Written by John Fleetwood & Sean Carr
Planning Minister Sonya Kilkenny has used her powers to call for the redevelopment of the iconic Shell House to be given the go-ahead, despite objections from Heritage Council Victoria and the City of Melbourne.
The decision marks the third ministerial request in recent years to redevelop Victoria's heritage sites, with National Trust executive manager Samantha Westbrook saying the move would “result in the redevelopment of Victoria's heritage sites”. “It undermines the integrity of the
Since 2020, developer Philip Nominees has been building a new high-rise office tower at 21-25 Flinders Lane, between Shell House at 1 Spring Street and the 100-year-old Milton House on Flinders Lane. I've been aiming for construction. Both are registered as cultural heritage sites.
The rear of Shell House, designed by world-renowned modernist architect Harry Seidler, as part of a $203.5 million plan by Philip Nominees, who owns 1 Spring Street and 21-25 Flinders Lane. However, it was to be demolished to make way for a shared podium.
The 32-storey office tower will include a bridge to Shell House on the 15th floor and include two retail tenants and a cafe, while Milton House will also be partially demolished to make way for the new building.
Milton House, built in 1901 as a private hospital, will undergo renovations, including internal reconfiguration to provide retail floor space, and the adjacent public plaza facing Flinders Lane will be redesigned. .
As reported in CBD News, former Planning Minister Richard Wynne requested an original application in January 2022 after Heritage Victoria rejected its application in August 2021, but this decision Supported by the Trust and the Australian Institute of Architects.
At the time, Mr Wynne said he was “particularly concerned about the new building cantilevering over the heritage site”, but insisted there were “no plans to demolish Shell House”.
In June 2022, Mr Wynne appointed an advisory committee to review Heritage Victoria's refusal and revised plans, which were originally supported by the City of Melbourne in April 2022.
Candidate Philip then resubmitted the site plan (Revised J) to the City of Melbourne for comment on 16 January 2023. The City Council ultimately opposed the amendment application, citing several “design setbacks”.
The council has raised concerns with the Minister's Advisory Committee about the reintroduction of a significant cantilever of the tower deck over Milton House and Flinders Lane Square.
Ms Westbrook told CBD News that information provided to the advisory committee showed that the City of Melbourne had noted “a clear and significant impact on the historic structure of Shell House and its cultural heritage significance”. said.
She added: “The Heritage Council of Victoria determined that the proposal was inconsistent with and did not respect the registered values of the site and recommended that the application be refused.”
“The rationale for building more office space when the way we work is evolving so rapidly is questionable at best, especially in the face of climate change rather than new construction. “Research shows the need for sustainable reuse of existing buildings,” says Ms. Westbrook. Said.
However, on June 6, 2024, Heritage Victoria announced that the proposed tower would not affect the heritage significance of Shell House or Milton House after the advisory committee decided in May last year that the proposed tower would not affect the heritage significance of Shell House or Milton House. Planning Minister Sonya Kilkenny has instructed them to issue the permit.
“The Committee considers that the proposed demolition and alteration of 1 Spring Street and part of Milton House is acceptable and would not inappropriately affect the heritage significance of either site. concluded,” the report states. “The committee accepts that the proposed tower will not affect the heritage significance of either site.”
However, regarding Milton House, the committee noted that the scope of internal works needed further consideration and recommended that a conservation management plan be prepared and approved “prior to the submission, approval and approval of any final demolition plans.” did.
The committee includes senior planning panel member Victoria Sara Raso (chair), architect Andrew Hutson, Heritage Matters director Dr Timothy Hubbard and planning expert Professor Roz Hansen. was included.
In its review to the committee, the Heritage Council said: “The extent of demolition required to facilitate the proposed development is unacceptable and irreversible due to Shell House's state-level cultural heritage significance.'' It will have no negative impact.”
In recommending the refusal of the permit, the Heritage Council also found that no evidence had been provided to show that refusing the permit application would affect the economic use of either site.
However, developer Philip Nominees insisted that “the design philosophy has not been affected'' and that “the demolition and changes will be relatively minor.''
Ms Westbrook said the National Trust was disappointed with the approval, adding: “There has been a worrying recent increase in ministerial calls to pre-empt the outcome of appeals to state independent heritage councils.” .
“Decisions about our most important locations should not be made behind closed doors,” Westbrook said.
The approval sets a dangerous precedent for other state-listed sites where “highest and best use” development proposals similarly requested by the Planning Minister have been rejected.
This is the third ministerial call since 2021, along with the historic Second Goods Warehouse in Docklands and the redevelopment of the Bryant & May area in Cremorne, both of which were rejected by Heritage Victoria.
In the 25 years to 2021, there were only four instances of ministerial intervention into licensing decisions for sites on the Victorian Heritage Register.
Planning Minister Sonya Kilkenny did not directly respond to questions from CBD News, but a government spokeswoman said the minister's advisory committee had confirmed that the “modernist tower on the site” and “the southern entrance (including the Shell Mace sculpture) It has been decided that the building will not be built. Build is affected. ”
Mayor Nicholas Rees said Melbourne was “disappointed” that despite the council's best efforts, its “many recommendations” were not included in the final design approved by ministers.
“We have provided detailed feedback on numerous occasions to both the developer and the Minister on the proposed plans for Shell House,” Cr Reece said.
“We are interested in how this development progresses. It is important that the historical significance of Shell House is protected and that the project delivers a good design outcome.”
“Both Shell House and Milton House are valuable parts of the city’s history and their importance is recognized by their inclusion on the Victorian Heritage Register.”
Under the Cultural Heritage Act 2017, the Minister of Planning can intervene in permit applications and take over responsibility for issuing permits, and may also exercise recall powers under section 109 of the Act in relation to decisions on permits under review by Cultural Heritage. You can. Victoria Council.
In 2022, the Interim Report of the Parliamentary Inquiry into Safeguarding within the Victorian Planning Framework noted that a number of stakeholders had made submissions that raised concerns about the use of ministerial convening powers.
The report notes that affected communities and other third parties are excluded from the planning process, and stakeholders recognize that calls lack transparency and can be used to circumvent proper strategic planning. It has become clear that questions have arisen regarding the fairness of the procedure.
Stan Capp, chairman of CBD residents' group EastEnders, condemned the development, saying there was an “indomitable quest to build on every square meter of the CBD, regardless of its history” and that “a better balance is needed”. .
“Approving development at this site is just another example of decision-makers prioritizing development at the expense of upholding the legacy decisions of our forefathers,” Capp said.
