Well it may be Britain and there may be different sensibilities at work but there are still lessons to be learned about valuing places, the stories linked to them and the meaning/values invested in all that.
Saturday, November 29, 2014
PLACEscaping Launceston: Email from Mayor van Zetten
 |
| The Woolstore Building |
I respond as follows to queries raised -
Heritage assessment of the Woolstore Building
Council has commissioned a number of reports into the Heritage Value of the Woolstore buildings, and the site area more generally.
The initial report (specifically looking at the Woolstore and Silo building) was the Assessment of Heritage Value: Town Point, Inveresk report. Subsequently a, peer review assessment was completed by Goddon Mackay & Logan Heritage Consultants. This report accompanied the Assessment of Heritage Value: Town Point, Inveresk report, at the Council meeting of 5th May 2012 (item 15.1). As per usual practice the Council Agenda and attachments were available for download from the Council website - and are still available now for download, or viewing on the publically accessible computers in our Customer Service Area.
Extract from Agenda Item 15.1 North Bank Woolstores:
The General Manager requested a peer review be undertaken of the HVA to validate the findings of the report, and also consider the broader contextual issues associated with the site - primarily the impact of the flood levee realignment, and the viability of maintaining and protecting the heritage values of the buildings in the long term, given the reduced flood protection as a result of the levee works.
Godden Mackay Logan Heritage Consultants were engaged to prepare the Peer Review Report. In summary, the report notes:
· The HVS is thorough in its approach, although does not consider issues associated with the broader context of the site (including the impact of the flood levee realignment).
· Does not wholly concur that the remaining structures satisfy the number of assessment criteria for Heritage Listing noted in the HVA, and that the significance of the remaining structures may only satisfy 2 of the 7 criteria.
· Notes the low threshold for listing on the Tasmanian Heritage Register as only requiring one or more of the criteria to met for listing potential.
· Notes that retention and adaptation would be an appropriate outcome however, the impediments to long term protection and re-use of the structures may not be viable.
· Notes that the loss of the structures would be regrettable, but that other appropriate measures are available to achieve a satisfactory interpretation of the heritage values of the site as a valid alternative to building retention.
Given the lack of identified future uses for the part of the structure proposed for retention, it was recommended to Council to reconsider this element of the Masterplan proposal, and redirect the funding allocated to the Woolstore structure to the elements outlined in the recent report to Council.
Council's Consultation processes
Your Voice, Your Launceston was used as a consultation tool. It is fair to say that the contemporary engagement tools used by other organisations seem to be of a similar nature these days.
I disagree with the assertion that taking a decision back to a Council meeting is not "Public" or "Consultative". In fact, the vast majority of Council decisions are made in this way. There seems to be the suggestion that the subsequent decision on the modification to the Masterplan was "snuck through" in some way. I disagree that this is the case.
The FAQ text below may also provide some additional valuable information -
Why did the Council approve the demolition of the wool shed?
The crown is the current owner of the site, not the Council, which means the Council cannot approve the demolition.
What we decided was that we would simply allow for its demolition in our North Bank master plan, a document which is guiding our $9m redevelopment of the North Bank recreation area.
The authority for the demolition of the wool shed will have to be granted by the crown to whoever applies to conduct that demolition.
The Council has already sought consent from the Crown to demolish one wool shed on behalf of the Launceston Flood Authority, which required its removal for flood levee upgrades. That demolition took place in 2013.
The decision Aldermen took about the future of the wool shed at the October Council meeting was:
(That) the Council determines to amend the current North Bank master plan to include:
1) Modifications to the proposed levee-top walkway and eastern connection to the Silos development site.
2) Removal of the wool store building, currently proposed for only partial retention, and replacement with new landscaping features to represent the former building footprint.
3) Construction of purpose-built shade and shelter structures in multiple locations across the site to replace the single consolidated undercover area proposed by the current master plan (by the partial retention of the wool store roof structure).
4) Introduction of new interpretation material recording the historical value of the development and industrial activities of the site area, including display of the industrial equipment (mechanical wool presses) salvaged from the wool store buildings.
5) Where possible, use of remaining viable salvaged material from the wool store building, in the construction of new elements of the North Bank site.
Why can't we just leave the wool shed as it is until a suitable use can be found for it?
Well, let's talk about the flood levee protection system that protects the City of Launceston. In recent years the Council has embarked on a $60m project to upgrade and rebuild the levee system that protects low-lying suburbs like Invermay from flood.
Currently the wool shed sits between two levees -- the original flood levee near the riverbank, and the newly upgraded levee on the southern side of Lindsay Street.
The Launceston Flood Authority will eventually remove parts of the older levee, closest to the river. Why? Because our new levees are designed to cope with certain situations. If, for example, we left the old levee in place and a flood occurred, the old levee may fail. This would lead to a sudden surge of water impacting on the new levee, which would be more likely to fail. In short, the new levees are designed to handle a slowly rising level of water, not a sudden crashing inundation.
What this means is that the wool shed has no system of flood protection, and in fact will be more likely to flood and sustain damage in future.
What was the public consultation process for the wool shed?
For more than two years, the City of Launceston has been working on plans for the revitalisation of the North Bank precinct, which includes the land on which the wool shed now sits.
In September 2013, Aldermen voted to release a draft North Bank master plan to the community for a six-week public consultation period. The majority of that public consultation took place on the Council's Your Voice Your Launceston community engagement website, which resulted in more than 3000 'page views' over the consultation period.
That draft plan proposed the demolition of the majority of the wool shed — four bays would be left at the southern end of the site, and half a bay at the northern end.
It should be noted that the proposal called for all walls and floors to be removed; only the roof structure was to remain.
During that public consultation process, there were no material proposals for potential future uses of the wool shed, either in its entirety or assuming parts of the building were retained.
Why did the plan change from retaining four and a half roof bays to demolishing the whole building?
At the conclusion of the public consultation process, the Council began work with at least two groups who believed they could utilise the proposed remnant structure in the future. However, none of those uses aligned with the redevelopment objectives.
After reassessing the costs of retaining part of the structure and the limited future uses of such a structure, Council officers realised a modification to the master plan should occur.
Costs to retain the four and a half bays were estimated to be in the region of $750,000.
Therefore the matter was brought back to an open Council meeting for the Aldermen to make a ruling.
The money saved will now be diverted into creating more shade and shelter structures and interpretation areas around the North Bank site.
Meanwhile, a private developer had also proposed using salvaged materials from any demolition in a nearby development.
Why wasn't there any public consultation on the decision to demolish the entire wool shed?
A public council meeting is our primary community-based consultative and decision making process. Anyone is welcome to attend a Council meeting at Town Hall, and any resident or ratepayer can ask questions of officers or Aldermen about areas of Council business. Residents or ratepayers of other municipalities are able to lodge requests to ask questions of City of Launceston Aldermen or officers, and such requests are often granted.
Local media outlets are invited to cover proceedings, and also have channels to ask questions of Aldermen or officers outside of meetings. In addition, City of Launceston Council meetings are streamed live on our website. Agendas for Council meetings are published online five days ahead of each meeting.
Is the wool shed heritage listed?
No.
Is it true that the Council 'buried' a heritage report which indicated the wool sheds had historic value?
No, not only did we request and fund that report, we also published it online — in May, 2012. It was an attachment to an agenda item in 2012 regarding the demolition of the first wool shed, at a meeting that was open to the public, streamed online and attended by representatives of the media. The report has remained online ever since and can be found here.
But isn't it true that the building has historic value, even if it's not heritage listed?
Yes, there is no doubt the entire site has historic value. The port and industrial activities in this part of Launceston were significant in the city's past, but the wool shed building only represents one part of that.
We may not be able to retain the building, but we will be able to reinterpret the site in different ways, and tell the stories of the site, which we intend to do as part of the $9m North Bank redevelopment.
Why can't we just keep the wool shed in its entirety? Couldn't it be used for something like an indoor market?
Firstly, the wool shed sits on the 'wet' side of the city's redeveloped flood levees, which means it would require a specially-built protective levee.
Secondly, the building will require significant investment to allow future use. The Council is unaware of any material proposal to conduct a market or any other activity in a wholly retained wool shed.
Finally, the Council has clearly indicated over a number of years that at best it only intended to retain a handful of roof bays as part of the North Bank development. Aldermen later reviewed this decision and voted for full demolition of the shed.
If we had an unlimited budget and unlimited time, we could no doubt find ways to refurbish and protect the building — but it was never our intent and it was never an intent we took to the community.
Hasn't the Council allowed new developments like Bunnings and the silos to proceed, which are not protected by the flood levees?
No, the new levee runs roughly east to west along the southern side of Lindsay Street. Bunnings sits on the northern side of the levee, and is thus protected.
In October, 2013, the State Government announced $1.5m in funding to allow a special flood levee to be constructed to protect the silos site. Thus it, too, is protected.
If a special levee can be built for the silos development, couldn't we also build one to protect the wool shed?
Potentially, but the Council does not have the funding to deliver an outcome like that. In addition, the building itself requires significant work. The other issue is demand; despite various ideas, there are no material proposals to redevelop the building.
Isn't it inappropriate for the Council to make such a decision at 'five minutes to midnight', so soon before the election?
There is no 'caretaker period' for Council elections like there is for other tiers of Government. However, it is important to note that Aldermen could have made a decision on demolishing the wool shed some time before the election, but instead chose to defer a decision to allow them to seek more information. Coincidentally this meant the decision was taken close to the election, but Aldermen were entirely within their rights to vote on the matter. Moreover, Aldermen had been working on the North Bank master plan for more than two years before the decision to demolish the entire shed was taken.
I have read on Facebook that 'a number of proposals have been put to Council in recent weeks' regarding potential future uses of the shed. Is that true?
The Council is aware of many ideas, but no material proposals. In other words, no one has approached the Council with a proposal and funds to back it.
I trust the above information will assist.
Regards, Albert van Zetten, Mayor, Launceston City Council
Tuesday, November 25, 2014
VALE Ronald George Grant
In October 1954, while walking home from work as a boilermaker apprentice at the Launceston Railways Workshops, Ron told the story of how he was approached by a friend of the family and asked if he would like to learn to play the bagpipes. Ron's answer was enthusiastic - "what do I have to do?"
Be at the army barracks at 7pm Mondays. "This is what I did for 21 months. This included two 2 - week camps plus the odd weekend camp and in barracks tuition". And so was born his love and affection for the pipes.
Ron was in the CFM Pipe Band – his other duties included first aid, as he was attached to the Medical Corp.XXX
In July 1955, Ron joined a civilian band for three years – the St Andrews Caledonian Pipe Band, and in 1958 was invited to help start another band along with about 12 other pipers and drummers.
"I was with this band (Northern Highlanders) for 7 years – the last two as pipe major". But by 1965 he had rejoined St Andrews, where he remained for a further 32 years – 28 as pipe major.
In 1999, Ron was requested by Launceston RSL to provide pipers and drummers so the RSL would have its own pipe band.
"I was pipe major from inception until I retired from this position in 2012 because of ill health." Ron was a proud and much-appreciated member of the RSL Pipe Band until his death earlier this week.
He played in 5 Tattoos – invited with RSL Pipe Band to appear at ‘Bundanoon is Brigadoon', interchanging year for year with Ingleburn RSL Pipe Band. In January 2001, he was presented at Government House with the Centenary Service Medal, and in 2008, was recognized as Volunteer of the year.
During the late 1960's Ron started teaching pipers and drummers privately at Scotch College.
Following amalgamation with Oakburn College, Ron began with the co-ed Scotch Oakburn College in 1982.
Ron made a huge contribution to the school and showed a passionate belief in helping young people grow and learn ....eventually tallying up 31 years to coach and support the Scotch Oakburn pipers and drummers on a voluntary basis.
He was awarded the school’s ‘Community Service Award’ during that time. His patience, dedication and cheeky sense of humour have endeared him to both students and staff during that time. When the school has required pipes and drums for a special occasion Ron has been there to support and mentor the students and when students have been unavailable, Ron himself has come along and piped for school functions. Ron continued to do this despite serious health issues until early this year when his illness no longer allowed him to participate in the same way.
Outside band life and tutoring privately, Ron contributed enormously to the community. It has been said that Ron was happy to turn up with his beloved pipes to the opening of an envelope, if requested, and his passing will leave quite a hole in the programs of many worthy events organisers.
Ron repaired and rejuvenated pipes, and at the request of the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, he took from their collection the old pipes of Jock the Piper (James Lamont farmer & dairyman of Braemar near Vermont Road, Tasmania's first settler/piper). Made playable, Jock's Pipes were returned to the Museum, brought out only for special occasions, such as in 2011 at a lecture commemorating the 200th Anniversary of Governor Lachlan Macquarie's first visit to van Dieman's Land.
This old set of pipes had been played by Jock, James Lamont, for Governor Macquarie's second visit to van Dieman's Land in 1819, and so it was fitting that their restorer, Ron Grant played on his own pipes at the 200th year commemoration at the Government Cottage site in City Park on 8th December 2011.
Over the years, Ron Grant has not only helped and inspired countless students in their personal and musical growth, but he has also nurtured that bagpipe and drum tradition throughout the community. He will be sorely missed, but what a wonderful legacy he has left. Ron George Grant is an exemplar of the ordinary actually being extraordinary and that's something we should all profitably embrace and celebrate.
Lionel Morrell, President Heritage Protection Society (Tasmania) Inc.
Thankyou to Scotch Oakburn College and Ray Norman for contributions.
A Heritage Glitch
 |
| CLICK HERE TO GO TO SOURCE |
This photograph in today's Examiner is rather revealing in so much it demonstrates the way the evidence of Launceston's heritage is being incrimentally removed. The Port that was Launceston is hardly in evidence. It is almost as if Launceston is ashamed of its industrial heritage and the city's new and recent arrivals who know nothing, or very little, of it hardly care it seems – why would they.
"Heritage values" whilst they're spoken of, and its even something you might speak of, but do not stand up to be counted on. Need you? Here we appear to be more concerned to rush headlong into a future that is careless of its past. This is somewhat surprising in Tasmania as one of its cultural assets is its layered histories. Its these histories that increasingly people from elsewhere will come to see compared to the unrelenting encroachment of expedient development at home. This is now so evident in China.
'Adaptive Resuse' is an idea in architecture and design is not new but there seems to be an allergy to it in Launceston in favour of some kind of Gold Coast aesthetic. Which is curious as there are increasing numbers of south east Queenslanders moving to Tasmania for its more temperate climate and the increasing all in a rush lifestyle back in Queensland.
Monday, November 10, 2014
LETTER: LAUNCESTON INTERIM PLANNING SCHEME 2012
HERITAGE PROTECTION SOCIETY (TASMANIA) INC.
P.O. Box 513 Launceston Tasmania 7250
4th November 2014Alderman Darren Alexander Launceston City Council Town Hall
St John Street LAUNCESTON TAS 7250
By email contact@dalexander.com.au
Re: LAUNCESTON INTERIM PLANNING SCHEME 2012
Dear Alderman Alexander,
Congratulations on your election to Launceston City Council. We are hoping that your enthusiasm for this city will be strengthened by the other new councillors and a timely review of goals and a fresh way forward for a new approach.
Heritage protection and conservation is a very important part of residents' lives in 2014, in this, Australia's third oldest city. In order to attract people to remain living in this place, to attract newcomers and to encourage people to visit, it is important that Launceston continues to present a point of difference compared to other places. Essential to the protection and maintenance of our heritage fabric and special townscapes, is the role and responsibilities of Launceston City Council. ..... Click here to read more
WOOLcity Heritage
There is a myriad of stories invested in these sheds and given the chance these same sheds will see more of the city's heritage played out under the cover of corrugated iron.
Sunday, November 2, 2014
A GLIMPSE BACK AT CH SMITH
About our heritage passions run deep. Innuendos abound around this site but it needs to be said that the proof seems to be in the pudding. The idea that 'the developer knows best' leaves all kind of ground for shonky politics – even too many opportunities for inappropriate bureaucratic activity. BUT, isn't there always a 'but', that's what happens when heritage gets in the way of development and a truck load of other people's money.THIS FLOOR IS SUPPOSED TO BE ROTTEN?
If it was the case just think about these kids, well young people, drawing on this floor in this way if it was "rotten". We DO NOT THINK SO! but there you go that the kind of thing that's said when ... we'll that to you to think about.
 |
| GO HERE TO SEE MORE |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)