It seems that most people are for the EMHS taking on heritage issues. Although it is possibly only those FOR something who will respond, rather than those against!

My view is that if we go down the heritage path, then I suggest that a first move would be to develop a strategy - probably in conjunction with the EMG - as to what we want East Melbourne to look like in 5, 10, 20 years' time. As Michael Buxton said, the City of Melbourne has developed a strategy for the CBD and it will change remarkably over the next 20 years. I think it would be good for residents to be proactive in having a say in what they would like EM to look like in the years to come.

Then we will have a basis for considering heritage issues!

PS We may have to expand the committee ....

I would like to thank the Committee for setting up the on-line Forum so that members can express their views about the Society’s involvement in heritage, planning and amenity issues.

My comment is specifically about the Planning Application submitted by The Johnston Collection late last year.

I understand an Objection to the alterations and operations of The Johnston Collection was received by the City Council from the East Melbourne Historical Society of which I am a member and of which I had no knowledge. Further enquiries confirmed that a number of members including at least one member of the committee were also unaware that an objection had been lodged.

I subsequently telephoned our president on her return from holidays in January who assured me that she had no knowledge of any objection being lodged. However it appears that such an objection was indeed submitted dated Thursday Dec 16th - a copy of which is in my possession.

This is very upsetting for a number of members who are involved with The Johnston Collection and whose wishes have not even been considered.

The Johnston Collection is a cultural asset to the area and operates within strict guide-lines as specified by the current operating permit, which I can confirm both as a Guide and Volunteer for a number of years.

As a Society we need to support such a cultural asset or risk being dubbed the MCG sporting precinct just as Yarra Park has become the MCG Car Park.

The involvement in planning, amenity and heritage issues is an area that has traditionally been covered by the East Melbourne Group who have utilized the wide range of professional skills and expertise of its members. Various comments have been posted on the in-line forum on an approach to these important issues.

One suggestion is that the East Melbourne Historical Society have one or two representatives to liase with the East Melbourne Group for this purpose. May I suggest two things;

Firstly that there is a special meeting called where all members of the society can have a full and frank discussion about the issues involved and secondly that the process of decision making on planning matters within the committee be reviewed.

I am supportive of the EMHS responding to planning applications for buildings/properties of historical interest in East Melbourne.  I have no concern that there might be conflict with the East Melbourne Group.  I think it would be courteous to inform them when we do plan to put in a response/objection, but we are independent body with a charter that includes assessment, recording, preservation and promotion of the history of East Melbourne.

I fully endorse the idea of the EMHS involving itself in planning matters when these are concerned with the heritage of the area.

While this is certainly also the ambit of the EMG I think it is likely that the Historical Society has a more direct interest in the preservation of heritage and perhaps also more expertise on the matter of  judging what is a heritage matter.  Since the EMG has wider concerns with planning matters I don’t believe there should be any conflict  between the two groups involving themselves in heritage issues.

While it may be an occasional problem when residents wish to make alterations to property which the EMHS deems to have a significant negative heritage impact it seems to me to be reasonable for the Society to discuss with them the reasons why it is appropriate to make an intervention in the form of a submission to the  City of Melbourne.

In cases where there may be personal conflict about such an intervention it could be possible for individuals to make submissions rather than the group as a whole.

Guidelines:  I believe the City of Melbourne has a heritage overlay which defines issues in a general way dealing with the preservation of facades and building exteriors as well as streetscapes.  This would clearly be a starting point for deciding what planning applications should be under consideration and should define the grounds for any submission by the EMHS to the Council.

Feedback:  Well, if I could find the forum (ie. be reminded of my membership number) then that seems to be the place to be informed about what is going on in the heritage area with planning applications.

Anyway, I think it is a good initiative for the EMHS to get involved in heritage issues in the planning department.

Lotte Mulligan.

We feel the EMHS has a depth of knowledge that would be valuable to the C of M and VCAT in making planning decisions and that knowledge might help preserve the historic character of East Melbourne.  So yes, if the matter falls within the guidelines as set out, thenEMHS should be involved.

The guidelines are good; the boundaries are more difficult - we really need a bit of help from the committee.

Could the feedback be a brief summary in the monthly newsletter?

Will the committee have sufficient time to cope with this additional workload? 

I feel that the EMHS should be involved in issues relating to heritage protection in East Melbourne.

The proposed guidelines to the committee outlined above are a good start and should be reviewed after one year to ensure they meet the objectives of the EMHS.

Assistance could be offered to the EMG where objections lodged by them includes Heritage aspects.

Frank  Coppens

1. Personally (and as an historian), I would prefer the EMHS to focus more on recording the personalities and people of East Melbourne, past and present. There are a lot of wonderful stories (e.g. Lois Walker, Celia Sweetman to name only two) which should be preserved in oral or written form.
2. The EMHS newsletter contains lots of interesting articles (thanks Jill).
3. A broader approach (reflected in the alternative objectives) could broaden the organisation's appeal.
4. The voice of the EMHS on heritage protection could be through 1-2 reps on the EMG, or even a sub-committee of the EMHS.
5. A broader program of activities (e.g. more social history) would be welcome, and correct any impression that the EMHS is predominantly about and for people in big old houses - East Melbourne is a much more diverse community than people assume.
6. Possible topics:

• buildings/streets AND their residents (e.g the program on JJ Clark was terrific)
• a history of the parks and gardens, or Helen Page on the Bishopscourt garden - the challenge of recreating the origonal garden
• past and current personalities (Olga Cohen?)
• local institutions and their role over the years (e.g. the churches, the library, the Mercy and other hospitals)