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