recent advice of a proposal to demolish and replace Frogmore, with a state of the art 120 bed aged care facility, made residents realise that Frogmore House had been overlooked in past Council heritage surveys and, therefore, did not have heritage classification. In addition to the petition, the residents have also lodged submissions, to include Frogmore House in the Victorian Heritage Register, with Heritage Victoria.

Frogmore House – current main entrance, Sept/Oct, 2014Exterior0012

GERA has been supporting the residents in their quest to have Frogmore House assessed for historical importance (social, cultural and heritage) as it is a significant property with potentially National and definite State and Local importance and is worthy of preservation.

As a result of the petition, Council “engaged a heritage adviser to “reassess” the heritage value of Frogmore House … the report is due within days” (Leader Article – 13/01/2015). While GERA is not aware of the content of the adviser’s report, GERA welcomes Heritage Victoria’s recent advise that, at Council’s initiation, an Interim Protection Order (IPO) has been issued for Frogmore House.   The IPO prevents any demolition works being undertaken until Heritage Victoria has completed an assessment and determination of the significance of Frogmore House.

GERA congratulates the residents who undertook substantial reasearch and organised the “Save Frogmore” campaign (a superb effort), those who signed the petition and Glen Eira Council, particularly Mayor Jim Magee, for initiating the IPO.


The following is a summary of the residents’ submissions to Heritage Victoria for the inclusion of Frogmore House in the Victorian Heritage Register.


Original House – Artistic ImpressionFrogmore0001

Current Main Entrance – Sept/Oct. 2014Exterior0012

Frogmore House is an intact early single storey Italianate working farm family residence (with an ornate red brick tower, surrounding verandas on 3 sides and a garden setting with mature vegetation) built in 1857. It is situated in the former farmer settlement area then known as the Caulfield District and now known as suburban Carnegie/Murrumbeena .

Surrounding buildings, which obscure the street view of Frogmore House and are associated with Frogmore’s immediate past (65 years) usage as an aged care residence, are not included in the Heritage Listing Application.

Frogmore H&L

House area:        approx. 718 sqm (yellow) – comprising 6-8 rooms, linked by internal hallways, and a tower

Land area:           approx. 8000 sqm (red)

Current Condition

Over the years, the land area of the property has decreased and although various additions have been made in accordance with Frogmore’s aged care usage, these have been sympathetic

  • Externally the integrity and structure of the original house remains.  Additions, and their connection to the original working farm family residence havebeenwell considered in terms of
    • architectural styling and connectivity (via original doorways and windows)
    • Mature tree preservation
  • Internally, public access and residential areas retain original ceiling and wall mouldings and are well maintained. The tower staircase remains.

Tower  – original main entrance (Sept/Oct. 2014)Exterior0001

 Original Bay Window and polychromatic brickwork with rear sympathetic polychromatic addition – Sept/Oct. 2014Exterior0008

 Tower staircase – Sept/Oct. 2014Tower Staircase0001

 Corridor Crossing – Sept/Oct. 2014Interior 20007

 Statement of cultural heritage significance:

 Frogmore House was designed by renowned Architect Joseph Reed, as the working farm/family residence for William Lyall (a significant Scottish Pioneer who was in residence 1857-1868). In 1868 it became the residence of Archibald McLaurin (another significant Scottish Pioneer who was in residence 1868 to 1891).

Joseph Reed (1823?-1890) Cornish Architect who arrived in Victoria during the Gold Rush (1853)

  • “A dominant figure during Melbourne’s period of greatest growth, Reed was responsible for some of the largest and most important building commission in the city and in doing so was instrumental in making Melbourne one of the great Victorian cities” (Goad and Willis)
  • As well as prominent city buildings, Reed also designed smaller buildings and residences and was renowned for designing according to the intended “function of the building”.
    • Some prominent city buildings designed by Reed are Geelong Town Hall (1854), Melbourne Public Library (1854), Melbourne Town Hall (1864), Independent Church (1866) and the world heritage listed Exhibition Buildings (1878)
    • While few of the residences designed by Reed remain today, 2 exist within Glen Eira.
      • Frogmore House (1857) , designed in the Italianate* style as a single storey working farm/family residence (6-8 rooms). It features polychromatic (two tone) brick work, bay windows, an ornate red brick tower and surrounding verandas on 3 sides and
      • The much grander Rippon Lea (1868), also designed in the Italiante* style (Lombardic Romanesque) as a two-storey, 15 room house for a successful (former goldfields) merchant’s family residence and estate. It features polychromatic (three tone) brickwork and an extensive pleasure garden around the house.    Rippon Lea, circa 1880.  Rippon Lea has experienced alterations and additions over time.

William Lyall (1821-1888) – Resided at Frogmore 1857-1868.

  • a Scottish immigrant originally to Van Diemens Land, moved to Melbourne in 1847 and became a successful livestock merchant and noted Melbourne pastoralist
  • He returned to England and studied agricultural chemistry in Britain (1854-1856), returning to Victoria with stud livestock and gained a reputation as a stock breeder (cattle and sheep, race horses and game birds) with sales within Victoria and to Tasmania, NSW and New Zealand.
  • He established a model farm at Frogmore Estate (originally 93 acres (37.6 ha), expanded to 212 acres (85.8 ha)). Both at Frogmore’s model farm and a Tooradin property he pursued practical and innovative farming practices (seeds and pastures) and animal husbandry techniques
  • He was a regular contributor to the “Argus” writing articles on animal husbandry and other agricultural matters
  • The Public Offices held by Lyall, while residing at Frogmore, include founder of the Victorian Agricultural Society, Zoological Society, Acclimatisation Society (Southern vs Northern Hemisphere impacts on pasture plantings and livestock) and Victoria Racing Club, member of the National Agricultural Society, Member of the Legislative Assembly (Mornington 1859-1861) and Territorial Magistrate.

Archibald McLaurin, J.P. (NSW) (1815 -1891) Resided at Frogmore 1868-1891.

  • A Scottish immigrant (1839), one of the first overlanders and a noted pastoralist in Port Phillip and New South Wales
  • In the late 1860’s he sold his pastoral interests and acquired Frogmore where he lived until his death in 1891. While at Frogmore he grazed sheep (at Frogmore and Mordialloc) and was active in the community and local affairs (he was a Caulfield Shire Councillor)
  • He encouraged Scottish migration for the development of Victoria and the development of Murrumbeena area as a farmer-settler community in the 1860’s to 1870’s
  • In 1891 he donated two blocks of land (east side of Murrumbeena Road) for the building of a Presbyterian Church – now St. Giles Uniting Church

Following the death of Archibald McLaurin, during the period 1891-1951 details on the subsequent occupants (owners and or tenants) of Frogmore are limited (eg.  1906 – Gairdner, 1913 – J.G. Thompson, 1921 – L.O. Menck, 1925-1945 – J. Keys).   However, various period documents and newspaper articles record Frogmore House as hosting Melbourne society functions/gatherings, Church Services and Fund Raising events throughout this period.

In 1951, Frogmore House was acquired by the Churches of Christ  and operated as the “William Clay Nursing Home” (originally 25, later extended to 48 beds). In the 1990’s it was further extended to 60 beds and renamed “Betheden”.   As previously mentioned, although various additions have been made in accordance with Frogmore’s 65 years of continuing aged care usage, these additions have been sympathetic to the integrity and structure of the original house and the interior has been well maintained.


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

  • Example of a grand early working farm family residence whose early owners included pastoralists, actively involved with the development of Melbourne and Victoria. It’s location in Carnegie demonstrates the pattern of land settlement as Melbourne and Victoria developed.

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

  • Frogmore House is a rare example of an early (1857) Italianate* single storey working farm family residence in the former Caulfield District of Melbourne. Few residences remain from the 1850s.
  • Other remaining Glen Eira heritage listed 1857 single storey residences (Rosecraddock and Halstead)

Comparison and map T

 Comparison: Frogmore with Rosecraddock and Halstead

  • although all three are described as Italianate* in style, each represents diverse interpretations of that style (Rosecraddock does not feature a tower and although Halstead does have a three storey tower – with a Mansard roof and cast-iron balustrade – it is significantly different from Frogmore’s two storey polychromatic renaissance style brick tower)
  • bothRosecraddock and Halstead
    • are stuccoed and do not feature polychromatic brickwork
    • are not attributable to a known architect (although Rosecraddock’s recessed central verandah section and cast iron lace, added in the 1880’s,  is attributed to architect Lloyd Tayler).
    • have been considerably altered over time (Rosecraddock in the period 1850’s – 1880’s and with a recent subdivision and stable relocation/conversion ; Halstead’s heritage recognition acknowledges a history of alteration and addition.)
    • were designed and constructed as residences of wealthy Melbournian Public Servants and Merchants rather than as a functioning model farm and family residence (of a wealthy livestock merchant and pastoralist interested in practical and innovative animal husbandry practices and pasture improvements).
  • locations represent their importance in the socio-economic history of south eastern suburban Melbourne, whereas Frogmore’s simultaneous construction emphasizes the inland pattern of development as well as that socio-economic history.

Criterion C – Potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of Victoria’s cultural heritage

  • Significance of pasture experimentation and animal husbandry innovations on the development of Victoria -Lyall
  • Encouraged Scottish migration and development (farmer-settlers) of Victoria and Caulfield District (now Melbourne and in particular Carnegie/Murrumbeena) – McLaurin and Lyall .

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

  • Joseph Reed – diversity and development of architectural design in private (Frogmore, Rippon Lea) and public buildings (Parliament House, Exhibition Buildings)
  • William Lyall – successful livestock merchant (imported stud bloodlines) and innovations/experimentations with pastures (grasses and seeds) and animal husbandry.
  • Archibald McLaurin – pioneer and noted pastoralist

Criterion G – Strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group for social cultural or spiritual reasons

  • Aboriginal – nomination of street names eg. Bambra, originally Cambrook – now Kambrook, Koornang and Neerim (accredited to Lyall)
  • Scottish Community (Lyall and McLaurin). Scottish St names in Murrumbeena – Ardyne Street, Innellan Road, Ariadne Avenue, Dunoon Street, McLaurin Road
  • Pastoralist Community (Lyall and McLaurin)
  • Founder of the Victorian Agricultural Society, Zoological Society, Acclimatisation Society and Victoria Racing Club (Lyall)
  • Religious Community (Lyall, McLaurin and Presbyterian/Uniting Church, Churches of Christ)
  • Hosting social and community events (Lyall and McLaurin and other owners/tennants)

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

  • Joseph Reed
  • William Lyall
  • Archibald McLaurin
  • Presbyterian/Uniting Church/Church’s of Christ



Italianate Style – featured asymmetry and, usually, a tower of varying size. In Australia, the addition of the verandah, sometimes arcaded but later in Filigree (wrought iron), gave a regional flavour to the style.