Forrest Homestead Heritage Assessment Lot 91 South Western Highway, Picton May 2020 | 20-007

Acknowledgement of Country

We acknowledge the traditional custodians of the land on which we work, the Whadjuk Noongar.

We acknowledge and respect their enduring culture, the contribution they make to the life of this city, and their Elders past, present and emerging.

Document ID: Element Advisory Pty Ltd▸ Projects 2020 - 20-007 - Picton, Lot 91 South Western Highway - Forrest Homestead ▸ 04 Reports▸ Final_May 2020

Issue Date Status Prepared by Approved by

Name Name

1 04.03.20 Draft Carmel Given Flavia Kiperman

2 20.03.2020 Final Carmel Given Flavia Kiperman

3 11.05.2020 Final_revised Carmel Given Flavia Kiperman

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the Client, in accordance with the agreement between the Client and Element Advisory Pty Ltd (element) (‘Agreement’). element accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever in respect of any use of or reliance upon this report by any person who is not a party to the Agreement or an intended recipient.

In particular, it should be noted that this report is a qualitative assessment only, based on the scope and timing of services defined by the Client and is based on information supplied by the Client and its agents. element cannot be held accountable for information supplied by others and relied upon by element.

Copyright and any other Intellectual Property arising from the report and the provision of the services in accordance with the Agreement belongs exclusively to element unless otherwise agreed and may not be reproduced or disclosed to any person other than the Client without the express written authority of element.

Contents

1. Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Background ...... 1 1.2 Methodology and Study Team ...... 3 2. Documentary Evidence ...... 4 2.1 Aerial photographs ...... 4 2.2 Brief History ...... 7 3. Physical description ...... 12 3.1 Site ...... 12 3.2 Fabric ...... 13 4. Analysis ...... 21 4.1 Sequence of development ...... 21 4.2 Levels of heritage significance ...... 23 4.3 List of unauthorised and inappropriate works ...... 23 4.4 List of works ...... 24 4.5 Analysis of Impact ...... 27 5. Conclusion ...... 28 6. References ...... 29 6.1 End Notes ...... 29

iii

1. Introduction

1.1 Background

The property at Lot 91 South Western Highway, Picton (the subject site) was built c1849 for the Forrest family, who were closely linked with the development of Bunbury. Known as Forrest Homestead, it is a recognised heritage place; included in the City of Bunbury Heritage List and the Heritage Council’s State Register of Heritage Places. The Homestead has been used as a residential dwelling since its construction.

It was built as a farmhouse by William Forrest and expanded in the 1930s to a design by Eales Cohen and Bennett. This extension and extensive remodelling of the exterior and interior of the house is in the ‘Inter War Arts and Crafts’ style of architecture: The west verandah was deepened but the west wall was left intact including two fine cast iron casements in Gothic trace patterning. In the 1930s a new wing was built containing a large kitchen and laundry. In the1960s, a garage was built extending easterly in painted stretcher bond brickwork, and the entire building was re-roofed in Brisbane and Wunderlich Roman pattern clay tiles in a ‘Roman’ pattern; creating the size that remains today. From 2008 to 2012 there were extensive works to the house, including the tiled roof being replaced with Zincalume and installation of a PVC rainwater system.

Subject to the successful purchase of the site, our client is considering conversion of the Homestead into a publicly accessible museum and tourist-focused facility, to enable the public to visit the building and grounds and appreciate the history of the site. Ultimately, it is envisaged that the site has the potential to become a tourist attracting asset for the City of Bunbury, noting its heritage significance as recognised in the Heritage Council’s Register Entry and Assessment Documentation for the place.

However, the property was subject to major refurbishment works between 2008-2012, as we understand it, without the necessary approvals. Therefore, we were engaged to prepare a retrospective development application relying on a positive view of change and a research supported argument underpinning the physical change. We have visited the site in February 2020. The house is clean, and it appears that refurbishment works were halted halfway through construction.

The property still holds its significant cultural values, as listed on the State Register and Municipal Inventory.

1.1.1 Location

Figure 1. Location of Lot 91 Southwestern Highway in context of Bunbury. (MNG Access) 1.1.2 Heritage Significance Forrest Homestead is a place of cultural heritage significance recognised through the following heritage lists: Heritage Listings Details

Statutory Listings State Register of Heritage Places Place Name: Forrest Homestead Registered 1998 Place No 00381

Heritage List (City of Bunbury) Adopted 2003

Non-Statutory Listings Municipal Inventory Adopted 1996 Exceptional Significance

Classified by the National Trust Recorded 1970

Figure 2. Heritage Council curtilage. (DPLH, inHerit)

1.1.3 Statement of Significance Forrest Homestead is of cultural heritage significance as described in the following statement:1

Forrest Homestead, a single-storey brick and tiled* house built in stages from c1849 to c1960, has cultural significance because:

the place has always been the home of members of the Forrest family, a family of exceptional importance in the history of Australia and especially Western Australia;

the place is a well-preserved example of an Australian rural homestead which has grown and been adapted to suit the needs of subsequent generations of the same family of owners;

the early fabric and especially the 1930s enlargement which comprises the major part of the house are architecturally distinguished, and the latter is a fine example of the work of the major Western Australian practice Eales and Cohen;

the place includes an important collection of furniture and memorabilia relating to its owners and occupiers and important events with which they were associated (although these are not part of the registration); and,

the landmark created by the grouping of the house and the large mature trees contributes to the aesthetic qualities of the landscape.

*Note: the roof has since been replaced with Zincalume. 1.2 Methodology and Study Team

This assessment has been prepared in accordance with the requirements set out in ‘Assessment Documentation for the State Register: Standard Scope of Work,’ Heritage Council of Western Australia, Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage, no date. In order to obtain an understanding of its current physical condition and identified heritage values, we inspected the subject site and the surrounding area on 04 February 2020. The report has been prepared by the following element team members: • Flavia Kiperman: Principal – Heritage, B.Sc. (Hons) (Architecture and Urban Planning), M.Sc (Heritage Management), M.Phil, M.ICOMOS • Carmel Given: Senior Consultant – Heritage, BACultHtge (Cultural Heritage); GradDip InfLib (Information and Library Studies), Professional Historians Association (WA), ALIA

2. Documentary Evidence

2.1 Aerial photographs

Figure 3. Aerial view 1970 (Landgate MapViewer)

2.2 Brief History

This history is based on the documentary evidence in Heritage Council of Western Australia, 'Register Entry: Forrest Homestead’, prepared by Donna Houston and John Stephens, 1998.

Forrest Homestead was built c 1849 for the Forrest family, who were closely linked with the development of Bunbury.

William Forrest, an engineer, was born on 19 February 1819 at Bervie, near Stonehaven in Kincardinshine, Scotland. He married Margaret Guthrie Hill in Glasgow in June 1840 and in September 1842 they answered an advertisement in the newspaper for a husband and wife to move to Western Australia as servants for Dr Ferguson. Ferguson, a medical doctor, was emigrating to Australind as an investor/settler with the Western Australian Company. The Forrests left from Gravesend on 2 August 1842 aboard the Trusty. They arrived in Bunbury on 9 December 1842.

Although the Australian scheme was a failure, Ferguson struggled to make a success while on the other hand Forrest proved that he was capable of almost anything. Forrest built many of the first bridges in the district. The Forrests were released from their employment with the Fergusons in 1846, when Ferguson was appointed Colonial Medical Officer. William returned to his former trade of an engineer and millwright. To this end he leased land on a promontory in the Leschenault estuary and constructed a wind powered mill and a small timber home.

By this time, the Forrests had three sons: William (born on the voyage out to Western Australia, 1842); James (born at Australind, 1845), and future premier John (born at Mill Point on 22 August 1847). After the milling enterprise failed due to flooding and intermittent wind, in 1849 Forrest purchased 100 acres on the banks of the Preston River at Picton from James Hertman for £50. The same year their fifth son, Alexander, was born.

William built the Homestead using clay from a seam on his property near the Ferguson River. He used hand fired bricks, crushed limestone and pit-sawn jarrah to build the house which had a low, split shingle roof. He also built another mill by constructing a dam on the Ferguson River and a mill race to power the mill. By March 1851, the Leschenault Water Mill was in operation, producing a ton of flour a day and was so successful that Forrest was soon able to purchase 400 acres of surrounding land. Despite the limited output of early flour mills such as Forrest’s, it played a vital role in the colony. Due to the shortage of cash, much of the internal trade was carried out by barter, flour being one of the commonest commodities used. This gave the mill owners a powerful role in the district, and the ownership of mills was, not surprisingly, closely associated with the colonial pastoral and mercantile elite. Forrest’s mill closed in September 1867 when the building was destroyed by fire caused by a lightning strike. Damage was estimated at £3,000. William and Margaret had five sons while they were at Picton; David (January 1852), Robert (September 1854), Mathew (January 1857), George (November 1858) and Augustus (November 1861) who drowned as a toddler in the mill race.

William is said to have planted nine olive trees for each of his sons on the west side of the house and they still stand today. Of the sons, Alexander became a leading explorer, financier and pastoralist, William and James were successful farmers in the south-west, George stayed on at the ‘Old Place’ and taking over from his father when he died and Robert continued his father's engineering and flour-milling business in Bunbury. John became premier of Western Australia in 1890 and was the first federal treasurer in 1901. Margaret and William are buried at St Mark’s Anglican Church at Wollaston [Picton].

Between 1849 and 1960, three major alterations were completed to the Forrest’s Homestead. The first was probably completed in the late 1800s and Eales, Cohen and Bennett designed additions in the Arts and Crafts style in the 1930s. More additions were completed in the 1960s.

Forrest Homestead has remained in the Forrest family for generations. In 2019, it is still owned by William and Margaret's descendants.

Figure 8. Northeast elevation drawing of the house, c1890. (SLWA 026861PD) Please note the open passage at the middle, and possibly a kitchen wing at east. This ‘kitchen’ volume is located forward of the main house.

Figure 9. Northeast elevation in 1897. (SLWA 434B) Note the chimney on the northern corner.

Figure 10. Northern corner of the house, 1900. Note the low roof line and chimney (SLWA 5062B/16)

Figure 11. Eastern corner of the house. (SLWA 024260PD) Note, the State Library captions this photo as 1880s (Ref 1438B/1) or c1910 (Ref 024260PD), however, the bay window is present on the northern corner and the chimney is not present, which dates this photo as post 1930. Please note the original

construction; possibly a kitchen wing. It has a typical Georgian roof. This section was probably demolished during the 1960s works. It is shown on the 1930s plan (Figure 13).

Figure 12. Western corner of the house, c1900. (SLWA 5062B/17) Note the low roof line.

Figure 13. “Proposed alterations and additions to Old Homestead at Picton for Ernest Forrest Esq.” by Eales Cohen and Bennett Architects, Perth 1930. Source: HCWA. Note the ‘kitchen’ wing still present; located forward in relation to the main house.

Figure 14. Eastern corner of the house, 1958. (SLWA 1438B/3) This is the last image including the original ‘kitchen’ wing located forward of the main house.

Figure 15. Sketch of the north elevation showing Arts and Crafts style and the 1960s tiled roof. (Wroth, B, Bunbury and Busselton Sketchbook, 1975.)

3. Physical description

3.1 Site

The physical description is largely based on the documentary evidence in Heritage Council of Western Australia’s Register Entry ‘Forrest Homestead’, 1998; including our review and updates made after the site visit in February 2020.

Forrest Homestead is a former farmhouse with additions in four distinct stages since first built c1849 by William Forrest.

As of 2020 the site encompasses of Lot 91, with an estimated area of 124,036 m² (12.404 ha). The location is in close proximity to the Bunbury Industrial Centre, however the property is still situated in a rural setting on a large tract of land surrounded by trees and paddocks. The Homestead can be seen through trees from the South West Highway and is approached over a railway track via a gravel drive. The original land on which it stood has diminished in area to a smaller parcel through diminution of farm operations and the encroachment of industry. Buildings on the site include the main Homestead, and approximately 54 metres to its east there is an old timber dairy shed, a metal shed and a metal windmill.

The general landscape around the building is a grassed area, with numerous mature trees including nine State heritage listed olive trees located west of the Homestead; planted by William Forrest for each of his sons. By comparing 1970, 2007, 2012 and 2020 aerial photographs, it can be seen that the place has not changed its current footprint, and that variations have been made primarily to the immediate landscape around the house and the roof sheeting.

Figure 16. View of the homestead, north elevation. (element 2020)

3.2 Fabric

3.2.1 External fabric

The house is a single-storey building constructed of brick walls and timber floors. Verandahs to the north, west and south elevations and large bay windows to the north dominate the building form. Although built up in stages, a single roof structure unifies the house and appears to be constant since the 1960s. The clay tiled roof was replaced with Zincalume in 2008. Walls to the older section of the building were originally laid on brick footings, however this needs to be confirmed on site. Bricks to the pre 1930 building were made from clay dug on site, with the clay pits extant in 1998.

William discovered a seam of clay on the banks of the Ferguson River on his property and used hand fired bricks, crushed limestone and pit-sawn jarrah timber to build his home.2

Examination of documentary and physical evidence shows that there have been additions to the original farm building. The Eales Cohen and Bennett plan of 1930 shows the extent of the home at that time. Inspection of external walls of the pre 1930 building reveals that there was probably at least one addition to the original 1849 building, as both Flemish and Colonial bond brickwork can be discerned. Coursed stonework inscribed render previously covered the wall area enclosed by the west verandah, which is now rendered flat so that the brickwork bond cannot be seen. The Arts and Crafts style of the 1930 extension sits very well with the earlier vernacular building. The west verandah was deepened in 1930, but the two fine cast iron casements in Gothic trace patterning were left in situ.

There are three distinct building styles discernible in the exterior of the building which match the stages in building. The older part of the building, as defined by the 1930 additions, could be best described as ‘Colonial Vernacular’ as identified in Hocking (1995); a Western Australian extension of the Old Colonial style as described in Apperley, Irving and Reynolds (1989).3 The extensions designed by Eales Cohen and Bennett is in an arts and crafts style defined by Hocking as ‘Inter War Arts and Crafts’. This extension and extensive remodelling of the exterior and interior of the house betrays Eustace Cohen’s intense interest in arts and crafts architecture and his early training with the British Arts and Crafts architect, Guy Dawber. Cohen was also very active in the Bunbury area in the years 1908 to 1913 when he went into partnership with Joseph Herbert Eales.

Figure 17. Possible extent of the Forrest Homestead pre 1930 (City of Bunbury 1996)

Figure 18. Possible extent of the Forrest Homestead post 1960 (City of Bunbury, 1996). The services wing to the east was possibly a new construction, replacing the demolished original kitchen wing which was forward of the house. The new wing is set back from the main house.

Forrest Homestead was again altered in the 1960s with refurbishments to the southeastern part of the building. Possibly, during this works, the original kitchen wing was demolished, and a new services wing was built, with the addition of a garage in painted stretcher bond brickwork and aluminium windows. At this time the entire building was re-roofed in Brisbane and Wunderlich Roman pattern clay tiles. The architect for this extension was Raymond Jones.4 While functionalist in inspiration this extension is very plain and inoffensive to the rest of the building. The style could be described as Late Twentieth Century Perth Regional.5

The plan is essentially organic following the various stages of the building’s history. Typically, additions would have been made to the farmhouse buildings when need and funds allowed. It is believed that the early stages of the house consisted of a main house and outbuildings that were eventually joined together. Figure 8 in 1890 shows the northeast façade with an open area in the middle, whereas Figure 12 shows a different northern corner with a low roof. Figure 11 shows the original construction, maybe a kitchen wing, with a typical Georgian roof. It was probably demolished during the 1960s works , making way for a new services wing as it is present on the 1930s plan (Figure 13) and it is depicted on the 1958 drawing (Figure 14).

Apart from the functionalist wing of 1960s. most rooms display the marks of the 1930 additions. Eales, Cohen, and Bennett continued the organic nature of the farmhouse as found in 1930 (Figure 13) and enhanced the building by using the large living room to divide the living areas on the east from sleeping areas on the west. Also in the 1930s works, the roof line was raised in the western corner of the house. The separation was further cemented with the 1960s additions.

Ian Molyneux and Associates were the architects responsible for the 2008 alterations, which displays today as the painted brickwork, Zincalume roofing, exposed timber eaves painted, verandahs and large paved area with red bricks around the house. It is said that, under these bricks exists a concrete pad with concrete footings, all with extensive waterproofing visible on corners of walls and floors. The Zincalume roof and PVC rainwater system is all connected to new underground stormwater tanks. The whole of the exterior elevations have been painted and there is little external deterioration. The roof is in good repair and three chimneys in face brick still remain. Verandahs have timber structure with timber posts, all painted white. The southeastern verandah was been extended to include a garage in the 1960s.

During the 2008 works, it is believed that the whole northwest corner was demolished and reconstructed with new bricks. This conclusion is due to the quality of the brickwork in what is said to be the 1849 part of the building, where in ground waterproofing was noted. A large quantity of salvaged bricks were found near the outbuildings to the east of the Homestead. However, overall, the aesthetic was preserved. The Homestead today is painted white with mineral or acrylic paint, except for this northwestern corner. Externally, windows and doors appear to be original, however it is hard to define exactly due to the level of intervention that has occurred in the house. The two fine cast iron casements in Gothic trace patterning and low-level wall vents were left in situ throughout.

Figure 19. Northwest corner of the house, the oldest footprint remaining, however believed to have been reconstructed during the 2008 works. (element 2020)

Figure 20. Northeast verandah with cast iron casements in Gothic trace on recently rendered wall. (element 2020)

Figure 21. North elevation showing Arts and Crafts bay window to the right. (element 2020)

Figure 22. South elevation with olive trees in the background. (element 2020)

3.2.2 Internal fabric Refer to 1996 Floor Plan (Figure 18) for room numbers.

Whilst there is no firm evidence – a best guess would be that the rooms serviced by the northwest verandah constitute an earlier section of the building, and the colonial bond brickwork and the cast iron casements suggest that this may be the case. It is probable that the provision of a large living room (Room 7) and servants’ quarters (Rooms 8 & 9) defined by Flemish bond brickwork, were a later addition. This speculation would be in line with general patterns of farm building in Western Australia where more substantial rooms were built as farms became established and the family grew.

The internal roof structure was repaired during the 2008-2012 works. In some instances, the roof structure was changed to accommodate a higher ceiling, as in the kitchen. Timber used was of different quality than the original timbers. Ceilings were mostly taken down and rebuilt using modern techniques

and materials, such as the use of metal furring channels. In 2020, ceilings throughout are plain with no rose decorations and small plain cavetto style cornices. Most of the rooms are without any ceiling cornices and have metal furring channels bolted to timber ceiling joists.

Floors are mostly timber, except the bathroom that is now new common tiles in a black and white pattern. There are some floorboards that have been relayed using material from the house. Widths and floorboard direction vary throughout the house; mostly wider boards are in the west part, indicating an earlier age. The narrower boards, but likely relocated from other areas, are in the 1930s section of the house. In the west part of the Homestead, floors appear to have been surfaced with polyurethane; in the 1930s part of the house, floors are bare with no protection or oil. The 1960s section is currently without floorboards, with floor joists exposed. In this section the roof structure is also exposed; and it is evident that the timbers are of a different quality than the original roof timbers. Only the rooms with surfaced timber floors have skirtings. There has been no historical archaeology search to under floorboards or site, missing an opportunity for adding further value to the property.

Walls are mostly rendered with cement base mortar and painted with acrylic paint, including fireplace walls. Full electrical rewiring has been positioned to suit the current owners. There is a fire wall built up to ridge height, separating the kitchen and the rest of the house. Walls are mostly reconstructed, apparently in the same location, except for the wall between the kitchen (room 13) and former laundry (room 14) which has been demolished. The 1930s part of the house has unrendered, brick walls exposing the additions and new door openings. There is significant cracking to walls throughout the house. The main bigger rooms have a timber picture rail on all walls.

Windows and doors on the older part of the house appear to be original, or at least in keeping with the style of the homestead. Some frames have been modified to include fly screens; however screens are not in place. Windows in the 1960s part of the house are aluminum and doors are timber to match the style of the house. Two doors to note are: a six- paneled jarrah door 30mm thick, located on the south elevation suggesting an early dated door; and an entrance door with sidelight windows to the northwestern verandah.

The City of Bunbury Municipal Heritage Inventory 1996 place record for Forrest Homestead highlights the significant value of “an important collection of furniture and memorabilia relating to its owners and occupiers and important events with which they were associated.”6 On the 2020 visit, there was very little furniture in place. Tudor style arches are still present in hallway openings in the western section of the building. A feature of the 1930s addition was the introduction of a number of fireplaces to bedrooms, living room and the new dining room, and the Tudor arch motif has been repeated on the fireplace openings, timber mantles and surrounds. Fireplace mantles to the main bedroom, living and dining rooms are of a robust design, Arts and Crafts inspired, and constructed in polished jarrah. The main bedroom also features large bay windows on the north and west sides of the room.

There are still five fireplaces in the Homestead. The Living Room (Room 7) has an exposed brick fireplace with a reconstructed arch and opening, with a jarrah mantle over. The wall above shows marks of timber pins that possibly held a painting (Figure 25). The four other fireplaces have Arts and Crafts style mantles (e.g. Figure 24). The dining room fireplace (Room 11) have a bigger mantlepiece with mirrors (Figure 26).

The kitchen (Room 13) is completely bare, with no floor, ceiling or render on walls (Figure 28), as is one room that is being adapted for a second bathroom. The only existing bathroom to date is located where the 1930s plan has located the bathroom, with an added skylight and new fittings (Figure 27).

Despite the various additions, the homestead continues to display a coherent approach to planning and design which enhances rather than detracts from its significance. Overall the condition of the building is fair, and internal alterations are easily rectified.

Figure 23. Room 6. Western part of the building, Figure 24. Room 12. Jarrah fireplace mantle. believed to be the oldest part of the (element 2020) Homestead. Note the Tudor arches that are reflected in fireplace openings and mantles. (element 2020)

Figure 25. Room 7. Reconstructed fireplace Figure 26. Room 11. Dining room fireplace with opening, picture rail and bare timber flooring. bigger mantlepiece with mirrors. (element (element 2020) 2020)

Figure 27. 1930s bathroom retiled in the 2012 Figure 28. Room 13. Kitchen with demolished works (element 2020). laundry wall to the left. (element 2020)

4. Analysis

4.1 Sequence of development

Figure 29. Conjecture of layout of original buildings, c1840s

Figure 30. Conjecture of floor plan prior to 1930. (element 2020)

Figure 31. 1930s additions and alterations, as per Eales Cohen and Bennett plan (Figure 13) (element 2020)

Figure 32. Conjecture of 1960s works. (element 2020)

4.2 Levels of heritage significance

Figure 33. Areas of high, medium and little significance. (element 2020) 4.3 List of unauthorised and inappropriate works

While we acknowledge that extensive, unauthorised works were done to the house, we intend to rectify these as much as practical, considering the physical condition of the house, and respecting the likelihood of further impact.

Unauthorised works were:

• rainwater system and stormwater tanks

• new internal openings and plan

• new roof structure

• reconstruction of western portion of the homestead

• introduction of skylights

• concrete pad surrounding the house

• fire rated wall to kitchen

Inappropriate works were:

• aluminum windows to eastern portion of the homestead

• cement render to internal walls

• acrylic painting to internal walls

• paint coat to original exposed brickwork

• furring channels to support new ceilings

• bathroom fit out

4.4 List of works

The prospective new owners, subject to the successful purchase of the site, intend to rectify as much as practical, considering the physical condition of the house, and respecting the likelihood of further impact. If purchase moves forward, key urgent conservation works to arrest further physical impact on the heritage fabric and stabilise the place is identified, depending on further tests and analysis. For that, any physical works proposed will be the subject of further development applications in due course. The associated timeframe for works, subject to the successful purchase of the site, is short term 1 - 2 years; medium term 2 - 5 years; long term 5+ years. Please see list below, noting that these works may require a variation pending structural engineer’s advice, and are to be to the satisfaction of the HCWA: Works Rectification works Unlikely Commitment 1 Timeframe 1. Rainwater Substitute all systems with traditional x Medium term system materials (steel or galvanised iron) Ensure connections are according to x Medium term Australian Standards and codes Stormwater tanks

2. New internal Return plan to original x n/a openings and plan

3. New roof Substitute timber introduced to the x n/a structure roof structure to a traditional timber specification x Long term Return the roof structure to the original shape and form Engage a structural engineer for x Short term advice

4. Reconstructio Reconstruct western portion of the x n/a n of western homestead portion of the homestead

5. Introduction of Remove skylight x n/a skylights

6. Concrete pad Demolish all concrete pad x n/a surrounding Engage a structural engineer for x Short term the house structural analysis x Long term Open a breather strip around the house

1 These works may require a variation pending structural engineer’s advice and are to be to the satisfaction of the HCWA.

7. Fire rated wall Ensure wall is according to Australian x n/a to kitchen Standards and codes

8. Aluminium Substitute all with traditional x Medium term windows to materials (timber) eastern portion of the homestead

9. Cement Upon confirmation that walls behind x Medium term render to are of traditional bricks, remove the internal walls cement render, provided this will not further impact on the physical values of the house

10. Acrylic If cement render is removed, use x Medium term painting to new paint of a breathable nature internal walls

11. Paint coat to Upon confirmation that removing the x Medium term original paint layer will not further impact on exposed the physical values of the house, use brickwork new paint of a breathable nature

12. Furring Remove furring channels and x n/a channels to reinstate ceilings using traditional support new methods and materials ceilings

13. Bathroom fit Refurbished using more sympathetic x Medium term outs interventions

14. Cracking Depending on item 9 x Short term throughout Engage a structural engineer for x Short term walls advice

Image: floor plan that illustrates the corresponding works proposed as part of the list of works. (no to scale, illustrative drawing only – element, 2020)

4.5 Analysis of Impact

This retrospective development application relies on a positive view of change and it is supported by an argument based on archival research and physical evidence. The scale and severity of impact and change was judged taking into account its direct and indirect effects and the cumulative effect of separate impacts of the 2008-2012 works.

The direct impact of the unauthorised works is considered to be moderately adverse, as much of original material was removed which has affected the place’s authenticity. However, the place can still be considered a well-preserved example of an Australian rural homestead, which has been adapted to suit the needs of subsequent generations of the same family of owners and now will be carefully preserved by the prospective new owners. The work of the major Western Australian practice Eales Cohen and Bennett can still be identified throughout the house and especially in the northern corner of the house. Finally the landmark created by the grouping of the house and the large mature trees that contributes to the aesthetic qualities of the landscape is retained and will be enhanced by the new prospective owners.

Therefore, overall, the property still holds its significant cultural values as listed on the State Register of Heritage Places and the City of Bunbury’s Municipal Inventory.

5. Conclusion

The property was subject to major refurbishment works between 2008-2012 without the necessary planning approvals, including unauthorised works. While we acknowledge that unauthorised works were extensive and accept their existence, this report’s intent is to formalise them in a retrospective development application. The prospective new owners, subject to the successful purchase of the site, intend to rectify as much as practical, considering the physical condition of the house, and respecting the likelihood of further impact. If purchase moves forward, key urgent conservation works to arrest further physical impact on the heritage fabric and stabilise the place is identified in the List of Works, depending on further tests and analysis. Note that these works may require a variation pending structural engineer’s advice.

It is also a future consideration to convert the use of the Homestead into a publicly accessible museum and tourist-focused facility, to enable the public to visit the building and grounds and appreciate the history of the site. Any physical works proposed in association with this change of use will be subject of further development applications in due course. If the purchase goes ahead, the change of use will be a major beneficial change to the heritage fabric and the Homestead’s authenticity by preserving and adapting it with a respectful approach to preservation observing the Burra Charter (2013) principles. Conservation is about managing sustainable change and every reasonable effort will be made to minimise adverse impacts on attributes that convey values to this significant place.

6. References

• Apperley, Richard, Robert Irving and Peter Reynolds. (1989) Identifying Australian Architecture: Styles and Terms from 1788 to the Present. Sydney, Sydney: Angus and Robertson.

• Assessment Documentation for the State Register Standard Scope of Work, Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage (Heritage Council of WA), no date.

• ‘Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter, 2013.’ Australia ICOMOS. https://australia.icomos.org/wp- content/uploads/The-Burra-Charter-2013-Adopted-31.10.2013.pdf

• Western Australian Land Information Authority. “Landgate MapViewer Plus.” https://www0.landgate.wa.gov.au/maps-and-imagery/interactive-maps

• Wroth B and Vines F, (1975), Bunbury and Busselton Sketchbook, Adelaide, Rigby.

6.1 End Notes

1 Statement extracted from ‘Forrest Homestead’ HCWA Entry Documentation, P000381. http://inherit.stateheritage.wa.gov.au/Public/Inventory/Details/97ed1c01-1f8d-4ca7-b64e-11870818ac02 2 ‘Forrest Homestead’ HCWA Entry Documentation, P000381. 3 Hocking, I. and F. Bush, (1995). Influences on Architectural styles and Building Materials in the South West and Great Southern Regions of Western Australia, Perth, cited in ‘Forrest Homestead’ HCWA Entry Documentation, P000381; Richard Apperley, Robert Irving and Peter Reynolds, (1989) Identifying Australian Architecture: Styles and Terms from 1788 to the Present. Sydney, NSW: Angus and Robertson, p. 23. 4 ‘Forrest Homestead’ HCWA Entry Documentation, P000381. 5 Apperley, Irving and Reynolds, (1989), p. 244. 6 City of Bunbury Municipal Inventory 1996, details recorded in HCWA database ‘inHerit’, http://inherit.stateheritage.wa.gov.au/Public/Inventory/Details/614563ca-3196-43ac-84e3-2ac8e6d5b4a7