i evaluation criteria and application guidelines i volume 2 i

I I I I I

Q994.4 IXM V.2 (b)

STATE HERITAGE INVENTORY STATUS AND SCX>PE

I Evaluation Criteria and Application Guidelines I VOLUME 2

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

FINAL REPORT Sta&e 1 of the State Beri tage Inventory Project

December 1989

:PREPARED BY JOAN IXJfiCELJ - FOR THE NSW DKPAImmNT OF PLANNIlG

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Ig ~

I! ~

I I I I

STATE HERITAGE INVENTORY STATUS AND SCOPE

Evaluation Criteria and Application Guidelines

VOLUME 2

/

.. ' ' .. ":"

FINAL REPORT Stage 1 of the State Heritage Inventory Project

December 1989

PREPARED BY JOAN IXl1ICELJ - FOR THE NSW DEPAR'IMENT OF PLANNlOO

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

PREFACE

The State Heritage Inventory Project

The State Heritage Inventory is to be a comprehensive, com~.rterised regional data base of the State' s environmental heritage.

The need for a recognised inventory has been the subject of considerable debate in both conservation and development fields, rut it is clear that its role as an early warning system or alerting device to Plblic and government will be invaluable. It is intended that the Inventory will always be broad and open-ended, with aroencirrents, additions and deletions continually occurring as new information and research corre to light and as i terns are irretrievably lost or damaged. .

Apart from this • Status and Scope' report by Joan fumicelj on evaluation criteria and application guidelines for the Inventory, Phase One of the project will include an overview of the State' s thematic history and seventeen regional thematic histories by ~ Jeans and Ian Jack as well as a policy and procedures rwnual by Jocelyn Colleran. A data bank of existing heritage information, computer software and prograrrrning will be prepared by the Heritage Branch of the Departrrent.

The second phase of the Project is the preparation of an interim inventory based on the two major existing statutory heritage registers of the Heritage Council of New South Wales and the Australian Heritage Commission. A pilot study area will be selected to test the computer program, the policy and procedures methodology, the criteria and application guidelines and the State historic guidelines of the first phase of the Project. The third phase is the ongoing compilation and maintenance of the main inventory, through regional and local heritage studies adopting the Project' s methodology.

Ci)

N.S.W.Departrrent of Planning

. December 1989


ACKNCWLEOOMENI'S

The influences on this report are hard to trace. In recent years the Australian air has shimnered with thoughts on the topic and I am unable to identify the source of all those which have alighted on me. However some recent valued contriwtions shine out.

The Australian Heritage Comnission, its Coomissioners and staff are follOldng a parallel path, regularly refining both the criteria used for the Register of the National Estate and the process of their application. The Corrrnission is thanked for its invitation to a special meeting in July on the . representative' criterion and for open access to its working papers. The criteria rec:orrm:mded in this report have, for reasons of compatibility and quality, their origin in those adopted by the Con:mission .

Many staff fran the Department of Planning have helped, wt above all, Sheri furke, liaison officer for this project and author of the 1989 'Depa.rtrrental paper on Elwirorurenta1 Heritage Assessrrept Guidelines. who has responded promptly, warmly and efficiently to . every query.

My fellow consultants Jocelyn Colleran, Ian Jack and Dennis Jeans, are thanked for their wisdom and for helping to rrake the rather rushed corrm.mal task so rewarding, as are rrembers of the advisory· corrmi ttee. .

All participants in the discussion groups of 31 August and in the workshop of 1 September 1989 helped to elucidate issues and were rrost generous with their time. Their names are listed in Appendix C. Meredith Walker and Jom Mant co-ordinated the two discussion groups of 31 August; Ian Wood-Bradley and Don Godden presented the case studies on 1 September; Peter Bell, Jane Lennon and Michael Pearson caroo from Adelaide, Melbourne and Canberra respectively to assist.

Ray Tonkin, fran the Victorian Historic B.rl.ldings Council flooded me with vital, up-to-date material from that State, and Jon Wo1mersley from South Australia was unable to come to the workshop wt offered useful advice by telephone.

Judge Hope, Chairman of the Heritage Council, Judge Stein of the Land and Environment Court, Dr Kerr, heritage consultant, and Corrrnissioner Woodward, Chairman of the Coomissioners of Inquiry, all donated time, wisdom and experience.

Jerenu Andrew patiently translated rry scrawled sketches into the fine cartoons which illustrate the diagrams in this report. Photographs were kindly lent by Chris Betteridge, Sheri Burke, Serge D:>micelj, fun Godden and Meredith Hutton.

(ii)



Evaluation Criteria and Application Guidelines

CONTENl'S : Volume 1

Preface Acknowledgments Contents Illustrations

1. INTRODUCTION

objectives of the study, abstract, backgrotmd material

2. S TAT US: APPLICATION (Detailed contents overleaf)

objectives, functions and scope of the Inventory . al ternati ve approaches to creating the Inventory forroali ties status, eligibility, objections roanagerrent : thresholds and consequences

3. S COP E : EVALUATION CRITERIA (Detailed contents overleaf)

preamble, eligibility the evaluation criteria - interpretation - nature of Significance Criteria 1 - 5 - degree of Significance Criteria 6 - 8

CONTENTS Volume 2

Preface Acknowledgments Contents

APPENDICES

A Extracts from the Brief and Response B. A Corrmon Tongue : Analysis of Words and Meanings C. The Workshops, 31 August & 1 September 1989 D. Draft Evaluation Criteria at workshops E. Extract from Histor:ic Survey, 1980 F. Annotated References

<iii)

page (i)

(11) (iii) (vii)

1

1 2

5

6 9

10 15

24

25 34 35 40

(i) (li)

(iii)

1

1 6

16 29 41 51

I . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Volume 2.APPENDICES

"Places rrean things to people. That is why they feel bereft when sorrething is gone. . Familiarity breeds not contempt rut love." (Clifford, 1988).

The brief for this report asked for evaluation criteria for a proposed State Heritage Inventory and for application guidelines upon which consistent conservation management decisions could be made at State. regional and local levels through the mechanisms of the State's Heritage and Envirorurental Planning legislation.

The rrain report in VOLUME 1 contains the Introduction, a chapter on the Inventory's Status and Application and another on its Scope and proposed Evaluation Criteria.

VOLUME 2 includes Appendices A to F. Extracts from the brief and the consultant's response to it appear in Appendix A. . An expert workshop. held as part of the study. recorr.roended that a CO!lJ'IX)n language be found to .link the wording of existing legislation with that used by ordinary people and in key reference documents. That exercise appears in Appendix B: A Carmon Tongue: Analysis of Words and Meanings.

Details of workshop participants. progran:roo. discussions and presentations are included in Appendix C.

The evaluation criteria for the Inventory have been derived from those developed for the Connxmweal th Register of the National Estate. Their evolution occurred in three steps. The first, prepared for the workshop of August 1989, appears in Appendix D : Draft Evaluation Crt teria. A m:xlification is set out in the draft final report of October 1989; the final refinement appears in VOLUME 1.

In December 1980, two reports were completed for the then Depart;zrent of Environment and Planning as part of an Australiawide progran:roo to set up an historic conservation plan in each state. The second, entitled Historic Survey, is of direct relevance to the present work for the State Heri t.age Inventory. (funicelj, 1980) . For the interest of the reader, a short extract from that report is included at Appendix E.

Annotated references appear at Appendix F, not as a general bibliography rut rather as an informal list of working documents.

Joan Domicelj December 1989

-I -

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I


1.

2.

3.

STATE HERITAGE INVENTORY

Appendix A EXTRACTS FROM BRIEF AND RESPONSE TO IT

BRIEF FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF CRITERIA FOR THE EVALUATION OF HERITAGE ITEM

INTRODUCTION

The Premier has recently announced the preparation of a regionalised, comprehensive, computerised data base of the State's environmental heritage, providing an informative data base for efficient development and conservation decision making to the public and private sectors alike.

A summary report outlining ~he Department of Planning's overall approach to the preparation of the S.H.I. is attached as background ibformation.

The first phase of the Inventory involves the simultaneous preparation of state historical guidelines, computer software, evaluation criteria and an inventory methodology and procedures ~anual •.

The brief to consultants specifically deals with the development of, evaluation criteria for the management of heritage items.

PURPOSE

An important initial component of the inventory is the formulation of evaluation criteria and standard application guidelines upon which conservation· management decisions at a state, regional and local level can be made through statutory planning instruments (REPs, LEPs) and the operation of the He ri tage ·Act.

THE WORK

3.1 RESEARCH AND INTEGRATE

Using as a base the Department's Draft Discussion Paper Environmental Heritage Assessment Guidelines, and the A.H.C.'s criteria and Thresholds for the Register of the National Estate.

Clearly describe and distinguish evaluation criteria and application guidelines for State, regional and local conservation planning action.

Identify appropriate techniques and statutory processes for such management.

In undertaking this work, the consultant would be likely to review and consult the:

J.


Ca) Australian Heritage Commission CM. Rearson) (b) Heritage Branch of Department of Planning (5.

Burke) • (c) NSW Thematic-based heritage studies (available

via s. Burke) (d) National Trust of Australian NSW (C. Pratten). (e) Royal Australian Institute of Architects (L.

Cox) • (f) Interstate and Overseas sources (9) Any other relevant sou~ces which would lead· to

the development of suitable evaluation criteria.

To closely integrate the development of the Evaluation Criteria with each element of the first phase of the S.H.I. project the consultant would be expected to liaise with the consultants responsible for the preparation of the Inventory manual, computerisation and the state Historical Guideline~.

3.2 PILOT EXAMPLE

Examine the appropriateness of the draft evaluation criteria and management techniques by limited field sampling of potential items for the inventory defining 3 types of conservation management namely, local, regional and State.

3.3 PROFESSIONAL WORKSHOP

criteria and management workshop within 5 months will be arranged by the

be responsible for any participants and all as the production and consideration at the

input received into the

Refine the draft evaluation techniques at a professional of commencement. The venue Department consultant to necessary payments to organisational details such distribution of reports for workshop and assimilation of final document.

3.4 PRODUCT

The consultant will provide a report substantiating and recommending a practical set of evaluation criteria to be used for the compilation of the N.S.W. State Heritage Inventory, and subsequent management of items.

2.


J 0 AND 0 M ICE L J, MRAPI, ARAIA

75 Middle Head Rd. Mosman NSW Australia 2088. Tol:(02) 9694392

RESPONSE TO BRIEF

b) Tender Document State Heritage Inventory

TASKS for "Eyaluation Criteria and Application GIlidelines" :-

Introduction:

The definition of criteria to assess the cultural significance of places is an area in which Australia has already invested an enormous and fruitful intellectual effort. The results have been applied in differing circumstances throughout the country and are widely acknowledged overseas. For this reason, I see this part of the task as one of'early consultation leading to the collation and structured co-ordination of pre-existing material. I do not see it as a new task requiring original research.

The identification of appropriate techniques and statutory processes to be applied to State, regional and local conservation planning action is another matter. It is I be!ieve in this area that expert advice, innovative thought and detailed consideration is required. For this reason I propose, after consultation, to outline alternative systems and present them to the advisory committee by way of a progress report, prior to the Professional Workshop. Participants in the Workshop will be few, expert and interdisciplinary and will be drawn from different operational levels of government and'non-government conservation planning. They will be asked to discuss the implications of the alternatives presented to them, including the management im~ lications for different categories of places, and to suggest improvements.

Qrdering and definition of tasks .-(the time for each task is set out at the end of this submission)

(a)- Prepare work programme ;

(b)- Review relevant documentation including legislation,

- Consult relevant bodies & individual experts,

- Assess & analyse all compiled material ;

(c)- Describe and distinguish a-l,ternative evaluation criteria ;

- Describe and distinguish alternative application guidelines for State, regional & local conservation planning action, i.e. identify appropriate techniques & statutory processes ;

(d)- Hold EXPERT WORKSHOP

(e) From workshop :-

3.


Whitehouse (similarly initiators of the New South Wales heritage and environmental planning systems and currently Judge of the NSW Land and Environent Court and Director of the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service respectively).

Advice on regional issues will be sought from experienced Departmental staff in particular, while for heritage issues at local level, expert advice will be drawn from experienced conservation planners currently working within local authorities such as Penelope Pike (heritage adviser to Hunters Hill Municipal Council) and currently working in private practice, such as Meredith Walker, both of whom have wide experience with voluntary bodies as well as local government-, and from experienced cultural resource managers.

5.

I I I I I I I I I I

, I

I I I I I I I

Appendix B

PREAMBLE

STATE HERITAGE HNENTORY

A CCt1MON 'I'OO3UE - ANALYSIS OF OOROO AND MEANIOOS

CONTENTS

Language and concepts

The language of components and attrihltes a) Scope and values defined in the relevant State statute b) Scope and values defined in the relevant National statute c) Scope and values defined in the Australia Ica10S charter

MARRYIOO STATE AND NATIONAL TERMINOLCXN in the evaluation criteria of the State Heritage Inventory

Components The components of the State' s enviroruoontal heritage The components of the Australian national estate The components of places of cultural significance

Recomrended single and collective words for components

Attrihltes Attrihltes of components of the State' s enviroruoontal heritage Attrihltes of components of the Australian national estate Attrihltes of components of places of cultural significance (Australia ICOMOS)

Recomrended words for attrihltes

A structure for the evaluation criteria

6.


Appendix B

PREAMBLE


A o:l1l1ON TOOOUE - ANALYSIS OF ~RDS AND MEANIOOS

Language and concepts

For well over a decade Australian professionals - architects, historians, planners, archaeologists, administrators and others involved in the field of conservation - have been concertedly grappling with the concepts of, and hence the terms to describe, those cultural attri1:utes of places which are valued, and should in their opinion be valued, here.

Much of what has been achieved through those endeavours has been dOCl.lIrented and a strong CO!lJlX)nali ty of conceptual outlook is apparent. It is the outlook of the New World which, unlike Europe (whose tradition is to measure the significance of place by aesthetics and age), looks to the representation of historic therres through the CO!lJlX)n-place as well as the landmark and now includes the pre-European indigenous past.

This value system sits comfortably in a conservation philosophy which seeks balance in a comPlex environrrent - the ecological approach of the custodian. It sits less comfortably with a philosophy caring only for the irrmaculate preservation of the masterpiece - the rreticulous approach of the collector.

Whilst professional outlooks may at present be fairly consistent, their expression has, through' our bedevilled federation', been less so. The language of conservation in this State, through its legislation of 1977, varies in a few key expressions from the more widely adopted terms of the Corlm:>nweal th, SOIre other states and professional bodies such as Australia Icct1OS. One example is the principal word adopted to define a part of the valued environrrent, a comPOnent shall we say.

In the Concise Oxford Dictionary -

'place' 'to place'

= part of space; proper or natural position = to arrange in their proper places,

to locate (within the general environrrent)

This relates well to the concept of conservation for custodians. 'Place' is the term adopted in the national legislation and the professional Burra Charter.

1.


2. "Item" which is not defined rut it is stated that a reference in the Act to an item of the envirorurental heritage is a reference to a wilding, work, relic or place that comprises part of the envirol"Jl'rental heritage.

3. "Precinct" which means -(a) an area; (b) a part of an area; or (c) any other part of the State, which -(d) contains one or IlX>re t:u1ldlngs, works,relics or places

which is an item or which are i terns of the envirol"Jl'rental heri tage; and

(e) has a character or appF'..arance that it is desirable to conserve.

The secondary tenns adopted in the Act are : -

4. "fuilding" which includes a part of a t:ullding, a structure or part of a structure.

5. "Relic" which means any deposit, object or material evidence -(a) which relates to the settleroont of the area that comprises

New South Wales, not being Aboriginal settlement; and (b) which is 50 or IlX>re years old.

6. "Place" which means an area of land, with or without improvements .

Thus, the envirol"Jl'rental heritage of the State could be said to be made up of the following COMPONENTS : -

Items, being tuildings (including structures and parts), works, relics (including objects), places (areas of land with or without improveroonts)

and Precincts (including such item/s and a character or appearance

which warrants conservation).

Those i terns and precincts have one or rrore of the following ATTRIBUTES

historic significance scientific significance cultural significance social significance archaeological significance architectural significance natural significance aesthetic significance

These attritutes (with the exception of the cultural and natural) may, as shown below, be comfortably grouped into those used, at national level, to define the National Estate.


b) Scope and values defined in the relevant national statute

The following interpretation appears in the preliminary Part 1 of the Australian Heritage Act 1975 (as at 31 January 1982). It refers to the scope and nature of Australia"s national estate.

The principal terms adopted in the Act are : -

1. "National estate" which consists of those places, being components of the natural environrrent of Australia or the cultural envi.ronroent of Australia, that have aesthetic, historic, scientific or social significance or other special value for future generations as well as for the present cormuni tl' .

2. "Place" which includes -(a) a site, area or region; (b) a tuilding or other structure (which may include

equiprent, furniture, fittings and articles associated with or connected with such tuilding or other structure);

& (c) a groop of tuildings or other structures (which may include equi.proont, furniture, fittings and articles associated with such group of b.tildings or other structures) , •

and, in relation to the conservation or improvement of a place, includes the irurediate surroundings of the place.

TIn.ls, the national estate could be said to be made up of the following CCt!PONEm'S : -

Places, being b.tildings (including structures and contents) groups of b.tildings ( " " .. .. ) sites areas or regions and includlmg their iIrmediate surroundings,

which are components of the natural environrrent of Australia or the cultural environment of Australia.

Those places have one or more of the following ATI'RIBUTES

aesthetic significance historic significance scientific significance social significance other special value

c) Scope and values defined in the Australia Icct10S charter

The International Cotmcil on Honurrents and Sites (ICOMOS) is a non-gove:t'IlIrental organisation affiliated with UNESCO. Its membership consists of professionals and institutions actively concerned with the conservation of the b.tilt environment. The national COIlJlli. ttee, Australia Icct1OS, adopted in 1979 a Charter,

10.

---------------------------------------------


known as the Burra Charter, for the Conservation of Places of 011 tural Significance. The following definitions appear in Article 1 of the Charter. They refer to the scope and nature of places of cultural significance.

The principal terms adopted in the Charter are

1. "Cultural significance" which rooans scientific or social value for past, generations.

aesthetic, historic, present or future

2. "Place" which means site, area, hlilding or other work, group of b.rlldings or other works together with associated contents and surrotmdings. (it is explained that place includes structures, ruins, archaeological sites and landscapes ro::xlified by human activity).

TIn.ts, places of cultural significance could be said to be made up of the following CXl1PONENTS : -

Places, being wildings or other works groups of b.rlldings or other works sites areas together with associated contents and surroundings

Those places have one or more of the following A'ITRIBUTES

aesthetic historic scientific social

value value value value.

MARRYING STATE AND NATIONAL TERMINOLOGY in the evaluation criteria of the State Heritage Inventory

Components

The components of the State's environrrental heritage are

Items, being tuildings (including structures and parts), works, relics (including objects), places (areas of land with or without improvements)

Precincts (including such item/s and a character or appearance which warrants conservation).

It.


The components of the Australian national estate are : -Places, being tuildings (including structures and contents)

groups of tuildings (.. .. " " ) sites areas or regions and including their irrmediate surroondings,

which are components of the natural or the cultural environment of Australia.

The components of places of cultural significance are similar

Places, being tuildings or other works groups of tuildings or other works sites, areas together with associated contents and surrotmdings

With minor adjust:Irents (particularly the specific inclusion of • relics ' as defined in the Act). the components identified as items and precincts in the State's environmental heritage may be related to those identified as places in the Corrrronweal th' s national estate and in the Burra Charter.

Recomnended single and collective words for components'

The word 'place' is reconmended to describe a component of the State's heritage for the purposes of the Inventory. Its definition will include : -

tuildings groups of tuildings sites relics

and structures, parts, contents, surrotmds and precincts and works, areas and objects

A collective term rrust also be determined. The principal such term adopted in :-

the NSW Heritage Act is "Envirorurental heritage" the Australian Heritage Act is "National estate" the Burra Charter is "Places of cultural significance"

In the Concise Oxford Dictionary -'heritage' relevantly means 'what 1s or may be inherited' and • estate' relevantly means 'landed property' (although the Australian Heritage Corrrnission refers colloquially to the national estate as 'all those things we want to keep').

The term 'national estate' is confusing for a State inventory and the adaptation to 'state estate' is phonetically unacceptable.

'Places of cultural significance' amalgamates components and attributes but fails to provide a collective word.

12.. •


While the term 'environmental heritage' is cumbersorre, it has been used in the State since 1978, not only in the heritage statute rut also in the environmental planning system. In recent COOJlX:m usage it has tended to be reduced to the ~ord 'heritage'. Since at present the natural environment is excluded . from the Inventory the shortened version seems both simpler and more accurate. It is recorrrnended.

TIns sorrewhere eligible for listing on the Inventory, because it has one or more of the defined attrirutes, ~ill be !moon as

a 'place of the State's heritage' or a 'heritage place'.

Attrirutes

Components of the State's environmental heritage have one or more of the following attrirutes

historic significance scientific significance cultural significance social significance archaeological significance architectural significance natural significance aesthetic significance

Components of the Australian national estate have one or more of the follo~ing attrirutes

aesthetic historic scientific social

other

significance significance significance significance

special value

Components of places of cul tura1 significance (for Australia ICXl1CG) have one or more of the four principal attrirutes of the national estate. There is at present no 'other' criterion rut the possible need for such a provision is ac!mowledged in Guidelines to the Bqrra Charter: lliltural Significance, 1984 revised '88.

Thus the attrirutes identified in the State definition of the enviroruoontal heritage , with the exception of the . cultural' and . natural , (which are discussed below), may comfortably be grouped ~ithin those identified in the Common~ealth definition of the national estate and repeated in the Burra Charter, in the follo~ing manner : -

I?


aesthetic (including archi tectura1) historic . scientific (including archaeological) social

significance significance significance significance.

Other special value is a general safeguard wi thin the Cormonwealth statute which does not present exist in the State sta1llte or IOO1OS Charter. It may usefully be added.

In the definition of the national estate, the words cultural and natural are used to nxxlify the concept of place. Places are required to be components of the natural environment of Australia or of the cultural environment of Australia. Thus the function of the words is to distinguish between two contexts of place; it is not to describe additional attrirutes.

If the same word function is adopted for 'cultural' and 'natural' in the State Heritage Inventory, the remaining attrirutes of the environmental heritage may be grouped into those of the national estate as shown aoove. TIle following structure of criteria accords with this pattern.

Recorr.roonded words for attrirutes

TIle key words attached to each criterion are those recorrrrended to describe the attrirutes of components of .the State's heritage for the prrposes of the Inventory. Their definitions are as shown.

A structure for the evaluation criteria

Criterion 1 (HISTORIC) is concerned with range of context and association;

Criterion 2 (AESTHIITIC) with creative and teclmical accomplishment;

Criterion 3 (SOCIAL) with corr:mmity esteem;

Criterion 4 (SCIENTIFIC) with research potential or archaeological ;

Criterion 5 (RARE) with the uncorrJlX)n or exceptional;

Criterion 6 (REPRESENTATIVE) with the typical or characteristic;

Criterion 7 (CYI'HER) with other special values.

'The State's discussion paper Environnenta1 Heritage Assessment Guidelines of September this year has adopted the word 'heritage' consistently throughout its text. In an earlier draft, 'heritage' was described as 'a continuum' between 'the vestiges and products of lu.unankind' and' the natural world' . The paper confinns the adoption of a concept of heritage conservation in line with that


described earlier as 'conservation for custodians' ("heritage conservation is an integral part of the environrrental planning process") .

Only at '7.3 Cultural Significance' is there a difference of substance from the language now proposed. In line with the wording of the Act, the discussion paper treats 'cultural significance' as a separate attrirute. rather than an allencompassing term. The reasoning behind the adoption of a different approach here is given in the section on Attrirutes.

In "S. Interpreting and Comparing Heritage Values' of the State discussion paper, five values are discussed. They are 'rarity', "group' , "landmark', 'representative' and "integrity'. The criteria proposed above for the State Heritage Inventory include:

Criterion 5 (RARE) concerned with the lmCOllm:m or exceptional and

Criterion 6 (REPRESENTATIVE) with the typical or characteristic.

It is intended that the RARE should incorporate the "landmark' as well as "rarity'and that the REPRESENTATIVE should absorb the "group', if that is not adequately covered by the definition of "place' itself.

"Integrity' is a quality to be taken into account in considering each of the seven evaluation criteria. It goes to the question of the degree to which they have been satisfied.

15.


----



Appendix C : THE YKlRKSHOPS

DISCUSSION AND WORKSHOP PARl'ICIPANTS 31 August and 1 September 1989

The following, alphabetically-listed people participated generously in some or all of the discussions held over the two days: in the group discussion on evaluation criteria (rapporteur M Walker), the group discussion on procedures (rapporteur J Hant), the co-ordinating workshop and/or the following advisory conmi ttoo Ireeting.

Advisory Conmi ttoo =

Dept of Planning =

Holliday, Sue Chair Al:mstrong, Helen Ashton, Nigel Rrrns, Graerre Cable, Ken Chesterrran, David Pearson, Michael Pratten, Chris Swain, Sheila

Black, Robert Brading, Ralph Bradley, Noreen

(DP) (UNSW)

(HC) tBOMA) (RAHS)

(RAIA/RAPI) (AHC)

(NT) (JJ3SA)

furke, Sheridan (Project Liaison) Dryden, Sue Haddad, Sam (Project Director) Hutton, Meredith Power, Rob Prescott, Tony Russell, Gillian Temple, Helen Wilson, Neil Young, Greg

Inventory Consultants =

Others =

Colleran, Jocelyn (Practice Manual) Jack, Ian (Historical guidelines) .Jeans, D::nnis (.. ..)

Bell. Peter Cottier, Keith Godden. Ibn

\~ .

(SA DEP) (AHC)

(UNSW)


Kerr, Jrures Lennon. Jane Mant, J0hn McKay, Richard O'Connell, Charles Pike, Penelope Srein, Paul Sullivan. Sharon Walker, Meredith Wood-Bradley, Ian

(consultant) (Vic OCFL)

(PF) (consultant)

(C of I) (HHMC)

(LEC) (NPWS)

(consultant) (!?MCC)

-------------------------------------------------------------

Abbreviations :

AHC Australian Heritage Comnission PMCC Blue Mountains City Council BOMA Building Owners and Managers Association C of I Comnissioners of Inquiry DP Departm:mt of Planning (NSW) HC Heritage Council of NSW HHMC Hunrers Hill Municipal Council LEC Land & Environment Court WSA L<JCa.1. Governrrent and Shires Association NPWS National Parks & Wildlife Service NTA National Trust of Australia (NSW) PF Phillips Fox, solicitors & attorneys RAHS Royal Australian Historic~l Society RAIA/BAPI Royal Australian Institure of Architects/

" .. Planning Insti ture SA DE? South Australian Dept. of Environrrent & Plarming Vic DCFL Dept.of Conservation, Forests and Lands (Vic)

11·


..

.... - ',' .- "

. " .

,:.

. . . : ....

." .

.'

" .

.. .

"

- "

'.

. "

' ..

, -:.. . STATE HERITAGE INVEm'ORY . "

EVALUATION CRITERIA AND APPLICATION· GUIDELINES :' .: :

D.l scussion and WorksOOp Prog:ran:ms: : ". . . . pie~ for the·N.S.W. Departmant of Planning. .. . ...

" . Trursday 31 August and 1 Seprember 1989

, . . .

. DIscussrc« GROUPS Thursday 31 August 1989 . '" .

" .. . ..... . '., ....... :

I ".". ". '" ~ . ",

. ", ',' ','-. . .

. :',:.' \ -'.~'.' .. . .,'.' ", .

:"';:-' . . .. ' '., . ' ..... . Of. :', ',",'

. '~ .. '

.. " ". 0' .,' ':.'

'. ",c' ' •• -', r ::.- •

'.' .' ~ . " ,.".' ,',,' .: .

9.15 a.m. - 2'.00 p.m.: Evaluation criterlaand thresholds ': (at 75 Middle Head Rd. KoSIrml)

. ' .. , . '. -' "

.i .

4.30 p.m .. - 6.30 p.m.: 'Procedures 'and. application:."~ .:' -. (at 20 Bond St. Sydney)' .:'."

. . . '-'t " . ~ .~ .. :' .;'.'; , " • " '. '" I, '..,.' . ..... .' ;

.', ~ "'.' ::.'.''' .~~.:. . '-'.:' :.' .: .. '.. ," ",

• 0",'. ' •

... ; .. : --,,: .: . .. ,:'

'. PLENARY OORKSHOP PROORAMME Friday 1 September ·1989 (at DeparUoent of Planning, 175 Liverpool St: Sydney) ',. ,

:', :' '.:.~',

Chair : Sue Holliday . 9.00 a.m. Introduction to project and worksb::>p

(Sheri au-~ /Joan'Domicelj) "

r ... ~ " •

r' '" ~ -: :' ~':"" ~. '. ,-, I', ,'; • . ••.• .

. • " ,r., ..

, ~ .. : :'. , , .. -. .

.' ....... ",:. ::.~. '

~, .. --.. ;": . ", .....

~ .. ", ; ,', . '.' ".,

9.30 a.m.. .' Report on criteria discussion' , :',

'10.00 a:m.

10.30 a.m.

" 11.00 a:m.

12:30 p.m.

3,00 p.m.

(3.30 p.m.

(Meredith Walker) . " " ': ~ •• v

.'- . " .. ... , .

Report on procedures discussion (JOM Mant) . .

, ": ,. ', .. : .. ;'

COFFEE . ', .. '

" ..... -

Chair J Domi Ij .. . ,'.

: oan ce. . . : .' .':'.: . ,;:'" Test of criteria: Railway stations/gatehouses·. :.. ...... -.

Blue Moontains. '. .::, .;.,: .... " .. ;"/" (int.roduced by Ian Wood-Bradley) .. ". . . .. :'

LUNCH

Test of criteria Power-houses, Sydney ' .. (intrcduced by Don Godden) . ." . " '", ". ,' ...

, .-:.. .' '.; ~ .' , . '.' .

" 0'. ." ••••••

• '.. • ,.' .:", ~''': •••••• ':" '1 • .- ". , , ""

. ", " "

I~. ." .::

.. : .. : '," .:

.. .: " ,~ .... .:. I .'.

.. . , "

, !.

..' .- .... ' .. . ! .;

. .



Appendix C : THE WORKSHOPS

NOTES FROM DISCUSSION GROUP 1.31 August 1989. MEREDITII WALKER (Surmary of workshop about criteria)

1 • PURPOSE OF WORKSHOP The p.trp)se was to discuss the criteria paper proposed by Domicelj, * to test the criteria by discussing examples (and

selecting examples) * to discuss other issues relating to the criteria.

2. WHAT HAPPENED Not all the plrpOses (aims) of the workshop were fulfilled. Debate was lively, OOt rrore issues were raised than were answered. There was considerable concensus on several rrl3.jor issues. Examples to deroonstrate the scope of the criteria were not selected as the discussion of issues occupied the titre available. The tratters discussed are listed below.

3. SCOPE OF CRITERIA Concern was expressed that not .all places (items) of significance worthy of keeping would qualify under these criteria, (OOt this was not tested - e.g. by taking examples). It was agreed that a term such as 'other special values' (which is in the Australian Heritage Corrroission Act) would be needed and becoIlB (say) Criteria 8.

4. NEED FOR REVIEW (related to 3) It was agreed that whatever the criteria. they should be regularly reviewed, and that the concept of review should be built with the notion of the SHI.

5. TIIRESHOLDS (Introduced by Michael Pearson and Peter Bell) It was agreed that it is the attriOOtes of a place (item) that make it valuable (as heritage) and that these attributes are not numbers and cannot be converted to numbers. Experience has shown that numbers (and ticks in boxes) suggest to others that decisions can be trade by arithmetic; whereas decisions about the value of the attribltes of a place are trade by discussion/debate and voting. The staterrent of significance expresses the value of the attributes. Concern was expressed that the SHI should not just be a selection of 'the gems', Le. that the criteria should accorrm:xlate places that e. g. are associated with local history (and are not necessarily uncorrrron. rare or scarce).


6. TERM I NOLCGY Concern ~as expressed -1. that terms should be clear;

i1. the criteria could be more 'user friendly' e.g. for plarmers in OOP regional offices;

iiI. that the adjectives used, such as rare, unCO!lJOC)n, scarce etc., and the assessment of places in relation to these may be difficult without comparative information about other similar places. The example tested (Killong1::utta Smithy in Evans Shire) was difficult to assess because of the lack of comparative information.

i v. Other terms discussed, which may need to be clarified include DIVERSITY, CULTURAL HISTORY.

A major concern was the use of terms . state' and 'regional' and the use now of the teno . local , . Concern focussed on experience that the perception of these tenns ~as often in relation to significance; and that 'local' may be perceived as less important, and conversely, that 'state' would always be more important. It was agreed that the terms state, regional and local should not be used in conjunction with the teno 'significance' (as they are now in Heritage studies).

7. TERMINOLCGY AND LINKS WITH arHER DOCUMENTS Concern was expressed that (although there are advantages in consistency with the ARC tenninology), if the SHI is a data base its information will be used, (say) for LEPs and ICOs etc., and there will be confusion in tenninology. There may also be difficulties in 'translating' information set out in one way, for use in another. This matter needs further consideration. The example of confusion between the term 'item' (as used in NSW) and place was discussed. It was agreed that the teno 'item' was confusing in practice.

8, RELATIONSHIP WITH HISTORICAL GUIDELINES (Introduced by Ian Jack and Jocelyn Colleran) This relationship has not been determined, as the guidelines are only at a preliminary state. It was agreed that the 'Guidelines' are to inform people using the criteria, and should be linked to the criteria. The Guidelines would provide a framework (for considering places).

9. AESTHETIC VALUES (in Criterion 5.1) The idea of excluding the criterion 5.1 was discussed. Concern was expressed that the term aesthetic was 'loosely' used in relation to heritage matters, and sorre value was seen in sorre of these qualities being recognised under other criteria, narrely 5.2 and 6.1. However, it was not debated in detail. It was agreed that attributes that might be judged as having aesthetic value should be clearly described in places nominated for the SHI., e. g. landmark or streetscape

20.


value.

10. TESTIN:i AN EXAMPLE An example (Killongi:utta Smithy - provided by Ian Jack) was tested, and serre of the st.rengths and difficulties were discussed. Difficulties of comparative information, and contextual information - i.e. its relationship with things around it (in the OOrrestead complex.)

11. OTHER ISSUES (Issues arising from the discussion were sunrnarised by Sharon Sullivan)

Other issues discussed included the use of the SHI to tourism; use of crit.eria in relation to OOPs' Assessment Guidelines; the value of 'type profiles' (as used by ARC); the need for . inclusion guidelines', and their use to explain the scope of the SHI.

Meredith Walker, 1 Sept.ember 1989.

(Typed from handwritten notes. )

2.l


Te?t Cd~ .f,v cJ..t~i"d, SI ~IA.~ ~

KILLONGBUTTA SMITHY in Evans Shire, on Macquarie River, off Freemant1e Road. Map reference: Hill End 8731-1 & IV, 265 238.

Privately owned, difficult of access, no immediate threat.

Small blacksmith's shop, slab walls, iron roof, earth floor. Contents: forge made of logs, stone and clay

anvil hand-operated bellows

In excellent repair, disused.

context: an integral part of a sheep property adjacent to the well-known Freemant1e station. At Ki110ngbutta the homestead is a simple (though extended) watt1e-and-daub cottage of casual design, with an adjacent slab cottage and outside oven. The barn is gabled with bark, the shearing-shed is older (but much less impressive) than Freemant1e's, and out in the paddocks there are the archaeological remains ·of an early shepherd's out-hut.

Importance: How important an heritage item is this blacksmith's shop? It is rare to find so telling an example (though devoid of too in such a fitting context. Most smithies in the country seem to be consciously preserved as quasi-museums, either on site (as at Trunkey) or in pioneer villages (e.g. Wi1berfo~ce), but there is little information about the incidence of surviving smithies on ordinary, out-of-the-way properties analogous to Killongbutta.

R. Ian Jack

22.-

------------------ --------------

------------------------------~------- -----------------~



App:ndix c... : TIIE WORKSHOPS

NOTES FRCt1 DISCUSSION GROUP 2. 31 August 1989. JOHN MANT (Notes taken from white-board)

D:> we need "derrolhion" control to rrake ~blic list * Interi"'-!l? * What control goes with list in the end?

Why the list?

.Bring toge-;;her all we know - inventory, rut prilll3.l"Y objective is forward planned .

. Provide an early advice - uo owners to corrm.mi ty about resources

. But would lead to permanent constraints. .

No additional cont-rel resulting from being on the list per se. Any additional control uo corre through other rrechanisms -e.g. LEP. If Council ~ants uo control in interim, then either Heritage Act or a SEPP or an interim LEP.

(Here see ao:.tached diagram.)

What does Deoort.lrent see as status of Inyentorv ? How is it to be L~Ierrented - options considered - realistic? How is it going to be used ?

If there is to be "local" on list - what are the consequences?

Role of different players - to reduce rather than add to confusion what will they get out of it?

What is end use of inventory? If it is a data bank - can it be easily accessed? - links.

Rigour of criteria for creating list.

Need for legislative change? Clarity - openness, accessibility --- ~blic accessibility.

£3.

~-------~- .. ------------~

I

I I I I

, I

I I I I I I I I I I I I

1.

2.

3.

4.

1. 2. 3.

Public List - No specific legal

consequences; More "status·· than National Trust

"circumstances of case";

pressure to protect by legal means

- No additional control

specific "have regard to"

- Demolition control only

specific "have regard to"

- Other controls .. shall not approve any * Developnent change" * Alteration-structures

-landscape * Excavation

No addi tiona! control from being on list : What are the consequences?

Danger of loss? -Education -

increased maybe - will vary. invol verrent of locals.

Some certainty for owners; so list rrust have som.e authority.

Consul tant~Corrmmi ty --.......

etc

Why do it twice ?

etc

Leg. SEPP

John Mant, 31 August 1989.

Abbreviations adopted AHC BCt1A lX>P EH EPI HC LEP LG M NE UP NT SEPP

Australian Heritage Commission Building Owners and Managers Assoc -n Department of Planning (NSN) environrrental heritage environrrental plarming instrurrent Heritage Council of NSN local environrrental plan local government Minister for Planning national estate National Parks and Nild1£fe Service National Trust of Australia (NSN) State environrrental planning policy

24.

I I I ;

I I I I •

I . ~ ) . ()

I I

I I I I· I

(

.;>

J

)

)

) "-'\ .

\

J /

--

)

J } )

\ )

\

) .

) )

\ I )

\

(..J-) ;;21 \- ~=A g cz::

\ )

) (

)

( ) \ )

)


The Blue l'hmtains Railway Gatehouses

The following notes were prepared and presented to the expert workshop of 1 September, 1989 by Ian Wood-Bradley. They have been generously provided by him to fol'1ll part of the backgrot.md to this report.

The Blue l'hmtains always inspired a feeling of awe, iIrro9nsity and rrqstery. The rrountains represented an impenetrable barrier for the first 25 years of European settlerrent.

The eventual crossing of the rootmtains in 1813 by Blaxland, Lawson and Wentworth was an event of the greatest significance in the Colony"s early development.

Cox"s rough cart road constructed in 1815 linked Parramatta to Bathurst, generating an inland exp:msion resulting in the growth of pastoral industry and in the 18505 the discovery of exploration of the western goldfields. .

The construction of the railway in the late 18605 under the direction of JOM Whitton reinforced the Blue Mountains functio~ as a major corrmmication artery and reduced the distance between the inland and Sydney town. It assisted the developrent of inland trade networks and the growth of inland centres.

The railway gatehouses of the Blue Mountains were b.rl.l t as part of the crossing of these m::>tmtains by the Great Western Railway in 1867 - 68. The topography, a series of narrow, twisting ridges , necessitated that the railway and the road ran close together. This close proximity meant that it was frequently necessary for the road to cross the line and this was achieved by means of level crossings. In 1867 - 68 there were twelve major crossings and eleven of these were provided with a crossing. The design used for these b.rl.ldings appears to have been fairly standard as it was also used for the gatehouses on the Southern Line (also extended in 1867 -68) and for pointsIren"s cottages.

The cottages are constructed in sandstone in Gothic-style giving them an air of permanence. The floor plan is based on a cross formation. The roof is steeply pitched and gabled with a projecting gable to the front and skill ion to the rear. Very elaborate fretted timber barge-boards still survive on several of the cottages. The walls are constructed with course rough-painted sandstone blocks with rock faced quoins on the covers and window openings. The front gable has a sandstone date plaque. A privy was contained in a detached sandstone structure with a curved roof.

u.

--------------------------------------------1


In 1902 the Blue Motmtains line was duplicated. Overbridges were provided instead of level crossings and the gatehouses were no longer required. Many were retOOVed as they were in the way of the new alignment.

fut of the eleven. only six remain. They are:-

Lapstpne. No 1 - only ruins remain. l::umt in 1968 b.l.shfire; dramatic siting.

Valley Heights. No.4 - derelict since 1970s. replaced roof in 1980, removed chimney.

Springpood. No.6 - generally intact, red brick extension, sandstone privy survives; in private ownership.

Lawson. No.8 - I!X)ved from Woodford and reWilt in 1902 in Lawson as a property named 'Myee', rear skillion replaced by a large sandstone addition; CO\mtry mansion.

l1edlow Bath. No. 11 - ground floor plan in mirror image, retains original floors, ceilings and other fittings, separate privy.

Mt Victoria. No .12 - retains original ceilings, floors. architraves in good condition.

. Cultural Significance

Together the gatehouses are a significant physical remnant of the early construction of the Great Western Railway. They are of a high standard of construction and a feature of travelling along the railway line.

The Blue Motmtains was a najor barrier to expansion of the railway network. The existence of the structures as a group is a tangible reminder of the engineering achievements in crossing the flX)Ulltains •

Bihl:lography

Lavelle, S K. Railway Gatehouses of the Blue Mountains. H Arch rrajor project. 1984 and references cited therein.

Ian Wood-Bradley September 1989

2-7- •


~~~~~~--~~~~~~------- I

Sydney's Power-houses

Six cases of Sydney power-houses were presented by fun Godden for discussion and testing against the draft evaluation criteria at the same expert workshop of 1 September 1989. They are the White Bay, Balrrein, Pyrrront, Ultinx>, Redfern power-houses and the present Sydney City Council Mining Museum.

Their attrirutes were analysed against the background of a paper Assessment of Services in Blildings considered for Recycling, adapted by fun Godden from one he presented at the lnsti tution of Engineers Conference in December 1988.

Z8.


STATE HERITAGE INVEtrrORY STATUS AND SCOPE

Appendix 1) DRAFI' EVALUATION CRITERIA DISCUSSED AT WORKSHOP 31 August and 1 September 1989

(prepared by Joan Domicelj, August 1989)

PREAMBLE

The following recorrroended evaluat.ion criteria and accompanying notes are adapted from the paper on . Criteria for the Register of the' National Estate - Application Guidelines -, which was adopted by the Australian Heritage Commission in November 1988. That paper's basic fonnat has been followed and extracts selected to accomnodate the requirements of the State Heritage Inventory brief. This means Lhat the seven criteria and the CO!lIllents on them have been lirni ted to those aspects relevant to the cultural history of New Sout.h Wales, excluding both the natural and the prehistoric cultural environments of the State.

CRITERIA

The objectives, in adopting such a derivative approach to the Inventory's criteria, are to achieve

a) compatability with the na1<ional register and

b) flexibility to cover, or to co-ordinate with, lists of places of the pre-European and natural environments in the future.

It seems awkward conceptually to exclude from a State heritage inventory pre-historic places, through which may be traced !n.unani ty -s 40,000 year passage across the land. A pre-tested flexible framework of criteria may therefore allow for an administrative solution to the arbitrary chronological division of cultural places into pre- and post-European arrival.

Each sub-cri terion has been expressed - first, in terms of State attrU:utes and - second, in terms of regional, including local, attriootes.

Semantically, that separation answers the question :-What is the threshold for State, as opposed to local or regional, significance under each criterion?

The seven prinCipal criteria continue to be expressed in terms of New South Wales.

'1-') •

1 1 1 1 1 I·

1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I

Finally, I have attempted to make the COll'Il'Bntaries below each criterion rrnre concise, compatible with related documents such as the Eurra Charter. clear in the specific context of the State Heritage Inventory and, perhaps more idiosyncratically, to exclude the concept of aesthetics from Criterion 5.

SCORItn

The issue of numerical scoring techniques as a possible method of prioritising significance will be addressed in the workshop.

(Note the use of scoring assessments in Appendices 5 and 6 in Dr J S Kerr "The Conservation Plan - A guide to the preparation of conservation plans for places of European cultural significance' National Trust of Australia (NSW) , 1985 edition and in Harold Kalman 'The Evaluation' of Historic fuildings' Parks Canada, ottawa 1979.)

This is not considered in any way an appropriate tool for prioritising conservation action and should never be used in isolation for such a purpose,

EXAMPLES

The workshop will seek to select or review, for each of the eight sub-criteria, two examples of places eligible for entry on the State Heritage Inventory on a regional/local evaluation and one example which passes the State threshold, In addition, it is hoped to test two places of undisputed cultural significance in order to illustrate the enrichment of spanning several criteria,

TO BE INSERTED ; -

A). the functions of an Heritage Inventory for the State,

B). the State's objectives for the Inventory,

C). the governI!)'>....nt's general guidelines for the Inventory,

D). the descriptors in the definition of environmental heritage,

E). the characteristics of items to be included in the Inventory.

3x:>.


STATE HERITAGE INVEm'ORY

Recorrmanded Evaluation Criteria. Draft paper for discussion. (prepared by Joan Domicelj, August 1989)

INTERPRETATION

In this document, except as the context or subject matter otherwise indicates, -

.. the State" means the State of New South Wales and may encompass broader areas such as Australia or beyond

(e.g. 'significant in the history of the State' may incorporate the concept of significance in the history of Australia or in world colonial history);

.. the Region" means the whole region, as identified in the 'State Historical Guidelines' Study, and each of the individual local government areas within it

(e. g. . significant in the history of the Region' may incorporate the concept of significance in the history of a particular shire, rrunicipali ty or city wi thin that region).

NaTE

Examples of places eligible under specific criteria are directly quoted from the cited Australian Heritage Corrmission paper. These will be reviewed and further examples added during the workshop.

31.

~-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I I I I I I

'I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I

CRITERION 1 : SIGNIFICANT IN TIlE EVOWrION AND PATI'ERN OF THE CULTURAL HISTORY OF NEW soorn WALES

1.1 Importance in exhibiting unusual richness or diversity of cultural features significant in the evolution of

a) the history of the State b) the history of the Region.

Inclusion guidelines -

places, such as cultural landscapes, with a high diversity of elements (including complex relationships between land forms, geology, soils, biota and human history) and/or cultural features displaying a high diversity of cultural developments, phases or events in one locality (including places sequentially occupied over a long period of time).

Exclusion guidelines -

places with low to moderate diversity of all attributes,

places with relatively high diversity at local level only.

fu:ample of eligjble place under this criterion -

Sydney Harbour headlands - diversity of human activities over time and across functions (military, quarantine, maritime industries, mining, conservation, residential, recreational).

1.2 Importance for association with events, developments or cultural phases which have had a significant role . in the human occupation and evolution of

a) the State b) the Region.

Inclusion guid~lines -

. places associated with events or developments which contributed to or reflect long-tern changes in social, economic , political and cultural patterns;

places representing "landmark' phases in the evolving cultural development of the State or Region;

. places clearly and importantly associated with an historically significant scientific theory or its early application in the State or Region.



places which do not demonstrate particularly well a contritution to, or allow an understanding of, the evolution of the State' s or the Region's history;

places where claimed associations with events, develop-rents or phases cannot be verified;

. places so altered that the aspects of the environment important to the association have been seriously degraded.

Examples of eligible places under t~iterion -

Blue Mountains crossing - the first crossing of the rrountain barrier, the beginning of exploration of the interior.

---- -----~.~~----~

.=---------------------------------- --------------


CRITERION 2 : SIGNIFICANT IN rosSESSI~ RARE.ENDAtKiERED OR UNCOOMON ASPEcrs OF TIIE CULTURAL HISTORY OF NEW SOUTIi WALES

2.1 Importance in dem::mstrating a distinctive way of life, custom, process. land-use, function or design no longer practised

a) in the State, b) in the Region.

in danger of being lost or of exceptional interest a) to the State. b) to the Region.


historic places of established scarcity. either as the result of a process ~hereby few such places were ever made or as the result of subsequent destruction or decay.

places whose rarity lies in their integrity as evidence of a particular type of human acti vi ty. through the survival of . their combined characteristics.

Exclusion guidplines -

places of unestablished rarity. claimed only because of an absence of survey information;

. places of local rarity only, unless the cu.1 tural context makes that rarity particularly significant despite abundance elsewhere;

examples of a currently numerous class of place under potential threat.

Examples of eligjble placeS under this criterion -

. ottery Arsenic Mine - 1 of 2 examples of its type in the world, Cockatoo Island IX>ckyard - rare survivor of 19 century

engineering works, Capitol Theatre Sydney - 1 of only 2 . atlrDspheric' theatres in

Australia.

34.

I 1 I I I I I· I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

CRITERION 3 : SIGNIFIGANT IN DEW..lNSTRATIm THE PRINCIPAL CHARACTERISTICS OF A CI..ASS OF CULTURAL PLACES OR EtNIRONMENI'S IN NEW SOOI'H WALES

3.1 lmportancein dem:m.stratingthe· principal characteristics of the range of lu.tman activities (including way of life, philosophy, custom, process,land-use, function, .design or teclmique) in

a) the enviromoont of··the State b) the envirorurent of . the. Region.

pl~ which represent the dive.rsity of hismric placP...s, by t.yp.. ;and by .l">.-gion. and which are assP...ssOO as -

~+u~u;;wly gc.:d er.amples of their type, by virtue of the combined characteristics rrost indicative of that type, or as significant variants of too type;

having, arrongst a nwnber of good examples of a t.ype, a higher value because of their integrity, condition or association with their setting and/or other significant places;

· forming part of a group of places which collectively illustrate a range of variation within the type; or

· representing the seminal or optinnl developrent of the type.

~,clusion guidelines -

· places which do not represent the characteristics which make up an established type or variant of a type.

Examples of eligible places under this criterion:

Kinchega Wool shed - possessing the characteristics of Dl~ling River woolsheds;

Comronwealth Bank, Martin Place, Sydney - representative of Corrrrercial Palazzo architectural style.


-----------------

CRITERION 4 : SIGNIFICANT FOR STRONG ASSOCIATION WITH THE LIFE OR WORKS OF A PERSON OR PERSONS SIGNIFICANT TO NEW SOU'ill WALES IN THE PAST

4.1 Importance for close association with individuals whose activities have been significant within the history of



places associated with persons prominent in various themes in the history of the State or Region

where the person's contritution is well established by historical documentation or other evidence and the association of the person with the place is equally well established;

- where, expresses productive

if the place is designed by a prominent person, it particular aspects, themes or phases of ms/her

life;

- where the association between person and place is long or significant in the person's productive life;

- whose fabric is the direct result of the person's activity or has influenced the person's life or works.

Exclusion guj del ines -

places associated with a relatively undistinguished person wi thin a given theme or a person whose importance was limited to the local context;

places whose association with the prominent person is tenuous, brief, transitory, incidental or unsubstantiated.

Examples of eligible places lxnder this criterion :

. " Nutcote' , Sydney - home/studio of author/artist May Gibbs, La Perouse Monuments Site - site of La Perouse' s landing place

and stockade, Hyde Park Barracks, Sydney - prominent work of Francis

Greenway, archi teet, Tebbit's Observatory, Windsor - site of pioneering Australian

astronomY/meteorology.

3~.


I.:RITERION 5 : ~IGNIFlCANT IN FOSSESSI~ OR (x)N'I'RlBUTlOO TO HIGH CREATIVE OR WJHNlCAL ACX.t1PLISHMENT * IN NEW SOUl'H WALES

't{It. ia l"EoXmoonded that the lorords '00 POSSESSlOO OR CONTRIBUTIOO TO OOl'STANDIOO DESIGN OR AESTHETIC QUALITIES - be deleted from this criterion for the reasons given below).

*5.1 Importance in exhlbi ting particular aesthetic characteristics valued by a ooammity or cultllral group.

:tIt is re::onroonded that this sub-criterion, adopted by the Australian Heritage Comnisssion, be excluded. This recorrroondation is based C>I1 two arguments :

first that this aspect is adequately covered under the combination of sub-criteria 5.2 and 6.1 and

second that its application is likely to exacerbate confUSion between the distinct questions of amenity and conservation (for example, the contrirution of facades to townscape quality). •

{ Inclllsjon guidelines -

places, such as cul tllral landsca~, townscapes, streetscapes, parks, gardens and structures, which .articulate so fully a particular concept of design that they express an aesthetic ideal, e. g. places epi tomising the design principles of an architectllral style, etc (5.2 7) or which, because of their aesthetic characteristics, are held in high esteem by the corrmmity (6.1 ?).

places ~"i th a high degree of integrity reflecting fully the aesthetic qualities for which they have been nominated. The values of landscapes, townscapes and streetscapes !IllSt be derronstrated using accepted standards of assessment in those fields (5.2 ?).


. places in which the design concepts or aesthetic ideals are not expressed better than in other places within their type, Le. if they are not outstanding;

places which are simply the work of a highly regarded architect, artist or engineer; they rrllst be outstanding for aesthetic reasons.

Examples of eligible placeS under this criterio~


Sydney University Main Building - aesthetically important design. }

5.2 Importance in dezronstrating a high degree of creative or technical achievement for the tilre

a) in the State b) in the Region.


places, being virtually any type of humanly created. or influenced place or structure, which

- derronstrate particularly appropriate solutions to a technical problem, using or expanding upon established technology, or developing new technology, that solution being outstanding due to its conceptual strength;

are considered outstandingly creative innovative departure from established norms design or the arts;

because of their in some field of

- display a high degree of integrity which reflects the aesthetic or technical qualities for which they have been nominated.


places which are the work of a highly regarded -architect or engineer rot are not outstanding for creative or technical reasons.

Examples of eligible places lJOder this criterion :

· Sydney Opera House - creative and technical masterpiece, · Everglades, Leura - outstanding creative garden design, · SnowY Mountains Hydro-Electric Scheme - outstanding technical achievement.


----- ----.~~--~~~-

CRITERION 6 : SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE OF STROOO OR SPECIAL ASSOCIATIONS WIlli A ca1MUNI'IY IN NEW soorn WALES FOR SOCIAL, CULTURAL OR SPIRITUAL REASONS

6.1 Importance as places highly valued for reasons of religious, spiritual, cultural. educational or social associations by

a) a corrm.mity in the State b) a corrm.mi ty in the Region.


places which are held in high esteem by the State's corrmmity. the Region's corrm.mi ty or by some segrrent of that corrmmi ty, such esteem being demonstrated and being beyond the norrral regard felt by a corrrruni ty for its familiar surroundings;

places in which their strong association with the corrm.mity is demonstrated to be of a social or cultural nature (including, for example. landscape or townscape associat.ions critical 'to a corrm.mi ty' s sense of place or of corrm.mi ty) .


places where conm.mity concern or. regard is not clearly demonstrated as being held by that corrm.mi ty or is not held very strongly by an identifiable group within the corrmmity;

places in which the association between a section wi thin the corrrruni ty and the place is not accepted as significant by any other section of the corrmmi ty;

places whose strong association with the corrm.mity is related to its assesssroent of other values such as historical association or rarity of type. (In such a case, the place should first be assessed under the relevant criteria set out above. That assessment nay alter the long-term corrmmi ty feeling for, or social value of, the place.)

Examples of eligible places under this criterjon

Sydney Harbour Bridge - valued by Sydneysiders as central to their sense of place,

Explorers' Tree, Katoomba - valued widely in the corrmmity despite its doubtful historical authenticity.

-----------------------------------------------~

I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I II

CRITERION 7 : SIGNIFICANT FOR THE POTENTIAL TO YIELD INFORMATION WHICH WILL CONTRIBUTE TO AN UNDERSTANDnU OF TIlE CULTURAL HISTORY OF NEW SOUTII WALES

7.1 Importance for information contributing to a wider understanding of the history of lruman occupation of



places for which there is a strong presumption of research potential in one of a wide variety of fields which may contribute to the understanding of State or Regional history;

places with archaeological deposits demonstrably likely to contain evidence of specified technological or cultural value, where that evidence is not available through other research techniques; .

a partially excavated site or a partially studied structure with potential for further research or important information.

Exclusion guideljnps -

places with archaeological deposits, the value or likely value of which has not been demonstrated;

tuildings or structures valued for unusual features IOOntioned in docuroontary sources rut no longer part of the surviving fabric;

places of a particular type which is already well studied and docuroonted and which does not require additional research;

places whose research potential is exhausted. (These may however becolOO eligible under other criteria, through the research results.)

Example of p,ljgible place 110dp,r this criterjon :

. First Governroont House site, Sydney - archaeological value.

40.

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

. I I I


APf""' ..... dll( E. e.X.TF,ACf.7 ~M \. H($Tol'!.lC- SV~Vey : CJ-,aptefC, St-<lte.. H istorlC:- Con~eryatlc:in FIB""',f .Joa .... Jb~ 19S0

"That the identification and documentation of the National Estate in New South Wales should have priority and, when identified, should -- ~o far as appropriate -- be widely publicised."

-- First Recommendation of the Seminar on "Major Problems in , Conserving Places of Cultural Significance in New South • Wales" , Sydney, 12th July 1980. The seminar formed the basis of Chapter 5.

"Historic Survey" in the context of this Plan is the process of identifying, assessing and listing the National Estate and this Chapter is concerned with that process in New South Wales. It considers progress to date in the listing of places of cultural significance in the State and suggests some immediate priorities for action by government. It reviews local and overseas experience in carrying out surveys of the cultural estate and in assessing the data that such surveys produce 'and recommends an approach to hasten the development of a balanced Register of the Cultural Estate for New South Wales.

The Role of Inventories in Conservation Programmes

Apart from the first recommendation quoted above, the workshop on 'Information Gaps' in the same seminar for Chapter 5 stated that "to date no systematic survey of the whole of the National Estate for New S'outh Wales has been undertaken- and there has been a tendency to value selected parts of the National Estate above others so that gaps are left in physical regions of New South Wal~s, in periods of its history and in types of places".

Why do such gaps matter? What is the purpose of surveying the National Estate? What is the role of the register or inventoryl in conservation programmes?

. In order .to discuss these issues, simple distinctions need to be drawti·-between registers fulfilling different roles.

Internationally, registers whose primary purpose is to assist in the protection of the places listed on them are termed 'protective' inventories, those intended to gather together scholarly or scientific information on places of cultural significance are termed 'scientific' inventories and, to these, a third category may be . added, of those registers established in order to extend community awareness of th'e enviJ;'onmental heritage, termed 'alerting' inventories. Where a scarcity of resources leads to lists which are not yet fully documented they may become provisional registers which fulfill an alerting role without offering any immediate measure of safeguard for places listed.

1. Throughout this Chapter, the word REGISTER is used to convey the meaning "a list of places of cultural significance" in an Australian or North Ametican context and the word INVENTORY is used for the same meaning in an International or European context. This nomenclature is in accordance with common usage.

A,

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 'I I I

Since feeling the destructive strength of the 1960s development boom, international conservation bodies have placed dramatic emphasis on the importance of protective inventories.

They are seen as essential tools for the establishment of balanced programmes of conservation and development within planning schemes and also for the rational establishment of priorities for funding conservation work.

The p'rotective inventory provides essential data for dialogue between conservationist and developer, by identifying those places of cultural significance which have been assessed as worthy of protection and by defining the visual curtilage envisaged for protection.

At the Congress on the European Architectural Heritage in Amsterdam 1975, M. Constant Pirlot ~tated:

"The implementation of ~ polley for the comprehensive integrated conservation ?f the cultural heritage of buildings, monuments and sites can only be pursued coherently when, in each country, the conservationists and planners have inventories at their disposal which will enable them to obtain an overall picture of the heritage to be protected.

"Drawing up these inventories .should be given absolute ,priority in all countries, arid should be carried out in the shortest possible space of time."

In September 1977, an UNESCO-ICOMOS meeting of experts was held in Warsaw on "the Improvement and Possible Harmonisation of Systems of Inventories and Catalogues of Monuments and Sites used in Countries of Europe and North America" for which ICOHOS (the Intenationa1 Council on Monuments and Sites) was asked to prepare a background paper. The study was' prepared for ICOMOS by Ann Webster Smith and, before cataloguing the characteristics of various national ' inventories, the author explained the different emphases adopted for scientific-and protective inventories:- .

, ," "Inventories of immovable cultural property can serve either as a collection of a body of scientific or scholarly information concerning a nation's patrimony, "a scientific inventory", or as a measure to insure some sort of protection for that cultural patrimony, "a protective inventory", or as a combination of the two, "a,scientlflc/protectlve lnventory".

"Some inventories are designed simply to collect information, to serve as a body of knowledge, as a catalogue of material concerning those monuments, groups of buildings and sites" which make up one part of the cultural patrimony of a given geographic area. Other inventories provide a measure of positive protection (perhaps through a system of government grants, or a means to gain tax benefits for owners or authorities, whether private or public, of such properties) or of negative protection (perhaps through controls over owners or authorlties, in terms of actions which can or might affect the property)."

42.·


Her next words were important in explaining secondary roles for inventories:

"Aside from such scientific or protective purposes, it is possible for inventories to serve secondary or even tertiary purposes. For example, inventories can serve a broad . educational purpose as far as the general public is concerned, can serve patriotic objectives, or can establish or increase a sense of identity, whether local, regional, national, or even more broadly, within the context of a specific culture or cultural group. In other cases, inventories can play an . important role in physical or social pl'anning for use at the local, the regional, or the national level of govern~ent."

The meeting debated the opposing merits of protective and scientific inventories. Clearly a number of countries preferred to concentrate on establishing an inventory of all buildings and sites meriting protection. Others regarded the scientific inventory as an essential preliminary from which a protective inventory might be drawn. All agreed on the continuing use for both protective and scientific inventories.

Without doubt, New South Wales needs a comprehensive identification programme of places of cultural significance for the purpose of rational forward planning. With tbe still prevalent national hesitancy over the worth of Australia's history and of the physical evidence which remains of it, political support for conservation is not completely ensured. The existence of a well-publicised register, with a balanced representation of the State's past, is necessary to form the demonstrable basis for responsible and selective conservation decisions. Crisis protective responses, if frequent, inevitably tend to cause public resentment. The urgency of the listing task is heightened by the apparent arrival of a new development boom and by the need to make the most effective use possible of the heritage and planning machineries which have been recently set up to achieve integrated environmental planning.

, While ther~ is an immediate and urgent need for an "alerting/protective" register, the need for specialised "scientific" inventories continues. The one may help to save significant places from annihilation, but the second is required to protect them from inept conservation and the ensuing loss of integrity. The second cannot be rushed as it requires painstaking research ana documentation. The hypothesis of this Chapter is that the development of the first may and should be hastened and its purpose is to indicate how that may be done.

The following pages look at the various registers pertaining to cultural property in New South Wales. None of these could . accurately be termed scientific inventories, although they lay the foundation for later more detailed research. As will be seen in Parts A and B of the Chapter, many specialised aspects of the National Estate (or 'cultural patrimony') are already being studied and documented for the State and that process must continue. In addition, mechanisms are required for the rapid and professional documentation of places of the National Estate, which for any reason cannot be protected and conserved. 'Scientific" inventories are required as a resource for future research into the St~te's past as well as lor the informed preparation of conservation programmes.'

4~,


Brief Summary of Chapter - its Purpose and Recommendations

The Chapter on 'Historic Survey' is presented in two parts. Part A sets out to identify what remains to be done t? c~e~te an ~dequate well-balanced register of places of cultural slgnlflcance 1n New South Wales. Part B discusses ways of carrying out such a task and of evolving appropriate procedures based on local and international experience.

While the resource to be listed is very much a finite one, known to be diminishing, the task of identifying and aJsessing it is recognised as a continuing one requiring constant review. While listing the cultural estate is not a task for which a finalisation date can be set, a systematic approach can be adopted and the process quickened.

Part A of the Chapter considers the listing of the cultural estate for New South Wales. It looks at the present position of the State's varIOUS protective and alerting registers and, in particular, it analyses the Register of the National Estate to identify any major gaps occurring in its representation of places related to geographic regions, historic themes or periods of time. It makes a series of recommendations intended either to expand and balance the Register of the National Estate for New South Wales·or to create a new alerting State Register of places of cultural significance based on similar procedures of assessment and documentat-ion. The recommendations are mostly specific priori ties for action stemming from the foregoing analysis.

To ease the reading of the Chapter, the RECOMMENDED PRIORITIES FOR ACTION, together with summarised tables of the data from the Register of the National Estate (N.S.W.) are presented on coloured pages before the detailed analysis of the Register. This appears as (iv) 'Background to Recommendations'.

For the State as a whole and for each of eight regional groupings defined by maps, a very brief historic revie~ is given. The themes and periods of that history are correlated with the numbers of plac~s listed on the Register and the more obvious gaps or imbalances are highlighted. Each regional analysis is followed by data tables, giving a breakdown of the places listed in the region according to time period, type and dominant use.

Some imbalances discovered are dramatic, such as the inclusion of only one mining site for the State, the neglect of places representing the periods per-1788 and post-19l5, and the dominance of the Sydney region.

Part B considers the identification and assessment of places of cultural significance prior to theIr .listing.

As a background to discussing the process of identification, it compares three cases of recently undertaken surveys in New South Wales, each varying from the others in its aims, its method of operation, the resources allocated to it and its end product. A clear distinction is drawn between surveys with a regional or a thematic bias and the recomme~dations concentrate on the operational approach for each type.

44.

I I I I I

The discussion of assessment covers evaluation procedures for determining cultural significance, the definition of selection criteria and, briefly, terminology.

It touches upon issues such as the recognition of local significance and the need for some form of review system~ It emphasises that conservation judgements require two steps - the first, which is

I .dicussed in this Chapter, being the decision as to whether or not , the place under consideration is of cultural significance and the

second, being of necessity dependent upon social and economic

I I I I I '1'-

I I I I I I I I I

factors and on political will, as to whether or not a given culturally significant place should be conserved.

It pleads that the two aSSessments be recognised as separate and sequential and that no place of cultural significance be rejected for listing on the Register because the means for its conservation are not apparent.

The background to the discussion of the process of assessment is provided through examples of various international and national inventory systems and the surveys giving rise to them.

As with Part A, the recommendations for Part B - (iii) RECOMMENDED APPROACH - are presented on coloured pages before the detailed information on rec·ent surveys in New South Wales_.and on international inventory systems. These appear as (iv) Background on IdentifiGation, and (v) Background"o~ Assessment, following the recommendations.

-\ I


(ii) ASSESSMENT

No discussion of selection criteria for registers of culturally significant places can be meaningful without a clear definition 0 the purpose of the particular register.

A 'scientific' inventory. intended for the recording of archival material, may be as inclusive as possible to allow for a'maximum l

data for analysis (the Canadian inventory of Historic Buildings documented the exteriors of over 150,000 early buildings) and an inventory which implies financial support from limited resources maYt of necessity, be as restrictive as possible. -

In this Chapter we are concerned with alerting and·protective inventories. We are not concerned with those protective registers such as the Register under the N.S.W. Heritage Act 1911, which catalogue only those places over which statutory controls have bee applied. The criteria for inclusion then are twofold an~ , intertwined -- cultural significance coupled with t~~ political decision to conserve. /'

.ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES

In all cases of inventory systems mentioned in this Chapter, the types of place which may be included are defined -- and vary considerably inventory to inventory. In addition they commonly contain some over-riding and value-laden criterion such as "of sJiecial value" within type or historic theme, or "the character of w lch lt lS desirable to preserve and enhance" (United Kingdom), or "whose conservation is in the u6hc interest from the historical o. artlstlc pOlnt 0 Vlew' rance or 'lntegrlty of location, design

-•••• " (United States of Am~rica). The Inventory of European Cultural Heritage gives as it,s definition of "site" -- "any homogeneous natural or man-made area whose artistic, historical, ethnographical, scientific, literary or legendary interest justifie its protection or enhancement" and the international Common Inventory of the Architectural Heritage refers to "the cohesion and value of which ••••• are recognised".

In each of these cases the question is begged -- valued, desired, 0 recognised by whom? Who is to assess when conservation is in the public interest? This is the area most validly challenged by opponents to conservation and it is for this reason that the procedure adopted for assessment of places is so important. ~ Cultural values change over time as well-as varying amongst social groups and localities. In 1933 John Betjeman, that great architectural critic, commented of Norman Shaw: "Of thisgentleman's work the less said the better. He was a-faclle, expensive and pretentious architect, who, like many of his followers, had a facility for catching rich clients." In 1970 he amended this comment with a footnote: "Who, I now realise, was our greatest architect since Wren if not greater."l Similarly a list . prepared in the early years of this century by the Australian Institute of Architects of distasteful, mostly Victorian, buildings in Central Sydney was found in the 1960s to coincide almost exactly with those now Classified by the National Trust.

lRef. A. Dobby 'Conservation and Planning', 1978.

4(,.

I I I I I I, I I I I I I I I I I

, Insofar as assessment must be subjective it is important that it be made by those capable of reflecting enlightened community attitudes of the time.

In New South Wales assessments are made by such people. The National'Trust Council must endorse all listings recommended to it by the Trust's specialised technical committees. The Heritage Council of N.S.W., with the support of professional staff, advises the ,Minister as to whether places are considered by it to be "items of t~e environmental heritage" before he decides to act under the. 1977 N.S.W. Heritage legislation. The Australian Heritage· Commission must consider for itself all nominations recommended for inclusion on the Register of the National Estate, with advice received from its professional staff and specialised advisory panels. The Trust Council, the Heritage Council and the Australian Heritage Commission are all bodies appointed 'to represent informed community interests. '

Where there are statutory consequences of listing it is also 'important that an objection procedure be incorporated to allow for challenges to subjective evaluations. Such a procedure is built into both Federal and State legislation.

In the case of the N.S.W. Heritage Act, an owner (mortgagee or lessee) given notice that it is proposed to place a permanent conservation order over his property may object because the place is not an item of the environmental heritage, or'because its permanent cons~rvation is not necessary, or because its permanent conservation would render it incapable of reasohable or economic use or because the proposal would cause undue financial hardship. Only the first ground of objection relates directly to the cultural significance of the place in question, the second referring to the need for protection, the third and fourth to the economic effects of conservation.

In the case of Australian Heritage Commission Act, objections (not only by owners) to the entry of a place in 'the Register of the National Estate are considered on the issue of whether the place does or does not fall within the Act's definition of 'national estate'. As ~o mandatory controls apply to place listed on the Register, apart from those which are Commonwealth-owned, the question of economic difficulties or the need for protection are not considered to arise. There is no objection procedure related to listings on the National Trust Register because such listings carry no protective sanctions and are simply a stated assessment of Significance by the National Trust.

I .' . SELECTION CRITERIA

I I I I

Having considered the more subjectiv.e aspects of assessment it is important to return to the more specific criteria which have been developed to assist in evaluating cultural significance. In briefest terms, they fall into the two categories of the rare and the typical.

The rare encompasses the distinctive, the creative masterpiece, the , eccentrlc oddity, the historic first or the last remaining of a species.

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

II I I I I I I



Appendix F ANNCfl'ATED REFERENCES

This is not a general bibliography: it merely lists relevant documents to which I have referred in the preparation of this report, together with nw working notes as they were assembled. &)me documents helpfully suggested by Sheridan Burke, Peter Bell and others, many papers which are unpublished and a few known to me through other projects !r"'y be of interest.

The very familiar and the old favourite, of general or specific relevance, such as -

Australian Heritage Comrrdssion. ~ Heritage of Australia. The Il.llli1Y.9.t&d Register of the Nation§.ilru;gU:.. Macmillan Company of Australia Pty Ltd, 1981;

Australian National CorrIl'.ission for UNESCO. ErQj;@cting :the Past for the Future. Sydney: Hay, 1983 ;

National Trust of Australia (NSW). National Trust Rp,gis!er.. Sydney: National TrusT" 1988;.

- JEANS,D N, An Historical Geography of New South Walps to 1901. Sydney: Reed Education, 1972;

LOWENTHAL, David. ThP Past is a Forp,ign CoImtry. Cambridge: University Press. 1985.

are left out - if not the task would never end.

References are listed first by legislation and government documents, then alphabetically under each of four headings:

1. International

2. Australia - Commonwealth and Non-Government

3. Inter-State

4. New South Wales

5"1.


STATE HERITAGE ltNErnORY S'I'ATIJS AND SO)!:'E

Appendix D ANNCfrA'I'ED hEFEHENCES

International

Convention for the Protection of the World 011 tm'al and Natural Heritage. !:-'&.ris : UNESCO. 1972.

CHI'ITENDEN. Betsy, "A Profile of the National Regis"tBr of Historic Places", Preservation Policy Research Seri~N.Q_ITB::Tll2. \~ashington I:C: National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1984.

(Congress stated in 1966 that the National Register of Historic Places was to identify those res'Jurces of the nation that "should ~ preserved as a living part of our conmmity life and developrrent in order to give a sense of orientation to the Arrerican :;::eople" . It was to be "an authoritative guide '" administered as a pI arming tool." In H)81j2 it consisted of over 23,000 places: districts, blildings, structures, sites and objects. This survey identifies gaps within it. cf. sarre process for N. S. W. in Jf:>micelj, .Joan. NSW Historic Conservation Plan: His"tOric Survey, Unpublished, Sydney: J)<::p:o.....>'tJnen;; of EnvironJ'ir.:nt arId Pl8rming, 1980.)

CLIFFORD, Sue, "Corrrron Ground", (1]]0, Tb<LCr.eative l~L'tY.J:!~ii.n 4/1988, University of Melboxme, 1988.

("Holding Your Ground: An Action Guide to Lor..al Conservation"; "Second Nature"; Parish Maps; "We begin to focus our attention on the idea of peoples and their places ... farniliarity breeds not contempt but love ... ".)

DERRY, Anne et al, "Guidelines for Lor..al Surveys: A &isis for Preservation Planning", tiational Rp.gistet:...Wllt>tin 24, Washington OC: J)<::p.3.rttr"mt of the Interior. National Park Service, National Register of Historic Places, 1977 (revised 1985).

YillLMAN, Harold, 1'ba...li'&l!Ja.ti9rL12L-Hi.5.tD~ Buildinlr5., Ottawa: Parks Canada, 1979.

(Nurrerical scoring: marLagerrent orient.Bd . .,

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, US fupartrrent of the Interior

1. Na.tiDnaLHismri.c_L;.ndroark::L Ass istancp. , 12p parnphlet, 1986 .

(Reference to annual lrDni Wring and technic-Sl.l assistance.)

52.

I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

2. ('~rtif' -=d Lo~a.l Gov;:.mrrer;"C.s inJ,be National Historic n:~sel-;;;.!.ion ?rogr.sm. 2E.p handbook, undated.

(cf. ~lrke. Sheridan. 'Heritage Policy Proposal; Intrc-::uction of C€rtified Heritage Authority [CHA] Progr<:.rrrne into the NSW Heritage Conservation Planning Syst.=-::f·. D=partment of Planning trerrorandurn, 9/11-1981.)

3. Pow to:Qmple'te the NationaLBegi.s!ta;:. Multiple Resource t~ornina-:::'on Forms - Inter::'m Guidelines, 20pp pamphlet, 1911.

O'REGAN, Jc~:n (ed.). AlOO...EQ~s~~l~W.riti~-.fmiP.C.ts., London: Arc:utecwral LBsign. 1983.

('What i" to bF.- done W'ith t.he Old Cities?': "We shall forget hoW' to jt.:.5tify t.his old environtrent because often ... it is dear to t.:.5 as evidence of a people's pain .,' Think of what Kafka sa::.:i about. the old g!'.::tto in Prague: 'Today we walk th.."Ol.lgh -:r..e brc.ad streets of the rebl.lil t city, but our feet and eyes ",re U!"l,51lr6. Still we tremble inwardly as if we were in -:~.:: old streets ... The old unhealthy .Jewish district wi t.hin U2 is rrDre res.l than the new hygeinic city arollnd us' , .. [cf. C€m!"al Sydney conser.;ation].)

SYKES. Me!:edi th H. QJltural ~rw 1984.

Manual on Systems of Inyentorying Irurovable Museums and Monurr.ents XIX. Paris: UNESCO,

(Eleven ::..-sterns chosen to represent world regions and conditions - Argentina. Canada, France, India, Italy, Japan, Nexico, ~orocco. NeW' York City, Poland, Zambia.)

Australia - Commonwealth and Non-Government

The Australian Heritage Act. 1915.

The I-iorld iieri tage Properties Conservation Act. 1983.

AUSTRALIAN HERITAGE CCt!MISSION :

1. Criter' a for the Bpgiste ... of the National Estate, Unpublished paper, Noverr,oor, 1938

2. Protec:.ing Australia' s tlational Estate, BackgrOlmd Notes Seri"'s. CanbF.-rra, Australian Heritage Corrmission, September, 1989

(AloS-:>. Aus"ralian Heri'tage Corrmission, Urd...t1~t~nda Item 6, Discussion PaF-=r on "Criteria and

-------------------~------------------ - - ---- ------- --


Representativeness". Pearson. H.; Purdie, R. and Truscott. H. 1 Opp, 13 July. 1989, Impublished p:!~r and Australian Heri tage Corrmission 91tj:Lt1~tj.Tlg, "Social Significance AssessrrBnt." Blair. S. and Truscott, H, unpublished p:!p:!l" 1988.)

3. "Cultural Landsca~s", B;;..c.kgt:Q!.11lcUjQws~~ No.340.34, Canberra, December 1987

4. Special Australian Heritage ~Ablication Series:-

tb.1 P.ustralia's National Estate: The Role of the C;.rrrrpnwegi th. 198:,

No. 6 16!rri_s_k~L:m~ the NatJ.9.nI;I]_E:~1a1e...:.......J'£QC~ure!;L_to Pro~lls..tralia' sHed tap."e, 1987

No.8 Sites.w.d !3y-t€s: BecordiM..AboriRi.n-;;t.LE1~..s-.-in A~a. 1989

Australia ICOMOS. Tne Australia llXlMOS Cbaxwr tor the ConserY.a:t.iQn_Q;E_Pl.~...s-'2f. Cultural Si gniliCQIlce (The E;,l,ITB-Cb.;u;:'"k""...r LJncllliliruLilui®lin{!.$ on O,l,ltural Si/?TIificanr.e .~illif.:nm.tivn..PQliCL..''ill<.LProcedures for underT~ing SU,l,dies and R~. Latest edition April 1988.

ElarJ.IlingJ1ini.sU:rL.f'..onferen<:~rL~~nru::, Perth 14 - 15 June. 1989 :

"Item 10. Integration of heritage listing criteria in States and CorrrrDnweal th"

(Recorrroonds a pilot prograrrlrJ~ to devise and implerrent an integrated administrative process for entry of places on Corrrrc.mweal th and State registers.)

"Itern 9. World Heritage Listing." "I tern 11. Options for Funding Heritage Programs." "Item 12. Relationships between State and u-X'.-al GovernrrBnts in Heritage Administration."

BLAKE, Alison; .JOHNSTON. Chris and FOX, Paul. Social Values in PlacPs. Unpublished framework Pilper, .July, 1989.

(Funded by the Australian Heritage Corrrnission.)

BURGMANN, Verity and LEE, Jenny (eds.) C9ns~, A Beonle's History of Australia since 1788. McPhee Gribble Publishers Pty Ltd, Penguin Books Au.'3tralia Ltd., 1988.

CRCMLEY. Frank; GILBERT, Alan; IN:>LIS, K.S; SPEARRIT, Peter (general eels.) Auc;traJ j ans A Historir.al Librarv. Fairfax Syrre and Weldon Associates, 1987.

GODDEN. fun. "Assessrrent of Services in Buildings Considered for Recycling", adapted from paper presented to Institution of Engineers Hpdtage Conferenre. Decemwr 1988. unpublished, Sydney: adapted August 1989.

54.


------------ --- ----------------------,

(Metr~Jd of assessing the importance of services and their remains for conservation in recycled buildings; includes a scoring syst.em for ele::rents. J

KERR, Joan. "Why architects should not write architectural history", Architecrur.aLH_i:;;.!;QIyf:~sJIlJ.s.traliaffild New Zeal9J1ct. Adelaide: National Conference of Architectural Historians in Australia, 11-13 August, 1984, 134 - 141pp.

KERR, J S vetted by CRISP, C and TEMPLE, H. Dr9.t.t Philos~d the DJrra Charter an E..xpansion and Redirection of the Philosophy implici v in the Burra Charter. Prepared for the Warren Centre: for Advanced Engineering project on "The Economic Recycling and Conservation of Structures". Unpublished (and not yet for quocing). Sydney: June, 1989.

HAm, John. Heritage legislation: The Conseauence Qf Listing. A paper prese .. ted to t.he Nat.ional Envi.ronmental Law Association 7th Annual Conference, unpublished, Sydney: 20 - 23 Oct, 1988.

("The prc.-:esses of listing i t.erns or reserving examples from alienation ... are in the long run dam~ging to 'the rest. of tt~ environment which provides the context for those iterr--s and areas. It divides what is an indivisible environment. into areas of first class concern and areas of lesser concern. Protecting the things we want to keep by listing i t.ems or areas and estab~ishing special control procedures fQr those i t.ems or areas, limits our ability to corre to terms with the consequences of . everything being connected i..o everything else' . " )

PROUDFOOT, Helen. The Concept r.f Historical Si.mificance in ~~latinn to Hprit9~e. unpublished, 57pp, prepared for the Australian Heritage Commission. September, 1988.

SULLIVAN, Sharon. Needs and Prioritips fQr the t)qnspryation of Placps of Cultural Significance - Towards a National ApprQach. Proceedings of workshops held in Canberra : Australian Heritage Commission, 1985.

Inter-State

Australian Capital Terri tory

Consultants fQr the ACT Heritq.ge Corrmittee ,mc Planning Services: Wall<.er. M. and Neilson Associates. A.CLH~ge Study Working PaP2r No 3 HeritaW'l i "sues. Canberra : undated.

COLLERAN, Jocelyn. ACT Heritage Study fA Strategy fQr the Conseryatir'!1 of Pl aceS Qf Cultural Heritage Significance in


t.he ACf] Final rep:;rt. draft. Canberra. March. 1987

South Australia

South Australian Heritage Act, 1978. Act No. 42 of 1978

An Act "to arrend the South Australian HeritagE: Act, 1978, and to repeal t.he SrJUth Australian Heritage Act Arrendrrent Act, 1979, Act:- No. 89 of 1985.

(This binds thE: Crown at. s4A; deals with regulations. permits and inspect.0rs; int:-roduces Part. V on Conservation Orders for regist.ered items, i terns Qn the interim list or part.s of such i t-P.Jns and State beri tage areas; and substitutes the words in s13 "to read: ·aest.hetic, architectural, historical, cululral, archaeological, technological or sciE:ntific interest'; also 'E:nvironmental' replaces ·pbysical'.)

Cit.y of Adelaide Develo~rent Control Act., 1976 and Re~llations. Act. No. 305 of 1987, 23 December 1987.

Plannir~ Act. 1982 Regulat.ions under the 1989.

as consolidated 1 February 1988; and Planning Act, 1982 as colsolidated 9 March

Sr)uth Aust.ralian Depart.rrent of Conspryation Practice Notes -

Environment .:.nd Planning. H-::ritoge StaDda~ds fo~ thp Conservation of

Properties on the Rpgist€~ of Adelaide: April 1988 and

State Hpritape Item 2p pamphlet,

Lenehan,S N, Minister for Environment and Planning. AdvisorY' Ci rcular frQm the Minister. 15, Herita"e Lists and Historic (Conservation) Zones. Adelaide: February 1989

(For Historic [Conservation] Zones: Criteria:- 1. demolition control to be supported by detailed statement of investigation. 2. small in area. 3. statement of policy on development control. 4. consent required for all lUlprohi bi ted developrrent, no unreasonable restriction on land use, fabric not use is import.ant issue. 5. ColUlcil to demonstrate appropriate expertise to evaluate proposals.)

BELL, Peter. Criteria for the InclusiQn of Places Austra 1 i an Register of State Heritagp Iwms. 5p. 31 May 1989.

on the South Unpublished ,

ELPHltlSTONE, R. El~Site Chpcklist for use in I.tx:al~giQIlaLQIId...S:t~te .. l:ff.:ti..~.;:yS_. Unpublished draft. Heri taga Conservation Branch, Depa~nt of Environrrent and Planning, 4 tlovernber 1981.

(17 subject. categories/ther(es. Each divided into component,

0(;.

------------------- --- --- ----------'


elerrent and item type, e.g.~: exploration, componpnt: rraritirre. ~rrenk: anchorages/refuges, iY.:I~: cove.}

MARSDEN, S. lli~!.m':k~\lL~lines - Sguth Australian 5.:ta:1:& Historic PreserYqtion PJLan. South Australian Department of EnvironrrJ'3nt and Planning, Adelaide, 1983 (reprinted 1984)

(Contents: I Historical context and therratic/regional frarre:.lork

Victoria

I I Guide to scurces of iniorrration, and III RecorrrrBndations.)

Historic Buildings Act 1981, No. 9661, Victoria. Reprint 18 .Jlme 1986 (No.1)

Planning and EnviroDI(J'3nt. Act 1981, No. 45 of 1987, Victoria

Victoria National Estate G:n(cni t-cee. lli.:tQria . S_~(L_::....A ..:F"",l!""ture""",,"-~f..,o",,r~..lt,,,:h£.p~""P.l.la ... s-'"'t. Meloourne: Ministry for Planning and EnvironrCJ'3nt. 1984

Departn:ent of Conservation, Forests & Lands, Victoria. Historic Places. Pamphlet, Melbourne: 1988

Historic &lildings Colmcil Victoria., Hi.s:tm:ic Buj ldings Act ReYiPH 1988 89. SL3terre~t of recororrendatinns for Legislatjve Reform. Melbourne: April 1935

(sP..minars in 1988 on Goals and Objectives; Hearings - role, form and procedure; Permi ts - processes and procedures; Registers. RecorrcrJ'3ndations at pp1 10. Sul:missions at Appendix A - Hansen, Lovell for lcot1OS & Council for tr.te Historic EnviroDI(J'3nt, Pearson [review of terminology), National Trust (Vic) Davies, Maher [natural justice) Johnson, Jones for RAPI. Willingh3.m [Fielden quote], Lawler from DEP Heritage Branch, JerorrB, Tonkin [registers how mmy and what? interim register, link between criteria/assessrrent], re-narre 'Historic Building and Places Act' to include wildings, works, objects, historic si tes • cultural landscapes, areas and rrovable objects associated with those places.)

McCOt,rVILLE, Chris .. In Trust?: Heritage and History'. MeIl:QUITlP Historical Journal Vol 16, 1984

(Green Ban Moverrent: Ignore aesthetic standards, emphasise rreanings of spaces and structures for the ordinary city-dweller/local identity/rrerrory/corrmmity conservation. Contrast: good conservation = economic developrrent.

. Ins"tP..-ad of conflict, the conservationist proposed harrrony;

51.

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

. Instead of conflict. the conservationist proposed hanrony; in place of social questions the Trust evolved a ranking of style. '

. Urban conservation ... has ITI3de the history of society Imimportant ... by placing aesthetics at the centre. conservation has lMde history into a succession of distinct stylistic eras ... The more perfect the restoration ... the rrore ideal and ahistorical have ~orrB the represented. social relations. '

(cf. Port t-!-::lb:>ume Study 1979.)

WALKER. M. JOHNSON, C and BOYCE, C for the Western Region Corrmission. t1~ltQ.,l.me_Hi;B.V:rn R~giQ~LIi~.r.ltN!e StuQ;£:.' 4 volurres 1986: 'Heritage Issues and Strategies' . 'Evidence of Hisrory'. 'Seminar Conservation in the West (29 Hay Technology) Vol 5 'Heri~e Action Guide, 1987

Western Australia

'Study Methods & Results' . Loc-...al Governrrent & Heritage

1986 Footscray Institute of

Westem Australian Heritage Committee, State HistQriQ C',qnsprvatk.,., Plan, Perth: July 1988

New South Wales

Heritage Ac~ 1977 No. 136 [reprinted. as at 13 July 1988]

Environmental Plarming and Assessrrent Act 1979 No. 203 [reprinted. as at 19 February 1987)

NSW Depart,rent of Environment and Plarming. 'Heritage Conservation for Local Area Planning - a report on the discussion paper'. Sydney: February 1988

NSW fupartzrr=nt of Plarming. 'l1:e...H1.lD:!:eu-Herit.3""e, draft Regional Enyjroruren"t.al PIal). Sydney: 1988

(Heritage studies 1981/2; Suters Busteed. Corner Clode P/L 1987 Register based on existing sources, five schedules - items of state. regional or local significance; i terns needing further investigation and conservation areas/significant rownscapes, Zoning incentives, derroli tion control. advertising of awlications. )

NSW i>=partrrent of Plarming. EnYimnrren:taLlIeri~sessment. Go....!idf'.lin!;:.$._~.siorLf'ru;:oer.. Sydney: 30 ,lIme 1989 and 12l:2ft. GuidclineS.-fs;ll:.-CQnduc.tingjier~dif.ls.. Sydney: June 1989

53.

~---~-~------.~~--------'

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~

NSW ~part.lrent of Planning, History of the North Coast. by Kass, T, Grafton: 1989.

Northern Regional Office. Regional A discussion paper based on a study

NSW ~part.lrent of Planning. C~arJk>. C5, forrrerly DEP 84. Heritage in Planning. 27p, Sydney: 1989

(Sl17 Direction G212; assessment of environmental heritage; heritage study guidellines; statutory implementation techniques. )

NSW ~part.lrent of Planning. S!Jtm:i~.sj.Q1LtQ..J:lliLl1inister: Draf.t State Environmental Planning Pol.iQy...::..lI~t;lge Conservation. 1989

(Purposes: (i) to encourage Councils to identify i terns to which these provisions should apply; (ii) to enable those Councils, which have carried out a study, to introduce protection of identified i terns while they prepare a local environmental plan.)

Public Accounts Corrmi ttee, Parliament of New South Wales. B~m.rt on the Heritgge Council of New South Wales. Report No. 40, June 1988

(p125 State Heritage Inventory.)

ADAMSON, Don. Em300nse to NSW Brief for a State Heritage Inventory. 1986

( Need for consideration of present trends and fuulre changes: 'The importance of time on organisims and their CO!lITImities' needs to be In3.de explicit ... take account of past, present and future trends in population numbers ... the direction of biological change ... should be included in the evaluation process.' A biological approach to history includes a future perspective.)

Croft & Associates pty Ltd in association with Walker, M, for Heritage Council of NSW, Depart.lrent of Environment and Planning and Blue Mountains City Cotmcil. Blue Mountains Heritage Study. Final report. Corrmissioned 1982

IXl1ICELJ, Joan, for the Depart.lrent of Environment and Planning. New South Wales Historic Conservation Plan. Chapter 6: Historic Survey comprising Part A Listing thP, Q.tltural Estate fQL~w SQuth Wales and Part B. Identification and Assessrrent. 2 vols. Unpublished, Sydney: December 1980

(cf. p13 surrrnary tables of places in eight NSW regions. on Register of the National Estate in 1980. by periods, types of places. dominant uses, 1980, relevance proposed Interim SHI?)

59

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~

OOMICELJ. Joan, for the Dep.artrrent of EnvironID:mt and Planning. t~~h Wales Historic C"nserV'ation Plan. Chanter 5: t1q.jOJ:...Pmb.lems in Con~ing Place_~Q.L.QJ1tllral Signifi~ New South Wales. 1 vol. lmpublished. Sydney: 1980

Fox & Associates. ~ation of State Historical Guidelines and Development Qf an Inw'Otory FoUD a'ld Criteria for Significance As!ie~cl..JI.etitage Items. Sydney: September 1986

GODDEN, fun. ~sessment of 5;:ryices in fulldings considered for Recycling. Paper adapted from one of sarre ti tIe presented to Insti tution of Engine.;,rs Heritage Conference • December 1988. Unpublished. Sydney: September 1989.

HEMMW3S, J. Andre Poreb5kL.1t~oc.i<;~~L:td - v - Woollahra ~~l. Court files Nos. 10205 and 20248 of 1988. Sydney: Land and Environrrent Courn of NSW, 16 I.kember 1988

(Application of I.e.p. provisions for the conservation of items of the environrrental heritage, the item being a house designed by Sydney Ancher and erected in 1937. Note arg1.ll'l'"ent at pp17 -19. )

Hughes Truemm Ludlow in associat:on with Ashton. William. tlli.\i State Heritage Inventory. Syci.'1ey: September 1986

JOHNSON, Jennifer S. Upritage ACT 1977 Rating and La.'ld Tax Relief. Costs and Eenefi ts. Draft thesis for MSc (Arch) (Conservation), University of Sydney, 1989

O' CONNELL , Charles, C<-..>rrrnissioner. '!_'l.JnqlJi.l::L~.im 41 of the Herjtagp Act 1977 into objections to the making of a Perwnent Consecration Order in re~t:>eCt of the building and its site known as 'Kooyong' 55 Has..tings Road.. Warr.a!:L-~. Corrmissioners of Inquiry for Environrrent and Planning, January 1989

(Reasoning at pp 48/49.)

O'CONNELL, Charles. Corrmissioner. :!.!LIIlQlliry rursuant to Section 29B Qf the l{eriWe Act 1977 into ob.itx:tiQns to the making of an Interim Conservation Order in resre::t Qf the buildings known as 5

15 Motmt Street. Pvru:mrt.. Ccmnissioners Qf Inquiry for Environment and Planning, May 1989

PRESCOTI'. A M. History ~He:ritaa.~h~ assessJrent of historical sjgnificance 0-1' items of enviroDIlf'..nta.l hprita"e. 3rd draft, 6p, Unpublished notes, 3 February 1989

STEIN, J. BQspnstrallss & Cahi 11 - v - Waverley l1unicipal Council. Court file No. 10573 of 1988. Sydney: Land and Environrrent Court Qf NSW, 18 August 1989

(DA to derrolish five terrace-hou~s and replace with 13 town houses at Bondi Jlmction. L.e.p. then arrended to include terrace on sC~lle. Principal issue: aSSeSSITBnt of

Go.


significance - 'architectural and aesthetic importance to strootscape and character of Municipality'. Note corrJ'rents par 4 p10. par 4 pH and par 1 p12.)

Thorp, Green & Associates, Anglin Associates for the NSW Depart.:rent of Planning and the Council of the City of Sydney. Heritage Inventory for Central Sydney. Sydney: May 1989

WALKER. Meredith. The New South Wales State Conservation Plan - a new direction for further work. A report for the Departrrent of Environrrent and Planning. Unpublished, May 1984

WALKER. Meredith. A..resPOl}5e_to the tJ~..tJonaLT.!;JJ5t of Austr:.glia ~nservation Corrrni ttee D.1:2Q!J,5...siQn~per: POiNible New Urban Area Clas..s.if~..t.i.9n_System. Bp, Sydney: 4 August 1985

('The townscape conservation approach, with emphasis on enhancement. has caused considerable damage to areas with valuable evidence of the past ... rrany people [in country towns J find the aesthetic approach both pretentious and patronising .,. many more people are interested in history -in real evidence of the past and the relationship of the past to the present ... Listing - without contact with the affected corrmmity - usually does more harm than good.')

i evaluation criteria and application guidelines i volume 2 i

Documents