Council rejects heritage overlay for Neighbours homes
Three councillors were outvoted on a proposal to protect TV's famed Ramsay Street with a heritage overlay.
- Published by David Knox
- on
- Filed under News
Whitehorse Council last night rejected a proposal for six homes in Pin Oak Court -aka Ramsay Street- to be given heritage protection.
The Herald Sun reports a heritage assessment determind the street to be of “historic, aesthetic and social significance”.
But after a heated debate, the majority of councillors voted against the proposal.
Cr Prue Cutts said Neighbours was an iconic Australian TV show watched by millions across the world, and the homes deserved heritage protection.
But Cr Andrew Munroe argued, “Pin Oak Court is no Como House … it’s no Windsor Castle. It’s six residential homes that are 40 – 50 years old in an isolated cul-de-sac.”
He said a heritage listing would impose conditions that would limit the homeowners’ rights, with provisions that would last decades.
“When the (security) guards are gone what is the intent – to have an unregulated museum to pop culture for these poor residents?” he said.
Cr Stennett, Cr Cutts, and Cr Amanda McNeill voted in favour of giving the homes heritage protection, with Cr Munroe, Cr Lane, Cr Liu, Cr Barker, Cr Skilbeck and Cr Massoud opposed to the move.
Loading ...Share
- Tagged with Neighbours
8 Responses
Most heritage overlays are put in place to protect streetscapes and the facades of buildings. I’m sure the intent was for this to do the same for Pin Oak Court; the owners would still have had the opportunity to make improvements inside and to the rear of their properties, as is done in many other older suburbs with similar overlays.
A short sighted solution by a council keen for the added ratepayer revenue that comes from properties being subdivided for units and apartments. One only has to drive a few hundred metres from Pin Oak Court to see Vermont South is already going through demolition and replacement. Whilst Cr Munroe might not place much value on period properties from the 1970s and 1980s, it is very sad that these well preserved examples now face the risk of demolition to satisfy a quick buck.
If the show were still on the air, then protecting the houses in this way would have made sense, but for one whose audience gradually withered away to the point of cancellation? Definitely not. Property owners shouldn’t have to be punished over fickle sentimentality. I’ll concede that even I was a little disappointed about the Kath & Kim home being demolished (and I’m not even a great fan of the show), but life goes on.
I worked in a heritage-listed building 11 years ago, which was hideously dilapidated, with no effort whatsoever put into renovating the interior. It was an embarrassment, and the re-opening of the building didn’t even last a year (with several tenants jumping ship within mere weeks). It was finally demolished a few years ago to make way for apartments, and at long last, the land will be put to practical use for the first time in decades.
Neighbours was cancelled due to lack of money, not lack of an audience. Had they found a new production partner, the show would still be on the air.
Lack of money due to lack of an audience. The two are inextricably linked. Even if UK viewership was decent, it obviously wasn’t enough if overseas viewership wasn’t bringing any money in.
The so-called search for a new production partner stunk of a cynical ploy by Ten to keep the show alive to help with their local content obligations as opposed to any sincere wanting to sustain it, otherwise it wouldn’t have been condemned to secondary channel purgatory for over a decade.
The lack of money wasn’t due to a lack of audience. It was Channel 5’s decision to invest in shorter, easier to on-sell, local production that would generate a better return on investment than a daily soap produced in Australia. Neighbours was still consistently rating very well in the UK – the fourth highest rated soap behind Corrie, EastEnders and Emmerdale, and Channel 5’s highest rated programme more days than not.
The ‘so-called search’ wasn’t a ploy by Paramount/10. It was Fremantle that was seeking a partner to prop up the production cost shortfall; however, no other international broadcaster (unless it was a cashed-up streaming service) would pay for an Australian production to the same extent that Channel 5 was and that Fremantle needed. 10’s errors go back to 2010/11 when they mistakenly thought that Aussie audiences would follow Neighbours’ move from TEN to ELEVEN, and by taking for granted seemingly indefinite UK interest/funding to cover production.
Good decision for homeowners and the future prospects of being able to sell these private property’s. The council got this right.
Sad decision, but then I was really surprised when I heard they knocked the Kath and Kim house down too. The Sullivans was a home that also should have been heritage listed but wasn’t. We will only have the old shows to see what they were like. But that is like real life, we only have old reels and pics to see how buildings and suburbs etc. used to be.
Another bad decision put to bed, send those councillors who voted it down to my area to prevent beautiful old Queenslander homes who should be heritage listed being knocked down to put two rectangle boxes on one block of land because our council don’t give a monkeys.