replacement jetty - shire of esperance · august 2018 2 draft concept design report phase 1 •...

REPLACEMENT JETTYREPLACEMENT JETTYShire of EsperanceShire of EsperanceDra Concept Design Report Dra Concept Design Report August 2018August 2018

August 2018 2 DRAFT CONCEPT DESIGN REPORT

PHASE 1• Project Initiation MAY-JUNE 2018

PHASE 3• Final Concept Design JULY-AUGUST 2018

PHASE 2• Investigation & Draft Concept Design JUNE-JULY 2018

PHASE 4• Draft Detailed Design AUGUST-SEPT 2018

PHASE 5• Final Detailed Design & Tender Documentation OCTOBER-DEC 2018

Project ScopeThis project is focused on the detailed design of the Esperance Tanker Jetty replacement. The Design Brief was established by the Shire of Esperance based on the following parameters:

The new jetty is to be located on the footprint or as near as possible to the current Tanker Jetty footprint

Retain the current curve of the Tanker Jetty

Longest possible jetty, with preferred length of 400m

Retention of piles to demonstrate form and length of original Tanker Jetty

Minimum width of 3.5m

Includes a fish-cleaning facility

Meets all relevant Australian Standards

Approx Construction budget of $6M

August 2018

3DRAFT CONCEPT DESIGN REPORT

Summary of Key IssuesA review has been undertaken by H+H Architects of all the available informa on, as well as informa on personally gathered during pre-liminary stakeholder engagement sessions conducted in Esperance on 8 May 2018. The inten on of this review is to provide a synopsis of key issues aff ec ng the project so that these can inform the Concept Design response and risk mi ga on can be undertaken to man-age any issues.

1.0 Heritage Issues

1.1 Statutory Protec on of the “Old Tanker Je y” Summary: The Conserva on Order issued by the Heritage Minister is required to be li ed before construc on of a replacement je y can begin and therefore it is a priority to meet the requirements s pulated by the Heritage Minister to allow the project to move forward.

1.2 Condi on of the Old Tanker Je ySummary: Based on expert advice from Marine Structural Engineers, it is not feasible to restore or reconstruct the Old Tanker Je y, and moving forward, the priority should be on carefully salvaging the remaining heritage fabric so that it can be available for reuse in non-structural or interpreta ve applica ons in the New Replacement Je y.

1.3 Reten on of Cultural Heritage ValuesSummary: One of the biggest challenges facing the design team for the Replacement Je y is the ability to translate the valuable heritage quali es and “character” of the Old Je y into a new Replacement Je y, whilst retaining some of the meanings and associa ons the place holds so that it con nues to be valued by current and future genera ons.

1.4 Heritage Design BriefSummary: Based on community feedback, Heritage Council requirements and on a review of previous designs, the design should respond to the fi ne-grain detail of the Je y fabric and interpret the ‘stories’ inherent in the Place. There are signifi cant opportuni es to retain the associa ons and meanings of the Old Tanker Je y in the design of the Replacement Je y.

1.5 Heritage Interpreta onSummary: Interpreta on of the key themes should be inherent to the fabric of the Replacement Je y, as well as being incorporated into its se ng through signage, informa on devices, sculptural elements and crea ve installa ons. Heritage Council require the interpreta on strategy to be clearly integrated within the concept design and this ensures that Burra Charter principles are being addressed.

2.0 Funding Issues

2.1 Capital costsSummary: The design features of the Replacement Je y will have the greatest impact on the capital costs par cularly length and width of the je y, structural capacity, material selec on, provision of services, compliance and decisions about safety, exis ng site condi ons, design life, use of salvaged materials, reten on of the original structural footprint and the structural expression of the new structure. With so many parameters impac ng on the capital costs, the Shire of Esperance will need to ‘cost plan’ the project to ensure it stays on budget.

2.2 Ongoing maintenance costsSummary: The ongoing maintenance costs will be impacted primarily by material selec on, corrosion protec on systems and the accessibility of components for monitoring and repair.

2.3 Sources of incomeSummary: Iden fying sources of income for the upfront capital cost of the Replacement Je y and ongoing maintenance costs is a priority for the Shire of Esperance.

2.4 Economic benefi tsSummary: The Replacement Je y represents a signifi cant opportunity to achieve economic and social benefi ts for the community of Esperance, and to promote future growth and sustainability in outdoor recrea on, tourism and business ac vi es.

3.0 Community Buy-in

3.1 Community Consulta onSummary: The extensive community consulta on has been incorporated into the Design Brief for the Replacement Je y. Community buy-in is integral to the success of the project, and people need to feel that their opinions have been listened to and that the Replacement Je y has been designed to suit their needs and preferences, otherwise they lose faith in the process.

3.2 Impact of lobby groupsSummary: Lobby groups working against the Shire in the development of the Replacement Je y have the poten al to represent major roadblocks to progress and to prevent community consensus and buy-in by causing division and distrust.

3.3 MediaSummary: Communica on strategies with the media should be pro-ac ve and informa ve to ensure that key messages are being communicated and to demonstrate the Shire of Esperance working with other agencies such as the Heritage Council of WA to achieve acceptable heritage outcomes for the Tanker Je y site.

3.4 Poli cal pressureSummary: The Shire of Esperance needs to demonstrate that they have the support and ‘approval’ of key agencies and bodies such as the Heritage Council of WA, Southern Ports, Dept of Transport, GEDC and Tourism Esperance Inc, etc for the Replacement Je y op on in order to a ract poli cal support for the project

4.0 Shire Issues

4.1 Ownership & ResponsibilitySummary: The Shire of Esperance should clarify all ownership rights and responsibili es before construc ng a Replacement Je y to ensure relevant permissions are in place par cularly if the new structure, its temporary plant or permanent interpreta on devices, extend beyond the Licence area defi ned by Pier 143.

4.2 Design risks (public safety, insurance)Summary: The proposed Safety-in-Design Workshop will assist the Shire of Esperance to iden fy and manage safety risks that might apply to public use of the Replacement Je y, as well as OHS requirements for Shire staff and sub-contractors, and allow the Shire to consider insurance and indemnity obliga ons moving forward.

4.3 Exis ng demoli on tenderSummary: The Shire of Esperance may need to consider addi onal terms for the Demoli on contract to ensure that heritage values can be retained and environmental values protected during the course of demoli on.

4.4 Other approvals requiredSummary: A detailed assessment of relevant statutory bodies shall be undertaken by the project team in the design phase of the Replacement Je y process to allow for management of approvals processes.

4.5 Liability vs. assetSummary: The Je y is considered an asset so long as it can con nue to be used by the community. Without ongoing use, the structure is a liability.

4.6 TimeframeSummary: The Je y project is me-sensi ve and although there are many important milestones to achieve before construc on of a Replacement Je y can be achieved, delays have the poten al to impact on community support for the project and limit funding opportuni es.

4.7 Recurrent costsSummary: The Shire of Esperance needs to take account of recurrent costs associated with the Replacement Je y and make appropriate plans to fund these costs.


5.0 Design Issues

5.1 Loca onSummary: The Replacement je y will be located on or near the original footprint of the 1935 Je y, provided the issues of piling between or alongside the exis ng piles can be resolved, and on the basis that the old je y has been demolished and that only the structural foot-print of the 1935 je y will remain.

5.2 Func onalitySummary: The func onality of the je y should be confi rmed to ensure the Replacement Je y is designed to cater for specifi c uses.

5.3 Structural DesignSummary: The structural design will be informed by structural load requirements, material selec on, construc on methodology and op- ons for corrosion protec on systems.

5.4 Length, width, depth, heightSummary: The length, width and height of the Replacement je y will be informed by a number of factors including amenity, constructa-bility and its rela onship to adjoining ground levels and sea levels.

5.5 ComplianceSummary: Compliance with relevant codes and standards will dictate some of the design features, par cularly the elements which con-tribute to public safety such as handrails and ladders.

5.6 Metocean DesignSummary: Metocean data such as wind loads, wave loads, currents and sea levels will inform aspects of the design, par cularly with regard to deck heights and structural design of je y bents.

5.7 Geotech DesignSummary: There are opportuni es to consider diff erent pile orienta on and spacing depending on selected materials and structural ex-pression, and the outcomes of the geotechnical inves ga ons.

5.8 Services DesignSummary: Certain aspects of ligh ng design will be determined by compliance with standards, but there is opportunity to design light-ing that connects with the foreshore development and interprets the original ligh ng scheme of the Old Tanker Je y. Water services are feasible, but viability will be determined on the basis of the specifi c func onal requirements of the je y.

August 2018


Detailed Discussion of Key IssuesA detailed discussion of each of the key issues has been prepared by H+H Architects with GHD Engineers, as follows:

1.0 Heritage Issues

1.1 Statutory Protec on of the “Old Tanker Je y” All places that are permanently entered on the State Register of Heritage Places are protected by the provisions of the Heritage Act 2017 (following repeal of the 1990 Heritage Act). The Objec ves of the Act are, with due regard for the rights of property ownership:

a) To promote understanding and apprecia on of Western Australia’s cultural heritage; and

b) To recognise the importance of places of cultural heritage signifi cance and their stories in understanding the course of Western Australia’s history; and

c) To provide for the iden fi ca on and documenta on of Western Australia’s places of cultural heritage signifi cance; and

d) To encourage and facilitate the conserva on, con nuing use, development and adap ve reuse of places of cultural heritage signifi cance in ways that represent high standards of heritage conserva on and are in harmony with cultural heritage values.

Tanker Je y, Esperance was permanently entered on the State Register of Heritage Places on 26/08/2008 and has recognised cultural heritage value for the following reasons:

The place is a rare and good representa ve example of a substan ally intact mber je y on the coast of Western Australia, as one of only four comparable structures remaining in Western Australia;

It has aesthe c signifi cance due to its considerable size, scale and construc on. Its visibility from the town of Esperance and its strong presence in the seascape ensure its landmark status and contributes to the Esperance community’s sense of place;

The place is valued by the community as it has been the site of commercial, social and recrea onal pursuits since its construc- on, and for its associa on with the period of economic growth in the region in the 1930s and the development of local indus-

tries since that me; and,

The place is signifi cant for bringing employment to many workers in the vicinity during the period of economic depression in the 1930s, and is associated with the government’s eff orts to employ des tute men in a variety of jobs during this me.

The Tanker Je y, Esperance is currently specifi cally protected from demoli on by a Conserva on Order placed by the Minister for En-vironment; Heritage in December 2016 u lising Sec on 59 of the Heritage Act (1990). The condi ons of the Conserva on Order state that demoli on is prohibited but does not apply to “rou ne maintenance or other works specifi ed in the Heritage of Western Australia Regula ons 1991 r3A, or the installa on of fencing, barricades, fl oa ng booms or similar measures to ensure public safety”.

Sec on 3A of the Heritage Regula ons iden fi es that the following works are excluded from the Conserva on Order:

Building maintenance that does not involve the removal of, or damage to, the exis ng fabric of the building or the use of new materials;

Cleaning that is low pressure, non-abrasive and non-chemical;

Gardening or landscape maintenance;

Repairs, including replacing missing or deteriorated fabric with like for like fabric, that does not involve the removal of, or damage to, the signifi cant fabric of the building;

Replacement of u lity services using exis ng routes or voids that does not involve the removal of, or damage to, the fabric of the building;

Repain ng of the surface of a building;

Any excava on that does not aff ect the archaeological remains, for the purpose of exposing, inspec ng, maintaining or re-placing u lity services;

The erec on or installa on of temporary fencing

Temporary signage

Digging a new grave or the erec on of a monument or grave marker

Of these exclusions, only items a) and d) might specifi cally apply to the Tanker Je y, Esperance, as they relate to repairs and mainte-nance, which aside from demoli on, are the only other works likely to be undertaken at the place.

The Heritage Minister has specifi cally stated that the Conserva on Order will not be li ed un l “the Shire of Esperance develops a fully funded and detailed design for a je y that is supported by the Heritage Council and that meets the needs of the local and wider Western Australian community”. (Statement by then Heritage Minister Albert Jacob MLA, Media Release, Dec 2016 and posi on reaffi rmed by Minister David Templeman MLA, May 2018).

This statement clarifi es a number of key aspects with regards to the current statutory protec on, as follows:

The fate of the Old Tanker Je y is implicitly linked with the design of the New Replacement Je y The Shire of Esperance has been given the responsibility for developing a replacement je y The detailed design of the replacement je y must be supported by the Heritage Council of WA The detailed design of the replacement je y must meet the needs of the local community, as well as the needs of the wider WA

community The Replacement Je y must be fully funded

It should also be noted that only the Minister may revoke the Conserva on Order, and that even if the Old Tanker Je y should be de-stroyed by means other than demoli on (ie. extreme weather condi ons or unscheduled collapse) the Conserva on order con nues to apply to the place.

Summary: The Conserva on Order is required to be li ed before construc on of a replacement je y can begin and therefore it is a prior-ity to meet the requirements s pulated by the Heritage Minister to allow the project to move forward.

1.2 Condi on of the “Old Tanker Je y” and Viability of RepairVarious independent structural assessments of the Old Tanker Je y have been undertaken since it was fi rst vested in the Shire of Esper-ance and despite ongoing maintenance and repair eff orts, in 2015 the Je y was closed to the public due to serious structural failure and safety risks. It is now widely recognised that the condi on of the fabric and the structural integrity of the je y itself has exceeded its design life and cannot be feasibly repaired. This was noted in Minister Albert Jacob MLA’s le er that accompanied the Stop Work Order (dated 8.11.2016), “While the Conserva on Order prohibits demoli on, I recognise that restora on or reconstruc on of the Je y to its original form and scale is unlikely, and appreciate there is an urgent need to address the future of the current structure due to its condi- on…”

REPAIR

According to the ICOMOS Burra Charter there are two types of repair, restora on or reconstruc on. Restora on means returning the exis ng fabric of a place to a known earlier state by removing accre ons or by reassembling exis ng components without the introduc- on of new material, whilst Reconstruc on means returning a place to a known earlier state and is dis nguished from restora on by the

introduc on of new material into the fabric.

The original fabric of the Old Tanker Je y, par cularly the mber elements but also the steel fi xings and that held the mber members together, are of insuffi cient quality and structural integrity to allow them to be returned to an earlier state. Even if short sec ons of mber could be salvaged from the exis ng fabric for possible repair eff orts, the structural tes ng required to confi rm the integrity of in-

dividual members would be invasive and would further damage the condi on of the material itself, as well as increasing its vulnerability to future decay. Detailed observa on of the mber previously salvaged from the place suggests that most of the mber has failed due to moisture ingress at fi xing points, with the mber itself ro ng and spli ng due to the corrosion of steel fi xings. Works to restore the mber to an earlier fi nish would also result in the loss of pa na acquired a er decades in a marine environment, and this would impact

on the defi ning aesthe c quali es and character that the community value.


As part of any restora on project, it is not feasible to remove the exis ng accre ons as these are holding the remaining structure together. From a heritage perspec ve, many of the elements and devices used to eff ect repair of the Old Tanker Je y are intrusive ele-ments that obscure the original fabric and integrity of the place. The concrete deck topping, steel bracings and straps, replacement piles, and steel handrails have all extended the life of the je y itself, but have reduced the authen city of the fabric.

There is insuffi cient quan ty of the original or early fabric to allow the je y to be repaired without the introduc on of new fabric, and previous maintenance regimes have resulted in substan al replacement of the original fabric throughout. Many elements are missing or damaged due to ongoing loss and decay of the fabric, and even fabric salvaged from previous structure collapses and stored away from the aggressive marine environment are iden fi ed as being in poor condi on and unable to be re-used in any structural applica on. Full replacement of the mber fabric would be required for a reconstruc on of the Tanker Je y, Esperance, with salvaged material only able to be reused in non-structural or interpreta ve applica ons. Considering the lack of ar fi ce and u litarianism of the original design, the opportuni es to introduce non-structural elements is likely limited to the deck surface in any reconstruc on project. There is also a risk that further authen c material is lost or damaged through invasive repair a empts or uncontrolled collapse of the remaining structure.

The impact of any future repair works to the Tanker Je y, Esperance should be carefully considered as the fragile fabric is already vulner-able to passive environmental impacts and stabilisa on methods are likely to be invasive and may have further nega ve impacts on the condi on, integrity and authen city of the exis ng fabric. The introduc on of steel straps, propping structures and other repair solu ons proposed for the Je y, whilst stabilising the built form, are invasive to the heritage fabric itself. Moving forward, the focus should be on careful salvage of the remaining heritage fabric for poten al reuse in the Replacement Je y.

Summary: It is not feasible to restore or reconstruct the Old Tanker Je y, and moving forward, the priority should be on carefully salvag-ing the remaining heritage fabric so that it can be available for reuse in non-structural or interpreta ve applica ons in the New Replace-ment Je y.

1.3 Reten on of Cultural Heritage ValuesHERITAGE COUNCIL OF WA

The Heritage Act 2017 is intended to iden fy, recognise and protect Western Australia’s most precious heritage places for current and future genera ons, with the Heritage Council func oning to support these goals by guiding registra on and development of heritage places. The Heritage Council of WA has provided the Shire of Esperance with the ongoing heritage advice, which assists in understanding their posi on with regards to Tanker Je y, Esperance:

The Heritage Council does not support the demoli on of the Je y and always prefers that a Heritage Place be retained (March 2016)

The posi on of the Heritage Council in not suppor ng demoli on is consistent with the guiding principles of the ICOMOS Burra Charter. The Burra Charter advocates a cau ous approach to change: do as much as necessary to care for a place and make it useable, but other-wise change it as li le as possible so that its cultural heritage signifi cance is retained. Clause 15.3 specifi cally states that “Demoli on of signifi cant fabric of a place is generally not acceptable”.

Cultural signifi cance is embodied in the place itself, its fabric, se ng, use, associa ons, meanings, records, related places and related objects. It is therefore diffi cult to support demoli on when there is an intrinsic link between the fabric of a place and its cultural value. Nonetheless, the Heritage Council does acknowledge that Interpreta on is the means by which the cultural heritage values can extend beyond the life of the fabric:

In the event that the Tanker Je y cannot be retained and there is no feasible or prudent alterna ve except to demolish, mea-sures should be taken to minimise the adverse eff ects on the heritage place and the following condi ons would apply:

o A detailed Archival Record of the Tanker Je y shall be preparedo Removal of the je y shall allow for reten on of the structural footprint of the je y at a level that allows safe naviga-

onal water above, and there shall be meaningful interpreta on demonstra ng the original alignment and extent of the Je y

o The interpreta on plan shall be updated to include the demoli on of the structure and opportunity to provide for the interpreta on of the structural footprint of the Je y as an archaeological site and inclusion of interpreta on of the former town je es into the proposed new je y

o The Shire of Esperance shall enter into a Heritage Agreement with the Heritage Council to ensure the ongoing interpre-ta on of Tanker Je y and maintenance of interpreta ve installa ons rela ng to the je y structure. (March 2016)

The Heritage Council’s desire to ensure that the cultural heritage values of Tanker Je y, Esperance are retained is reiterated in their cor-respondence to the Shire throughout 2016 and 2017. The main requirements are summarised as follows:

Considera on and explora on of the conserva on of a meaningful sec on(s) of the original mber je y at the height of the exis ng je y to be incorporated in-situ into the new design as a representa on of its original construc on

The je y must present a strong presence in the seascape to ensure its landmark quality is retained Implementa on of the Interpreta on Plan should be considered in the design process of the je y and be taken into consider-

a on during the early design phase A suitably qualifi ed heritage professional and suitably qualifi ed interpreter should form part of the design team

These requirements are in addi on to the Design Criteria outlined by Hocking Heritage Studio (July 2017) and generally supported by the Heritage Council:

Retain the exis ng loca on of the je y Retain the rela onship of je y to town Retain the important contribu on of the je y to the seascape and iden ty of Esperance Retain landmark status courtesy of the scale and curve of the new structure as well through reten on of the original piles from

the end of the new structure through to the end of the original je y, combining old with new and retaining the cultural heritage signifi cant of the original je y

Respect the associa ons and meanings between the people of Esperance and the je y and allow for new ones to develop Commemorate the past commercial func on of the Tanker Je y and its contribu on to the economic success of Esperance

through interpreta on Retain fabric for use in the new je y

ESPERANCE COMMUNITY

The community of Esperance has also expressed strong views about the reten on of the cultural heritage values of Tanker Je y, Esper-ance. In general the social values that the Je y holds for the local community are as follows:

They value the meaning of the place and the associa ons they have with the old je y They want the place to be con nued to be used as a je y They value the character of the old je y - its age-worn appearance that represents its long-standing presence in the town, its

quirks, and its rough and ready appearance They value the style of the old je y with its modest but func onal expression that references an era of u lity not ar fi ce They want the je y to remain a part of daily life for current and future genera ons

The Burra Charter helps us understand the value of meanings and associa ons. Meanings denote what a place signifi es, indicates, evokes or expresses. In the case of the Tanker Je y, for many local people it evokes an era when the opera ons of the Port were part of daily life. From the day it opened, the Tanker Je y was open to the public despite being a fully opera onal commercial je y. This im-mediately created a sense of community ownership, and helps explain why this ageing infrastructure has so many associa ons with so

August 2018


many people. Whereas many other commercial and industrial structures have the strongest meanings for those few people who worked on them, in the case of the Tanker Je y, Esperance, the whole community (and visitors from other places) were able to experience the je y and create memories of the place.

Associa ons mean the special connec ons that exist between people and a place. With its commanding presence in the seascape, and wide invi ng pla orm perfect for promenading or fi shing, the Tanker Je y was a venue and a backdrop for many pleasurable experi-ences in Esperance for many genera ons. Many West Australians feel a personal connec on with the structure and value the role it has played in their life.

When the je y closed permanently in 2015, the community felt the loss of the je y acutely, and reaffi rmed the value of this unique mul -use pla orm located central to town, which by this me, approximately 40 years a er it ceased being a commercial je y, had be-come the focus of recrea onal and tourism ac vi es in the town. Its value was reaffi rmed by the establishment of various local groups who have made it their mission to ‘save the je y’ because of what it means to the community. Community support for conserving the je y was again demonstrated in 2016 when community consulta on was undertaken by the Heritage Council of WA and 77% of respon-dents supported reten on of the je y, resul ng in the Minister placing the Conserva on Order over the place.

Summary: One of the biggest challenges facing the design of the Replacement Je y is the ability to translate the valuable heritage quali- es and “character” of the Old Je y into a new Replacement Je y, whilst retaining some of the meanings and associa ons the place

holds so that it con nues to be valued by current and future genera ons.

1.4 Heritage Design BriefWhen concept designs for a Replacement Je y were fi rst released back in 2016 and 2017 (with designs commissioned separately by the Friends of Esperance Tanker Je y, who engaged Bonacci to provide a “repair op on”, and the Shire of Esperance, who engaged GHD to provide an “iconic design” op on), there was a general consensus that neither design had adequately captured the heritage values of the Tanker Je y. Structural pragma sm, use of modern materials and loss of “character” help explain why neither concept was readily endorsed by the Heritage Council of WA or the local community. People value the authen city of the Old Je y - its honest structural expression, its pa na of age, its unique curving form, all the quirks of the uneven mber deck, the open balustrades and the rough and ready appearance, and these aspects are diffi cult to capture in the design of a new structure.

An earlier Concept prepared in 2014 by BMT-JFA for the Shire of Esperance for the purposes of assessing the cost comparisons associ-ated with diff erent lengths, widths and material confi gura ons conceives a proposal which is much more successful in combining func- onal requirements with structural effi ciency and heritage aesthe cs, albeit without a emp ng to fully interpret the heritage values of

the place. The BMT-JFA concept proposes a short 50m sec on of mber decked je y with raked steel piles akin to the 1935 design, with the remainder of the je y length constructed using a more economical system of raked steel piles suppor ng a pre-stressed concrete deck. Conceptually, this design creates an opportunity for mber salvaged from the Old Je y to be re-used in a non-structural applica- on, possibly in the sec on of mber decking and the kerbing. It does not make allowance for the reten on of the original piles (these

are proposed to be demolished to seabed level), nor adherence to the original curve of the 1935 je y, which are both key aspects of the heritage requirements iden fi ed by Heritage Council, but does propose the crea on of a “meaningful sec on” of mber je y, which is a worthwhile considera on.

With considera on of the importance of retaining the heritage values of Tanker Je y, Esperance, the concept design for the New Re-placement Je y needs to go further than the BMT-JFA Concept in responding to the reten on of heritage values, as follows:

MATERIALS

There is an intrinsic link between the heritage values of a place and its fabric. Material is a key aspect of fabric and so it is cri cally im-portant for the design of the Replacement Je y to use appropriate materials, as follows:

Timber needs to be a feature of the new je y, preferably a hardwood mber of scale and fi nish to match the propor ons of some of the original elements. With its natural varia on and tendency to weather in exposure to the elements, mber changes with me and this is one of the characteris cs that allow people to connect with the material, fi nding meaning in the way it has been shaped by me. Timber is also a tac le material, and has long held associa ons with its use in marine structures. Tim-ber should be used in a way that allows people to touch and see the material, ideally in the super-structure which is the main human-ac vity zone.

Steel and Iron were also a feature of the old je y, used for all the fi xing bolts and straps, as well as the steel rail tracks, the cast-iron bollards and pile shoes. As with mber, steel is very robust and durable, but does change over me, usually with the ac on of water (fresh and salt water) causing corrosion. The old steel bolts were likely forged, giving them a unique rus c character, and most fi xings were expressed, consistent with the basic and u litarian structural design of the Tanker Je y, Esperance. The eff ects of corrosion gave the steel components a dis nct pa na, as well as having eff ects on the surrounding mber, which were o en stained (and later ro ed) with the impact. The used of steel and cast iron for exposed fi xings (structural or aesthe c only) could be considered as part of the design of the Replacement Je y, or salvaged steel and cast iron components could be incorporated into the fabric for the purposes of interpreta on only (ie. non-structural applica on) to ensure that this material remains visible.

Salvaged material – the material that comprises the Old Tanker Je y is highly valued by the community and what remains of it demonstrates the character and style of the 1935 design intent, as well as the history of repairs and patching that have taken place over subsequent decades. The remaining por ons of the original hardwood piles can be iden fi ed by the dis nc ve car-penter’s notches (in Roman numerals) that are inscribed on each member, presumably to iden fy the pile number, demonstrat-ing the tradi onal building techniques used in construc on. Similarly, the old beams can be iden fi ed by the dis nc ve circular saw marks on their fi nished surface, typical of mill equipment used the inter-war era (whilst la er replacements have dis nct ver cal band-saw marks). There is also likely to be deck or kerb elements that feature engravings and graffi le by previous genera ons of je y users who le their mark on the fabric which also contributes to the history of the material. Reuse of sal-vaged material should be focused on preserving signifi cant features that tell the story of the je y and recognise the meanings and associa ons of the material itself. This approach should be priori sed above general interest in recycling mber, as even new hardwood will quickly weather and change in the exposed marine environment to achieve the pa na of aged mber, what can’t be replicated is the authen c markers of eras past.

DESIGN FEATURES

The design of the 1935 je y was typical of modest and u litarian mber structures designed by the Public Works Department of WA in the inter-war era, with a focus on prac cality, constructability and lack of ar fi ce. The design took advantage of the availability of large sec ons of hardwood and used simplis c methods of a achment and bracing that would allow a low-skilled workforce to work on the construc on in-situ. It will be important that any new Replacement Je y respects the humble origins of the Old Tanker Je y, and perhaps there is opportunity for the construc on methodology to be suffi ciently simplis c to allow for the local workforce to again be engaged to assist in construc on.

The sub-structure of the 1935 je y consisted of two hardwood mber raked piles (ba ered 1:8) either side of a central straight pile, ed together with simple cross braces and walings that were scribed out to fi t over the piles, and twin half caps to create the dis nc ve je y bents spaced at 15’ centres (4600mm). On top of each pile was a 1.5m long mber corbel, which assists in suppor ng the superstructure


above and provides a fi xing zone between the pile and the stringer beams. The design is simplis c and represents a tradi onal arrange-ment of post and beams to support an upper pla orm, with resistance to lateral loads provided by the raking piles and the mber brac-ing providing resistance to racking. Extra supports were added through the centre of the je y to support the railway tracks which once ran the full length of the je y. Once this func on became redundant (when commercial opera ons ceased) the railway tracks were removed and the central piers were no longer replaced, with now only a few remaining in evidence.

Raking piles were a key feature of the structural design of the Old Tanker Je y as well as being a characteris c feature of the architectural expression of the structure. The diameter of the piles, their ba er and their headstock fi xings are all important aspects of the original design intent that can feasibly be interpreted in the design of the new structure without detrac ng from the integrity of the original design. It is debatable whether the central pile is an equally important element in the je y bent de-sign if there is no inten on to reinstate the railway line, as it was a purely func onal element which became redundant as soon as the commercial opera ons of the je y ceased.

The railway track was installed to the centre of the deck, spli ng into mul ple tracks at Pier 148 where the deck width in-creased. The track consisted of standard WAGR 3’6” gauge (suitable for a “G” class locomo ve) with switching gear located on a specially constructed underdeck between Piers 147 & 148, now no longer extant as je y terminates at Pier 143. As the railway track was specifi cally associated with the commercial opera ons of the je y, some considera on should be given to interpret-ing the original loca on of the track and the role it played in the original func ons of the je y.

The je y deck was characterised by its wide boards (9”x4”) that spanned the full width of the je y (15’), treated at each cut end with hot tar. A mber kerb (6”x4”) ran along the top edge of the je y deck on both sides, fi xed down with bolts and joined by scarfed joints. The north side of the je y featured a mber balustrade consis ng of a 4”x4” top rail laid on the diagonal and checked into a 6”x4” post, with strap and bolt fi xings, and a 4”x3” central rail laid on the fl at, also with bolt fi xings. By the 1980s the mber balustrade was substan ally replaced with tubular steel balustrading. Likewise, the mber decking was topped by monolithic concrete in the early 2000s. Considering the aesthe c value of the mber decking and balustrade, and its long-standing role in the human-ac vity zone of the je y, considera on should be given to reinsta ng these elements in the concept design for the Replacement Je y, albeit with regard to modern standards and codes for construc on.

The width of the je y was originally determined on the basis of the func onal requirements for clearances either side of the “G” Class locomo ve The width of the je y was variable, being 15’ wide (4600mm approx.) for the main length, and splaying to 46’ wide (14000mm approx.) at Pier 155 where the Je y Head was located. The deck was also widened between Piers 136 & 143 to accommodate sheds (1962) giving this area a total width of 29’ (8840mm approx.). This would suggest there is some de-sign precedence to look at variable widths along the Je y (par cularly at the Je y Head) to accommodate ancillary structures. The width of the Replacement je y should also be based on the func onal requirements of the new structure, with consider-a on given to pile placement and reten on of the structural footprint of the original je y.

The original 1935 je y featured a lower boat landing and latrines located at Piers 150 – 152, which were accessible from the main deck via a ladder, and situated approximately 3’ above the low water mark. The latrine featured a crude fl ap in the screen wall that appears to have diverted waste directly into the sea(!). The boat landing also appears to have provided access to the underdeck switching gear for the overhead railway tracks. This boat landing became a popular fi shing spot and considera on should be given to reinstatement of a lower landing deck if this func on is s ll desirable. Refer also to Sec on 05 Design Issues with regards to the mooring of vessels.

A fi sh cleaning area was located between Piers 18 & 19 on the north side of the je y but is no longer extant due to removal of piers up to Pier 31 to accommodate the new headland. The fi sh cleaning area was noted in a condi on report undertaken in 1990 (marked on PWD 27418 Drawing No. 5 by CJ Colyer), but is likely to date back to the 1970s or 80s. Considera on should be given to reinstatement of a fi sh cleaning area in the design of the Replacement Je y, possibly close to the shoreline as per the earlier facility, and on the north side due to the direct of prevailing weather condi ons from southwest to southeast.

In 1990, light poles were noted as being located at Piers 18, 36, 54, 72, 90, 108, 125 and 143, this represen ng a typical spacing of approximately 80m (260’), with no ligh ng documented beyond Pier 144, as by this stage the Je y Head/Island was sepa-rated by a gap of 200m due to the condi on of the outlying structure. New ligh ng will need to comply with current standards and codes, but considera on could be given to interpreta on of the earlier ligh ng design, which contributed to the visual ap-pearance of the structure at both day and night.

Archival drawings and photographs show how oil supply pipes once extended along the underside of the je y deck to supply tankers. Although all of this infrastructure is no longer extant, the route of the oil pipes and their func on could be interpreted in the deck surface or other interpreta ve devices.

In 1990, seats were noted as being located at Piers 19 and 72. Photos of the era suggest that these were not original features but later addi ons associated with recrea onal use of the je y. Considera on should be given to the installa on of sea ng along the length of the je y to provide respite for je y users and also poten ally as interpreta on nodes.

The archival plans of the 1933-35 indicate an abutment detail on the shoreline detailing how the je y transi oned from sea to land. The abutment consisted of a sheet-piled retained edge with piles spaced every 7’6” and the resul ng walls lined with mber board cladding. The transi on between sea and land has changed considerably over the years, par cularly with the

construc on of the new headland and rock revetment immediately to the je y landing in 2011. A narrow gangway formed the access bridge between the je y and the foreshore between 2011-2015. The design of the Replacement Je y will have to con-sider the prac cali es of spanning the new headland and rock revetment, but there is design precedence for a range of op ons including a retained abutment. The design solu on should consider whether changes to the headland can be interpreted as part of the changing se ng of Tanker Je y, Esperance.

Summary: The design should respond to the fi ne-grain detail of the 1935 Je y design and fabric and interpret the ‘stories’ inherent in the Place. There are signifi cant opportuni es to retain the associa ons and meanings of the Old Tanker Je y in the design of the Replace-ment Je y.

1.5 Heritage Interpreta onThe Heritage Council has clearly stated that any Concept plan for a Replacement Je y at the site of Tanker Je y, Esperance needs to demonstrate how the Interpreta on Plan (prepared by Hocking Heritage Studio, September 2016) will be implemented (HCWA le er dated 13 Sept 2017). The report includes a number of strategies that can be readily incorporated into the Concept design, as follows:

SITE 1: ENTRANCE TO THE NEW JETTY: Main Interpreta ve Node

The main themes iden fi ed here relate to the closure of the je y, its demoli on and replacement. The expression of the built form in this zone will provide mul ple opportuni es to interpret these themes, par cularly as the

new headland and rock revetment require an en rely new design response to bridge the new transi on between land and sea. The entrance to the je y represents a place where people have gathered to observe the deteriora on of the Old Tanker Je y

(par cularly a er extreme weather events or unscheduled collapses of the structure) and to lobby for it to be saved. It has formed the backdrop for community demonstra ons and media announcements. The entrance symbolises the place where the piles for the 1935 Tanker Je y were fi rst placed, and the place where entry was fi rst barred to the Je y in 2015 due to struc-tural failure and risks to public safety. The design of the entry structure can express these tensions between old and new, and aspects of these events can be documented in interpreta ve devices such as signage, imagery and the structural expression of the ‘bridge’ itself.

Being land-based, with a direct connec on to the high quality foreshore development, the entrance node may also off er op-portuni es for more technologically advanced interpreta ve devices such as virtual reality displays or audio/oral experiences rather than just sta c displays.

August 2018


2.0 Funding Issues

2.1 Capital costsStakeholder engagement with the Shire of Esperance Councillors and the Je y Replacement Working Group iden fi ed that one of the key issues facing the project is the availability of funding. The Shire of Esperance has ini ally commi ed to 1/3 cost contribu on towards the new Je y, with addi onal funding likely to be sourced through State and Federal funding streams facilitated by GEDC. Funding suc-cess is directly related to cost-benefi ts that can be demonstrated through a detailed Business Case. Return on capital costs expended will be a cri cal factor in determining the economic feasibility of the project. Once early construc on cost es mates are established, the Shire of Esperance should undertake a Cost Plan project in order to determine which elements and priori es can feasibly be funded, and iden fy whether a staged project is required.

The design features of the Replacement Je y will have the biggest impact on the cost of construc on, as follows:

The length of the je y will impact directly on costs, as the longer the je y extends, the more expensive it is likely to cost. Ir-respec ve of the length, there are likely to be upfront mobilisa on costs for any contractor to establish equipment onsite, and then the certain cost effi ciencies can be achieved by having a repeatable design. The rela onship between length and cost was well demonstrated in the BMT-JFA Concept design report (September 2014)

The width of the je y will have an impact on the cost of the je y, as the width will determine the pile placement. It is likely to be more cost eff ec ve and prac cal if the new piles can be driven along the exis ng je y footprint as opposed to inside it. Refer also to Sec on 5.0 Design Issues.

The structural capacity of the Je y will impact on costs as it determines the size and loading of diff erent members. If the je y is designed to accommodate pedestrian loads only and light vehicles only (live load of 5kPa), this means that smaller members can be used, however it may also restrict construc on op ons to water-based plant only (ie. not an ‘over the top’ construc on methodology which can o en be a cheaper construc on cost, but has higher material costs for piling)

Material selec ons will have a direct impact on costs as diff erent materials have diff erent supply costs and availability. Material selec ons will impact both upfront capital costs and ongoing maintenance costs. Refer also to Sec on 5.0 Design Issues.

Material selec on will also directly govern the design pile spacing and therefore the total number of construc on members. Steel and concrete structures will result in the least number of piles and the greatest effi ciency of spans. Timber beams have a maximum span of 4-6m so there will be a requirement for addi onal piles using mber construc on, which directly aff ects costs. Refer also to Sec on 5.0 Design Issues.

Provision of services will have cost implica ons for the Je y, depending on the func onality required. If no vessels are to be moored at the je y, this reduces the requirements for fi re services, otherwise hydrants will need to be added at extra cost.

Compliance and decisions about safety provisions will have cost impacts on the project, as there are certain elements which are technically required according to Australian Standards and Building Codes (such as access ladders, balustrades on both sides of the je y) which may need extra considera on to make sure they don’t detract from heritage and aesthe c outcomes of the Replacement Je y.

Exis ng site condi ons have the poten al to impact on costs, par cularly with unknown geotechnical issues (to be further assessed in the Detailed Design phase). The new headland and rock revetment in front of the Old Je y may also have cost implica ons on the design and constructability of the new Replacement Je y, as a new link element may be required to bridge this area.

The design life of the je y will have direct cost implica ons as more funds are usually spent upfront to minimise downstream maintenance costs. Using modern materials and op mised corrosion protec on op ons will be the best way of ensuring a high quality outcome in terms of durability and economy, but may not achieve the aesthe c requirements. If materials such as mber are used in the design of the Replacement Je y, achieving an extended design life for these elements will have cost impacts.

Use of salvaged material in the new Je y will have cost implica ons, as the individual members will need to be assessed for their suitability for re-use, and con ngencies will need to be allowed in case the material is not en rely suitable for reuse, there is insuffi cient quan ty, or the mber requires treatment to retard further deteriora on.

Reten on of the original structural footprint will have poten al cost implica ons as it will require addi onal care to be taken during the construc on phase that would not be otherwise required on a non-heritage site.

Structural expression of the new je y may have cost implica ons, as it is generally accepted that achieving raked piles is more expensive than straight piles due to the higher driving energy required, but this might be an acceptable cost if it achieves the desired heritage outcomes. Similarly, inclusion of bracing and waling to the new substructure to achieve an aesthe c similar to the 1935 design will have cost implica ons as these elements are not technically required using modern steel construc on methods.

Compliance with current codes and standards will have cost implica ons, as design features which may not be considered integral to the communi es func onal requirements, say, or the reten on of heritage values, will nonetheless need to be ad-dressed in the design and construc on phases.

Summary: The design features of the Replacement Je y will have the greatest impact on the capital costs par cularly length and width of the je y, structural capacity, material selec on, provision of services, compliance and decisions about safety, exis ng site condi ons, design life, use of salvaged materials, reten on of the original structural footprint and the structural expression of the new structure.

SITE 2: GROUND BASED INTERPRETATION : Along the surface of the new je y

The main themes iden fi ed here relate to the original construc on and use of the je y, key facts, changes to the je y over me, reference to the social values of the je y and informa on about the archaeological poten al of the original je y footprint

The new je y deck would be a poten al site for some of the key artefacts to be displayed, such as examples of the old piles with their carpenter’s marks, perhaps alongside informa on about modern construc on methods employed in the Replace-ment Je y. These elements could be incorporated into func onal pieces such as sea ng or shelter structures so that they don’t detract from the ‘u litarian’ expression of the Replacement Je y, or become sta c displays that visitors can’t engage with.

The previous uses of the Je y could be interpreted with the inlay of steel “railway tracks” into the deck surface, for example, with basic informa on about how the design of the je y accommodated the “G” class locomo ves, or how oil pipes ran to the underside of the deck to supply the tanker ships berthed at the Je y Head.

The decades of change evidenced in the exis ng and lost fabric of the Tanker Je y, Esperance could be recorded or interpreted in the design of the new je y. For example, if a lower landing is constructed, it may include informa on about the original boat landing (and latrines!), or if new shelters are constructed, they could be inspired by the design and detailing of the early shed buildings.

Features of the original design can also be subtly interpreted, such as the early ligh ng layouts, the placement of seats, the extent of the original Je y Head.

Appropriate salvaged and new materials could be incorporated into the deck surface to provide contrast of new and old, and to demonstrate the impacts of the extreme marine environment over me. This would allow for the showcase of some of the special pieces of old je y mber, that are beyond a prac cal life, but are full of character and visual interest.

The archaeological poten al and environmental values of the world below the water line can be iden fi ed, poten ally with informa on about the dive trail and the eff orts of the local community to preserve the habitat of the bird and sea wildlife in the vicinity of the Old Je y

SITE 3: POSTS AND FURNITURE

The main themes for this node relate to the historic use of the je y, its social value to the local community, and documenta on regarding the inevitable demoli on of the Old Je y

The new je y can accommodate a con nua on of some of the design and interpreta ve devices already in place on the Fore-shore, including the ver cal steel encased mber posts that have been constructed of salvaged material and engraved with informa on plaques. This will allow for visual connec ons to be reinstated, and allow the Replacement Je y to link with the landscape elements of the new Foreshore se ng.

Reuse of the salvaged material can allow for the Old je y mbers and ironwork to be made available to the public in crea ve and non-structural applica ons, perhaps with detailed informa on available to allow people to understand the process of change in these materials, and why they couldn’t be used to rebuild the je y

Incorporate the quotes from the Esperance Tanker Je y Replacement survey to illustrate the meanings and associa ons the place has for the local community, both in the past and into the future. These quotes could be engraved into the mber benches, or into the kerb railing or decking boards. Quotes could be selected on their suitability for diff erent loca ons, either looking out to sea or back towards the town, allowing for the stories and the words about the old je y to form part of the new je y fabric.

SITE 4: PUBLIC ART

The main themes for this node relate to fi shing, whaling, commercial shipping, farming/agriculture, recrea on/sports Depending on the quan ty of material salvaged from the Old Je y, ar sts could be invited to create public art pieces using this

material for incorpora on into the se ng of the Replacement Je y. Art pieces could focus on the u litarian and func onal aesthe c of the old je y, or the tradi onal structural expression of the

1935 je y. Loca ons for poten al public art should be considered in the context of the overall expression of the Replacement Je y, being

cau ous about crea ng visual clu er or detrac ng from the special quali es the Je y is trying to capture with its form, style and materials.

Summary: Interpreta on of the key themes should be inherent to the fabric of the Replacement Je y, as well as being incorporated into its se ng through signage, informa on devices, sculptural elements and crea ve installa ons.


2.2 Ongoing maintenance costsManaging maintenance costs of any new infrastructure is a key issue for the Shire of Esperance moving forward, and is the key reason for s pula ng a 50 year design life for the Replacement Je y. Maintenance costs will be impacted by the following project decisions:

Material selec on – The materials being considered for the replacement je y include steel, concrete and mber. Steel and con-crete will both require corrosion protec on and maintenance to achieve the required design life, whilst mber has a reduced design life that will require maintenance and replacement of components within 25 years.

Corrosion Protec on systems – there are mul ple op ons available depending on selec on of materials. Accessibility to components –the je y components most diffi cult to access are those that comprise the substructure, below

deck level. Typically access to these components is by water-based transport only, which requires costly mobilisa on of cra and equipment to undertake monitoring and/or repair. Above the deck, elements of the superstructure are more readily ac-cessible, therefore materials that require more maintenance and repair can more feasibly be monitored and accessed. On this basis, mber should not be considered feasible for use in any of the sub-structure (below deck) unless these components are considered sacrifi cial. Similarly, considera on should be given to rou ng other services (ie. electrical, water) in upper surface of the deck to increase accessibility and reduce costs. Limi ng the maintenance requirements for the components forming the substructure will reduce ongoing maintenance costs.

Summary: The ongoing maintenance costs will be impacted primarily by material selec on, corrosion protec on systems and the acces-sibility of components for monitoring and repair.

2.3 Sources of incomeThe Shire of Esperance has commi ed $1.8M towards the demoli on of the Old Tanker Je y, and another $2M towards the construc on of a Replacement Je y, with alterna ve sources of funding required to meet the remaining 2/3 cost.

Moving forward, the Shire will need to account for life cycle costs of the Replacement Je y, which will be dependent on the upfront capital costs, and the proposed maintenance regime and associated costs.

The report prepared by BMT-JFA Consultants (September 2014) provided useful informa on about Whole of Life Costs for a variety of diff erent design op ons and a similar methodology should be employed to determine the es mated maintenance costs for the Replace-ment Je y once its construc on budget is established at the end of the Concept Design Stage. The Shire of Esperance will then be able to determine the viability of managing ongoing maintenance costs through annual budgetary planning, or whether addi onal sources of income are required to top up resources.

Stakeholder engagement undertaken in October 2013 iden fi ed that the community may be prepared to contribute towards the re-placement cost of the je y through levies, but did not want ongoing maintenance to be funded by entry tolls to the new Je y.

Summary: Iden fying sources of income for the upfront capital cost of the Replacement Je y and ongoing maintenance costs is a priority for the Shire of Esperance

2.4 Economic & social benefi tsA detailed Business Case is likely to be required for any major funding applica on and should be considered part of the project param-eters for the Shire of Esperance moving forward, once some of the early project milestones have been achieved. A Business Case will determine cost benefi ts associated with the construc on of a Replacement Je y however the following benefi ts are an cipated with the construc on of a Replacement Tanker Je y:

Tourism poten al – the new je y will be a drawcard to the region, off ering a mul -use pla orm that can be used as a pedes-trian promenade, for recrea onal fi shing, for diving and underwater explora on, and an a rac ve venue for photography and crea ve arts.

Local economic benefi ts – the new Je y will a ract visitors to the Esplanade and Foreshore areas which will directly benefi t nearby businesses and may encourage new businesses to be established in the vicinity to service visitors

Local iden ty – the design of the Replacement Je y can contribute to the iden ty of the Esperance foreshore, as a major feature of the seascape, and being highly visible from the Esplanade and Foreshore, it has the poten al to become a postcard-worthy backdrop to many important local events

Employment & local business opportuni es – the construc on contract terms can be developed to encourage local subcontrac-tors, trades and suppliers to be able to tender on por ons of the building work to ensure that Buy-Local Policy objec ves can be achieved

Opportuni es – the new mul -use pla orm will present opportuni es for future growth and development par cularly in recre-a onal tourism. The Replacement Je y will poten ally be the largest purpose-built recrea onal pla orm in Western Australia off ering premier fi shing and deep water diving facili es in immediate proximity to the town. Unlike the Busselton Je y, the new Tanker Je y will not be constrained by the need to accommodate a tourist train (which takes up a substan al propor on of the je y width) and achieves much greater depth over a shorter length, making the facility even more accessible for visitors.

The Replacement Je y presents an opportunity to encourage more nature-based and environmentally-sustainable outdoor ac vi es in the Esperance Harbour, extending the human-ac vity zone beyond the foreshore and encouraging greater connec- ons with the ocean environment

The Replacement Je y has the poten al to support future commercial and/or tourism opera ons, par cularly if these align with historic uses or themes, and are compa ble with retaining the heritage values of the place

The Replacement Je y off ers the ability for the Je y to be contribute to the forma on of new associa ons and meanings for current and future genera ons of Esperance locals and West Australian’s generally

Summary: The Replacement Je y represents a signifi cant opportunity to achieve economic and social benefi ts for the community of Espe-rance, and to promote future growth and sustainability in outdoor recrea on and business ac vi es

3.0 Community Buy-in

3.1 Community Consulta onThe Shire of Esperance and the Heritage Council of WA have undertaken comprehensive community and stakeholder consulta on with regards to the future of Tanker Je y, Esperance and the outcomes are well documented (Tuna Blue Summary of Outcomes, October 2013; Heritage Council of WA public survey, November 2016). As well as the social and heritage values held by the community (refer to Sec on 1.0 Heritage Issues), the community views can be summarised as follows:

The je y needs to be replaced Replacement op ons such as width, length, materials, etc should be dependent on cost Replacement planning should incorporate mul -use op ons Ac on needs to be taken as soon as possible and access to the exis ng structure needs to be provided in the mean me (consul-

ta on from 2013 pre-dated the eventual closure in 2015, but nonetheless maintaining public access was already a concern with the construc on of the headland impac ng accessibility)

A staged approach to replacement is favoured Replacement in the current loca on is favoured, following the exis ng curve and alignment The primary use is recrea onal, with a focus on fi shing There is support for incorpora ng commercial opera ons and poten ally accommoda ng cruise ships or tenders

In addi on to these views, preferred design elements were iden fi ed:

Use of appropriate materials, namely steel and concrete with some mber to highlight heritage of Old Je y Match height of exis ng je y Maximise width, but generally widths of 3m – 4.5m acceptable Maximise length, but generally length of 250-400m acceptable Incorporate lower decks to allow for diff erent uses A Je y Head at the seaward end for shared recrea onal use and vehicle turnaround

August 2018


The Shire have incorporated the majority of the community preferences into the Replacement Je y Design Brief, and it will be important to communicate how these preferences have been translated during upcoming design feedback.

There is a general understanding that there is strong community support for the Replacement Je y, but that concerns about ongoing me delays and uncertainty of funding cause fear and distrust about what the likely outcome will be. Community buy-in is integral to

the success of the project, so that they feel their opinions have been listened to, and that the Replacement Je y has been designed to respond to community needs and preferences.

Summary: The extensive community consulta on has been incorporated into the Design Brief for the Replacement Je y. Community buy-in is integral to the success of the project, and people need to feel that their opinions have been listened to and that the Replacement Je y has been designed to suit their needs and preferences, otherwise they lose faith in the process.

3.2 Impact of lobby groupsWithin the community, there are special interest groups who advocate for the restora on and reconstruc on of the Old Tanker Je y, not replacement. The ‘Friends of the Tanker Je y’ have lobbied on a number of fronts, administering a fundraising campaign for the restora on of the Old Je y, and also sourcing independent advice to inves gate structural engineering op ons to repair of the old structure. With limited resources to actually engage an engineer to design a solu on, nor for a heritage professional to help guide the process, the Friends are limited by what they can achieve without the support of the Shire of Esperance, the body responsible for the care and maintenance of Tanker Je y, Esperance since a Je y Licence to that eff ect was established in 1990. The Friends campaign is very public, including television commercials and a strong presence on social media and local media. Unfortunately this has campaign has become divisive in the community and the Friends are a strong lobby group ac ng against the Shire in their eff orts to move forward with a Replacement Je y.

The Friends of the Tanker Je y could be potent advocates for the Replacement Je y Project if they were prepared to re-focus their energies towards Replace-ment in lieu of restora on or reconstruc on, and could contribute meaningfully to the design process. In par cular, their passion for the place and their desire to preserve its associa ons and meanings could be be er directed towards the implementa on of the Interpreta on strategy, which is inherent in the design of the je y itself, its se ng and its cultural heritage overlays.

It would appear that sharing addi onal informa on and knowledge about heritage ‘best prac ce’ and the prac cal applica on of Burra Charter principles may assist in modera ng resistance from the Friends, but this will need to be reinforced by other Statutory bodies such as the Heritage Council of WA, par cularly with the eventual li ing of the Conserva on Order, to ensure that these ac ons are not perceived or construed as a loss for heritage.

Summary: Lobby groups working against the Shire in the development of the Replacement Je y have the poten al to represent major roadblocks to progress and to prevent community consensus and buy-in by causing divi-sion and distrust.

3.3 MediaCommunica on strategies with the media should be pro-ac ve and informa ve to ensure that key messages are being communicated about the project, and to make sure that the Shire of Esperance is not con nually being seen in opposi on to other par es such as the Friends of the Tanker Je y group, or the Heritage Council of Western Australia. The lack of success to date in addressing key heritage hurdles has had a nega ve impact on the community percep ons of the Shire, and this has been exploited by the media and lobby groups. Local media understand how important the Tanker Je y, Esperance is to the community, and also how divisive the topic can be, and there is a risk that they will con nue to create stories and ar cles about the lack of progress made by the Shire, or the challenges/backlash they are facing, even if this is not actual fact.

The Shire of Esperance has already established a communica on strategy for this phase of the project, which involves more regular com-munica on with local media, and publica on of general informa on about the project progress. This strategy is also a emp ng to share knowledge about heritage principles and issues at play, providing people with more informa on to allow them to make more informed opinions. In keeping with this approach, it is recommended that extra me and eff ort is taken at the public release of the Concept De-sign to clearly ar culate all the detailed considera on behind the concept so that the media can share this informa on, and the public can understand it and provide feedback if appropriate.

Summary: Communica on strategies with the media should be pro-ac ve and informa ve to ensure that key messages are being com-municated and to demonstrate the Shire of Esperance working with other agencies such as the Heritage Council of WA to achieve accept-able heritage outcomes for the Tanker Je y site.

3.4 Poli cal pressureOne of the biggest risks facing the Replacement Je y project is the poten al for poli cal pressures to drive outcomes instead of commu-nity needs. The Tanker Je y issue has already been represented on the elec on pla orm for local Council as well as State Government candidates, and it con nues to be an issue that is raised in a poli cal context. Most recently it was men oned as part of the 2018 State Government budget (although without any clear funding commitment) which means that it remains a current and conten ous issue. There are obvious advantages to having a project that is poli cally ‘desirable’, par cularly when seeking funding and support, but this project needs to achieve all round consensus fi rst, which is not possible un l lobby groups and par es stop campaigning to ‘save the old Je y’ and star ng advoca ng for building a replacement je y. This can only feasibly be achieved through sharing knowledge and infor-ma on with key poli cal iden es, and with the support and ‘approval’ of other key agencies and bodies such as the Heritage Council of WA, Southern Ports, Dept of Transport, GEDC, Tourism Esperance Inc, etc.

Summary: The Shire of Esperance needs to demonstrate that they have the support and ‘approval’ of key agencies and bodies such as the Heritage Council of WA, Southern Ports, Dept of Transport, GEDC and Tourism Esperance Inc, etc for the Replacement Je y op on in order to a ract poli cal support for the project.

4.0 Shire Issues

4.1 Ownership & ResponsibilityStakeholder Engagement sessions with Councillors from the Shire of Esperance and the Je y Replacement Working Group raised the is-sue of ownership and responsibility for the Tanker Je y, Esperance, and concerns about who would own the infrastructure of a Replace-ment Je y upon demoli on of the Old Tanker Je y. The Old Tanker Je y was originally owned by the State Government of Western Australia un l 1990, when a Je y License was established, ves ng the Je y in the responsibility of the Shire of Esperance. The Je y Licence applied to the extent of the je y between the shore abutment and Pier 143 inclusive. The remains of the je y, between Pier 143 and up to Pier 192 have now been removed to seabed level, but considera on will need to be given to the constraints of the lease area if the new Replacement Je y (or its interpreta ve devices) extends into this zone (ie. past Pier 143).

Summary: The Shire of Esperance should clarify all ownership rights and responsibili es before construc ng a Replacement Je y to ensure relevant permissions are in place par cularly if the new structure, its temporary plant or permanent interpreta on devices extend beyond the lease area defi ned by Pier 143.

4.2 Design risks (public safety, OHS, insurance)The Shire of Esperance will need to consider all the design risks associated with the Replacement Je y and the implica ons these risks will have in terms of managing public safety, OHS requirements for Shire staff and sub-contractors, and also insurance and indemnity ob-liga ons. For example, current standards and codes may dictate minimum requirements or ‘deemed-to-sa sfy’ performance solu ons, but the Shire may wish to consider design outcomes in excess of these requirements to further limit risks.

As part of the Concept Design stage it is proposed to undertake a ‘Safety-in-Design’ workshop with the consul ng engineers, to iden fy and manage safety risks and design solu ons to mi gate these risks. Some of these poten al risks are already iden fi ed in Sec on 5.0 Design Issues for preliminary considera on, but can be summarised as follows:

Width of deck – considera on needs to be given for emergency vehicle access and turnaround Je y entry and interface with rock revetment – considera on will need to be given for safe crossing of headland for pedestrians

and light vehicles, and whether access beneath the je y is possible/required in this zone Mooring or berthing required? Low fi shing or dive pla orms will require access (is stair or ladder required?) Risk of overtopping during storm events Handrails Safety devices such as life rings and ladders Environmental factors such as sea level rise, wind loads, wave events and storm events

Summary: The proposed Safety-in-Design Workshop will assist the Shire of Esperance to iden fy and manage safety risks that might apply to public use of the Replacement Je y, as well as OHS requirements for Shire staff and sub-contractors, and allow the Shire to con-sider insurance and indemnity obliga ons moving forward.

4.3 Exis ng demoli on tenderThere is an exis ng demoli on tender for $1.8M to remove the Old Tanker Je y, which was unable to commence beyond tender award due to the impact of the Stop Work Order and Conserva on Order issued by the Heritage Minister in November 2016. The exis ng Con-serva on Order will need to be li ed before demoli on can proceed (refer also to Sec on 1.0 Heritage Issues).


Aside from the obvious statutory restric ons currently preven ng demoli on from taking place, should the Conserva on Order be li ed, the Shire of Esperance will need to consider whether any of the exis ng contract condi ons for the demoli on tender need to be modi-fi ed with regard to the following:

the current condi on of the structure, which has deteriorated further since 2016 ensuring the interests of salvaging heritage material from the Old Je y are adequately covered by this contract, including use

of methodologies that limit damage or loss of signifi cant fabric Reten on of heritage values of the site are also a key factor in the demoli on phase, including the archaeological poten al of

the area beneath the deck which may be disturbed during demoli on and salvage Protec on of environmental values of the site, par cularly bird life which currently inhabits the je y structure, and marine life

which lives under the deckSummary: The Shire of Esperance may need to consider addi onal terms for the Demoli on contract to ensure that heritage values can be retained and environmental values protected during the course of demoli on.

4.4 Other approvals requiredThere are a number of statutory bodies that are likely to be involved in the approvals process for the construc on of the Replacement Je y and these bodies should be clearly iden fi ed as part of the design process. Iden fi ca on of statutory bodies early on assists in en-suring a smooth and eff ec ve approvals process and ensures that appropriate and targeted stakeholder engagement can be undertaken well before construc on is scheduled. It also assists in iden fying any major issues that could cause impacts on the project feasibility, meframe or budget.

Summary: A detailed assessment of relevant statutory bodies shall be undertaken by the project team in the design phase of the Replace-ment Je y process to allow for management of approvals processes.

4.5 Liability vs. assetDuring the Stakeholder Engagement sessions undertaken with Shire Councillors in both 2013 and 2018, concerns were expressed about whether the Esperance Tanker Je y should be considered as a liability or an asset, and this ques on applies to the Old Je y as well as the Replacement Je y.

The Shire was given responsibility for the Old Je y in 1990, well a er the structure had outlived its design life, and once commercial opera ons had ceased and the je y became primarily a recrea onal pla orm. So began decades of expenditure on maintenance, repair and replacement, which was eff ec ve in extending the life of the je y another 30 years, un l its closure in 2015. Prior to, and since the closure of the Je y, the Shire has also expended considerable resources in obtaining professional advice, with a number of reports and designs commissioned between 2014-2017 addressing the viability of repair, reconstruc on or replacement of the Old Je y.

It would seem that prior to the closure of the Je y in 2015, the structure was considered to be an asset to the community and the wide-spread advantages it off ered in terms of recrea on and tourism were feasibly off set against the cost to stabilise the structure suffi cient for safe public access. Once the condi on of the structure reached a point where it was no longer safe for public use and the je y was closed, responsibility for the je y became a liability for the Shire, who were required to con nue to maintain and stabilise the structure although it was no longer able to be used. In community consulta on undertaken since 2013 the community have clearly demonstrated that ongoing use of the je y is key, and the community do not support managing the Je y ruin un l it is completely gone.

Summary: The Je y is considered an asset so long as it can con nue to be used by the community. Without ongoing use, the structure is a liability.

4.6 Timeframe Time is a key issue for the Replacement Je y project and the Shire of Esperance need to allow con ngencies to manage possible delays or impacts caused by the following events:

Delays in approvals – par cularly li ing of the Conserva on Order Deteriora on of the Old Je y and the complica ons further collapses and failures might cause Inclement weather –impac ng upon the program for geotechnical inves ga ons during the design phase Timing of funding rounds for State and Federal funding Community buy-in - the longer the process takes, the more the community loses faith in the process and waivers in their sup-

portSummary: The Je y project is me-sensi ve and although there are many important milestones to achieve before construc on of a Replacement Je y can be achieved, delays have the poten al to impact on community support for the project and limit funding opportu-ni es.

4.7 Recurrent costsFunding issues have already been iden fi ed and discussed in Sec on 2.0, but recurrent costs is an ongoing issue for the Shire of Esper-ance who will be responsible for the New Je y and need to make provision for the ongoing costs that can be expected over its lifespan. Above mee ng the obvious Capital Costs associated with the infrastructure itself, the Shire of Esperance will need to manage other re-curring costs such as payment of insurance premiums, maintenance programmes (which can involve material costs as well as personnel costs), costs to modify the infrastructure to maintain ongoing compliance with changes in standards (if applicable), license costs (if ap-plicable), and other costs associated with managing the Je y as a tourist site (for example, if entry tolls are enforced or special licenses distributed).

Summary: The Shire of Esperance needs to take account of recurrent costs associated with the Replacement Je y and make appropriate plans to fund these costs.

5.0 Design Issues

5.1 Loca onThe engineering consultant has iden fi ed the following poten al issues associated with the proposed loca on of the Replacement Je y:

The concept design will assume that piling between or alongside the exis ng piles is possible. This is s ll a risk despite the availability of the exis ng pile survey (from 1933) and will increase if further debris is iden fi ed on the sea fl oor (ie. par cularly during demoli on of the exis ng structure).

The concept design assumes that the exis ng je y structure will be demolished and that only the piles remaining from 1933 will be retained. Issues would be created if any other elements are required to be retained in their current loca on.

Summary: The Replacement je y will be located on or near the original footprint of the 1935 Je y, provided the issues of piling between or alongside the exis ng piles can be resolved, and on the basis that the old je y has been demolished and that only the structural foot-print of the 1935 je y will remain.

5.2 Func onalityThe following poten al issues are associated with the proposed func onality of the Replacement Je y:

The design brief does not indicate any specifi c requirement for low level pla orms however these might be desirable to ac-commodate the proposed use of the je y, par cularly as the previous low landing was a popular fi shing spot and could also be useful as a dive pla orm. Any low level pla orm would ideally be located on the north side of the je y as the strongest and predominant wind is from south-west to south-east. If the pla orm is required to be used as a horizontal dive pla orm, consid-era on may be given as to whether this should have ladder or stair access, or if compliant ramp access is required.

The design brief does not specify whether mooring or berthing is required. The site is currently a no-boa ng zone, but boat ac-cess may be desirable for emergency services or maintenance crew, or for recrea onal purposes.

Summary: The func onality of the je y should be confi rmed to ensure the Replacement Je y is designed to cater for specifi c uses.

5.3 Structural DesignThere are a number of issues to consider with regards to the structural design of the replacement Je y:

The design brief assumes that pedestrian loads only are required (ie. 5kPa). Light vehicles for maintenance can be accom-modated under the 5kPa load, but considera on may be given to designing piles and cross heads to suit crawler crane loads. Load requirements may also restrict construc on op ons to water-based plant only and exclude an “over the top” construc on methodology which will most likely be a cheaper construc on method but with higher material costs for piling. The pro’s and cons will be discussed during the detailed design phase.

Material selec on will directly impact upon pile spacing and spans of beams. Steel beams can span up to 9m, with concrete panels achieving similar. Steel and concrete structures will result in the least number of piles, but this may impact upon the aesthe cs of the Je y structure, par cularly as the original was mber, with only 4-6m spans.

Material op ons for the various elements are steel (for piles, for sub-structure and cross beams), concrete (for sub-structure, cross beams and decking) and mber (for decking or super-structure elements that are accessible from the deck), no ng that mber typically has a design life of 25 years and higher maintenance requirements.

There are a range of corrosion protec on systems available including sacrifi cial and impressed anode systems. The steel piles can be protected by a combina on of pain ng, corrosion protec on systems, steel thickness and HDPE sleeves. Concrete can be protected by coa ngs design to slow down chloride ingress, by the thickness of the concrete cover and through appropri-ate selec on of concrete grade. Timber can be protected through pain ng and applica on of penetra ng treatment systems, although full replacement is usually advised a er 25 years in a marine environment.

Summary: The structural design will be informed by structural load requirements, material selec on, construc on methodology and op- ons for corrosion protec on systems.

August 2018


5.4 Length, width, depth, heightThere are a number of design issues to consider with regard to the proposed height, length and width of the Replacement Je y, and the impact this will have on the depth of water the je y achieves:

For purposes of prac cality and constructability, the preference is to develop a repeatable design format for the new je y bents and spans between piers. If diff erent sec ons are created (ie. more than one repeatable design format, such as a modern je y sec on and a mber “meaningful sec on”) this will have design and cost implica ons as the transi on between sec ons will need to be created, and some design formats might be more expensive than others.

No ng the community’s preference for the longest possible je y, maximising the length of the je y will likely impact construc- on costs. It is assumed that there are no major design issues rela ng to the fi nal length of the je y.

The exis ng je y width is 4500mm, therefore a reduced width may aff ect amenity of the je y and not allow for the turning of light vehicles (used for maintenance or emergencies). Changing the width may also present a risk for pile driving within the exis ng footprint, as opposed to alongside it.

The current deck level is 4300mm LAT which will be signifi cantly over-topped in storm events, including the previously proposed BMT-JFA design event of 200 ARI wave. Whilst overtopping can be managed, if the exis ng deck level is retained, it may pose a safety risk during a storm event. Considera on may be given to increasing the fi nished deck level for this reason, no ng the Heritage Council’s preference for maintaining the original deck level.

The new je y deck level needs to e in with the fi nished levels of the new headland and foreshore, either through ramping or adjustment of levels of the foreshore or the fi nished je y

Summary: The length, width and height of the Replacement je y will be informed by a number of factors including amenity, constructa-bility and its rela onship to adjoining ground levels and sea levels.

5.5 ComplianceWhen designing a new Je y structure, compliance with relevant codes and standards can dictate some aspects of the design, as follows:

Handrails need to be provided to both sides of the deck as per the Building Code of Australia and AS4997, designed to the requirements of AS1657. Some concessions may be possible from a heritage perspec ve, if use of handrails on both sides of the deck is considered to have an unacceptable impact on heritage values, but public safety is likely to be considered a higher prior-ity by all statutory authori es

Ladders need to be provided as a maximum of 60m intervals as per AS4997 and there is a poten al safety issue to je y users if there are no ladders provided.

Summary: Compliance with relevant codes and standards will dictate some of the design features, par cularly the elements which con-tribute to public safety such as handrails and ladders.

5.6 Metocean DesignThe engineering consultants have iden fi ed the following poten al design issues with rela on to metocean data:

The func onal category of the structure determines the appropriate design wave event (as per AS4997 Table 5.4). In this case the engineers suggest that Category 1: structures presen ng a low degree of hazard to life or property is likely to be appropriate as the je y can be closed in storm events or to undertake repairs and maintenance. The risk of a 500 ARI event occurring in a 50 year design period is approximately 10%, the risk of a 200 ARI event occurring in a 50 year period is 22%. On this basis, the engineers propose to design with a wave design event of 200 ARI, which is also consistent with previous designs developed for this loca on on behalf of the Shire (BMT-JFA in 2014, and GHD in 2017). The Shire will need to confi rm that a Category 1 assess-ment is acceptable.

An extreme water level of +1.8m CD/LAT for a 200 ARI storm is recommended to be adopted. This infl uences the fi nal recom-mended deck height for the je y.

A 400mm allowance (to 2070) for sea level rise is proposed as per the Dept of Transport 2010 Guidelines. This infl uences the fi nal recommended deck height for the je y.

Currents are assumed to be negligible. Wind loads need to be considered in tandem with wave loads to determine maximum lateral loads on je y. Winds are pre-

dominantly from the south-west to south-east sector. Cyclonic design is not required, and recommenda ons from AS1170 and available BoM data will be used in absence of site specifi c recorded informa on.

Bathymetry details will inform structural design modelling and pile toe levels for design. The consultant team will use latest available informa on from EGS 2016 survey and Dept of Transport 2016 survey.

Summary: Metocean data such as wind loads, wave loads, currents and sea levels will inform aspects of the design, par cularly with regard to deck heights and structural design of je y bents.

5.7 Geotech DesignThe geotechnical engineers have iden fi ed the following poten al design issues which relate specifi cally to pile design:

Pile orienta on – driving raked piles will require higher driving energy compared to ver cal piles but can be achieved. Steel raked piles will have less chance of shallow refusal compared to mber piles. By having raked piles, this will help reduce the pile lateral and tensile capacity requirements, but these are not expected to be signifi cant loads for this project. The cost compari-son between the two methods needs to be considered, no ng that the price diff eren al is not expected to be great due to the small an cipated pile size.

Pile spacing will be infl uenced by exis ng pile loca ons and alignment, any heritage considera ons, choice of materials which governs maximum spans, determined pile size. It is recommended from a cost perspec ve to op mise the pile spacing vs. pile size.

Pile installa on method – it is expected that the piles will be driven, however if shallow refusal is encountered in the rock then it may be necessary to drill through the pile and re-drive the pile to toe level. This assump on can be fi rmed up following the geotechnical inves ga on.

Summary: There are opportuni es to consider diff erent pile orienta on and spacing depending on selected materials and structural expression, and the outcomes of the geotechnical inves ga ons.

5.8 Services DesignThe Services engineers have iden fi ed the following poten al design issues which relate specifi cally to the provision of hydraulics and electrical services to the Replacement Je y:

LIGHTING & ELECTRICAL

Ligh ng – lights are assumed to be required for the length of the je y, with lux levels as per AS/NZS 1158. The number of lights to be provided (ie. spacing) will be governed by lux levels, but there may be opportunity to interpret the earlier ligh ng design of the je y with the placement of poles, colour temperature, etc.

The lights are assumed to be LED and/or similar to the foreshore ligh ng, incorpora ng bird protec on. Solar ligh ng has been disregarded at this stage as suffi cient mains power source is available which is more economical.

Ligh ng pole materials to be confi rmed, but assumed they will be aluminium or re-used mber/steel as per the foreshore de-sign. Shire to confi rm whether swing down arms are required for maintenance.

It is assumed that suffi cient capacity is available in the local switchboard and that the spare electrical conduit running to the je y, as shown on the ‘as constructed’ drawings of the foreshore, can be u lised for ligh ng.

The moun ng arrangement for the poles and conduits needs to be considered in the design – it may be possible to incorporate the conduit into the kerb rather than moun ng it underneath the deck, which is not preferable.

It is assumed that there are no other power requirements for the je yWATER SERVICES

Potable water – it is assumed that a potable water supply is required to services hose taps only (2 off ), no troughs. It is assumed that there is suffi cient supply in the exis ng network and suffi cient pressure, although this will depend on their loca on along the je y. The Shire should provide fl ow and pressure test results if available, and confi rm loca on of the cleaning sta ons or other taps required along the je y.

Fire hydrants/reels – Based on AS2419, provided there are no moored vessels, fi re hydrants are not required. Should this not be the case, fl ow and pressure test results will be required.

Drainage – no specifi c drainage systems required. Intent is straight run-off from je y. No requirements for sewer, communica ons, CCTV, GPOs, fuel or WIFI services. Should this not be the case, addi onal consul-

tants may be required.Summary: Certain aspects of ligh ng design will be determined by compliance with standards, but there is opportunity to design light-ing that connects with the foreshore development and interprets the original ligh ng scheme of the Old Tanker Je y. Water services are feasible, but viability will be determined on the basis of the specifi c func onal requirements of the je y.


Design ApproachFollowing a detailed review of the Key Issues and the site specifi c informa on available, H+H Architects with GHD Engineers, propose the following design approach for the Replacement Je y:

• 400m long je y in alignment of the original je y, with new piles spaced to allow reten on of original footprint

• Short, meaningful “Historic sec on” which pays homage to the tradi onal industrial nature of the Old Tanker Je y (approximately 50-75m length, depending on budget) bridging the revetment and forming the entry to the new je y

• Create longer, modern fi shing je y with some design infl uences from the Old Tanker Je y incorporated into the je y bent design (approximately 250m length, depending on budget)

• Widened deck at the Je y Head to facilitate community ac vi es and with reference to the original je y head design (approximately 75m length)

• Lower pla orm to accommodate fi shing and diving access• Interpreta on elements incorporated into all je y sec ons and on land-based approach, as well as

beyond Pier 143• Con nua on of original deck level elements including mber handrails, steel balustrade, mber

kerb rail and light poles to full length of je y deck• Je y furniture and elements inspired by original elements such as rail buff er stops, mber punts

and store sheds.• Je y-based fi sh-cleaning sta on posi oned over water• Fish & fauna friendly ligh ng to fi shing areas, with poten al for architectural ligh ng to je y

substructure for special events• Inlay of original railway alignment to full length of je y surface to interpret original commercial

shipping func ons of the Old Tanker Je y

Concept imagery of new dive pla orm at Je y Head

Concept imagery of “Type 1 - Historic Sec on” Concept imagery of “Type 2 - Fishing Je y”

Concept imagery of “Type 4 - Je y Head”

PIL

E F

RAM

E 1

43

PIL

E F

RA

ME

43

PIL

E F

RA

ME

31

4.6M WIDE X9.2M PILE FRAME

SPACING


SPACING

9M WIDE X9.2M PILE FRAME

SPACING


SPACING

TYPE 1'HISTORIC SECTION'

TYPE 2'FISHING JETTY'

TYPE 3'DECK WIDENING'

TYPE 4'JETTY HEAD'

SURVEYED LOCATIONS OFEXISTING TIMBER PILES

NEW PILE LOCATIONS TO BE OFFSET FROM EXISTING

TY

PE

1

31

TY

PE

1

33

TY

PE

1

35

TY

PE

1

37

TY

PE

1

39

TY

PE

1

41

TY

PE

1

43

TY

PE

2

45

TY

PE

2

47

TY

PE

2

49

TY

PE

2

51

TY

PE

2

53

TY

PE

2

55

TY

PE

2

57

TY

PE

2

59

TY

PE

2

61

TY

PE

2

63

TY

PE

2

65

TY

PE

2

67 TY

PE

2

69 TY

PE

2

71 TY

PE

2

73 TY

PE

2

75 TY

PE

2

77 TY

PE

2

79 TY

PE

2

81 TY

PE

2

83 TY

PE

2

85 TY

PE

2

87 TY

PE

2

89 TY

PE

2

91 TY

PE

2

93 TY

PE

2

95 TY

PE

2

97 TY

PE

2

99 TY

PE

2

101 TY

PE

4

103 TY

PE

4

105 TY

PE

4

107 TY

PE

4

109 TY

PE

4

111 TY

PE

4

113 TY

PE

4

115

DWG 3

DWG 2

DWG 1

DWG 5DWG 4


SPACING


L.P.

L.P.

TY

PE

1

29

LAD.

LAD.

LAD.

LAD.

LAD.

LAD.

PIL

E F

RA

ME

115

PIL

E F

RA

ME

105

PIL

E F

RA

ME

99

L.P.

L.P.

L.P.

BENCHSEAT

L.P.

TY

PE

127

TRANSITION

DIVE PLATFORM

PIL

E F

RA

ME

31

PIL

E F

RA

ME

43

PIL

E F

RA

ME

99

PIL

E F

RA

ME

105

PIL

E F

RA

ME

115


SPACING


SPACING

TYPE 1'HISTORIC SECTION'

TYPE 4'JETTY HEAD'


SPACING


LAD. LAD. LAD. LAD.LAD.LAD.

L.P. L.P.SHELTERSL.P.L.P.L.P. L.P.

DIVE PLATFORM

1 : 800SOUTH ELEVATION -OVERALL

SHIRE OF ESPERANCEREPLACEMENT JETTY

1:800 @ A1. PLAN.JETTY OVERVIEW

9.2M

August 2018


OVERALL SITE PLANOVERALL SITE PLANREPLACEMENT JETTYREPLACEMENT JETTYShire of EsperanceShire of EsperanceDra Concept Design August 2018Dra Concept Design August 2018

PIL

E F

RA

ME

43

PIL

E F

RA

ME

31


SPACING

PILE FRAME TYPE 1

TY

PE

1

31 TY

PE

1

33 TY

PE

1

35 TY

PE

1

37 TY

PE

1

39 TY

PE

1

41 TY

PE

1

43

TY

PE

2

45

TY

PE

2

47

TY

PE

2

49

SURVEYED LOCATIONS OF EXISTING TIMBER PILES

NEW RAKED PILES @ 9.2M CENTRE SPANS BETWEEN PILE FRAMES.(AS PER 1933 DESIGN) (16 IN TOTAL)TO BE OFFSET FROM EXISTING.

2

z_SK 2.1

TY

PE

1

29

LOCATION OF ORIGINAL LIGHT POLE.

IN-LAY TIMBER (RECYCLED) TO REPRESENT TWIN RAILWAY BEAMS AND SLEEPERS UNDERNEATH RAIL LINE.

METAL STRIPS IN-LAID FLUSH WITH DECK TO SHOW ALIGNMENT OF ORIGINAL RAIL TRACKS.(TRACK SLIGHTLY OFFSET)

ORIGINAL LOCATION OF FISH CLEANING BENCH. (PIER 18-19)

RECYCLED TIMBER TRANSITION STRIP.

TIMBER DECKING SET ON PILES SET WITHIN MODIFIED REVETMENT

HARDWOOD TIMBER DECKING.

TRANSITION

SLOPED TRANSITION ZONE TO REVETMENT

CROSSOVER

4.6

M A

BO

VE

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

4.6M WIDE

1 : 50

INDICATIVE CROSS SECTIONTHROUGH PILE FRAME TYPE 1


1:200 @ A1. PLAN DETAIL.TYPE 1 'HISTORIC SECTION'


Steel post & rail balustrade

Steel-framed substructure

Raked steel piles

Timber bracing & waling

Timber decking

‘TYPE 1 - HISTORIC SECTION’ PLAN [1]‘TYPE 1 - HISTORIC SECTION’ PLAN [1]REPLACEMENT JETTYREPLACEMENT JETTYShire of EsperanceShire of EsperanceDra Concept Design August 2018Dra Concept Design August 2018

Timber post & rail balustrade

Type 1 - Historic Sec on


August 2018


DETAIL VIEW - TYPE 1 JETTY BENTDETAIL VIEW - TYPE 1 JETTY BENTREPLACEMENT JETTYREPLACEMENT JETTYShire of EsperanceShire of EsperanceDra Concept Design August 2018Dra Concept Design August 2018


PIL

E F

RA

ME

44


NEW RAKED PILES @ 9.2M CENTRE SPANSBETWEEN PILE FRAMES.

TO BE OFFSET FROM EXISTING.

PIL

E F

RA

ME

45

TY

PE

1

43

TY

PE

2

45

TY

PE

2

47

TY

PE

2

49

TY

PE

2

51

TY

PE

2

53

TY

PE

2

55

TY

PE

2

57

TY

PE

2

59

TY

PE

2

61

TY

PE

2

63

TY

PE

2

65

TY

PE

2

67

TY

PE

2

69

TY

PE

2

71



PRE-CAST REINFORCED CONCRETE DECK.

METAL STRIPS IN-LAID FLUSH WITH DECK TO SHOW ALIGNMENT OF ORIGINAL RAIL TRACKS.(TRACK SLIGHTLY OFFSET)

NEW BENCH SEAT TO MATCH LOCATION OF ORIGINAL.

4.6M

AB

OV

E W

AT

ER

LE

VE

L

4.6M WIDE

CALLOUT A (SHOWING PILE FRAMES 45-71)

1 : 50



1:200 @ A1. PLAN DETAIL.TYPE 2 'FISHING JETTY'




Raked steel piles

Concrete decking


Light pole

‘TYPE 2 - FISHING JETTY’ PLAN [2]‘TYPE 2 - FISHING JETTY’ PLAN [2]REPLACEMENT JETTYREPLACEMENT JETTYShire of EsperanceShire of EsperanceDra Concept Design August 2018Dra Concept Design August 2018

Light pole

Type 2 - Fishing Je y

TY

PE

2

71

TY

PE

2

73

TY

PE

2

75

TY

PE

2

77

TY

PE

2

79

TY

PE

2

81

TY

PE

2

83

TY

PE

2

85

TY

PE

2

87

TY

PE

2

89

TY

PE

2

91

TY

PE

2

93

TY

PE

2

95

TY

PE

2

97

TY

PE

2

99

2

z_SK 2.2b

SURVEYED LOCATIONS OF EXISTING TIMBER PILES

NEW RAKED PILES @ 9.2M CENTRESPANS BETWEEN PILE FRAMES.TO BE OFFSET FROM EXISTING.



NEW BENCH SEAT TOLOCATION OF ORIGINAL


METAL STRIPS IN-LAID FLUSH WITH DECK TO SHOW ALIGNMENT OF ORIGINAL RAIL TRACKS. (1963 LAYOUT)

NEW BENCH SEAT TO MATCH LOCATION OF ORIGINAL.

4

z_SK 2.3

NEW UNDERDECK PLATFORM TO GHD DESIGN.

4.6M

AB

OV

E W

AT

ER

LE

VE

L

4.6M WIDE

CALLOUT B (SHOWING PILE FRAMES 71-99)

1 : 50



1:200 @ A1. PLAN DETAIL.TYPE 2 'FISHING JETTY'

August 2018




Raked steel piles

Concrete deckingTimber post & rail balustrade

Light pole

Light pole

‘TYPE 2 - FISHING JETTY’ PLAN [3]‘TYPE 2 - FISHING JETTY’ PLAN [3]REPLACEMENT JETTYREPLACEMENT JETTYShire of EsperanceShire of EsperanceDra Concept Design August 2018Dra Concept Design August 2018


PIL

E F

RAM

E 1

15

PILE

FR

AM

E 9

9


SPACING


SPACING

PILE FRAME TYPE 3

PILE FRAME TYPE 4

PIL

E FR

AME

103

TY

PE

2

93

TY

PE

2

95

TY

PE

2

97

TY

PE

2

99

TY

PE

2

101

TY

PE

4

103

TY

PE

4

105

TY

PE

4

107

TY

PE

4

109

TY

PE

4

111


NEW RAKED PILES @ 9.2M CENTRESPANS BETWEEN PILE FRAMES.TO BE OFFSET FROM EXISTING.

PROPOSED SHELTERS INSPIRED BY 1933 STORE SHEDS WITH INTERPRETATIVE INFORMATION.


POTENTIAL CURVED END TO ORIGINAL JETTY HEAD. (1933)OR SQUARE AS PER 1963.

ORIGINAL LIGHT POLE LOCATION.

NEW BENCH SEATS INSPIREDBY RAIL BUFFERS.

METAL STRIPS IN-LAID FLUSH WITH DECK TO SHOW ALIGNMENT OF ORIGINAL RAIL TRACKS. (1963 LAYOUT)

2

z_SK 2.3

TY

PE

4

113

TY

PE

4

115

NEW UNDERDECK PLATFORMTO GHD DESIGN.

3z_SK 2.3

4

z_SK 2.3

RAILING TO END

9M WIDE

4

z_SK 2.3

1000

3000

8600

DIVE PLATFORM8600

800

700

2200

1500

STEPSPILE FRAME TYPE 2


1:200 @ A1. PLAN DETAIL.TYPE 4 'JETTY HEAD'


1:200 @ A1. PLAN DETAIL.TYPE 3 'JETTY WIDENING'

1 : 50


1 : 100NEW DIVE PLATFORM

1 : 50

INDICATIVE CROSS SECTIONTHROUGH PILE FRAME TYPE 2_SHOWING NEW DIVE PLATFORM

Type 3 & 4 - Je y Widening & Je y Head

August 2018


Concrete decking


Steel-framed sub-structure

Raked steel piles

Concrete decking


Metal strips in-laid into deck as per 1963 track layout

Shelter sheds

Poten al loca on of lower fi shing pla orm

Light pole

New bench seats inspired by rail buff ers

Poten al curved je y head to match 1933 design, or ‘squared’ head as per 1963 design

‘TYPE 3 & 4 - JETTY HEAD’ [5]‘TYPE 3 & 4 - JETTY HEAD’ [5]REPLACEMENT JETTYREPLACEMENT JETTYShire of EsperanceShire of EsperanceDra Concept Design August 2018Dra Concept Design August 2018

Type 3 & 4 - Je y Widening and Je y HeadType 3 & 4 - Je y Widening &

Je y Head



(+3.

428)

(+3.

470)

(+2.

912)

(+2.

916)

(+3.

761)

3.20

0

3.40

0

3.60

0

2.80

0

2.40

0

2.4

00

2.6

00

2.8

00

3.0

00

3.4

00

3.6

00

3.40

0

3.40

0

3.6

00

3.8

00

4.0

00

3.60

0

3.4

00

3.60

0

3.40

0

3.600

3.4003.

200

3.400

3.200

3.200

3.2

00

3.00

0

3.0

0 0

2.60

02.

800

2.80

0

2.60

0

2.4

00

3.20

0

2.8

0 0

2.6

0 0

2.4

0 0

2.2

0 0

2.0

0 0

1.8

0 0

2.60

0

2.20

0

2.4

00

2.6

00

2.8

00

3.00

0

3.2

00

3.4

00

3.6

00

2.80

0

3.00

03.

200

3.400

3.600

3.400

3.20

0

3.000

2.800

FALL 1.5%

FALL 1.5%

FALL

1.5

%

FA

LL 1

.5%

FALL 1.5%

FALL 1.

5%

FALL 1.

5%

FALL 1.5%

FALL 1.5%

FALL

1.5

%

FALL 1.5%

FALL 1.5%

FALL 1.5%

FALL 1.5%

FALL 1.5%

FALL

1.5

%

FALL

1.5

%

FALL 1.5%

FAL

L 1.

5%

FALL 1.5%

FALL 1.5%

FALL 1.5%

FA

LL

1 .5

%

FA

LL

1 .5

%

FALL 1.5%

FALL 1.5%

FA

LL

1 .5%

FALL 1.5%

FALL 1.5%

FALL 1.5%

FA

LL

1.5%

3.0

00

2.4

00

FALL 1.5%

FALL 1.5%

FALL 1.5%

FALL 1.5%

FALL 1.5%

2.60

0

2.2

00

2.40

0

2.6

00

3.2

00

FALL 1.5%

3.20

0

.200

3.0

00

2.80

0

3.20

0

2.6

00

3.000

3.00

0

2.60

0

2.0

00

2.6

00

2.40

0

3.0

00

2.4

00

2.2

00

FALL 2%

FALL 2%

FALL 2%

FALL 2%

FALL 2%

2.80

0

+2.725

+3.700

+2.850

+2.700

+2.350

+2.500

+3.100

+3.300

+3 .

65 0

+3.625

+3 .

70 0

+3.6

00 +3.6

25

+2.920

+2.850

+3.830

+2.820

+2.910

+3.080

+3.180

+3.

100

+3.1

50

+3.275

+3.250

+3.3

50

+3.300

+3.500

+3.650

+3.6

75

+3.650

+3.700

+3.1

00

+3.300

+3.500

+3.700

+3.650

+2.9

00

+2.7

25

+2.700

+2.700

+2.850

+3.5

00

+3.700

+3.500

+3.5

00

+3.3

00

+3.3

00

+3.3

30

+3.5

00

+3.3

00

+3.2

25+2

.900

+3.175

+3.150

+2.9

50

+3.1

00

+2.9

00

+3.700

+3.3

00

+3.1

00

+3.050

+2.900

+3.100

+2.900

+2.7

00

+2.700

+2.500

+3.

000

+2 .

955

+2.

810

+2.

550

+2.

520 +3

.010

+3.100

+3.2

50

+2.700

+2.890

+3.0

50

+3.100

+2.650

+2.750

+2.550

+2.350

+2.325

+2.3

00

+2.3

00

+3.3

00

+3.3

00

+3.0

50

+2.9

50

+3.1

00

+3.030

+2.

900

+3.1

00

+3.100

+3.1

50

+3.1

50

+3.1

50

+3.5

00

+3.5

00

+3.700

+3.700

+3.7

00

+2.750

+2.550

+2.9

20

+3.

360

+3.1

75+3

.120

+2.

390

(+2.

603)

(+2.

553)

(+2.

709)

(+2.

679)

(+2.

680)

(+2.

584)

(+2.

773)

(+2.

485)

(+2.

630)

(+2.

854)

(+3.

193)

(+3.

043)

(+2.

(+2.

453)

(+2.

260)

(+2.

339)

(+2.

370)

(+2.

952)

(+2.

849)

TREAD B

TREAD B

TREAD B

TREAD B

TREAD D

TREAD B

TREAD B

TREAD B

TREAD B

TREAD D

TR

EAD

A

TR

EAD

A

TR

EAD

A

TR

EAD

A

TR

EAD

C

TR

EAD

A

TR

EAD

A

TR

EAD

A

TR

EAD

A

TR

EAD

A

TR

EAD

C

SW

ITC

HB

OA

RD

SM

SB

HP

HO

RIZ

ON

PO

WE

R P

I LL

AR

RE

MO

VE E

XIST

ING

TREE

S

RE

MO

VE E

XIST

ING

TREE

P1

P1

P1 P1P1

P1

P1P2

P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1

P2P2

P2P2

P2

P2

P3A P3AP3B P3B P3B P3B P3B P3BP1 P3B P3B P3B P3B P3B P3B P3B P3BP1P1P1P1P1P1P1P1P1P1P1P1P1P1P2P3BP3BP3BP3BP3BP3BP3AP3AP3AP3AP3AP3BP3BP3B P1 P1

P2P1P1P1P1P1

P1 P1 P1 P1 P1P1P1P1

PF2PF2

PF2PF2

PF2PF2

PF2PF2

PF2PF2

PF2PF2

PF2PF2

PF2PF2

PF2PF2

PF2PF2

PF2PF2

PF2PF2

C1

C1

C1

C1

C1

P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1

P2P2

PIL

E F

RAM

E 1

43

PIL

E F

RA

ME

43

PIL

E F

RA

ME

31

TY

PE

1

31

TY

PE

1

33

TY

PE

1

35

TY

PE

1

37

TY

PE

1

39

TY

PE

1

41

TY

PE

1

43

TY

PE

2

45

TY

PE

2

47

TY

PE

2

49

TY

PE

2

51

TY

PE

2

53

TY

PE

2

55

TY

PE

2

57

TY

PE

2

59

TY

PE

2

61

TY

PE

2

63

TY

PE

2

65

TY

PE

2

67 TY

PE

2

69 TY

PE

2

71 TY

PE

2

73 TY

PE

2

75 TY

PE

2

77 TY

PE

2

79 TY

PE

2

81 TY

PE

2

83 TY

PE

2

85 TY

PE

2

87 TY

PE

2

89 TY

PE

2

91 TY

PE

2

93 TY

PE

2

95 TY

PE

2

97 TY

PE

2

99 TY

PE

2

101 TY

PE

4

103 TY

PE

4

105 TY

PE

4

107 TY

PE

4

109 TY

PE

4

111 TY

PE

4

113 TY

PE

4

115

TY

PE

1

29

PIL

E F

RA

ME

115

PIL

E F

RA

ME

105

PIL

E F

RA

ME

99

August 2018


NODE 1NODE 1NODE 2NODE 2

NODE 3NODE 3

NODE 4NODE 4

NODE 5NODE 5 NODE 6NODE 6

NODE 7NODE 7

NODE 10NODE 10

NODE 8NODE 8

NODE 9NODE 9

HERITAGE INTERPRETATION NODESHERITAGE INTERPRETATION NODES

• • NODE 1NODE 1 - Original je y landing (Pier 1); oil supply pipes; connec on with rail - Original je y landing (Pier 1); oil supply pipes; connec on with rail network; commercial opera ons of the je ynetwork; commercial opera ons of the je y

• • NODE 2NODE 2 - ‘For the love of fi shing’; adjacent to fi sh cleaning area; info about - ‘For the love of fi shing’; adjacent to fi sh cleaning area; info about recrea onal fi shing at Esperance Je yrecrea onal fi shing at Esperance Je y

• • NODE 3 NODE 3 - ‘Save the Tanker Je y’, memorial to the community eff orts to save - ‘Save the Tanker Je y’, memorial to the community eff orts to save the old structure; long-standing protest site; reference to social valuesthe old structure; long-standing protest site; reference to social values

• • NODE 4NODE 4 - Entry control gate; design intent of Replacement Je y - Entry control gate; design intent of Replacement Je y• • NODE 5 NODE 5 - ‘Crossing over’; reference to the old beach landing and new head-- ‘Crossing over’; reference to the old beach landing and new head-

landland• • NODE 6 NODE 6 - ‘How it was made’; a detailed look at the construc on of the original - ‘How it was made’; a detailed look at the construc on of the original

tanker je y, the saw-cut mber, hand-forged bolts, old piles with carpenter’s tanker je y, the saw-cut mber, hand-forged bolts, old piles with carpenter’s marks, old bollards & je y toes, etc.marks, old bollards & je y toes, etc.

• • NODE 7NODE 7 - ‘Ravages of the environment’; impact of the teredo worm, salt wa- - ‘Ravages of the environment’; impact of the teredo worm, salt wa-ter, rainwater, wind & de; steel vs. concrete vs. mberter, rainwater, wind & de; steel vs. concrete vs. mber

• • NODE 8 NODE 8 - ‘History of the je y’, detailed overview of history including graphic - ‘History of the je y’, detailed overview of history including graphic display in proposed shelter shedsdisplay in proposed shelter sheds

• • NODE 9NODE 9 - ‘Beyond Pier 143’, history of berthing ships, Je y island, remaining - ‘Beyond Pier 143’, history of berthing ships, Je y island, remaining piles and je y footprint piles and je y footprint

• • NODE 10 NODE 10 - ‘Beneath the deck’, overview of environmental values of marine - ‘Beneath the deck’, overview of environmental values of marine life, bird life, poten ally located on the new lower pla ormlife, bird life, poten ally located on the new lower pla orm

HERITAGE INTERPRETATION NODESHERITAGE INTERPRETATION NODESREPLACEMENT JETTYREPLACEMENT JETTYShire of EsperanceShire of EsperanceDra Concept Design June 2018Dra Concept Design June 2018


Interpretation ideasHow it was builtMaterials and methods• Construction methodology and the use of unskilled labour• Saw cut timber and the carpenter’s marks• Hand forged ironwork and cast steel elements• Repairs

August 2018


Interpretation ideasUse of salvaged materialsRecycled timber and jetty elements• Furniture elements• Sculptural elements• Information displays


Interpretation ideasNew built elementsFurniture and shelters inspired by original features• Shelter shed as interpretation node• Visitor seats inspired by old timber punts• Visitor seats inspired by old buffer stops• Rail tracks inlaid into deck surface

August 2018


Interpretation ideas

Beneath the DeckEnvironmental values of sea-life below water• Lower dive platform for deep sea access• Dive trail to remnant piles• Information about habitat of local marine life and bird life


Interpretation ideasRecognition of social valuesMeanings and associations• Memorial to community efforts to save the Old Tanker Jetty• Information about the issues• A site of community protest

August 2018


Heritage Impact StatementHeritage Lis ngs:Tanker Je y, Esperance was fi rst adopted on the Shire of Esperance’s Municipal Heritage Inventory in 1996 and was permanently en-tered on the State Register of Heritage Places in 2008.The place currently has the special protec on of a Conserva on Order placed by the Heritage Minister Hon. Albert Jacob, MLA (dated 19th December 2016).

Statement of Signifi cance:The State Register of Heritage Places Permanent Entry for Tanker Je y, Esperance, provides the following Statement of Signifi cance for the place:

Tanker Je y, Esperance, a predominantly mber je y of approximately 670 metres in length which projects out into Esperance Bay in a south easterly direc on, has cultural heritage signifi cance for the following reasons:

the place is a rare and good representa ve example of a substan ally intact mber je y on the coast of Western Australia, as one of only four comparable structures remaining in Western Australia;it has aesthe c signifi cance due to its considerable size, scale and construc on. Its visibility from the town of Esperance and it’s strong presence in the seascape ensure its landmark status and contributes to the Esperance community’s sense of place;the place is valued by the community as it has been the site of commercial, social and recrea onal pursuits since its construc on, and for its associa on with the period of economic growth in the region in the 1930s and the development of local industries since that me; and,the place is signifi cant for bringing employment to many workers in the vicinity during the period of economic depression in the 1930s, and is associated with the government’s eff orts to employ des tute men in a variety of jobs during this me.

Signifi cance and Descrip on of Specifi c Building:The following descrip on comes from the Assessment Documenta on and observa ons made onsite:Tanker Je y, Esperance comprises the remains of a mber je y structure curving out into the Esperance Bay for a length of approximate-ly 500m (measured from Pier 31 to Pier 143), with subsequent repairs and altera ons undertaken since the 1980s, including concrete deck topping, replacement piles and steel bracing to the sub-structure. The length of the je y from Pier 143- Pier 192(taking the overall length to approximately 870m) is no longer extant.The design of the 1935 je y was typical of modest and u litarian mber structures designed by the Public Works Department of WA in the inter-war era, with a focus on prac cality, constructability and lack of ar fi ce. The design took advantage of the availability of large sec ons of hardwood and used simplis c methods of a achment and bracing that would allow a low-skilled workforce to work on the construc on in-situ. The sub-structure of the 1935 je y consisted of two hardwood mber raked piles (ba ered 1:8) either side of a central straight pile, ed together with simple cross braces and walings that were scribed out to fi t over the piles, and twin half caps to create the dis nc ve je y bents spaced at 15’ centres (4600mm). On top of each pile was a 1.5m long mber corbel, which assists in suppor ng the superstructure above and provides a fi xing zone between the pile and the stringer beams. The design is simplis c and represents a tradi onal arrange-ment of post and beams to support an upper pla orm, with resistance to lateral loads provided by the raking piles and the mber bracing providing resistance to racking. Extra supports were added through the centre of the je y to support the railway tracks which once ran the full length of the je y. Once this func on became redundant (when commercial opera ons ceased) the railway tracks were removed and the central piers were no longer replaced, with now only a few remaining in evidence.The je y deck was characterised by its wide boards (9”x4”) that spanned the full width of the je y (15’), treated at each cut end with hot tar. A mber kerb (6”x4”) ran along the top edge of the je y deck on both sides, fi xed down with bolts and joined by scarfed joints. The north side of the je y featured a mber balustrade consis ng of a 4”x4” top rail laid on the diagonal and checked into a 6”x4” post, with strap and bolt fi xings, and a 4”x3” central rail laid on the fl at, also with bolt fi xings. By the 1980s the mber balustrade was substan- ally replaced with tubular steel balustrading. Likewise, the mber decking was topped by monolithic concrete in the 1990s.

The original 1935 je y featured a lower boat landing and latrines located at Piers 150 – 152, which were accessible from the main deck via a ladder, and situated approximately 3’ above the low water mark. A fi sh cleaning area (built c.1970s) was located between Piers 18 & 19 on the north side of the je y but is no longer extant due to re-moval of piers up to Pier 31 to accommodate the new headland. The archival plans of the 1933-35 indicate an abutment detail on the shoreline detailing how the je y transi oned from sea to land. The abutment consisted of a sheet-piled retained edge with piles spaced every 7’6” and the resul ng walls lined with mber board cladding. The transi on between sea and land has changed considerably over the years, par cularly with the construc on of the new headland and rock revetment immediately to the je y landing in 2011. A narrow gangway formed the access bridge between the je y and the foreshore between 2011-2015

Heritage ImpactsThe following works are proposed to the place. Where aspects of the proposal could detrimentally impact on the heritage signifi cance, the reasons are explained as well as the measures to be taken to minimize impacts:The following outlines the proposed works in detail and their impact on the heritage values of the place:

EXISTING TANKER JETTYIt is proposed to demolish the exis ng Tanker Je y, Esperance, to make way for the construc on of the Replacement Je y, which is intended to align with the footprint of the 1935 Je y.• The exis ng Tanker Je y, Esperance is in poor condi on and has been condemned due to the signifi cant failure of the structure. It is

recognized that there a no feasible repair op ons for the je y which is currently being managed as a ruin. • Removal of the fabric of the Je y will have a signifi cant impact on the authen city and integrity of the place, although it is acknowl-

edged that the je y length between Piers 143 and 192 has previously been demolished and much of the fabric that remains is the result of repair campaigns undertaken since the 1990s, including full replacement of the piles, bracing, balustrade and the covering of the original deck surface with concrete.

• Maintaining the original curved alignment of the Tanker Je y, Esperance assists in retaining its historic and aesthe c values, as this is part of its original expression in the seascape of Esperance Bay and contributes to the landmark quali es of the place.

• Allowing the new structure to follow the alignment of the original structure will ensure that an understanding of the original context and se ng of Tanker Je y, Esperance can be maintained, in par cular, its loca on off Hanne ’s Point, and it’s rela onship with the original rail infrastructure that was a key func on of the original Je y, and is no longer extant.

• It is proposed to retain the original structural footprint of the Tanker Je y, Esperance, with reten on of the original pile loca ons to be maintained.

It is proposed to salvage material during the demoli on of Tanker Je y, Esperance, to provide material for re-use in construc on of non-structural elements in the Replacement Je y project, and for other community uses.• The Shire of Esperance already maintains a stockpile of material salvaged from Tanker Je y, Esperance, and some of this material

has already previously been re-purposed for use in sculptural, playground and signage elements in the Esplanade zone. Salvaged material can also be found in other public and private loca ons throughout the Esperance community, demonstra ng an estab-lished prac ce of re-purposing this je y material.

• Salvage and re-use of the material from Tanker Je y, Esperance will allow for reten on of some of the unique aesthe c quali es and character inherent in the original/early building fabric. Retaining materials that have pa na acquired over an extended period of me allows for an understanding of me passed, and can be a meaningful record of change.

• Some of the material that has been salvaged demonstrates the original construc on methods and workmanship of Tanker Je y, Esperance, including the Roman numeral notches made by carpenters to number the piles, and the circular saw marks made by the original milling equipment. These items have the ability to enrich and enhance our understanding of the place, par cularly as these techniques are now uncommon.

REPLACEMENT JETTYIt is proposed to interpret the original design expression of Tanker Je y, Esperance with the crea on of an “historic sec on” at the lands end of the Replacement Je y.• The ‘Type 1 – Historic Sec on’ represents the original design of the raked piles, the tradi onal mber bracing and waling between

the piles, and the expression of the half-caps, corbels and deck beams to the substructure. The original propor ons of sec on sizes will be reconstructed, albeit using steel sec ons in lieu of mber to assist in achieving a higher design life. The bracing and walings are for aesthe c purposes only, and not required structurally, so these are proposed to be in mber, like the original. Simple fi xing details will allow these elements to be readily replaced as part of future programmed maintenance.

• The original piles were spaced at 4600mm spacings, but it is proposed for the new piles to be at 9200mm intervals, to achieve a consistent pile spacing for the length of the je y.

• The raking piles were a key feature of the structural design of Tanker Je y, Esperance as well as being a characteris c feature of the architectural expression of the structure. The diameter of the piles, their ba er and their headstock fi xings are all important aspects of the original design intent that are proposed to be reinterpreted in the new structure.

• Each je y bent in the original design also featured a central straight pile which was designed to support the central railway track. Once the commercial opera ons of the je y ceased, and the railway tracks were no longer required, the central piles became redundant, and they were no longer replaced as part of other re-piling works conducted at the je y. As the central piles were purely func on elements, and are s ll not required for any structural reason, the je y bents in the historic sec on will not include central piles.

• The railway track was installed to the centre of the deck, spli ng into mul ple tracks at Pier 148 where the deck width increased. The track consisted of standard WAGR 3’6” gauge (suitable for a “G” Glass locomo ve) with switching gear located on a specially constructed underdeck between Piers 147 & 148. It is proposed to interpret the original loca on of the railway track by installing appropriately-spaced steel strips set fl ush into the deck of the ‘Type 1 – Historic Sec on’, as well as revealing a skeleton framework of the original railway sleeper design at the je y landing, poten ally using recycled je y mber to recreate this detail which is now no longer extant.


• The je y deck was once characterized by its wide boards (9”x4”) that spanned the full width of the je y (15’), treated at each cut end with hot tar and fi xed down using hand-forged bolts. It is proposed to u lize mber decking to the ‘Type 1 – Historic Sec on’ in order to re-create the appearance of the original je y, and provide a surface which has the tac le and physical quali es valued by the community. This material has poten al cost and maintenance implica ons, and therefore it is considered most prac cal to use mber in the shallow water sec on of the je y.

• A mber kerb (6”x4”) ran along the top edge of the je y deck on both sides, fi xed down with bolts and joined by neatly scarfed joints. It is proposed to re-create the mber kerbing on the ‘Type 1 – Historic Sec on’ using mber of similar dimensions and profi le, and possibly extend it through for the full length of the je y. To assist in extending the life of the mber sec ons, it is proposed to li the kerb from the mber deck surface using small packers to avoid the mber-on- mber junc ons that can trap moisture and ac-celerate deteriora on. (NB. AS1428.1 requires that kerb rail is 75-150mm in height with 20mm gaps maximum located in this height range)

• The north side of Tanker Je y, Esperance originally featured a mber balustrade consis ng of 4”x4” top rail laid on the diagonal and checked into the 6”x4” posts, with strap and bolt fi xings, and a 4”x3” central rail laid on the fl at, also with bolt fi xings. It is proposed to re-create this balustrade to the ‘Type 1 – Historic Sec on’ of Je y, and possibly extend it through for the full length of the je y. This will allow for reinstatement of this detail in the Replacement Je y, which was typical of many other je y structures designed by the PWD for many decades. (NB. Original balustrade was 4’ [1200mm] high above the deck height, with the mid rail @ 2’ [600mm]. This does not comply with the requirements of the NCC 3.9.2.3(f) for balustrade design, which prevents any horizontal elements between 150mm-760mm above the fl oor level when the poten al fall height is 4m or greater. Concessions will need to be sought for this element, as any compliant barrier system is likely to greatly impede func ons of je y)

• The balustrade on the south side of Tanker Je y, Esperance, featured a steel handrail design which most likely dates from the 1990s (prior to this, archival photos indicate that only the north side had a balustrade), although it is uncannily similar to 1934 details of iron handrail stanchions (refer archival drawings or Ironwork details). It is proposed to reinstate this balustrade design to the south side of the ‘Type 1- Historic Sec on’, and to extend it for the full length of the je y. (NB. Original balustrade details suggest it was 3’3 ½” [1000mm] high with a mid rail at 1’8” [508mm] above the deck level. This does not comply with the requirements of the NCC 3.9.2.3(f) for balustrade design, which prevents any horizontal elements between 150mm-760mm above the fl oor level when the poten al fall height is 4m or greater. Concessions will need to be sought for this element, as any compliant barrier system is likely to greatly impede func ons of je y)

• The width of the je y was originally determined on the basis of the func onal requirements for clearances either side of the “G” class locomo ve, slightly off set to the north side. The width of the je y was variable, being 15’ wide (4600mm approx.) for the main length, and playing to 46’ (14000mm approx.) at Pier 155 where the Je y Head was located. The deck was also widened between Piers 136 & 143 to accommodate sheds (1962) giving this area a total width of 29’ (8840mm approx.) It is proposed to re-create the original 15’ (4600mm) width of the je y for the ‘Type 1 – Historic Sec on’ and this allows reten on of the original scale of the je y pla orm, which is reconstructed at its full width. It is also proposed to introduce a widened deck at the Je y Head (refer to Type 4 – Je y Head) in reference to this original design feature. The new piles will be located to be off set from the original je y pile place-ments, minimizing issues with confl icts caused by hi ng remnant pile features s ll extant.

• In 1990, light poles were noted as being located at Piers 18, 36, 54, 72, 90, 108, 125 and 143, this represen ng a typical spacing of approximately 80m, with no ligh ng documented beyond Pier 144, as by this stage the Je y Head/Island was separated by a gap of 200m. It is proposed to reinstate light poles to the original loca ons, with addi onal illumina on provided by more discreet deck ligh ng in order to achieve compliance with current standards. The reinstatement of overhead lights at the loca on of the original light poles will allow for a re-crea on of the earlier visual appearance of the structure at both day and night and reduce visual clut-ter that light poles spaced at closer intervals would create.

It is proposed to interpret some elements of the original je y that were removed either with the loss of the seaward end of the old je y, or as part of the Esplanade development and crea on of the new headland, and to acknowledge these elements in aspects of the Replacement Je y design.

• A fi sh cleaning area was previously located between Piers 18 & 19 on the north side of the je y but is no longer extant due to the removal of the je y length up to Pier 31 to accommodate the new headland. It is believed that the fi sh cleaning sta on dated from the 1980s, and its loca on in the shallows was likely a major a rac on for seals (most famously, Sammy the Seal). The func onal brief requires the Replacement Je y to include a fi sh cleaning sta on, so it is proposed to locate this in the general vicinity of Piers 18-19 (now land-based, not sea-based), depending on proximity to other relevant site services and public ameni es.

• In 1990, seats were noted as being located at Piers 19 and 72. Photos of the era suggest that these were not original features but later addi ons associated with the recrea onal use of the je y. It is proposed to reintroduce sea ng to the length of the je y, with the new seats at Pier 72 and former Pier 19 proposed to be Interpreta ve Nodes rela ng to the recrea onal history of the je y. This will allow for recogni on of the social values of the place, whilst also improving the amenity of the je y.

• Archival drawings and photographs show how oil supply pipes once extended along the underside of the je y deck to supply tank-ers. Although all of this infrastructure is no longer extant, the route of the oil pipes and some reference to their func on is proposed to be included in the detailed design of the Replacement Je y, currently proposed for the area of the new Je y Landing.

• The archival plans of 1933-35 indicate an abutment detail on the shoreline detailing how the je y transi oned from land to sea. The abutment consisted of a sheet-pile retained edge with piles spaced every 7’6” and the resul ng walls lined with mber board clad-ding. The transi on between sea and land has changed considerably over the years, par cularly with the construc on of the new headland and rock revetment immediately to the je y landing in 2011, which has removed the beach in this zone. A narrow gang-way formed the access bridge between the je y and the foreshore between 2011-2015. It is proposed to temporarily modify the

exis ng revetment to allow placement of new je y piles to the headland so that the new je y deck can bridge this area in the most cost eff ec ve way (ie. rather than a long unsupported span between the headland and the fi rst pier). This will give a similar visual impression of the original staggered height piers at the revetment, with rocks retaining the headland in lieu of the sheet piling.

• There was previously a mber gate to control access onto the je y for trains/vehicles (c.1966) and it is proposed to reinstate this gate in some form to control vehicle access on to the Replacement Je y, if this is required by the Shire. The original gate was a mod-est construc on which did not limit pedestrian access. Re-construc on of the je y gate will assist in the func onal requirements for the Replacement Je y and will allow an understanding of the original func ons of the je y.

• It is proposed to re-create a widened sec on of deck at the Je y Head to create a large pla orm area at the termina on of the Je y, as per the 1935 design. The widened area allows for the introduc on of visitor shelters (inspired by the design of the original Store Sheds from 1935) and possibly a lower pla orm for deep water fi shing close to the water line.

• The original 1935 je y featured a lower boat landing and latrines at Piers 150 – 152, which were accessible from the main deck via ladder and some stairs and situated approximately 3’ [915mm] above the lower water mark. The landing accommodated basic latrines and also provided access to the underdeck switching gear for the overhead railway tracks. Any future lower landing would greatly increase the amenity of the Replacement je y as a fi shing or dive pla orm, and would be consistent with the design fea-tures of the original 1935 je y. Reinstatement of the lower landing would also allow for reinstatement of a signifi cant social use of the je y, as this pla orm was highly favoured as a fi shing spot.

It is proposed to create a simplifi ed and more contemporary interpreta on of the original structural expression of Tanker Je y, Esper-ance with the design of ‘Type 2 – Fishing Je y’, which is proposed to form the main length of the Replacement Je y.• Retaining raked piles, but maximizing their structural spans to 9.2m spacings, the ‘Type 2 – Fishing Je y’ is intended to be a more

contemporary and cost eff ec ve interpreta on of the old je y, retaining key aspects of the original design, but incorpora ng more structural pragma sm to maximize length and width. The mber decking is replaced by concrete decking, and the je y bents are simplifi ed, retaining the appearance of the corbels and stringer beams to the outer eleva on, but without the mber bracing and walings that characterize ‘Type 1 – Historic Sec on’. If possible, the mber balustrade and kerbing will be con nuous through this sec on, to achieve visual design consistency for the length of the je y.

At the seaward end of the Je y, it is proposed to widen the deck (‘Type 3 – Deck Widening’) to create a wider Je y Head (‘Type 4 – Je y Head’). These sec ons are designed to be constructed like ‘Type 2’, u lizing more modern materials in a simplifi ed interpreta on of the Tanker Je y, Esperance.• Tanker Je y, Esperance had an elongated Je y Head designed to accommodate berthing ships in the deep water. It is proposed to

interpret this important original func on of the Je y in the design of the Replacement Je y, with a Je y Head form that is inspired by the original, albeit without the requirement to actually accommodate ships. The 1935 design had a complex arrangement of beams and piles to create fendering at the Je y Head, with a dis nc ve curved form at its termina on. In the 1960s this Je y Head was modifi ed and the end ‘squared off ’ as part of the changes to the structure. It is proposed to interpret either the 1935 or 1960s Je y Head in the design of the Replacement Je y.

• The widened deck will accommodate a number of Interpreta on Nodes that will be used to explain aspects of the Je y’s early his-tory.

• The widened area allows for the introduc on of visitor shelters which are proposed to be modest structures inspired by the design of the original Store Sheds from 1935. The sheds will provide basic visitor sea ng as well as an opportunity to create an Interpreta- on Node focused on the history of the je y.

References:Register of Heritage Places Permanent Entry and Assessment Documenta on, prepared by Prue Griffi n, Historian, and Kris Keen, archi-tect of KTA Partnership, with amendments and/or addi ons by HCWA staff and the Register Commi ee, 26 August 2008Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter, 1999Archival drawings, PWD WA Drawing set 27418 da ng from 1933 – 1990sBeneath the Deck, The Esperance Tanker Je y by Aleisha Orr & Sarah Fitzgerald, 2017

21 August 2018P831/44459

Adelyn Siew (08) 6552 4123

Ms Julie De JongH+H [email protected]

Dear Ms De Jong

ESPERANCE TANKER JETTYThank you for your email of 25 July 2018 regarding the following proposed development at:Place Number P831Place Name Esperance Tanker JettyStreet Address The Esplanade, EsperanceDevelopment Description Draft Concept Plan for Replacement Jetty

We received a drawing package and a Heritage Impact Statement prepared by H+H Architects.As Esperance Tanker Jetty is in the State Register of Heritage Places, the proposed development has been considered in the context of its identified cultural significance and the following preliminary comments are given:

1. The proposed concept for the replacement jetty is an acceptable design. It appropriately interprets the original 1935 design whilst providing for a new jetty that will continue the structure’s social value to the community.

2. Consideration should be given to the following aspects of the project:a. Demolition methodology that will ensure maximum lengths of

salvageable timbers from the existing jetty structure and the least impact on the piles retained in situ.

b. Information such as photographs and drawings should be compiled for the photographic archival record of the jetty structure that will be required prior to the demolition of the original jetty.

3. The Heritage Council requests that a strategy for the interpretation of the Jetty’s former length be developed, perhaps through lighting or other appropriate means.

4. The Heritage Council wishes to commend the Shire for its commitment to developing an appropriate solution and working with H+H Architects on the resulting design.

Should you have any queries regarding this advice please contact Adelyn Siewat [email protected] or on 6552 4123.

Yours sincerely

Anne ArnoldCHAIRAnne Arnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnololololoololololoooolololooooooooooooooooloolooolooloooolldddddddddddddddddddddddddd

August 2018


Conclusion & Recommenda ons:Following review of the Heritage Impacts of the proposed Dra Concept Design, and the formal feedback provided by the Heritage Council of WA, we conclude that the Dra Concept Design has received ‘in principle’ support from the key Heritage Statutory Authority (HCWA) and should now be presented to the Je y Replacement Working Group (JRWG) and the Shire Council for their review and endorsement.

Upon approval by the Shire, it is understood that the plans will be released to the community for a public comment period, and the feedback collected and reviewed by the JRWG, to then be shared back with the design team lead by H+H Architects for incorpora on in the subsequent Final Concept Design Stage.

The following recommenda ons are also made with regards to fi nalising the Concept Design for the Esperance Replacement Je y:

• The feedback from Heritage Council should be incorporated into the Final Concept Design, in par cular their interest in incorpora ng interpreta on devices that refl ect on the original length of the Tanker Je y. This can be developed as part of the design of proposed Interpreta ve Node # 9 “Beyond Pier 143”, and the future ligh ng plans. There may also be opportuni es for this to be explored further in the development of the dive trail. (Item 3)

• As per Heritage Council’s advice, the Shire should review the Demoli on Methodology for removal of the Old Tanker Je y, to ensure that maximum lengths of salvageable mbers can be sourced from the exis ng je y structure, and to ensure adequate protec ons are in place to protect original piles le insitu. (Item 2a.)

• Photographs and drawings of the exis ng Tanker Je y should con nue to be compiled for inclusion in the fi nal Photographic Archival Record of the Tanker Je y, in order to meet the Heritage Council’s requirement for this item prior to demoli on of the exis ng je y structure. (Item 2b.)

Lastly, we appreciate the posi ve feedback provided by Heritage Council with regards to the Shire’s ongoing eff orts and commi ment to develop an appropriate solu on for the Esperance Je y, and look forward to con nuing to collaborate and work together with the Shire to realise a successful outcome.

replacement jetty - shire of esperance · august 2018 2 draft concept design report phase 1 •...

Documents