Forum Report
Friday 28 April 2006 Buninyong Town Hall & Court House, Learmonth Street Buninyong, Victoria
Forum report editor Dr Jan Schapper
Images of Buninyong
www.home.vicnet.net.au/~buninhis/
Contents
Acknowledgement...... 1
Neville Wale ...... 1 Introduction...... 1 Forum summary...... 5 Forum program...... 6 Speakers notes ...... 7 An overview of small towns in Victoria...... 7 Jeremy Reynolds...... 7 Study of small towns in Victoria revisited, and its application to heritage...... 11 Dr Jerry Courvisanos...... 11 What are the current planning tools for managing the landscape setting of small towns?...... 17 Trevor Budge...... 17 Walking tour around Buninyong...... 21 Dr Anne Beggs-Sunter ...... 21 Towns and the tourist onslaught – survival or capitulation? ...... 23 Professor Peter Spearritt...... 23 Growth and non-grown towns – case studies...... 27 Wendy Jacobs...... 27 ‘Seafarers settlers and soldiers’ a tale of three heritage towns in search of a future ...... 29 Dr Gordon Forth ...... 29 Characterisation: new ways of valuing the historic environment ...... 33 Jim Gard’ner...... 33 Our towns as cultural landscapes ...... 41 Ray Tonkin ...... 41 Group discussion and conclusions...... 45
Dr Jan Schapper ...... 45 Summary of group discussions ...... 45 Appendix 1 ...... 49 Bus tour itinerary ...... 49 Appendix 2 ...... 53 List of attendees...... 53
i Planning Committee Neville Wale Peter Hiscock John Hawker Dr Juliet Bird Jim Gard'ner Dr Jan Schapper Dr Leonie Foster
Forum organiser and report designer Jane Andrews
Photographs Front cover, Buninyong walk and bus tour images provided by John Hawker. All other images and graphs thanks to individual authors.
Disclaimer This publication may be of assistance to you but the State of Victoria and its employees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind or is wholly appropriate for your particular purposes and therefore disclaims all liability for any error, loss or other consequence which may arise from you relying on any information in this publication. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Heritage Council of Victoria or the Victorian Government.
© State of Victoria, Department of Sustainability and Environment 2006. This publication is copyright. No part may be reproduced by any process except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1998
Published by the Heritage Council of Victoria 8 Nicholson Street, East Melbourne 3002 August 2006 Also published on www.heritage.vic.gov.au
ISBN 1 74152 479 2 Historic Towns in the Landscape Forum, 28 April 2006 Heritage Council of Victoria www.heritage.vic.gov.au
Historic Towns in the Landscape Forum – 28 April 2006
Acknowledgement
Neville Wale Chair, Landscape Advisory Committee, Heritage Council of Victoria
Our forum today is being held on the traditional lands of the Watha Wurrung – members of the Kulin Nation, and we wish to acknowledge them as the traditional owners of this region. We would also pay our respects to their Elders and to the Elders of other communities who may be here today.
We also acknowledge that the landscapes through which we will travel on the bus tour tomorrow, are cultural landscapes which have indigenous cultural meanings as well as presenting evidence of the history of European settlement of the region particularly from the mid 19th Century.
Introduction
This Heritage Council initiative derives from the Victorian Heritage Strategy in which the Council seeks to increase community awareness of significant cultural landscapes and develop means whereby this heritage may be conserved for future generations.
In thinking about this forum, the Landscape Advisory Committee has perhaps been rather ambitious and aims through the forum process to:
• Highlight the significance of landscape settings to the heritage of Victoria’s historic towns and encourage understanding of significant cultural landscapes; • Understand the pressures which lead to change in the landscape settings of historic towns. • Examine the existing and possible options for managing change within the landscape. • Identify gaps in policies, strategies and resources for landscape conservation and management. • Identify ways in which the landscape management tools which allow development but protect heritage values can be improved. This includes methods by which landscapes may be assessed and may incorporate the recognition of cultural heritage and community values into the process. • Understand how heritage and landscapes can contribute to the viability of historic towns. • Promote policies that can protect rural landscapes from inappropriate development and assist policy makers, landowners and other stakeholders explore the concept of stewardship of the landscape. • Indicate how an understanding of heritage values can be integrated into decision making and contribute to the economy of small towns.
This is the third forum in which Heritage Council, National Trust of Australia (Victoria), municipalities and local community bodies have examined contemporary heritage and management issues.
1 Historic Towns in the Landscape Forum – 28 April 2006
The first forum was held at Geelong in July 2004 and focused on the coastal landscape of the Bellarine Peninsula. It explored the spiritual, artistic and practical relevance and meaning of landscape. It also tried to explore how, working together, all stakeholders in the landscape can define, protect and respond to cultural and natural landscapes. In the case of coastal areas the perceived threats were particularly from “sea change” housing development, recreation and tourism.
The second forum was held last year (2005) on the Mornington Peninsula, an area that during the past 30 years, has been subject to comprehensive landscape assessment and conservation measures under various regional and municipal planning schemes, and most recently Melbourne 2030 policies of Government. Much of the hinterland and coastline of the Peninsula has also been classified by the National Trust. The forum questioned the effectiveness of policy implementation and examined the problems of managing change, in particular those necessary to protect rural and coastal landscapes from inappropriate development. It is interesting to note that the beach and foreshore area at Shoreham (along with Bells Beach) was one of the first cultural landscapes to be placed on the Victorian Heritage Register by Heritage Council.
The Forum today is focused on small towns and their relationship with their surrounding landscape. It examines ways in which historic towns which are growing can develop at the same time as protecting their heritage, as well as options for managing heritage settings to bring benefit to those towns which are facing stagnation or decline. Many small towns are of outstanding heritage character and most have historic features that make them special places to those who live in them. Heritage significance is not limited to the historic buildings, the town street pattern or the botanical gardens but includes the setting of the town, often with elements that indicate how it developed in the past and why it is located where it is. Change is occurring around many towns and pressures for expanding accommodation for the “sea and tree changers” attracted to the lifestyle of small communities, may adversely affect this historic character.
You will have noticed that the structure of today’s Forum falls broadly into three parts:
• Firstly the general context of small towns in social, economic and environmental terms, with reference to history. • Secondly, some case studies of historic small towns examining the pressures and opportunities consideration of heritage issues has presented – including a walking tour of our host township of Buninyong. • And finally, a look at strategic options for conserving the settings of historic towns. Here we are expecting that the group discussion session will provide some interesting insights and worthwhile suggestions. Feedback from the forum will be used to guide further discussion and action at Heritage Council.
The Forum concludes on Day 2 with an optional tour of the region highlighting the key themes, examples of significant habitat, roadsides, properties and gardens and environmental processes.
The Forum papers and discussion findings are to be published on the Heritage Council web site, on CD and in limited hard copy format.
The Forum was made possible by the generous financial support of Heritage Council, and assistance from the National Trust. We are indebted to the Buninyong and District Historical Society and the City of Ballarat who made available the venues for use today.
2 Historic Towns in the Landscape Forum – 28 April 2006
Our sincere thanks to Prof Peter Spearritt from Queensland, Dr Jerry Courvisanos of Ballarat University, Trevor Budge, Victorian President, Planning Institute of Australia, Dr Gordon Forth formerly of Deakin University, Jeremy Reynolds, Department of Sustainability and Environment, Ray Tonkin and Jim Gard’ner of Heritage Victoria, Dr Anne Beggs-Sunter and Wendy Jacobs for their willing participation and papers for this Forum.
A final thank you to Jane Andrews, Forum Organiser, for her expertise and energy in coordinating the Forum, Peter Hiscock, Deputy Chair of Heritage Council and Buninyong resident for the selection of the venue and assistance in the logistics of catering etc and the members of the planning subcommittee Dr Juliet Bird chairing the subcommittee, Dr Jan Schapper, Dr Leonie Foster, John Hawker and Jim Gard’ner for their time and support in the organisation of the event. Also thanks to John Hawker and Heritage Victoria for the photos and images supplied.
3
Historic Towns in the Landscape Forum – 28 April 2006
Forum summary
The Historic Towns in the Landscape Forum was held on Friday 28 April, 2006 at the Buninyong Town Hall and Court House and focused on smaller historic towns and their landscape settings.
Approximately 90 people attended the Forum and of these 21 participated in the bus tour on Day 2, aimed at illustrating some of the key themes of the Forum. Representatives from a wide variety of organizations attended, including local government, architects, planners, landscape architects and heritage advisors and educators, representatives and members of the National Trust, staff of Heritage Victoria, representatives from Heritage Council and its Landscape Advisory Committee, and several representatives of various government departments and instrumentalities. We also had some interstate interest with participants from Tasmania and Braidwood, a historic town in New South Wales with issues similar to those addressed by the Forum.
The Forum began with an overview of the broader social and economic factors, such as fuel pricing, which influence the rise and fall of provincial towns in Victoria. It continued with an in- depth examination of issues such as population changes, infrastructure, services, employment, administration, and social and community factors; all part of what keeps small towns viable. This far-ranging examination aimed to address factors outside immediate heritage issues but which impact on them. It was found that heritage can play a vital part in community-building and in the viability of small towns.
After morning tea the Minster for State and Regional Development, Mr John Brumby, launched the Provincial Victoria Historic Towns Awards.
After an informative and interesting guided walk around Buninyong, the Forum moved to a closer examination of provincial towns, the pressures on them, such as tourism and development, and some possible tools and approaches to dealing with these pressures.
Group discussions aimed to draw out individual expertise for the benefit of others. Many participants have dealt with the issues in various contexts and their experience is valued. Above all, educating those participating in decision-making was seen as a key strategy.
To conclude the formal presentations, methods for assessing, characterizing and valuing historic towns were outlined.
The bus tour on Day 2 graphically illustrated many of the issues and some of the solutions. Thanks go to Peter Hiscock for so ably organizing and conducting the tour and to Jean Baker from the Creswick Historical Society and Dr Ron Hately from the School of Forestry, Creswick for sharing with us their extensive knowledge of the local history.
5 Historic Towns in the Landscape Forum – 28 April 2006
Forum program
Friday 28 April
8:30 – 9:00 Registration 9:00 – 9:15 Acknowledgement to traditional owners and Forum objectives. Neville Wale 9:15 – 9:50 An overview of small towns in Victoria. Jeremy Reynolds 9:50 – 10:25 Economic prospects for historic small towns. Dr Jerry Courvisanos 10:25 – 11:00 Planning tools for managing the landscape setting of small towns. Trevor Budge 11:00 – 11:15 Introduction to Buninyong – Buninyong & District Historical Society. Dr Anne Beggs-Sunter 11:15 – 12:00 Morning tea Launch of Provincial Victoria Historic Towns Awards – Minister for State and Regional Development, John Brumby 12:00 – 12:30 Guided walk around Buninyong – Buninyong & District Historical Society. Dr Anne Beggs-Sunter 12:30 – 1:30 Lunch 1:30 – 2:00 Towns and the tourist onslaught – survival or capitulation? Professor Peter Spearritt 2:00 – 3:30 Growth and non-growth towns – case studies. Wendy Jacobs & Dr Gordon Forth to address both groups (30 minutes). Group A Pressures facing heritage landscape conservation in growth towns – sea change and tree change. • Case study from someone who works in such a town – Wendy Jacobs • Discussion to clarify what are the pressures and the issues in protecting heritage values – LAC facilitator • Final session – 5 strategies for optimising heritage landscape conservation benefits Group B Pressures facing heritage in non-growth towns – rural population decline and loss of service. • Case study from someone who works in such a town - Gordon Forth • Discussion to clarify what are the pressures and the issues in protecting heritage values – LAC facilitator • Final session – 5 strategies for optimising heritage landscape conservation benefits 3:30 – 4:00 Afternoon tea 4:00 – 4:30 Report back on strategies (10 minutes per group) Collator to summarise outcomes (10 minutes) Jan Schapper 4:30 – 5:00 Characterisation: new ways of valuing the historic environment Jim Gard'ner 5:00 – 5:30 Assessing the importance of historic towns Ray Tonkin
6 Historic Towns in the Landscape Forum – 28 April 2006
Speakers notes
An overview of small towns in Victoria Jeremy Reynolds Manager of Demographic Research, Department of Sustainability and Environment
To gain insights into the character and prospects for small towns in Victoria, a mix of quantitative and qualitative evidence needs to be called on. This first section is an overview of the statistical data about trends in small towns. It therefore needs to be read in conjunction with the following paper by Jerry Courvisanos which uses observations and interviews to assess the welfare of towns. Both these chapters are summaries of parts of a forthcoming report, Towns in Time – Analysis, to be published by the Department of Sustainability and Environment.
A brief history of settlement change in Victoria Following the first European colonisation of Victoria in the early 1800s there was a period of rapid development which was spurred by gold rushes of the 1850s. At this time 80% of Victoria’s population lived outside the Melbourne, a proportion that was to decline continuously to 1970, when it stabilised at around 28%. There are perhaps two things to note here. First the rapid growth of population in regional Victoria, and this, in most parts of it, has left an extraordinary heritage of towns, built upon the wealth of mining and agriculture and the pioneering and entrepreneurial spirit of communities. Secondly, the focus of both population and economic growth in the twentieth century, particularly since the end of World War II, has been firmly on Melbourne. Well over one million migrants have settled in Victoria since 1945 with around 90% of them choosing to settle in Melbourne. Melbourne’s strength in a post industrial or information economy has now reached a higher level with the growth of high order business and personal services. Furthermore family reunion migration programs further entrench Melbourne and Sydney as the two foci of overseas migration.
Population change, Melbourne and regional Victoria, 1841-2001
No. of People (millions) Regional Victoria Melbourne 5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0 1841 1851 1861 1871 1881 1891 1901 1911 1921 1931 1941 1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 Year
7 Historic Towns in the Landscape Forum – 28 April 2006
Regional Victoria, however, has both strong population and economic growth which is resulting in an overall expansion of towns and settlement in rural areas. What stands out about regional Victoria is its sheer diversity. At the heart of it is a diverse physical environment. Rainfall in the parts of the Alps is twelve times the annual rainfall of the Mallee. Victoria’s geology and soils vary considerably from one part to another. Proximity to Melbourne, its hungry consuming population and to the services that the big city dispenses, its port and to government has also had an enduring influence on Victoria’s settlement.
Structural changes and impacts It is therefore hardly surprising that regional Victoria’s economy and settlement patterns are diverse with distinct regional differences. Contrast the Barwon region around Geelong with the Wimmera region centred on Horsham! Barwon’s strengths are around manufacturing, shipping, education and tourism. The Wimmera’s are more to do with wheat and a greater range of other dry land crops and with mining. The Barwon region centred on Geelong has a population over five times the Wimmera’s.
As changes occur to our economy, it is inevitable that the spatial impact is uneven. A classic example of structural change in Victoria is that experienced by the dairying industry over the last sixty years. In 1950 there were over 28,000 dairy farms in Victoria with an average herd size of seventeen. Between then and now the industry has experienced many ups and towns. The loss of the UK butter market when the UK joined the EEC in the early 1970s was a blow. Deregulation in the 1990s, however, was a boon allowing Victoria’s natural advantages for dairying to come to the fore. By the end of the century the number of Victorian dairy farms had declined by 20,000. Average herd sizes were now nearing 200 and overall production was three times its 1950 level.
The location of a town – the region it is in and its proximity to regional centres – strongly influences the development pressures that it faces. Small towns’ relationships with regional centres have also been changing due to a number of factors. Increased personal mobility has been brought about by higher levels of car ownership – cheaper and more reliable cars – and better roads. Government and commercial services have regionalised away from small centres into the larger regional centres, a trend that most noticeably occurred in the 1990s. The larger centres have become nodes for an expanding employment sector – higher education – as well as a new range of business services and big box retailers. Technology has also played its part – telecommunications and television now reach out into rural communities like never before. The continual mechanisation of agriculture has led to larger farms and smaller labour forces across the state. Servicing of this still important sector relies less on skills in nearby towns – parts and services often have to be sourced outside the region and sometimes overseas.
This regionalisation has surprisingly not led to a widespread decline of the small town. The Towns in Time – Analysis study shows from both a quantitative or qualitative perspective that towns are both resilient and dynamic. In fact some data show a resurgence of the small town. Between 1981 and 2001, towns with 2,000 to 6,000 people had higher growth rates than larger towns or rural areas. Just behind were towns with populations in the range of 500 to 2,000 people. Towns are clearly adapting to changing economic and social circumstances. The number of people living in towns but working in agriculture has increased. Commuting to regional centres has also increased. With higher personal mobility, lower housing costs and some ‘lifestyle’ advantages, towns are often attractive dormitory settlements for regional centres - ‘small town living but close to all the services’ being the estate agents’ banter.
8 Historic Towns in the Landscape Forum – 28 April 2006
Population growth of towns, 1947-1981 and 1981-2001:
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00 Average annual change
0.50
0.00 Towns greater than Towns of 6,000 to Towns of 2,000 to Towns of 500 to Towns less than 500 20,000 people 20,000 people 6,000 people 2,000 people people and rural areas
Town size at 2001
1947-2001 1981-2001
Regional Differences A map of population change across Victoria during the 1990s shows a mixed pattern of population growth and loss in towns:
• Large regional centres with populations of 30,000 all grew strongly, with the exception of the Latrobe Valley which was undergoing major structural change within its principal industries; • Commuter towns, particularly those to the north-west and south-east of Melbourne also showed strong population growth;
9 Historic Towns in the Landscape Forum – 28 April 2006
• Most coastal towns from Port Fairy in the west to Mallacoota in the east grew strongly. Furthermore their summertime and daytripping populations (neither collected by the ABS) add to the growth pressures and issues being experienced by these towns; • Some inland tourist towns such as Daylesford, Halls Gap and the Alpine towns showed growth; • Murray Valley towns experienced similar growth to coastal areas; • ‘Sponge’ cities such as Mildura, Horsham, Warrnambool and Bairnsdale all captured population out of their hinterlands; • Small towns in dry land farming areas mostly experienced population loss. Nevertheless ageing and declining population size often meant there were still pressures for extra housing; • Finally, there were towns that were ‘odd’ in that there were heavily dependent on one industry or institution. Beechworth, Sale, the Latrobe Valley, Ararat, Seymour and a few others come into this category.
The future The 1990s situation described above is clearly different to the environment that towns now find themselves in. The level of restructuring has clearly slowed and the ABS’s building indicators and population and employment estimates all show a resurgence of growth. When the 2006 census is published in mid 2007, we will be able to see how this has impacted on towns.
Population projections undertaken by DSE show strong population growth for regional Victoria over 2001-2031, the amount of growth being more than the current combined populations of Geelong, Ballarat and Bendigo. With ageing populations, less growth in the future will come from natural increase (births minus deaths) but more from migration from Melbourne (fewer young adults migrating to Melbourne but more older adults and retirees moving out).
The household projections show an even sharper upward curve of growth. The continued decline in household size should lead to a 50% growth in the numbers of households between 2001 and 2031 in regional Victoria. Translate that into dwellings and then add on the increasing demand from Melburnians for second homes and we have a major planning and development task in front of us. The largely unquantified seasonal and even weekly fluctuations in town populations need to be built into the planning equation.
The ageing population is and will continue to be an issue for towns. Although people are becoming healthier and more active in old age, the demand for goods and services will shift. Fewer children (the result of long term decline in fertility rates) plus a lot more people aged in their 50s, 60s and 70s will have to be managed by towns. The qualitative evidence shows that towns are generally adapting well but they need help to move forward.
10 Historic Towns in the Landscape Forum – 28 April 2006
Study of small towns in Victoria revisited, and its application to heritage Dr Jerry Courvisanos Deputy Director, Centre for Regional Innovation and Competitiveness, University of Ballarat
Introduction Sustainability of small towns has become a significant area of investigation, especially after the recession of the early 1990s and the long drought that followed through the late 1990s and into the beginning of the new century. The crisis that affected these towns throughout Australia led to concern about the sustainability of small towns with the decline of agriculture as a job-sustaining economic activity. This concern was evident in June 2000 at the First National Conference on the Future of Australia’s Country Towns (see Rogers and Collins, 2001). By the time the Second Conference came around in July 2005, it was evident from the presentations that small towns had come out of the slump with renewed energy and confidence to meet any future occurrences (see Rogers and Jones, 2006). Of interest for future policy, and for understanding towns themselves, are the mechanisms that brought about this changed dynamic in country towns.
The Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) set out to research this issue in its Towns in Time project. Identifying the elements that contribute to changes in towns over time has been the objective. DSE began by analysing the available demographic data on small towns in Victoria and appreciating the changes that accompanied the patterns evident in the data. Quantitative data can only take you so far in making make meaningful statements, especially when the data is limited by distinct points in time (e.g. 5-yearly census) or areas they cover (e.g. regions can be too large, or the smaller regional breakdowns lack scale).
To better understand small town dynamics, DSE approached the Victorian Universities Regional Research Network (VURRN) to update and revisit a study of six Victorian small towns conducted in 1987 (see Henshall Hansen Associates, 1988). The mid-1980s were boom years for the economy on the back of resources demand and financial deregulation. The mid-2000s are also strong resource-based boom years. In between, the recession (“we had to have”) and the drought created a need for small towns to “do something or perish”. By revisiting the same six towns, the aim was to understand how the quantitative data works through in the qualitative changes that could be uncovered in each of the towns. Then, similar patterns across the towns could be identified that imply important elements of survival and regeneration. Also, unique elements to each town could also be appreciated as contributing factors. In this context, heritage as a major contributing pattern to small town sustainability, and as a unique feature to each town, is the special feature that is highlighted in the discussion below.
11 Historic Towns in the Landscape Forum – 28 April 2006
Small towns in context The demographic analysis of population changes in Victoria’s towns and rural areas, as well as the update of the 1987 study of six small towns in Victoria, has been published by the Victorian Government Department of Sustainability and Environment (2006). In the Towns in Time project, small towns are defined as an urban centre with a population of between 200 and 5,000 residents. Using the census data from 1986 (just before the first study) and from 2001 (before this 2005 update), the following general features of small towns in Victoria are evident: The number of small towns has grown over this period from 261 to 291 places, with population actually growing from 284,227 to 293,805; this represents at 3.3 per cent growth compared to the Victorian State as a whole growing at 17 per cent. Towns of less than 1,000 people have seen resident population grow from 2 per cent to 6.8 per cent of Victoria State’s population.
Increased regionalisation of services away from the small towns, amalgamation of local governments and merging of farms into larger holdings have all contributed to the problems faced by small towns as services and community activities become harder to sustain. It has also resulted in increased mobility in and out of these small towns, leading to a significant “churn” factor in the towns, despite relatively stable population figures in most rural and regional areas.
Six towns under study The original study selected six towns because they were representative of particular types of small towns, with different types of economic activity that characterise the diversity of Victorian regional small towns. Initially the original study identified some thirty types, which were summarised into six general activity types. The six towns selected represented these six general activity categories:
• Beechworth: Tourism/Resort Base • Camperdown: Government/Private Sector Services Base • Murtoa: Commuter/Dormitory Base • Ouyen: Dry-Farm/Services Rural Base • Stanhope: Irrigated-Farm/Processing Rural Base • Swifts Creek: Manufacturing/ Resource Base
The aim of the original study of these six towns was to (i) examine economic linkages between the government, commercial and farming sectors; (ii) analyse the perceptions of people in small towns as they respond to changing economic circumstances; (iii) identify strategic issues regarding the problems and prospects of small towns; and (iv) prepare an agenda for continuing State Government and community involvement in small town development. From that study some policies were introduced, notably the Regional Assistance Program for small towns.
In the follow-up study the six small towns were not re-categorised. The aim was find out the state of the towns in 2005 and how they managed through the intervening 18 years. This was done by a researcher producing a socio-economic profile of each town from the demographic and other data available, raising issues of concern about the town. These issues were investigated in visits to the town, involving interviews, meetings and general socialising. Forums were conducted with State Government regional officers and community representatives, before the final report was produced in February 2006.
12 Historic Towns in the Landscape Forum – 28 April 2006
Findings of the study in brief Below is a point form summary of the findings. Where appropriate, the role of heritage is identified within these findings. Heritage can be historic, but it also can be cultural, sporting and natural. In a sense, all the latter three become part of the “historic” heritage of the town. History does not reside only in old buildings, but also in what defines the town over time.
• Population change is only part of the story, threshold levels are crucial for survival, but “churn” and relationships matter. Towns with low “churn” and strong supportive relationships fair better in the sustainability stakes. • Self-image is crucial to resilience, as it is a catalyst to the development of local committees. Heritage is a crucial element that can define self-image. • Infrastructure matters, but standards of facilities vary widely, with broadband communication generally poor. Heritage needs to be communicated electronically to the world for the town to maximise its potential. • Local retail services are required for viability, but threshold levels mean that when a service is non-economic, the whole town suffers in a social sense as well. • Main street reflects local pride and history, with an invitation to stop. This is a significant heritage element that drives many a “historic” town, but which can also drive other towns with different heritages (e.g. sport). • Employment creation is the lifeblood of a town as it results in income that supports services and provides self-esteem for the workers and their families. Heritage can provide employment opportunities. • Location matters for services and housing, so that proximity to major urban centres can be a drain (e.g. “sponge city”) and an opportunity (unique attraction). Towns are developing unique combination of local services and geographical relationships with neighbouring towns and regional centres for sustainability. • Disengagement of local government, despite well intentioned efforts. Large shires and contracting-out have tended to lose “connectedness” that weakens ability of small towns to gain local government support for their uniqueness. • Top-down (by State Government, SG) versus bottom-up (by Local Councils, LC) programs leads to confusion as empowerment and accountability clash. SG tries to drive the local community development agenda through LC without empowerment and resource commitments for LC. • Heritage is a powerful regional development driver, to live, visit and innovate through historical, natural, built and indigenous heritages. The bed and breakfast industry in Beechworth feeds off heritage values and then the B&Bs work together to accommodate large conference and tourist groups to diversify the “standard” tourist travel. • Farming is still important, but structural change has seen larger farms with “absent” owners from town. Annual field days are diversifying to show farming heritage to tourists and hobby farmers. • Housing costs and availability of services are both constraints on viability of expansion of housing areas in towns. Strategy is needed for towns’ housing to adjust to the myriad of demographic changes, including ageing and “lifestylers”. • Transient residents are the invisible “churn” residents which pose a serious challenge to the established local, and strongly connected community. • Social exclusion from the town community of youth, transients, indigenous, alternative lifestylers. This means it is no longer acceptable to be “invisible” (i.e. sport is not everything). Need heritage values to be much more inclusive.
13 Historic Towns in the Landscape Forum – 28 April 2006
• Bureaucracy through inflexible contracting procedures leads to frustration, complexity and hostility by the local community. This is especially the case with preservation of heritage values, which can take much time and energy out of the community. • Leadership is crucial. The creative and innovative leaders are able to pull together committees, grant submissions, and institutional support for the sustainability of the town, whether it is getting a butcher (Stanhope) or improving streetscape (Swifts Creek). These efforts are uncoordinated and sometimes in conflict with SG and LC initiatives. • Volunteerism is a source of strength to all towns, but it is facing the ageing problem. The younger people are less inclined to volunteer, unless it affects them directly. This particularly affects heritage assets that depend so much on volunteerism. • High social capital is not everything. Knowledge-based (skilled) residents and workers with strong networks are important to a town, but it is the “social glue” that connects these networks of skilled people that adds a strong sustainability dimension to the town. • Isolation is a complex factor. Mobility overcomes geographical isolation but also weakens the community links if travelling is time-consuming. Isolation can also provide rural tranquillity and security. • Small towns in crisis! This statement ignores the positive and negative experiences in towns that empower the townsfolk and determines their unique future – their community heritage and historical place in the world: “Seen one town...seen one town!”
Comparisons: 1987 and 2006 In many ways problems in small towns have not altered, only their manifestations alter. Sustainability, as always, depends on viable communities. All the towns faced crises of economic downturn and drought and all have survived to some degree. Prosperity has varied from steady-state (Stanhope) to significant (Beechworth). Sustainability is a multi-faceted concept that makes it difficult to plan, but elements of it are known. Increasingly, towns have become more dependent on innovation as the driver, as agriculture has faded. Heritage (and the historic connections) has become a significant innovation driver in all the towns. This is an important element of the resilience of all the six towns that has only emerged since 1987.
Questions need to be asked • How to empower local communities in the face of governments who want audit, control and kudos? • Are rural shires equipped to deal with many diverse small towns? • How to develop reciprocal relationships with major regional centres? • How to facilitate a community enterprise model (CEM) of development and renewal? • How to set up a resourcing strategy that allows creativity and innovation in such a CEM? More than just time-limited (one year funding) demonstration projects are needed. • How can a small community better handle social exclusion and transient residents? • What sort of joined-up model of government is needed to support such a strategy? • Many positive lessons flow from the study that help guide us to possible answers.
14 Historic Towns in the Landscape Forum – 28 April 2006
Economic prospects for small historic towns From the study, the following points of specific application to small historic towns are relevant:
• Identify heritage potential, but be specific. Underlying this must be a strong self-image. • Self-image reflecting this potential needs to be genuine. Tourists recognise “spin” in which the marketing distorts the heritage into some empty stereotype. • Catalyst role of local based historic committees is crucial as leaders with the “social glue” that unites the community and exhibits social inclusiveness. The CEM approach can create an innovative heritage niche for the town that is commercially strong. • Local rural shires are often not able to discern potential. Often communities have been able to by-pass shires and gain support from State Government and, even, the private sector. • Resourcing strategy for infrastructure and marketing is required in any heritage endeavour. This is where access to funding and advice matter. The above four dot points can help in this direction.
The 2005 research team Leader: Prof. John Martin, Director, Centre for Sustainable Regional Communities, La Trobe University, Bendigo. Consulting advisor: John Henshall, Essential Economics. Beechworth: Dr. Maureen Rogers, Centre for Sustainable Regional Communities, La Trobe University, Bendigo. Camperdown: Assoc. Prof. Kevin O’Toole and Dr. Anna Macgarvey, Deakin University, Warrnambool. Murtoa: Trevor Budge, School of Social Sciences, La Trobe University, Bendigo. Ouyen: Dr. Robyn Eversole, Centre for Regional and Rural Development, RMIT University, Hamilton. Swifts Creek: Dr. Helen Sheil and Neil Smith, Centre for Rural Communities and Monash University, Gippsland Stanhope: Dr. Jerry Courvisanos, Deputy Director, Centre for Regional Innovation and Competitiveness, University of Ballarat, Ballarat.
I would like to acknowledge the work of the whole research team. It is their work that provided the basis for this discussion. Interpretation of the combined work for the purposes of this discussion is the sole responsibility of the author.
References Henshall Hansen Associates (1988), Small Towns Study in Victoria, Melbourne: Victorian Department of Agriculture and Rural Affairs. Rogers, M.F. and Collins, Y.M.J. (eds) (2001), The Future of Australia’s Country Towns, Bendigo: Centre for Sustainable Communities, La Trobe University. Rogers, M.F. and Jones, D.R. (eds) (2006), The Changing Nature of Australia’s Country Towns, Ballart: VURRN Press. Victorian Government Department of Sustainability and Environment (2006), Towns in Time 2001 – Analysis: Incorporating the update to the Study of Small Towns in Victoria, Melbourne: Demographic Research Unit, DSE.
15
Historic Towns in the Landscape Forum – 28 April 2006
What are the current planning tools for managing the landscape setting of small towns? Trevor Budge Victorian President, Planning Institute of Australia, Senior Lecturer Latrobe University Bendigo
When we look at our country towns and the physical expression of their cultural heritage and landscape setting we need to realise that such a context is overlayed by all sorts of other settings, changes and contexts. One of the most important to understand is just what is happening to these towns in a social, cultural and economic sense. My first point is that if you use statutory planning tools and apply them clone like to towns then you have failed to understand a critical principle we must recognise - statutory planning response must be derived from an understanding of not only the individuality of the town and its physical appearance but you must know the story of the town.
A major shortfall of the Victorian planning system is that the State Planning Policy Framework says almost nothing about provincial Victoria and our country towns as having any sort of identity. It doesn’t recognise for instance that the central Victorian goldfields are a unique built landscape of national and international significance. Victoria, in a relatively small area of Australia, has the greatest collection of heritage towns in heritage landscape settings. Municipalities need to be told at the state level what they have because familiarity often breeds neglect.
There is an understandable goal of getting the list of heritage buildings and precincts into the schedule of the scheme and of course this is vital to protecting buildings and places. Buninyong has a strong separate identity that was in danger of being overtaken by the outward growth of urban Ballarat. The community saw the importance of the non-urban break between here and Mount Helen, but that non urban break is also important because it preserves the edge of the historic original survey of the town. The non-urban break provides the open views to Mount Buninyong. The landscape setting of the town is under threat because those on the rural edge of the town want to extend the town with low density lots and subdivisions which extend across that landscape setting. Peripheral development in many towns is a major threat to their landscape setting.
There are just on 100 towns in western Victoria with between 200 and 5,000 people. If we exclude those places that are commuter places to Melbourne or the regional centres or are coastal towns, which have their distinct patterns, there are essentially four types of town layouts and landscape settings. These four regional landscape groupings of small country towns found within western Victoria are; the pastoral lands of the western district, the central goldfields, the irrigation areas of northern Victoria and the dry land farming areas of the Wimmera and the Mallee regions in the State’s northwest.
The first group comprises towns that were generally settled in the early years of Victoria prior to its establishment as a colony. The topography of this area is largely flat to mildly undulating, rainfall is generally reliable, and the necessity for access to fresh water is not as critical as in some other parts of the State. Initial wealth was well reflected in the small-scale grandeur of the towns. Many of these towns are characterised by an expansive town layout reflecting strong civic ambitions. Towns such as Camperdown, Mortlake and Terang typify this group. They boast wide avenues and extensive grid street layouts. They often evoke images of order and vision. Many of these towns have common features in their appearance, layout and dimensions. Many of the smaller towns such as Lismore, Derinallum, Noorat and Cressy follow the grand plan of the larger towns with wide streets and extensive tree planted medians, but they remain unfulfilled in terms of the level of development.
17 Historic Towns in the Landscape Forum – 28 April 2006
The second group has been titled Goldfields – Central Victoria. This group encompasses a broad sweep of central Victoria where the origin of settlement was gold mining. While the gold lasted these towns thrived. When the gold ran out many of these towns managed to take on a rural service role. Such roles usually had limited capacity because the surrounding agricultural land in gold mining areas was generally not highly productive. Most of the goldfields towns in western Victoria are located within about two hours travel time from Melbourne. This combined with the quality of the built heritage features of the towns has generated tourist interest and supported the weekend rural retreat market. In some cases this feature has now become a major element of the town’s economy and function. Towns such as Clunes and Daylesford epitomise this development. The nature of gold mining often produced a characteristic jumbled layout of roads and streets that followed the higher ground and linked the creeks and gullies. This form of development also characterises larger cities like Bendigo. The goldfields towns present as all shapes and sizes and there is little by way of pattern except their very lack of regular and consistent form. Linear settlements are often found hugging roads or a creek such as in Heathcote or Wedderburn. Their commercial and civic areas and their buildings are often grand and extensive reflecting their former size and function or their hopes and ambitions such as in Dunolly, Clunes, Creswick or Inglewood.
The third and fourth groups have some common attributes but in other characteristics they are quite distinct. These two groups can be termed the Irrigation Areas of Northern Victoria and the Dry Farming Areas of the Wimmera and the Mallee in the State’s northwest. They are relatively uniformly distributed across the landscape and they have clear service roles. In the dry farming areas these towns are more widely dispersed than they are in the irrigated areas reflecting the lower density of rural settlement. The towns in the Wimmera and the Mallee are nearly all in decline in population terms. In contrast the towns in the irrigation areas are holding or increasing their population. Even very small towns in the irrigation areas have been able to attract and support the expansion of processing plants on the basis of horticultural and dairying production such as in Girgarre and Stanhope. In form and layout towns in both these groups generally reflect settlement characteristics of a later period than the first two groups. The town layouts are less pretentious than those often seen in the early to mid nineteenth century and they often tend to a utilitarian appearance in their presentation and in their civic buildings. The towns serving the irrigated areas are generally much more compact in their urban form. The productivity of the surrounding area has discouraged the town from sprawling onto the surrounding farmland.
Historically in areas of closer settlement and in the gold mining regions country towns tended to sprawl into the surrounding landscape with small farms and holdings. In recent years the area surrounding many towns has been viewed as a real estate opportunity for rural residential, rural living and hobby farms. Often the development of such properties has been out of character with the relatively modest appearance of the towns themselves. New residential development on the edge of towns is often characterised by large modern houses, extensive vegetation planting, large dams and shedding. The heritage landscape setting of many towns have been largely eroded. Open ended widely discretionary zones such as the Rural and Rural Living zones have allowed, if not encouraged this process. The use of overlays has limited values because they only deal with development not use. The Heritage Overlay is not really equipped to deal with the rural edge of towns, while the Significant Landscape Overlay is essentially dealing with the visual aspects of the landscape not its heritage qualities which may now be considerably diluted. Zone boundaries at the edge of towns provide limited scope to manage the heritage landscape setting. The use of an urban growth boundary concept is much more relevant to an urban development scenario, country towns rarely had ‘hard edges’ to their appearance.
18 Historic Towns in the Landscape Forum – 28 April 2006
The fundamental issue a community must face in applying the current Victorian planning system is determining what zones to use and where to apply them. It is mandatory under the VPP to zone all land. There is nothing like drawing lines on a map to focus the attention of a community. The common land use pattern for many small country towns is a fairly haphazard arrangement of mixed land uses around a commercial core usually focussed in a linear pattern along the main street. In the smaller towns the main street and other areas often become even more mixed in their land use characteristics with various residential, business and small-scale industrial uses. In many cases it is not practical or relevant to seek to separate all these various uses by different zones, as would be the objective in a metropolitan area.
The options that are available in the application of the VPP system to a small country town are essentially to apply the standard Township zone across the town, to apply a narrow suite of urban zones, specifically the Residential 1, Business 1 and Industrial 1 zones, or to apply a combination of township and specific zones to each town. It would be possible to develop additional Township zones or to develop specific purpose zones to accommodate common characteristics of small towns. Such an approach would cope better with the needs of country towns that are at odds with the narrow range of zones provided. Another potential approach within the spirit of the VPP is for each town to strengthen its strategy and policy framework within the LPPF. The weakness of this approach is that neither strategy or policy can be so specific as to over-ride the zone provisions – the absolute provisions within the zone will prevail. The reference in the purpose of the Township zone to small towns is the only reference in the whole VPP to the term small towns or for that matter the term town.
While a Council is at liberty to choose from the whole suite of zones provided by the VPP there is only a limited range of zones that could realistically be applied to small towns. Other than the Township zone the only relevant provisions are to be found in the Residential 1, Low Density Residential, Business 1, (possibly the Business 4) and the Industrial 1 zones. The remaining zones are fully geared to complex land use situations only found in large scale urban areas. The essential problem with applying zones other than the Township zone is that zoning assumes that relatively large areas are devoted to a particular type of land use such as residential or retail. This is rarely the case in small country towns. Consequently Councils chose to avoid the dilemma of a patchwork of zones by using the generic Township zone. The Township zone is the ultimate mixed-use zone it provides for an extraordinary variety of uses and ensures that few existing uses would take on a non-conforming classification.
The prospect of land use conflict is inherent within the provisions of the Township zone. Uses that are provided for may be completely out of character with the way in which development and planning is addressed in country towns. For instance, in the Township zone a dwelling does not require a permit even though the zone provides for a range of industrial and commercial uses as discretionary uses. In other words a residential use can be located adjacent to a series of uses that may impact on residential amenity. In turn these commercial and industrial uses, that could be long standing, could then become subject to an on-going series of complaints about their operations. The Township zone is under the category listing of a Residential zone. This classification appears to give a secondary status to business and industrial uses and yet it is a zone that is designed to and must cater for the land use needs of such activities. The Township zone is very open ended in the range of discretionary uses that are allowed, generally only the rural zone has greater discretion and fewer prohibited uses. Most large scale or substantial processing type industrial uses are prohibited in the Township zone and would require a specific Industrial zone or a Rural zone to establish. Because of the buffer distances for various industrial uses that are incorporated within the VPP a large number of existing industries in small towns would not now be permitted to establish in their current locations. Expansion of these operations on the current site may be very difficult or prohibited because they are a non-conforming use under the Township zone.
19 Historic Towns in the Landscape Forum – 28 April 2006
In respect to business or retail uses it is ironical that all commercial uses are discretionary within the Township zone that is more open ended on commercial development than any of the actual Business zones in the VPP.
This potential for lack of recognition of differences is illustrated in the application for use and development in the Township zone. ‘The responsible authority must consider, as appropriate, matters such as the protection and enhancement of the character of the town and surrounding area including the retention of vegetation (and) the need for a verandah along the front or side of commercial buildings to provide shelter for pedestrians’. While this clause seeks to provide some recognition for ‘the character’ of the town it raises other issues. It highlights the one size fits all model that has been applied. This provision has a rather standardized assessment of Victoria’s rural towns and a ‘quaint’ view that it is verandahs, for instance, that characterize such towns. However, the verandah is not a feature of all buildings in all country towns. Towns developed in the 1830s and 1840s for instance, rarely possessed verandahs on their commercial buildings. In the pseudo conservation of historic buildings it is often assumed that verandahs must be added to buildings. This clause in the VPP has picked up this theme. Where a single zone and its provisions are applied across hundreds of circumstances it is likely that some of the features of those towns will be overlooked and smoothed over as though they all have the same elements.
20 Historic Towns in the Landscape Forum – 28 April 2006
Walking tour around Buninyong Dr Anne Beggs-Sunter Secretary of the Buninyong and District Historical Society The aim of the tour was to show the way Buninyong has grown, from its first commercial origins serving the squatting population in the early 1840s, through its evolution as a bustling township with a range of industries, to its present status as a residential suburb of Ballarat.
The tour began at the former Buninyong Town Hall, an 1886 boom-style building that is on the Victorian Heritage Register. We paused at the central intersection of the township to admire some old commercial buildings from the 1850s, particularly the old bakery building which retains its original oven in the rear outbuilding. Turning up Warrenheip Street, the tour passed some substantial residences built for professionals in the nineteenth century, and the church precinct, with Herny Caselli’s Holy Trinity (1860), and the imposing Presbyterian church of 1860 designed by Backhouse and Reynolds in its lovely large churchyard.
As we walked up Forrest St, we noted the rural feel of the street treatment with swale drains and grassy verges, and the imposing view of Mount Buninyong which is the guardian of the town.
The Buninyong Botanical Gardens are a treasure of the township, laid out from the early 1860s with advice and seeds from Ferdinand Von Mueller. The gardens feature the Queen Victoria Rotunda, one of the first memorials to be constructed to Queen Victoria after her death in 1901. The old swimming baths have been turned into an attractive sunken garden, and the old court house nearby is a reminder of the early court and police presence in Buninyong, and later the importance of the dairy industry when it was converted into a butter factory in the 1890s.
The walk continued up past the old brewery beside the Gong (spring-fed lake) and as we climbed up to the old Catholic church on the hill (1858) we could see the recent encroachment of new housing development along the ridgeline of Lal Lal Street.
We then turned back to the Midland Highway, and crossing the road observed the new sporting complex that has just been finished in Forest St., and again more housing development in the area. It opens the thought that in the twenty first century, indoor sporting complexes are one of the major public building projects.
The rapid growth of the nearly University of Ballarat, and its associated technology park, is creating enormous pressure to develop the natural bushland areas on the edge of the old township boundaries. A heritage overlay over some parts of Buninyong in the Ballarat Planning Scheme helps to protect the township itself, but not the surrounding bushland and the wonderful landscape values associated with Mount Buninyong.
Our tour preceded down to the old residential area of Eyre Street, then through De Soza Park – a reclaimed mining area – to finish at the Old Library in Warrenheip St., another architectural gem built in 1860. It is on the Victorian Heritage Register, and is also still serving its original purpose, as a bookshop and information centre.
21 Historic Towns in the Landscape Forum – 28 April 2006
Map of the township of Buninyong, showing the route of the heritage walk.
The Gong at Buninyong is on the eastern side of the Botanic Gardens.
View of Mt Buninyong from town centre.
22 Historic Towns in the Landscape Forum – 28 April 2006
Towns and the tourist onslaught – survival or capitulation? Professor Peter Spearritt Executive Director of The Brisbane Institute
Ever since the Tasmanian government began to take tourism promotion seriously in the l890s, country towns in Australia have been conscious of the potential of tourists and holiday makers for their local economies. Some towns commitment to the holiday trade even predates that decade, including the guest house capitals that developed in Katoomba and Queenscliff, and the seaside resort towns to be found around the continent. Apart from beaches within easy reach of the capital cities, notable early rural coastal holiday settlements included Lorne and Coolangatta. For inland settlements to develop a tourist trade they needed mountain scenery (Katoomba) Caves (Jenolan, Buchan), spas (Daylesford) or some other natural attraction.1
Until the l960s most Australian-born citizens probably still had one relative on the land. This is no longer the case. Australians over fifty still have nostalgic memories of country town life and have probably lived for at least a few months in a country town. Younger Australians and immigrants may or may not discover the delights of country town Australia, a discovery largely dependent on their own travel habits. But they are much less likely to have relatives to stay with.
The attractions of the country town for those of us who have lived in one can be summed up technically in terms of their legibility, their morphology and their heritage. But it is also their convenience, and in this we are grateful escapees from the gargantuan car-based shopping centres that now dominate Australian suburban life.
When I visit a medium size country town – and the range of services is obviously critical – I visit the hardware store that isn’t a Bunnings, so I can get answers, I do my Medicare refunds and I buy my Collins diary each year in Murwillimbah because the newsagent there has a better range than Dymocks. I am putting this aggressively consumerist position because I am one of a growing proportion of males prepared to admit that we like shopping. I’m still devastated by the move of the antique market in Ballarat from the Mining Exchange to the old public school up the hill because I can’t savour my purchases over a decent cup of coffee. At least in the Maryborough Railway station the ladies in the refreshment rooms look after you, post purchase.
Last year I purchased a large mirror at the Maryborough station antique market. The only way to transport it back to Brisbane by air, as accompanied baggage, was to visit the local Salvos warehouse and buy a huge second hand suitcase that would fit the mirror. There aren’t many suburbs in Australia in which you can do that. And just to think, that despite the decline of many of Maryborough industries, almost all the books published by the University of Queensland Press, who’s Board I chair, are printed in Maryborough, Vic.
1 See Jim Davidson and Peter Spearritt, Holiday Business: Tourism in Australian since 1870, Melbourne University Press, 2000
23 Historic Towns in the Landscape Forum – 28 April 2006
Eighty-five per cent of us now live in just six cities, including what I dub the 200 kilometre city from Noosa to the Tweed. We have all seen villages and towns subsumed into urban sprawl, especially on the fringes of our huge, land hungry cities and their equally back-yard hungry citizens. Other towns, including the marvelous array of goldfields towns in Victoria, have retained separate geographical, social and landscape identities. Castlemaine is one where the population remained remarkably stable over the 20th century. Others have continued as regional centres (Ballarat, Bendigo) grown into regional centres (Wodonga), or withered, and in some cases are in terminal decline. Nothing of course could be more terminal than the destruction of Yallourn, surely the world’s only true Art Deco village.
As other speakers today have mentioned, the sense of decay in some country towns is so palpable that it is difficult to see how it can be turned around. Yass survived being bypassed and now thrives again, but partly because it is within 45 minutes drive of 350,000 Canberrans. Gilgandra, on the other hand, has withered in the shadow of Dubbo, and its main street is now mournfully dominated by empty shopfronts in what was, even twenty years ago, a major regional centre.
The car and the truck have been the ruin of many a country town and the making of some, particularly the medium sized regional centres, large enough to sport a Woolworths or a Coles. What a sign of our civilization! Why the good citizens of Maleny didn’t immediately embrace the offer of Woolworth’s to put their town on the map, even if it meant eliminating the last bit of remnant green space in the town, I simply can’t imagine.
There are plenty of examples of country towns that have survived, with little tourism, because they remain regional centres with an agricultural base – and for cultural or travel times reasons they have not been swamped by a larger regional centre, or the worst threat that any medium size town can face, a free standing shopping centre on the urban fringe, rather than within walking distance of the main street. Thankfully town planners and economic planners in local councils have got much more strategic about these issues in recent years.
Until the l980s there was a standard way in which you absolutely ruined the city centre of a major town. It only required two things – the car based shopping centre on the fringe and turning the main street into a mall – Townsville and Rockhampton are tragic examples, where the problem was exacerbated by putting the universities on the very fringe of the city, away from accommodation, shops, pubs and all the other things that staff and students apparently don’t need. Putting Deakin University at Waurn Ponds, rather than in the Geelong CBD is another classic example. At least the University now occupies some of the former woolstores.
The gutting of the main streets of our great regional towns has real parallels with the way they in turn have often gutted the commerce of other towns within an hour’s drive of the big centre. But nothing is worse than the gutting of landscapes that surround these towns. It is those landscapes that are crucial to maintaining a sense of identity – the landscapes and the green space between settlements, so you know you’ve gone from one place to another.
24 Historic Towns in the Landscape Forum – 28 April 2006
When do towns turn to tourism, when do they just gradually become partly tourist sites, and when should they reject tourism? Victoria has successful towns where tourism is just part of the economy, grafted onto pre-existing settlements that retain some core industries or get new ones. Castlemaine, born of gold, still has the bacon factory, but the jail provides just as much employment, and more mouths to feed. Lorne, always a holidaymakers establishment, is at the other end of the spectrum, having catered to tourists virtually since its inception. In Lorne the heritage good luck seems to me to have a lot to do with most of the settlement being on only one side of the street, with the notable exception of Erskine House, saved crucially by Premier Hamer in those years when it would have been demolished. Now it has been turned into an ocean-front condominium estate, much like any Queensland golf course with instant heritage town houses. And I remind you that the Cumberland Resort, a pink excrescence, can’t use its landmark chimneys – designed to market cosy winter weekends – because the apartments above get filled with smoke. Why don’t the architectural and town planning professions, potentially honest trades, spend more time giving out citations for really bad mistakes?
The commitment to maintaining streetscapes has had a beneficial impact. Bangalow, a sweet village in the Byron Bay hinterland, born of dairying, boasts a fantastic beaten metal agricultural hall, a main street of the l920s shops, a l930s post office, a late deco Pub and marvellous showgrounds. Of course now that it is in the orbit of Bryon Bay, it is allowed to retain all its heritage architecture, but what happens in the shops has certainly changed. You can’t buy hardware or cheap soap, but you can buy designer clothes, pseudo antiques, books but only if they are called ICON something or other, lingerie and all the other necessaries for consuming coffee and trading in macadamia nuts. Mercifully, the post office is still a post office, with the addition of a second hand bookshop. What a tragedy that Bendigo’s post office, with its magnificent postal counter, has been given over to tourist promotion, rather than postal services.
The towns in Australia most under threat from tourism are those that have been swamped by day-trippers and the demand for overnight beds. Our greatest tourist establishments ooze beds – Cairns, the Sunshine Coast, the Gold Coast and the capital cities. Montville, in the Blackall Range west of Noosa, doesn’t have many beds but it does try simultaneously to be a French, Irish and Scottish hill station. The result; its original agricultural and residential architecture is tarted up and compromised beyond belief, and it doesn’t even have the solace of a jail. That’s what has saved Berrima, where the streetscape is given over to boutique commerce, but the jail, mercifully, has not yet been commercialized. You can wander around it and still imagine Berrima a hundred years ago. It is increasingly hard to do that in most self-styled tourist towns in Australia.
Bryon Bay is a most instructive example, because with a population of 6,000, it gets almost two million visitors a year, a third of them day-trippers from SE Queensland. Until the l970s Bryon Bay consisted of a dairy establishment and abattoirs – good honest, god-fearing businesses. Intriguingly, it never became a major port, because it got rail access from Lismore early on. It is one of the few spots on the NSW coast where the fondness of engineers for building stone abutments and groins was not exercised, unlike Brunswick Heads to its north, or Ballina and Nambucca Heads to its south.
The irony today is that most of the Bryon Bay trade comes from SEQ, escaping their rampant coastal development to see Mt. Warning –some even climb it – or to admire the fact the Byron to Brunswick is held in a nature reserve, a term, a concept and a practice almost unknown in SEQ, where the Glasshouse Mountains National Park protects only the volcanic plugs, with neo-Tuscan mini mansions running rife between the great peaks.2
2 On SEQ see P. Spearritt, The 200 kilometre city: Noosa to the Tweed, Brisbane Institute, 12pp, 2004
25 Historic Towns in the Landscape Forum – 28 April 2006
One of the reasons why Byron Bay has been less scarred by the tourist onslaught than many other coastal boom towns is that 40 per cent of the 10,000 beds in the region are in camping grounds, not in high rises overlooking the beach. What a contrast to the Gold and Sunshine Coasts where investors come first, and tenants, owner occupiers and holidaymakers come a firm second. How else can you explain the penchant of the development industry to destroy the very environment it wishes to capitalize on?
There are a number of key questions which may not be resolved at this landscape forum, but always need to be uppermost in the minds of heritage advocates. Once we’ve secured the main street through legislation, how do we protect the landscape setting. That is central to not only the continued attractiveness but also the sense of identity of all towns.
Rural Victorian towns have some great advantages over towns in other states. The distances are smaller, and despite petrol price rises, they are cheaper to get to than elsewhere, especially from their state capital. You don’t have to worry about a reliance on regional airports, so important to northern NSW and north Queensland. You have a rich built heritage preserved by a combination of Victorian conservatism and advocacy from Heritage Victoria. You exported your crassest developers to Queensland and with it your opportunity to have beachfront high-rise and canal estates as good as any to be found in Florida. Don’t let your towns and your landscapes be compromised by the developer and investor-led buildings. When they don’t like what they’ve created, or they are no longer making money from it, they sell out and move on to the next target.
26 Historic Towns in the Landscape Forum – 28 April 2006
Growth and non-grown towns – case studies Wendy Jacobs Heritage Consultant, Heritage Advisor to the Shire of Northern Grampians
I am pleased that the forum is looking at the landscape as this is an area I have found difficult to grapple with over the years. The general public now agrees with retaining the heritage of a town as long as you do not place any restrictions on them. This appreciation of the cultural heritage has slowly radiated out from Melbourne to reach even areas such as Sea Lake and Edenhope. Landscape qualities and protection are an area which has lagged behind and its time is well and truly overdue.
Having grown up with the heritage conservation movement I hope I have developed along with it from just acknowledging the crème de la crème individual building to see the significance of areas, gardens, industrial sites and ruins. The setting has always been part of the whole significance. In early days, the setting may have been referred to but not included generally in recommendations as the main objective was the building and things had to be kept simple at the start.
It has always fascinated me that one town blossoms and grows when another just withers away even though their history was very similar in the first place. During the gold rushes, the seeds of a town were sown at each river/creek crossing and about every 10 miles along a track and usually where these two requirements coincided. The watercourse gave necessary water and, with gold, was often the source of wealth and the means to unlock it. There first came a pub, then a store and this attracted others. If the water held and the gold or passing travellers kept coming, the town grew. Finally a government surveyor would arrive and set out the town – sometimes this survey is all that is left of the grand aspirations of the settlement.
All I can offer are some observations of places that I have worked in and you can perhaps use these as spring boards to dive into discussion.
Stawell is a town built on gold and although government deemed that the town should be near the Pleasant Creek, the gold was further up the hill so the town’s people just settled up near the mines. Stawell has a fascinating landscape conundrum always on the agenda. It is a town built on gold and has an operating gold mine – one of the reasons that the town still prospers. Crowning the Main Street of Stawell is the aptly named Big Hill. Next to Big Hill is a big hole where the mine is. There is a lot of gold under Big Hill and the mine would like to get at it by the cheapest possible way – open cut mining. This would mean digging up Big Hill and moving it just a little to the east as a mullock heap. Now, I personally like Big Hill where it is. I think it has historic significance and is a major component of the landscape but historically Stawell was built on gold and the people who shaped the way we see Stawell now did not let much stand in their way – historically they would have mined the hill if they had those really big trucks to do it with. Which is more important – continuing the heritage of gold mining or retaining Big Hill? We retain mullock heaps in the landscape, so would a new one be acceptable? Feel free to discuss in the forum.
Halls Gap is nestled in the foot of the Grampians. The place is dominated by its landscape (albeit a little charred at the moment). Undertaking the heritage study we came to the conclusion that the township as a whole did not meet the criteria for an Heritage Overlay but richly deserved protection of the landscape. This is a more difficult issue to manage than heritage overlays. The place is popular and under pressure to develop as a tourist
27 Historic Towns in the Landscape Forum – 28 April 2006
destination. Gradually larger and larger developments are taking the place of the shrub surrounded minimalist holiday houses. The Shire is caught between encouraging economic development and retaining the very aspects that draw the tourists. Most of the adjacent land in controlled by Parks Victoria which helps retain the prized landscape but also limits the amount of land available for development within a narrow valley.
Newstead is a small town within the catchment of Castlemaine and Bendigo which like Maldon is a bit of a Snow White, moribund for many years. The instigator of pressure on Newstead is the advent of a sewerage system which has now allowed the development of many sites which could not sustain a septic tank. One of the characteristics of the town is its spread-out development and abundance of vacant lots – many of which have never been developed. People have owned the allotments and have separate titles to them. There is not a mechanism to retain the vacant lots – and I even have qualms about having such mechanisms. But the development of these blocks of land is changing the face of the town and causing disquiet amongst the residents.
As a subconsultant to some further heritage studies in Ballarat a few years ago, the brief asked for assessment of heritage landscapes and the head consultants Hansen Partnership undertook assessment in the area around Learmonth. The mammaloid hills that gently roll around the town as mainly grazing land were assessed and recommendations for their protection presented to a Public Meeting. The recommendations were not well received and as a result the landscape recommendations were not included in the final report. There is now a proposal for abattoirs and saleyards adjacent to the town supported by the City of Ballarat to bring economic development into the area. I have had a number of locals on the phone asking how they can use the heritage of the town and the landscape to prevent this happening.
Asking others about why some towns prosper and some just fade away gave the following insights – Towns with good built infrastructure retain their appeal. So the ones that were prosperous and built the grand town halls and libraries retain this appeal. The other comment was about the baby boomers who are moving back into some of these areas – they need to be near to services and not too far from the flesh pots of Melbourne so people will visit and they can go to town for the day. Taradale – a small straggling community outside Castlemaine has a walking group of 140 people. It is functioning as the meet and greet apparatus to the town. Most are retirees, many with no former ties to the area. In the early stages these are the ones that retain the town, the significant built infrastructure, the landscapes and the love of the place. It is the next stage which puts the pressures on.
In conclusion I am still not sure how you retain a landscape against development, changes in agriculture and good old bushfires. I will go back to trying to protect the built heritage and hope that I can pass that baton onto the next generation.
28 Historic Towns in the Landscape Forum – 28 April 2006
‘Seafarers settlers and soldiers’ a tale of three heritage towns in search of a future Dr Gordon Forth Historian
Introduction I have long been interested in the origins, current situation and likely future of Australia’s heritage or historic towns – those basically with a sufficient number of well preserved nineteenth century stone or brick buildings which though neglected have somehow escaped demolition or extensive modernisation As I drive through rural Victoria questions come to mind about the reasons for the location of such towns, what’s happening there now and whether or not it has a long term future. I’m often struck by the vision and enthusiasm which enabled residents of such towns to muster sufficient funds and local voluntary effort to build memorial halls, churches and sports facilities. I’m also very aware of how the development of Australia’s rural, mining and forestry towns reflected particular circumstances at the time of their establishment. In the case of nineteenth century Australia these included the limitations of horse transport and the labour intensive nature of agriculture – circumstances that changed dramatically in the twentieth century when many once prosperous rural supply or mining towns disappeared or experienced ongoing, and some would argue, inevitable decline.
Some years ago, following a conference presentation of my views on the likely future of Australia’s declining rural towns which attracted considerable media coverage I was quite unfairly dubbed as Dr Death from Deakin’s Centre for Regional Destruction. Anyone here today who is expecting me to air controversial views on Victoria’s heritage towns will be rather disappointed. For this afternoon I intend simply to comment on how three towns in one Victorian rural shire have, with mixed success, sought to use their built and cultural heritage to enhance their future prospects as viable centres. It is now quite common for such Australian rural communities to stage a celebration of their own history or music festival to generally promote their town through some form of heritage led revival.
It’s assumed by organisers that the holding of heritage type events will benefit both local businesses and the town generally. Clearly attracting a crowd will at least boost the daily takings of the local cafes and hotels. Holding a heritage event also has the potential to enhance local residents understanding of their town’s distinctive history. It could also be argued that an increased awareness and pride in their history increases the likelihood that residents of these communities will undertake further initiatives to ensure that their town has a future. Finally there is often an implicit assumption that holding this type of event will somehow assist a declining rural town to attract much needed new residents; that some visitors having seen for themselves the town’s amenities and experienced it’s friendly, authentic ambience will choose to forsake their soulless Melbourne suburb and relocate to Upper Wombat.
Based on personal observations, this presentation looks at the origins, implied rationale and achievements of heritage type festivals held in three neighbouring Victorian towns. The paper makes some tentative conclusions regarding the extent to which each of these festivals have achieved all or any of the aims outlined above. The three towns are Port Fairy, Koroit and Mortlake in the Shire of Moyne all within reasonable commuting distance of Warrnambool. Following the end of Australia’s Long Boom 1945-74 each of these rural towns experienced some degree of ongoing decline and had a need to reinvent themselves in order to have a long term future.
29 Historic Towns in the Landscape Forum – 28 April 2006
The Port Fairy Folk Festival Though currently one of Victoria’s booming coastal towns, in the mid 1970s Port Fairy was something of a sleepy backwater, sustained by the local fishing industry, low level tourism and the local Glaxo factory. Established in the 1840s as a port on the River Moyne, Port Fairy or Belfast as it then was referred to, functioned as a rural supply centre and port for local fisheries, farming and pastoral industries. Port Fairy’s impressive early development was largely due to the entrepreneurship and enthusiasm of a William Rutledge. With his fellow Irish countryman, Atkinson, Rutledge developed the port of Belfast and the surrounding fertile countryside as a private fiefdom. Assisted emigrants from Ireland were provided with seed and tools on credit to enable them to establish farms at Rosebrook, Tarone, Orford, Yambuk and Killarney. Yet in the end Wild Billy, as the intemperate Rutledge was referred to locally, over reached himself and went bankrupt. Port Fairy stagnated while its rival centre, Warrnambool, flourished.
However Port Fairy’s comparative lack of development over the next hundred years was critical in enabling the town to reinvent itself as heritage tourism centre in the late twentieth century. For in 2006 central or old Port Fairy rather resembles a historical maritime museum – an image now carefully preserved and marketed. The success of the Port Fairy Folk Festival which each March draws in excess of ten thousand, well heeled visitors to the town, has clearly been a critical factor in Port Fairy being discovered. Planning guidelines are now in force to ensure not only that the towns surviving heritage buildings are preserved but that new developments in the town’s centre-port area conform to specific heritage criteria. The market value of centrally located residential properties with river or ocean views has boomed. The town’s CBD now abounds with authentic ye olde style accommodation and upmarket retailers (including a particularly swanky boutique with dresses ranging from $400 to $800) geared to the tourist trade. Yet most businesses in the main street that cater basically for locals are fairly rundown. Port Fairy’s housing boom has involved external investment by affluent outsiders purchasing holiday accommodation. These absentee homeowners contribute little to either the local economy or the community. with their spending restricted to purchasing basic goods and entertainment
I’ve assumed that most of you are more or less aware of what happens at a Port Fairy Folk Festival. Though organised by a Geelong based group the town provides not only a volunteers workforce and picturesque backdrop but the essential historical authenticity for what is now a highly commercial event. This desire for historical authenticity is reflected in the core liberal morality of the musical program, the more or less nineteenth century, working class style dress of both performers and some attendees and required gregariousness for everyone.
Regardless of the undoubted success of the Folkie, now one of Australia’s major music festivals, it is far from clear how significant this thirty year old event has been in Port Fairy revival. With its coastal location, historic port precinct, heritage buildings and reasonable proximity to Warrnambool and Melbourne, sceptics might argue that Port Fairy’s discovery (like Torquay and Apollo Bay) as a tourist-lifestyle destination was inevitable. Attending the Festival certainly provided visitors with a specific reason for visiting the town and identifying Port Fairy as a short stay holiday destination. The holding of this event has made some otherwise marginal local businesses viable and created some casual employment for locals. The Folk Festival has generated increased interest in Port Fairy’s past as evidenced by the strength of the local history society and the number of recent publications on the early history of the town. Finally, the marketing as well as the holding of the Festival has certainly enhanced the town’s profile. While further research is needed, developments directly or indirectly resulting from the Festival, appear to have influenced the decision of certain
30 Historic Towns in the Landscape Forum – 28 April 2006
affluent, well educated people to relocate to (as opposed to purchasing investment or holiday property) Port Fairy. In terms of indicators, it’s economic well being (average family income, level of educational attainments of residents etc.) the Festival has probably enabled Port Fairy to accelerate it’s development as a more culturally diverse and prosperous community
Koroit’s Irish Festival Koroit was established in the 1840s on the rim of the Tower Hill volcano crater as a rural supply town and service centre to meet the needs of local farm families in Tower Hill, Illowa, Southern Cross and Kirkstall. As one might expect from a town which was originally located in the County of Killarney in the Shire of Belfast, a high proportion of the towns population were Irish Catholic emigrants. In the 1916 conscription referendum, the vast majority of Koroit residents not only voted ‘no’ but actually managed to tar and feather a visiting army recruiting officer. When I first visited Koroit to supervise student teachers some thirty years ago I was much taken by the size of the local Catholic Church and Convent but also by the fact that enrolments at the local Catholic primary school were more than double those of the state school.
With a reduced, more mobile farm population, Koroit as a commercial and service centre has been declining since the 1950s. Several churches have closed and most businesses in the main street are in obvious need of renovation. At the same time there has been something of a recent boom in residential housing in Koroit and its environs where houses and land are more affordable than Warrnambool or Port Fairy. There has been a significant growth of lifestyle housing in Koroit’s surrounding countryside which is quite picturesque with some sites overlooking Tower Hill or the Southern Ocean.
Like many other declining towns with an identifiable and potentially marketable history, Koroit has sought to utilise its Irish heritage by holding an annual Irish Festival. In 1998 at about the same time group of residents were planning Koroit’s inaugural Irish Festival, Deakin University organised a forum on aspects of South West Victoria’s Irish heritage. Guest speakers included the then Irish Ambassador Richard O’Brien, historian Dr Peter Yule, the author of a recent history of Koroit and Dr Richard Reid. Deakin subsequently was offered State Government funding to research and stage re-enactments of aspects of Irish life in this region such as an Irish funeral and wake, an Irish concert and so forth. Initially we sought to work with the organising committee to incorporate our project into the planned Irish Festival. However our concept of what an overall Irish Festival program should involve and theirs had little in common. Clearly they saw our approach as overly academic even elitist and unlikely to appeal to ordinary local families wanting an enjoyable day out. Hence they went for what I saw at the time as the Danny Boy school fete approach with an program that included Shetland pony races, selling green beer, tug a war contests and a Danny Boy singing competition. Advertising for the Festival, which is being held this weekend, features a Disney style Leprechaun. Elitist or otherwise, our intention was to assist this community acquire an enhanced understanding of their authentic Irish heritage – which basically involved hardworking, pious Irish families making better lives for themselves. Their aim was to use Koroit’s Irish Catholic heritage to stage an event that would draw a large crowd and promote the town in the way that the Folk Festival had put Port Fairy on the map.
Though it has continued to decline as a retail-service centre, in recent years Koroit’s population has stabilised, basically because of the towns gradual transformation from a rural supply town to an outlying commuter suburb of Warrnambool. There is little evidence of a Festival generated tourism led revival as is the case with some coastal towns such as Port Fairy. Nor can it be claimed that holding the Irish Festival has resulted in local residents having an enhanced understanding of their own history.
31 Historic Towns in the Landscape Forum – 28 April 2006
The Mortlake Buskers Festival Mortlake, located on the Hamilton Highway approximately 45 kilometres north of Warrnambool, is very much a soldier settlement town. Following both wars, veterans were settled on farms formed from the subdivision of large pastoral estates. Without soldier settlement, Mortlake which eventually had a population of around a thousand, would have remained a minor township of a 100 or so. Local war memorials including an RSL hall built after the Second World War provide visible evidence of Mortlake’s origins.
By the mid 1990s farm consolidation and the depressed state of the wool industry saw Mortlake in significant decline. The town’s future was heavily dependent on the continued operation of one major employer, Clarks Pies. Unlike Port Fairy and Koroit, Mortlake had little by way of distinctive nineteenth architecture as a basis for a heritage – tourism led revival. Local residents who formed a Mortlake & Community Development Committee were successful in developing several new, main street enterprises including the mandatory telecentre but more was needed.
At about this time Deakin was undertaking a major history project on South West Victoria’s experience of the Second World War as part of the Federal Government’s. Australia Remembers initiative. With its soldier settler origins and memorials, Mortlake was of particular interest regarding how the Second World War and its aftermath had influenced the development and culture of a rural community. One possibility was for Mortlake to make use of the underused heritage bluestone precinct, the RSL Memorial Hall and local volunteers to develop a museum-archives to store and display materials relating to the region’s experience of war including soldier settlement. However following a change of government, we were unable to persuade the Minister for Veterans Affairs to provide minimal start up funding for the project.
Searching for their own distinctive music event to promote Mortlake, a group of residents came up with the idea of holding a buskers’ festival the first to be held in Australia. In this case the theme had nothing to do with Mortlake’s origins as a pastoral supply and soldier setter town. Rather it used the town as a suitable venue to provide a weekend of low cost entertainment, some additional income for local businesses and hopefully to put Mortlake on the tourist map.
Like Koroit, Mortlake has stabilised in terms of population numbers providing affordable housing and reasonable amenities for lower income families.
Conclusions Australia’s smaller rural towns will continue to explore ways in which to use their heritage buildings and history to provide a much needed boost to local businesses and as part of their tourism marketing strategy. Because of a general lack of modern development and their small size, many rural towns including the three featured in this paper can provide suitable venues for the staging of heritage type events including music festivals. The success of such events is normally measured in terms of the number of people who attend and the amount of net profit generated to fund next year’s festival. Providing local residents with an authentic view of their town’s history clearly runs a poor second to the need to draw a crowd. Apart from providing residents and visitors with ‘a good day out ’and a one off boost for local traders, its doubtful that holding this type of event does produce any significant long term economic or social benefits for most towns. For rural towns experiencing ongoing decline, a challenge would be integrate the holding of these events into an overall resident attraction strategy. In the longer term it may be the case that events that are part of a town’s authentic history will prove to be more enduring and beneficial than simply using surviving heritage buildings to provide a suitable venue for yet another festival.
32 Historic Towns in the Landscape Forum – 28 April 2006
Characterisation: new ways of valuing the historic environment Jim Gard’ner Assistant Director-Strategic Support, Heritage Victoria
Background The United Kingdom’s landscapes and much of the habitats and biodiversity they contain are a cultural phenomenon. England’s landscapes in particular have been shaped by traditional land management practices that developed over centuries. The agrarian landscape patterns, medieval field enclosures, common land and estates of the aristocracy remained intact until the industrial revolution. Since the Second World War the pace of change in the landscape has increased. Demographic changes such as the drift south of the English population, which reflects the loss of manufacturing industries of the North and Midlands, has put pressure on southern England. Likewise, the development of railways, motorways and airports and the rise of mechanised farming practises have made an indelible mark on the landscape.
In comparison the UK (including Northern Ireland) has about the same land area (241,600 km²) as the state of Victoria (227,600 km²). In other words, England’s land area (130,422 km²) is only 57% of Victoria’s and yet it contains a population almost exactly ten times that of Victoria. For the purposes of this paper reference is made to the legislation and planning mechanisms that operate in England. The same or similar controls exist within the other countries of the UK, although these are administered by independent agencies dealing with that specific country.
Existing landscape protection mechanisms in the England Space does not allow this paper to fully describe all the mechanisms within English planning and heritage controls that recognise landscape values but a selection of the most important are described below.
The National Trust Any discussion on landscape protection in the UK would be incomplete without first understanding the role of the National Trust in England. The National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty was founded in 1895 out of concern about the impact industrialisation and urban development was having on England’s countryside. When the National Trust purchased its third property, Wicken Fen, nearly Ely in Cambridgeshire, in 1899, it effectively created Britain’s first nature reserve. This action to safeguard part of England’s natural heritage predated statutory protection for significant landscapes by 40 years.
The National Trust Act of 1907 enabled the Trust to declare land as being held inalienably and in perpetuity, meaning that it can not be sold or compulsorily purchased by government. The National Trust is now the largest private landowner in the UK with land holdings totalling over 250,000 hectares. As well as the estates associated with its portfolio of country houses, the National Trust owns farmland, recreational areas, designed and natural landscapes and over one third (1,200 km) of the coastline of England and Wales.
33 Historic Towns in the Landscape Forum – 28 April 2006
National Parks The post-Second World War movement to protect important landscapes and historic buildings was in response to great social change and the redevelopment of England’s war ravaged towns and cities. The National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 that established England’s National Park network is the result. In comparison, the United States of America declared Yellowstone the world’s first National Park in 1872, and Victoria designated its first alpine parks in 1898.
The joint aims of the National Parks are to:
1. conserve and enhance natural beauty, landform and geology, flora and fauna and cultural heritage; and 2. promote opportunities for recreation.
Where these two aims conflict greater weight is given to conservation.
There are currently nine National Parks in England covering 8,500 km² or 7% of England’s land area. The tenth, the South Downs National Park in Hampshire, West Sussex and East Sussex is undergoing public consultation at present. Unlike their Australian or American counterparts the English National Parks include whole towns and villages as well as public and private land in residential, rural, civic, military and industrial uses.
National Parks are designated by the Countryside Agency in England, the Countryside Council for Wales and Scottish Natural Heritage. Each National Park is managed by its own National Park Authority, which includes representatives of local planning authorities and Countryside Agency (or the other relevant agencies in Scotland and Wales). The National Park Authority prepares and implements National Park Management Plans for each park. Development control is provided through a combination of the National Park Authority and Local Planning Authority.
Areas of outstanding natural beauty and sites of special scientific interest The National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act also enabled the establishment of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI or ‘triple S I ’) designations.
Like National Parks, AONBs are designated to conserve and enhance natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage including historic settlements, but without the additional specific objective of providing for recreational activities. There are 36 AONBs in England covering 19,500 km² or 15% of its areas.
SSSIs identify sites of primarily natural (geophysical or biodiversity) importance rather than scenic value or natural beauty. There are more than 4,000 SSSIs designated in England each of which covers much smaller tracts of land than AONBs.
AONBs are designated by Countryside Agency and SSSIs by English Nature with development control provided through the normal planning process with the relevant agency as a referral body. Although the local planning authority (LPA) must ‘have regard’ to the AONB or SSSI designation these offer a lower level of protection than the National Park designation. The AONB designation in particular has been criticised for its inability to control inappropriate development. In 2000 the controls associated with both designations were strengthened by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000). A further review to harmonise the controls of the AONB designation with those of the National Parks system is currently underway.
34 Historic Towns in the Landscape Forum – 28 April 2006
The Cotswolds AONB is the largest in England and covers more than 70% of District Council Area, influencing landscape and built environment planning across an area of 2,038 km² with a population in excess of 120,000 people.
Green Belts The interwar expansion of the Underground and the rise of motor transport created new pressure on London’s hinterland and the Home Counties. In order to restrain urban Cotswolds area of outstanding natural beauty sprawl and provide space for recreation, © VisitBritain London’s Green Belt was created in 1935; a concept derived from Ebenezer Howard’s Garden City Movement. There are now Green Belts around all of the UK’s major conurbations and many smaller towns. These range in size from 486,000 hectares around London to 700 hectares around Burton-on-Trent. The County of Surrey for instance has 70% of its land area designated as Green Belt. In total Green Belts cover more than 15,000 km² or 12% of England’s land area. Green Belts are designated by the local planning authority with planning policy and development control defined by Planning Policy Guidance Note 2: Green Belts.
Heritage Coasts Heritage Coasts are a new non-statutory designation of the Countryside Agency, the aim of which is to assist in the conservation of the scenic value or natural beauty of English coastline. 1,057 km or 33% of England’s coastline has been designated as Heritage Coast which includes coastline owned by the National Trust or already protected by statutory designations such as National Parks or AONBs.
Conservation Areas Conservation Areas were established by the Civic Amenities Act 1967, and established the concept of ‘character’ in English heritage planning. Conservation Areas designate “areas of special architectural or historic interest, the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance” and define character at a local (townscape) level. There are in excess of 8,000 Conservation Areas across England which collectively contain hundreds of thousands of individual properties.
Conservation Areas are designated by the local planning authority and may be considered analogous to the area Heritage Overlay within the Victorian Planning Provisions. Guidance on the application of Conservation Areas is provided within Planning Policy Guidance 15: Planning and the Historic Environment and English Heritage publications such as Conservation Area Appraisals have established methodology for establishing local urban character. Planning policy guidance identifies that AONBs and SSSIs are more appropriate mechanisms for natural and rural landscape protection within the English planning system.
Characterisation Characterisation is the collective term for a broad suite of tools for understanding the historic environment. It maps the development of the historic environment to enable a better understanding of past decisions, and to inform future decision making. The uses of characterisation extend from helping to manage change to improving rural and urban sustainability.
35 Historic Towns in the Landscape Forum – 28 April 2006
The characterisation methodology has its origins of the concept of ‘character’ as articulated in 1967 Conservation Area Legislation. Joint working between English Heritage, the Countryside Commission (now the Countryside Agency) and English Nature led to the development of the pilot Historic Landscape Characterisation (HLC) project in Cornwall in 1994.
M11 Corridor study a showing HLC asset values M11 Corridor study a showing simplified HLC © Buckinghamshire County Council area types © Buckinghamshire County Council
In 1997 the revised Planning Policy Guidance 7: Countryside – Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development (now replaced by Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development and Rural Areas) endorsed the HLC approach, and the European Landscape Convention of 2000, to which the United Kingdom is a signatory, is compatible with HLC methology. By 2002 half of England’s counties had commenced or completed HLC projects and some had incorporated these into local planning schemes or structure plans.
After 10-years of developing HLC practise a review was undertaken in 2004, which has led, in part, to the broadening of the range of applications to which characterisation is applied. Characterisation projects have now been completed for rural landscapes, urban areas, peri- urban areas (such as those covered by Green Belts), transport corridors, growth areas and areas of archaeological significance.
One of the major strengths of the HLC approach is that is makes use of many existing studies and established techniques with an emphasis on assessment of the current visual character of landscapes. Although original research may be required as part of an HLC project the stress is placed on the synthesis of existing information including: current land use, past land uses, the distribution and types of resources (water, quarries, minerals, timber etc.), the distribution and types of buildings, settlement types and patterns, communication types and patterns (roads, railways and canals), archaeological sites and heritage places, geological and topographical mapping, contemporary and historic mapping, aerial photography and other documentary sources.
36 Historic Towns in the Landscape Forum – 28 April 2006
The typical phases of a characterisation project, such as those utilised in the pilot HLC study of the Harlow-Stansted section of the M11 (motorway) Corridor, begin with data gathering from existing data sources. This is followed by a fine-grained visual assessment of attributes of the current landscape (e.g. rural, urban, industrial, communication, woodland etc.) to map land use as individual HLC area types.
HLC – TYPICAL PHASES Data gathering Ð Group attributes to develop HLC types Ð Analysis of types to explore issues such as: • Time depth • Landscape change • Land enclosure patterns • Present and future land use Ð Evaluation Ð Reporting and archiving Ð Recommendations Ð Applications
Understanding the time depth associated with each is achieved by analysing the survival rates of earlier land use and enclosure patterns. The distribution of archaeological sites (Scheduled Ancient Monuments) and heritage places (Listed Buildings) as well as designated landscapes and Conservation Areas are considered.
In the case of the M11 Corridor project a subjective numerical value (1-9) was placed against each HLC area based on criteria that included: age, rarity or ‘special interest’, the history of change, the completeness or articulation of the historic landscape and its legibility, and the degree to which it contributed to local character. These scores were aggregated into bands (1-3, 4, 5-6, 7-9) which were mapped to visually identify HLC asset values within the study area. The bands identified low sensitivity areas which display a history of change, culminating in the wholesale removal of earlier features in the late twentieth century, through to high sensitivity areas such as those which contain the greatest proportion of coherent enclosures dating from the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.
The mapping of the sensitivity areas produces a geographically comprehensive assessment of the levels of sensitivity for the historic landscape, and an indication of each area’s capacity to withstand change without the significant alteration of character. Although the resulting sensitivity map is complex, reflecting diverse themes of continuity, adaptation and change it can be used to inform regional and local planning policy and depending on the scale, individual development applications.
37 Historic Towns in the Landscape Forum – 28 April 2006
Like the conservation management plan process, HLC is of little use unless it is implemented in a meaningful way. As well as leading to a better understanding of the wider historic environment, HLC can assist in:
• targeting incentive schemes (such as Countryside Agency Landscape Management Initiatives or Woodland grant schemes); • directing advisory services (such as the Historic Environment Countryside Advisory Service); • informing landscape character strategies at county and district level; • spatial planning (to inform local planning policy and the development of structure plans); • assessing development proposals and other applications for change (such as hedgerow removal); and • strengthening partnerships, learning and outreach.
In recent years the uses for characterisation has extended beyond historic landscapes. For instance, urban surveys have been developed in conjunction with wider HLC. In Nelson, Lancaster urban characterisation identified that over 50% of pre-1919 housing stock had been lost, and only one part of the town, Whitefield Ward, retained substantially intact streetscapes. These findings have now been translated into planning protection for the remaining historic areas through Conservation Area controls.
Larger urban characterisation projects are also underway. The Merseyside Historic Characterisation Project aims to characterise the whole of the Merseyside conurbation, which is home to more than 2.5 million people. This includes the city of Liverpool, which was added to World Heritage List in 2004 and has been designated European Capital of Culture 2008.
Characterisation techniques are also being used to identify archaeological potential on a larger scale. The Worcester Liverpool (Merseyside Historic Characterisation Project) Historic Townscape Characterisation © BBC Project has been identifying the city’s archaeological resource below ground, through the use of an archaeological deposit model that analyses previous land uses and the present day landscape.
Large complex heritage places have also utilised historic landscape characterisation techniques at a local level such as Bletchley Park, Buckinghamshire, which includes a late Victorian mansion at its core, the wartime huts that houses the code-breakers who decrypted Germany’s Enigma codes and later buildings. Characterisation helps understand this internationally significant complex which overlays nineteenth and twentieth century historic buildings on an early eighteenth century landscape with later Victorian garden elements.
38 Historic Towns in the Landscape Forum – 28 April 2006
Conclusion Historic landscape characterisation is a big picture approach rather than being about individual heritage sites, buildings or trees. It is primarily about the about the present rather than the past. Being a broad brush approach characterisation relies more on visual assessment and perceptions than facts such as dates or the names of architects or historic figures.
Characterisation is a way of defining context rather than a full assessment of significance in its wider sense. In summary, characterisation is a tool to help manage change, not halt change.
References UK Landscape Designations National Trust (www.nationaltrust.org.uk)
National Parks (www.countryside.gov.uk/LAR/Landscape/DL/national_parks/index.asp)
Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (www.countryside.gov.uk/LAR/Landscape/DL/aonbs/index.asp)
Sites of Special Scientific Interest (www.englishnature.org.uk/special/sssi)
Green Belts Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) Note 2: Green Belts, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, London, March 2001.
Heritage Coasts (www.countryside.gov.uk/LAR/Landscape/DL/heritage_coasts/index.asp)
Conservation Areas Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) 15: Planning and the Historic Environment, Department of the Environment/Department of National Heritage, London, September 1994
English Heritage, Conservation Area Practice: English Heritage guidance on the management of Conservation Areas, English Heritage, London, October 1995.
English Heritage, Conservation area appraisals: Defining the special architectural or historic interest of Conservation Areas, English Heritage, London, March 1997.
Characterisation www.english-heritage.org.uk/characterisation http://www.countryside.gov.uk/LAR/Landscape/CC/index.asp
A. Bradley et al., Change and Creation: historic landscape character 1950-2000, English Heritage, London, 2004.
J. Clark, J. Darlington & G. Fairclough, Using Historic Landscape Characterisation, English Heritage/Lancaster County Council, London, 2004
39 Historic Towns in the Landscape Forum – 28 April 2006
The Countryside Agency & Groundwork, The countryside in and around towns: A vision for connecting town and country in the pursuit of sustainable development, The Countryside Agency, Wetherby, 2005.
K.Dorn, (editor), Conservation Bulletin: Characterisation (various articles), English Heritage, Issue 47: Winter 2004-5.
English Heritage, Conservation Area Appraisals: Defining the special architectural or historic interest of Conservation Areas, English Heritage, London, 1997.
G. Fairclough, ‘Boundless Horizons: Historic Landscape Characterisation’, Conservation Bulletin, English Heritage, Issue 40, March 2001, pages 23-26.
C. Swanwick, Landscape Character Assessment: Guidance for England and Scotland, The Countryside Agency/Scottish Natural Heritage, 2002.
D. Went & L. Dyson-Bruce, Historic Environment Issues in the Proposed London-Stansted- Cambridge Growth Area (with an indicative study of the Harlow-Stansted area) [report], English Heritage, London, 2003.
40 Historic Towns in the Landscape Forum – 28 April 2006
Our towns as cultural landscapes Ray Tonkin Executive Director of Heritage Victoria
This seminar is sponsored by the Landscape Advisory Committee of the Victorian Heritage Council.
One might ask why is a landscape committee concerning itself about towns?
The answer is quite simple. Our towns and cities are cultural landscapes just like most of our rural landscapes. By cultural landscapes I mean more than the trees, plantings and visual aspects of a botanical landscape.
In 2005 I spent 3 months at the Humanities Research Centre at ANU. During that time I set out on a research project to examine the role played by professional architects in the creation of Victoria’s rural and regional towns and cities during the second half of the nineteenth century.
The research theme for the HRC during 2005 was Cultural Landscapes and rather than pursue a straightforward architectural history project I first of all set out to examine how urban settlements were seen by those interested in cultural landscapes.
Australia’s students of cultural landscapes have largely avoided the subject of urban settlements and have focussed their attention on rural landscapes with particular reference to geographical, geological or botanical elements.
So what is important about our small towns? • To some it is about their social history and the important people that lived there. • To some it is their buildings and the specialness of their architecture. • To some it is the physical layout of the place and its contribution to a story about land surveying and town planning. • To some it is the topography and geology, the traditional pieces of physical geography • To some it is about the trees and plantings – the more traditional botanical view of landscape. • To some it is about the way the places are used. • To some it is the economic activity and vitality of the place. • To some it is the opportunity that the place provides for improvement or ‘townscaping’.
What often happens is that the importance of the place is defined by one measure alone or at best by several acting independently. The social historians struggle to acknowledge the role of architectural design or engineering ingenuity, the architectural historians fail to acknowledge that the trees and landscaping is as important as the buildings, the economists fail to see that the economic vitality is not solely due to the entrepreneurial nature of the local business people and the townscapers fail to see anything much other than a clean slate for some new design and building
This is particularly the case when a town manages to become a successful tourist destination.
41 Historic Towns in the Landscape Forum – 28 April 2006
What makes a place important and how it is acknowledged and interpreted is the key.
It is the same process as establishing the cultural heritage significance of a place for inclusion on a heritage register. In fact if we are to acknowledge our towns as important cultural landscapes than that is what we have to do. But we will not succeed in defining the true importance of these places if we fail to acknowledge the interdependence of the wide variety of elements of significance.
I will use the case of Beechworth to illustrate my point.
In 1972 the National Trust declared that Beechworth was an historic town. The Trust’s citation was about its interesting history as an important gold rush town and the fact that it had retained some nice buildings from that era, several of which would stand up well in a state wide assessment of architectural design. There was no real acknowledgement of the topography or geology, the trees and landscaping nor the economic dependence of the town on major public institutions. For much of its post gold era history Beechworth’s economy had relied on the Psycho-geriatric hospital, Mayday Hills, the prison and the Ovens and Murray Home and Hospital for the Aged.
When I visited Beechworth in 1980 as a precursor to the government establishing a heritage advisory service for the then United Shire of Beechworth I found a town with some interesting gold rush era buildings, a lot of modest nineteenth century domestic and commercial buildings of no great individual importance, a physical landscape that was not recognised as all that special, a social history that focussed on names like Ned Kelly and Robert O’Hara Burke and a streetscape of empty shops and vacant blocks of land
Fifteen years later I sat quietly as I was told by an “economic regenerator” (or something like that) that Beechworth’s significance was all about the economic wonders of its bakery and the entrepreneurialship of the person who had established it.
In one sense Beechworth had come a long way. It now had tourist coaches lined up in the main street disgorging their passengers into the highly successful bakery.
In another sense it was no further advanced in comprehensively defining its true significance as a cultural landscape – even though the visitors arrive in their thousands to take in something that they could see was important. It was visually attractive. It wasn’t just the old buildings or the fact that Ned Kelly was tried in the Courthouse or that Robert O’Hara Burke was a policeman there and there was a museum named after him. Nor was it just the presence of the bakery and its jam donuts and coffee.
The whole physical ensemble (buildings, trees, topography, geology) is important as are all the stories that grow from its social history (not just the Kelly and Burke stories) as are the economic ventures that make it a comfortable place to stay in or for that matter even the opportunity to carry out urban improvements.
But then how do we integrate all of those elements so that there is an understanding of what is valued and what we are trying to conserve.
After all our ultimate objective is to plan and manage the place to conserve its significance. So we first of all must define that significance.
There is another paper on the subject of statements of significance which we haven’t got time for here, however it must be acknowledged that describing significance across a wide range of values remains a challenging prospect.
42 Historic Towns in the Landscape Forum – 28 April 2006
The traditional way of coming to these statements is to undertake studies or analyses and from there extract the elements of significance.
Back to Beechworth The town planning version of the conservation of the town commenced on the basis of a National Trust citation and an amazing University of Melbourne Architecture School study reconstructing the architectural form of Ford and Camp Streets at various stages of their history.
This is it.
Now, as Liz Vines, the first heritage advisor in the town found, whilst it was an amazing piece of academic research it was of very limited use when people walked through the doors of the Shire and wanted approval to build something in Finch Street. It was also of limited use if there was a plan to put a new building in Ford Street. I remember one example in Camp St where Liz was able to promote the recreation of an architectural façade that had existed there at a previous period, but this was a rare occasion.
In 1986 a study of trees was undertaken so some sense of that element was acknowledged and more recently the Shire of Indigo has completed a more traditional heritage study which has provided significance assessments of buildings and areas throughout the Shire. In between times there has been a substantial investment in and around Lake Sambell and a significant investment in improving the presentation of the central government precinct (both townscape type projects).
It also must be acknowledged that the former United Shire of Beechworth and the current Shire of Indigo have done rather well in managing to conserve the town, whilst allowing the economic development of the place.
I guess that this has been as a consequence of a “feeling” for what was good for the place and an inherent conservatism about allowing any of the old buildings to be demolished or for any grand architectural gestures to be made anywhere in the town. The latter of course has been achieved in the face of other desires and through the application of a “feeling” as to what is right
Its planning policies do provide some sense of that ‘feeling’.
Beechworth developed following the discovery of gold at Spring Creek early in 1852. By July 1853 Beechworth had been declared a town. The original surveyed town plan of 1853 is still largely evident and this includes the size of blocks, laneways, and designated land uses (churches, public buildings, parklands). Beechworth was the major administrative centre for the whole of the north-east throughout the 1850s and 1860s. Most of the government buildings from this period are extant. A bylaw introduced in 1856 prohibited canvas tents and this has ensured that there are a number of buildings – both commercial and residential, that have survived from this relatively early date.
The aesthetic qualities of the streetscapes and their intactness are remarkable. There is little to compare with the scale, uniformity and quality of these streetscapes. Beechworth is unusual for its intactness and integrity, as the twentieth century has only lightly touched most of the township. There is an appreciable and tangible relationship between Beechworth's 19th century raison d'être as a gold mining town and extant mining sites and artefacts in the surrounding areas.
43 Historic Towns in the Landscape Forum – 28 April 2006
During the twentieth century the economy of Beechworth was stimulated by the presence of government departments such as the Beechworth Gaol and Mayday Hills. These buildings were built during the 19th century and retained their use until relatively recent times. Despite functioning during the 20th century the 19th building fabric, design and intentions are strongly evident.
But is this sufficient to guide the town into the future? How long is it before the reliance on “feeling” fails in the absence of a clear statement of what makes the town significant as a cultural landscape?
It seems to me that Beechworth has skirted around the analysis of the total significance of the place, in the eyes of its buildings, its landscape, its social and economic history, its topography and geology, its layout and urban form, its economic base and its potential for future development
A revisiting of the significance through cultural landscape eyes would lead to a statement of its significance as a cultural landscape rather than as a series of things.
From that point the management of the place should be easier and carry it into the future.
Now the fact of the matter is that Beechworth has been well looked after and continues to be in good hands and it is not the purpose of this paper to suggest otherwise.
However many other towns in this state are not so well looked after and more importantly their managers have little understanding of what their cultural significance is or for that matter any substantial inherent “feeling” about the place. Consequently there is little consensus about what should be cared for and conserved.
A study of the botanical landscape of Murtoa will recognise an avenue of Kurrajong trees and a heritage study of its buildings will identify a water tower and the “stick shed” and a study of its economic history possibly the importance of the meat processing works. But none of these things separately will reasonably describe the cultural landscape or character of the town. Without such a description Murtoa may just be destined to be managed by a means of independent decisions about specific aspects of the town
Then take a place like Marlo on the Gippsland coast. The normal social history will tell you little about the place that it is today, nor would a traditional heritage study give you much to work with. But Marlo is a cultural landscape no less than all other settlements around the state. Without consciously understanding the importance of its topography and physical geography or its vegetation or its economic history one could not adequately establish a statement of significance for that town. Nor could you establish good management policies to guide future development.
Other terms for what I have been describing are urban or neighbourhood character. These are relatively new terms in Australian planning jargon and I agree that they are an alternative way of defining the cultural landscape of a place. Equally we could be talking of the heritage of a place, a broadly defined heritage which goes beyond buildings and trees, the physical remnants of history.
What is important for our small towns is that the landscape historians, the social and economic historians, the architectural historians, the physical geographers, the economic entrepreneurs and the townscapers all put their heads together to analyse and describe place in a manner which is more akin to historical geography. Using such a model all of our towns can successfully establish their cultural landscape significance and pursue management policies accordingly.
44 Historic Towns in the Landscape Forum – 28 April 2006
Group discussion and conclusions Dr Jan Schapper Heritage Council, Landscape Advisory Committee Senior Fellow, Burnley College, University of Melbourne
Throughout the presentations and group discussions we have seen that many issues face historic towns, particularly small towns and their landscape settings. Heritage is only one of the variables in the viability of small towns and must be seen in conjunction with the economic and social forces which shape the future of these places.
Many structural changes have occurred in these towns in recent times. Natural forces such as drought have affected towns, council amalgamations have affected administration, as have the rationalization and relocation of services such as banking. Farm economics have affected farm ownership, management practices and the size of properties.
So there is much change in the landscape. The Towns in time project had demonstrated that not all towns are shrinking but that they must maintain a critical mass to survive.
Group discussions were focused on teasing out the issues and offering some constructive solutions. Group work is always valuable in these forums as many participants have expertise and experience to bring to the debate.
Groups were asked to identify the 5 main issues relating to heritage conservation in small towns, to suggest ways in which these might be resolved, to indicate any requirements needed to do this, and to single out their most important issue.
The table below summarises key ideas from the group discussions.
Summary of group discussions Group 5 Main issues How to resolve? What is Who is Single most required? responsible important thing – additional comments A • Economics Common forum to Appropriate Government Understand integrate values means of heritage values • Lack of thought for the Community protection and integrate future Recognition of into future • Streetscape/landscape landscape values Develop a directions character flexible overlay Convert heritage • Lack of integrated view system studies to • No clear consideration protection of bushland – land management ideology B • Economics of farming Negotiation – Identification of Government Ensure public Rules evolved by areas that are appreciation of • Crop choice Community • Landscape settings community critical landscapes and Educators their heritage • Patterns of Definition of areas Adopt value townships/subdivision that should be ‘no public/private etc. go’ partnerships • Identification of Select appropriate Consider some significant landscapes energy forms for compensation future for owners
45 Historic Towns in the Landscape Forum – 28 April 2006
Group 5 Main issues How to resolve? What is Who is Single most required? responsible important thing – additional comments C • Lack of community Increase Effectively Educators Nurture the awareness and community manage change relationship Community understanding awareness for the long term between people Government and place • Unsympathetic Further educate Utilise good councillors/media planners and other design as a • Development pressure professionals, problem-solver councillors, the • Planners insufficiently Join up top media etc. resourced in this area down and • ‘Lucky Dip’ of Identify and fix bottom up topography, some problems in the activities heritage places absorb planning system development more readily that others D • Development pressure Control Assistance in Local Increase • Recognising heritage expectations funding government resources to through good could lead the spend on values Empower strategies, charge education, • Financial knowledge and communities statutory control training of resources for State and political will Selling benefits heritage conservation government to councillors professionals, ‘Education x3’ could • Statutory controls coordination Improve contribute • Expectations of Education about and communication resources landholders history communication Clearer state State and local and to develop Authentic festivals policies and government better systems Proper mapping, planning must work for interacting database and together for with the public Specifically heritage studies good statutory review policies controls Effective local for small towns government advice E • Growth pressures in Communicate Education at Role of local Education and towns heritage values many levels, government accountability and process of including • Adoption of heritage Other heritage heritage studies into planning organisations, identification identification schemes assign and how to • Gap between councils accountability integrate and heritage studies heritage into • Inclusion of indigenous planning and natural heritage process
46 Historic Towns in the Landscape Forum – 28 April 2006
Some conclusions are:
• Landscape heritage differs from built heritage in that it is shaped by natural as well as cultural forces. The geology, soils, vegetative cover overlain by human activities such as land use, transport, towns and cities, all operate to define landscape heritage. To deal effectively with heritage issues in small towns, we must come to grips with the idea that heritage does not easily fit categories such as ‘historic’, ‘natural’, ‘indigenous’ or ‘cultural’ but is often an amalgam of these with boundaries which blend into each other. • Landscape operates at a different scale to the built environment. It may be relatively easy to deal with a piece of built heritage, most probably in the ownership of a single entity, while it is much more complex to deal with landscapes, often large in size and held by many owners with varying views and values. • There is frequently a much larger timescale to deal with in landscape heritage, starting from geological time for land formation, through the time needed to establish natural and ecological processes, to human settlement. Human patterns across the land stretch from geological time to the present and include indigenous and post-contact settlers, not all of whom are of European descent. • The landscape can change gradually or there can be a step function in change. Particularly intense human activities such as gold mining may affect the landscape, as we have seen in this region. Currently, development is putting pressure on the landscape settings of towns and could make major impacts. Some towns can absorb development better than other, because of what Group C called the ‘lucky dip of topography’. • The identity of small towns is eroded by the homogenisation brought about by fast communication and globalization, and by the increasing urbanization of the majority of the population. This causes a resultant removal of much of the population from the day-to-day activities of small towns; activities which give them their character and which define their community. It also means that a significant percentage of the population has no direct contact with the land. Therefore understanding of the town, the landscape and the community is lessened. • Currently, there is confusion between top-down policies and regulations and bottom-up activities. This stifles initiative and enthusiasm and cuts off possibilities. Communities could be assisted in finding their own solutions, rather than road-blocks being set in their way. Dr Jerry Courvisanos calls this the ‘joined-up model of government’ (see his paper in this collection for detailed findings on the viability of small towns). • Tourism is not the sole answer to the survival of small towns. It can, in fact, backfire and make for an experience that lacks authenticity. The most robust solution is to develop opportunities which capitalise on the unique and individual features and character of each place, embedding them is strong economic solutions and a willingness of the community to participate. • Education and communication are key issues. This applies to the general public, key professionals, students of all ages, government and the local communities. Education is communicating knowledge and values and heritage is an important value.
47 Historic Towns in the Landscape Forum – 28 April 2006
The findings of this forum build on and are generally congruent with the findings of the two previous forums. Good information and identification of heritage, clear and comprehensible administration, education and communication, economic viability, creative solutions all contribute to making heritage part of the solution to the viability of small towns. We can also draw on the experience of other places to assist us.
Heritage is a core value and it is important to uncover and tell the authentic stories of people and place, ensuring as best we can, adequate representations of the diversity of experience. It is about the richness of life in a place. Managing change for the long term involves knowing about the past and adapting for the future.
48 Historic Towns in the Landscape Forum – 28 April 2006
Appendix 1
Bus tour itinerary Saturday 29 April
Leader : Peter Hiscock
9.00 Coach picks up at Ballarat Village Motel, Sovereign Hill Car Park.
10.00 Creswick walking tour of part of town. Guide from local Historical Society
11.00 Creswick – Bungaree, drive around this town and Dunnstown and Yendon.
12.15 Mt Buninyong, guided walk with Peter Hiscock around crater track and to summit for the energetic; bus to the summit for the remainder.
1.00 Bus leaves for “Narmbool”.
1.30 Lunch in the garden at “Narmbool”.
2.15 Bus takes us to one of the Outstations at “Narmbool” and the Environmental Learning Centre.
2.45 Walk along track beside creek (1 km) and rejoin bus at ford.
3.30 Leave Narmbool.
4.00 Bus returns to Ballarat.
Pick up: Ballarat Village Motel Sovereign Hill Car Park Bradshaw Street
VicRoads Country Street Directory, pg 257 O15
49 Historic Towns in the Landscape Forum – 28 April 2006
A forlorn looking Creswick Railway Station and its boarded-up Signal Box – both much diminished.
Creswick P.O.
Climbing Mt Buninyong.
50 Historic Towns in the Landscape Forum – 28 April 2006
View from summit of Mt Buninyong.
The first residence at "Narmbool" – a 5000 acre pastoral property given to Sovereign Hill.
One of the "Outstations" built at "Narmbool" by Sovereign Hill for use by school students during their field work.
51
Historic Towns in the Landscape Forum – 28 April 2006
Appendix 2
List of attendees
Name Organisation Leesa Abbinga NMIT Peter Abbinga Helen Barker Parks Vic Maggie Baron Baron Planning & Projects Judith Bedford Hepburn Shire Dr Anne Beggs-Sunter Buninyong & District Historical Society Dr Juliet Bird LAC Trevor Budge La Trobe University Bendigo Helen Bull CFA Stuart Calder NT Winty Calder NT Tom Carson Heritage Building Services Jim Chaplin MULGA Jane Cleary Dr Jerry Courvisanos University of Ballarat Roger Cousens Uni of Melb Peter Cuffley Mt Alexander Shire Heritage Advisory Board Hilary Da Costa MULGA Nicole Donato Carl Doring Doring P/L Margaret Doring Doring P/L John Doull Borough of Queenscliff Rod Duncan DSE Lisa Dunlop Bass Coast Shire John Dwyer LAC Wendy Dwyer National Trust of Australia (Victoria) Dr Gordon Forth Historian Lindsay Fraser Land Design Wendy French MULGA Barrie Gallacher Contour Design Bart Gane Moyne Shire Jim Gard’ner Heritage Victoria Joan Gilmer VicRoads Karen Girran Murrindindi Shire Forbes Gordon Braidwood Joanna Gordon Braidwood Simon Haber DSE Christine Halstead Golden Plains Shire John Hancock Mukul Hatwal Hepburn Shire John Hawker Heritage Victoria David Hay THA Landscape Architects Peter Hiscock LAC
53 Historic Towns in the Landscape Forum – 28 April 2006
Name Organisation Pauline Hitchins National Trust of Australia (Victoria) Peter Holloway NT Mornington Peninsular Branch Wendy Jacobs Architect & heritage consultant Mandy Jean Architect & Heritage Advisor Pam Jellie Vicki Johnson Greater Bendigo Vicki Johnson Greater Bendigo City Dr Kerry Jordan National Trust of Australia (Victoria) Willys Keeble Architect & Heritage Advisor Jonathon Knox Evandale appropriate development group Richard Lee MULGA Raelene Marshall Dry Stone Walls Association Michael Mc Carthy Moorabool Shire Gaye McKenzie Collie P/L Doug McNeill Ballarat City Shane Melotte THA Landscape Architects Jenny Moles Planning Panels Vic Jeff Morgan Colac Otway Clive Mottram VicRoads Noel Muller Parks Victoria Helen Page LAC Adam Parrott Ballarat City Sarah Perry Loddon Shire Sara-Jane Peters Martin Purslow National Trust of Australia (Victoria) Cheryl Raper Braidwood & Villages Tourism NSW Don Raper Braidwood & Villages Tourism NSW Jeremy Reynolds DSE Sandy Ribic Ballarat City Tom Richards THA Landscape Architects Dr Jan Schapper LAC Miriam Semmel Ballarat City Michael Smith Michael Smith & Assoc. Landscape Architects Prof Peter Spearitt Brisbane Institute Richard Strates Moorabool Shire Angela Syme NT Port Fairy Marten Syme NT Port Fairy Ray Tonkin Heritage Victoria Art Truter DSE David Turley THA Landscape Architects Karen Vassallo Surf Coast Shire Neville Wale LAC Donald Walker Architects P/L Cameron Wright Learmonth Historical Society Steve Yorke Mornington Peninsula Shire John Young Brisbane Martin Zweep Heritage Victoria
54