CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN

VOLUME 1 OF 3

UNIVERSITY HOUSE FORMERLY N.E.S.C.A HOUSE KING STREET NEWCASTLE

Prepared for:

Prepared by EJE Heritage APRIL 2011 Ref: 8836-CMP-UH-002 CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE

TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 1

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 6 1.1 METHODOLOGY ...... 6 1.2 HERITAGE LISTINGS ...... 7 1.3 SITE AND OWNERSHIP ...... 8 1.4 CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES ...... 8 1.5 ABBREVIATIONS ...... 8 1.6 DEFINITIONS ...... 9 1.7 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... 9

2. HISTORY OF UNIVERSITY HOUSE...... 10 2.1 NEWCASTLE’S FIRST INHABITANTS ...... 10 2.2 EARLY TOWN DEVELOPMENT AND THE AUSTRALIAN AGRICULTURAL COMPANY (A.A. CO.) ... 10 2.3 COMMENCEMENT OF THE CIVIC PRECINCT BUILDING SCHEME ...... 11 2.4 THE CONCEPT ...... 11 2.5 PLANNING N.E.S.C.A HOUSE ...... 12 2.6 THE ARCHITECTS ...... 13 2.7 ALDERMAN H FENTON...... 14 2.8 GUY ALLBUT...... 14 2.9 DESIGNING N.E.S.C.A. HOUSE ...... 14 2.10 CONSTRUCTION ...... 15 2.11 LATER EXTENSIONS AND ALTERATIONS ...... 20 2.12 CONCLUSION ...... 26

3. PHYSICAL EVIDENCE ...... 27 3.1 CONTEXT OF THE SITE...... 27 3.2 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION AND DESIGN ...... 28 3.3 SUBSEQUENT ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS ...... 29 3.4 REMAINING ORIGINAL STRUCTURE AND INTERPRETATION ...... 30 3.5 GENERAL CONDITION OF THE FABRIC...... 37

4. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS ...... 39 4.1 ARCHITECTURAL STYLE...... 39 4.2 EMIL SODERSTEN ...... 39

5. THE CULTURAL LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL ENVIRONMENT ...... 42 5.1 LANDSCAPE AND SETTING ...... 42 5.2 UNIVERSITY HOUSE AND VIEWS ...... 43

6. HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE ...... 47 6.1 HISTORICAL THEMES ...... 47 6.2 PRE-EXISTING STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE OF NESCA HOUSE: NSW STATE HERITAGE REGISTER ...... 48 6.3 NSW HERITAGE ASSESSMENT – ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE ...... 49 6.4 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANCE...... 51 6.5 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE ...... 51 6.6 TREATMENT OF SIGNIFICANT FABRIC ...... 51 6.7 FABRIC AND OTHER FEATURES WHICH CONTRIBUTE TO SIGNIFICANCE (LIST OF HERITAGE ITEMS) ...... 52

7. CURTILAGE OF UNVERSITY HOUSE ...... 53

8. OBLIGATIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES ...... 54 8.1 CONSTRAINTS & OPPORTUNITIES ARISING OUT OF CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE ...... 54

Prepared by EJE Heritage Page 1 Nominated Architect – Peter Campbell No. 4294 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE 8.2 STATUTORY CONTROLS ...... 54 8.3 NON-STATUTORY CONTROLS...... 57 8.4 CONSTRAINTS & OPPORTUNITIES ARISING OUT OF HERITAGE CURTILAGE & VIEWS ...... 58 8.5 CONSTRAINTS & OPPORTUNITIES ARISING OUT OF CONDITION & INTEGRITY OF BUILT FABRIC ...... 58 8.6 STAKEHOLDERS ...... 58 8.7 CLIENT’S REQUIREMENTS ...... 59

9. CONSERVATION POLICY AND IMPLEMENTATION ...... 60 9.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 60 9.2 GENERAL POLICY AND STRATEGY...... 60 9.3 CARE OF FABRIC ...... 61 9.4 MAINTENANCE WORKS ...... 64 9.5 USE OF SITE AND BUILDING ...... 65 9.6 APPROPRIATENESS OF USE...... 65 9.7 NEW WORK POLICIES...... 65 9.8 NEW WORKS RESULTING FROM STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS ...... 67 9.9 RECORDING POLICIES FOR CONSERVATION WORK ...... 67 9.10 POLICIES FOR INTERPRETATION ...... 67 9.11 CONSERVING THE CULTURAL LANDSCAPE AND SIGNIFICANT SPATIAL RELATIONSHIPS...... 68

10. BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 69

APPENDICES Appendix A: Conservation Terminology Appendix B: Reductions Suggested By the Architect, 25 October 1937 Appendix C: Electrical Engineer and Managers Report Appendix D: Part of 1939 Commemorative Booklet Appendix E: Database Listings from Online Registers for the National Estate and NSW Heritage Branch Appendix F: Minimum Standards of Maintenance and Repair Appendix G: Standard Exemptions

Volume 2 Appendix H: Inventory Datasheets

Volume 3 Appendix H: Inventory Datasheets Continued

Prepared by EJE Heritage Page 2 Nominated Architect – Peter Campbell No. 4294 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Summary of Historical Events 1890 Newcastle City Council begins electricity generation for street lighting 1892 District electricity supply established 1900 Emil Sodersteen born in Sydney 1911 Guy Allbut comes to Newcastle as Electrical engineer to Council 1915 BHP Steelworks opens 1924 Allbut travels abroad 1925 Sodersteen began practice in Sydney 1927 Sodersteen wins competition for the design of the Australian War Memorial Canberra 1929 Newcastle Town Hall and Administration Centre opened 1930’s Newcastle Electric Supply Council Authority name used 1935 Sodersteen travels abroad 1936 Allbut travels abroad 1936 Land resumed for new administrative building 1937 Council decides to open separate administrative centre for Electricity Department 1937 Emil Sodersteen in association with Pitt and Merewether selected as architects for Electricity Department Administrative Centre 1937 Tenders received for the construction of N.E.S.C.A. House 1938 Plans modified for excessive site water 1939 Official opening of Electrical Department Administrative Centre (N.E.S.C.A. House) 1940 Plans to Construct air raid shelter in N.E.S.C.A. House 1941 Sodersteen changes name to Sodersten by deed poll 1950 Guy Allbut retires 1957 Construction of 3 storey addition at rear commenced 1957 Newcastle Electric Supply Council Authority changes name to Shortland County Council 1959 Sodersten’s extensions to N.E.S.C.A. House officially opened 1967 A Decorative Tower added 1969 Architects Rodd and Hey employed to remodel the Theatre and Demonstration Centre 1970 Two floors added to 1959 extension Architects Roff and Hay 1971 Rodd and Hay extensions to N.E.S.C.A. House officially reopened 1979 Original curved shopfront windows removed from ground floor 1979 Cleaning and sealing of sandstone and joints undertaken 1982 Executive suite upgraded, Architects Devine Erby Mazlin 1984 State Government places a conservation order on N.E.S.C.A. House c.1984 Fire safety upgrade, Architects Devine Erby Mazlin 1986 Interim Conservation Order places on N.E.S.C.A. House. 1987 Shortland County Council moves to new Administration opened at Wallsend 1989 Newcastle FM radio uses N.E.S.C.A. House as temporary home 1990 Suters Architects Snell use ground floor for offices 1990 Australian Maritime Safety Authority proposed move to Newcastle

Prepared by EJE Heritage Page 3 Nominated Architect – Peter Campbell No. 4294 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE

Important People and Organisations associated with N.E.S.C.A. House

Guy Allbut, Electrical Engineer and Manager 1939Australian General Electric Ltd BHP A.S. Campbell, Chief Electrical Engineer 1959 Chubb’s Australian Company Limited A. Donaldson, Chief Electrical Engineer 1971 Alderman H J Edwards, Chairman Shortland County Council 1971 H Fenton, Mayor 1937 Mrs. H Fenton, Meyoress 1937 Geo. W. Jenner, Mayor 1939 A. W. Morrison, Consulting Civil Engineer The Hon. P.H. Morton, M.L.A. Minister for Local Government and Highways 1971 H. B. Mayle, County Clerk 1959 Newcastle City Council Pitt and Merewether Associates Architects Ratcliffe and Kirsopp, Builders 1937 The Hon. J.B. Renshaw, M.L.A. Deputy Premier and Treasurer 1959 Rodd and Hay Architects 1971 Saddingstons Sydney Technical College Sydney University Alderman W.D. Skelton, Chairman Shortland County Council 1959 Emil Sodersteen, (Sodersten post 1941 by deed poll) Architect 1939, 1959 The Hon. E.S. Spooner, M.L.A. Minister for Works and Local Government 1939 W. Stronach Builders 1959 1971 H. Troman, County Clerk 1971 Vincent Ventilating and Air Conditioning Geo. Wells, Town Clerk 1939

SIGNIFICANCE

University House is of outstanding heritage significance

x For its rare evidence of Art Deco Design in Newcastle and Australia x For its potential to display information about the Art Deco period. x For its association with Architect Emil Sodersten. x For its evidence of a major theme of Newcastle and the Region’s history, particularly the development of Electrical supply from Newcastle City Council to Shortland County Council. x For its association with the Newcastle and region community 1937-1987. x For its contribution to the townscape of Newcastle and the Civic precinct.

CONSERVATION POLICY

University House is a place of cultural heritage significance, and which should be managed and conserved accordingly for the benefit of future generations. The following is summary of the Conservation Policies applying to the site:

x To retain the form and external fabric of the 1939 Building and 1959 & 1971 sandstone additions. To retain and repair as much of the 1939 internal fabric as possible and to replace missing external fabric of the 1939 building with material of the same detail.

Prepared by EJE Heritage Page 4 Nominated Architect – Peter Campbell No. 4294 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE x The significant fabric of University House should be maintained by the implementation of a preventative and regular maintenance strategy which should be prepared and implemented by the owners.

x As a minimum, the ongoing maintenance should include works that will ensure that each element retains its current level of significance and not allow the loss of significance due to the deterioration of fabric.

x That the building be conserved, interpreted and used in accordance with its significance and the principles embodied in the Burra Charter, using the statement of significance.

x That University House is used for commercial purposes that allow it to be conserved in accordance with the Burra Charter.

x Appropriate conservation skills and experience should be employed in the documentation and supervision of conservation, maintenance and adaptive re-use programs.

x The introduction of new fabric should be undertaken in such a manner that it does not result in a lessening of the cultural significance of the place. New work should be identifiable as such and should, wherever possible, be capable of being removed without damage to significant fabric or spaces.

x New work should be guided by the policies of this Conservation Management Plan and the identified significance of the place.

x When taking into consideration compliance with Codes and Regulations seek to prevent or minimise their impact on significant fabric. Advice should be sought from specialist consultants and/or the Heritage Councils Fire Access and Service Advisory Panel (FASAP).

x Prior to, during and after any proposed fabric intervention or conservation work, the area and materials are to be fully recorded using: o How to Prepare Archival Records of Heritage Items, Heritage Office, 1995, revised 1998 o Photographic Recording Of Heritage Items Using Film or Digital Capture, Heritage Office 2001, revised 2004, 2006

x The heritage curtilage as defined in Section 8 of this document should be adopted and consciously protected.

x Ensure that the cultural significance of the buildings, landscape and overall site, as well as the linkages to the Civic and cultural precinct and Conservation Area continue to be acknowledged and appreciated by future generations.

x An interpretation strategy for University House should be prepared and implemented by the owners.

Prepared by EJE Heritage Page 5 Nominated Architect – Peter Campbell No. 4294 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE

1. INTRODUCTION

This Conservation Management Plan has been prepared by EJE Architecture on behalf of the University of Newcastle.

A Conservation Plan (CP) was completed for Graham Alcock Giles Pty Ltd on behalf of teir client Becalen Pty Ltd in 1990. EJE have been commissioned to review the 1990 CP to produce this updated Conservation Management Plan.

The Historical Analysis was prepared by the late Dr John Turner as part of the Conservation Plan undertaken by EJE Architecture in 1990. The Historical documentation following 1990 was prepared by EJE Architecture. The project team for this report consisted of: x Barney Collins – Director), Conservation Architect Director x Shea Brunt – Environmental Manager (research/report writing) x Anthony Furniss – Architect (feasibility team) x Darren Robinson – Draftsman BSc(Arch)BArch

The purpose of the plan is to set out the significance of the site, and consequently develop appropriate policies that will enable any significance to be retained for future uses. The conservation of the place is about the care and continuing development of the place in such a way that its significance is retained or revealed and its future is made secure. The objective of this conservation plan is to set out how that aim may be best achieved.

The documentary and physical investigation is intended to provide an understanding of the significance of the site and its building and landscape. With an understanding of the site‘s physical and social history a Level of Significance and Statement of Significance is established. This concise summation of the site’s heritage significance is then used as a policy basis for the future conservation of the site.

The material in this conservation plan has been compiled to help the managers, owners, architects, builders, and readers of this document to understand the significance the whole site, its physical fabric and the people associated with this place. As such, the information is directly related to policy determination and implementation. Care has been taken to identify the chronology of the building including historic, social and building construction, to emphasise the need to understand the site and the building in its total context as well as provide a framework for future management of the site.

1.1 METHODOLOGY The process undertaken to complete this Conservation Management Plan is in accordance with the National Trust guidelines for the preparation of conservation plans for places of European cultural significance (as complied by James Semple Kerr, 20001) and is consistent with the guidelines set out in the Australia ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance (Burra Charter 1999). Whilst each individual Conservation Management Plan will necessarily reflect the specific context and requirements of a particular place, there is an essential sequence in conservation planning. The work naturally falls into two categories. The first covers the gathering and analysis of documentary and physical evidence and the assessment of significance. The second part is concerned with developing a conservation policy and setting out strategies for its implementation.

1 Kerr, James Semple, The Conservation Plan: A Guide to the Preparation of Conservation Plans for Places of European Cultural Significance, 2000

Prepared by EJE Heritage Page 6 Nominated Architect – Peter Campbell No. 4294 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE Since this document is split into two stages it is important to maintain the integrity of the process. It is essential that significance be assessed away from extraneous pressures and without regard to practical and political considerations. This early step is also necessary in order to formulate a conceptual framework, which will include state and local heritage themes relevant to the site. With a clear understanding of the level of significance of the place provided by this conceptual framework, it is then possible to take into account the practical considerations necessary for the development of conservation policies.

A history undertaken in 1990 by the late Dr John Turner has been incorporated into the document; additional historical information was prepared by EJE Architecture. The Condition Assessment undertaken by EJE has been included as an (Refer Appendix H). The assessment of significance was then based on these reports, and on an assessment of the extant physical fabric that will remain following approved demolition. Policies for the future management of the place are based on the assessed significance.

1.2 HERITAGE LISTINGS The site and building are listed on the following heritage registers: x Heritage Act - State Heritage Register x Newcastle City Council Local Environmental Plan 2003 & 2008 x Newcastle City Centre Heritage Conservation Area

University House

Figure 1.1: University House as listed on the Newcastle City Council Local Environmental Plan 2008 and 2003 Source: Extracted from the NCC LEP 2008 Maps

University House is also listed on the NSW National Trust Register. The building is classified as part of the City Hall Group, which is comprised of University House and: x City Hall including 23 cast iron lamp posts x Civic Centre Building x Christie Place including Shortland Centenary Fountain x Civic Park including mature fig trees on Laman Street

Refer Appendix E for database listings from online registers for the NSW Heritage Branch.

Prepared by EJE Heritage Page 7 Nominated Architect – Peter Campbell No. 4294 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE

1.3 SITE AND OWNERSHIP x Address and Property Description: 300 King Street, Newcastle x Ownership: The land is currently under the jurisdiction of the University of Newcastle. x Zoning: The site is zoned B4 mixed use under the NCC LEP 2008. x Current Use: The building is currently used by the University Of Newcastle.

Figure 1.2: Site Location Plan (highlighted in pink). Source: http://www.nearmap.com/

1.4 CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES EJE Architecture are not qualified to offer structural opinions and this report is not intended to convey any opinion as to the structural adequacy or integrity of the structure, nor should it be construed as doing so in any way. Similarly, the author’s observations were limited to the fabric only and he does not comment on the capacity, adequacy, or statutory compliance of any building services.

A comprehensive series of original Architecture and Engineering blue prints of N.E.S.C.A. House are available at the Newcastle Regional Library Local History Section. These drawings where studies to assess development and changes to the building.

1.5 ABBREVIATIONS Abbreviations used throughout the text are as follows:

AHC Australian Heritage Commission EPBC Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act CMP Conservation Management Plan DCP Development Control Plan LEP Local Environmental Plan NCC Newcastle City Council RNE Register of the National Estate SOHI Statement of Heritage Impact

Prepared by EJE Heritage Page 8 Nominated Architect – Peter Campbell No. 4294 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE 1.6 DEFINITIONS The terminology used in this report is specific, and the understanding of such is essential for the effective use of this document. Conservation terminology used throughout the report is that defined in the ICOMOS Burra Charter (Appendix A).

1.7 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

EJE would like to thank the following for their involvement in the production of this report: x The late Dr John Turner

Prepared by EJE Heritage Page 9 Nominated Architect – Peter Campbell No. 4294 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE

2. HISTORYOFUNIVERSITYHOUSE

2.1 NEWCASTLE’S FIRST INHABITANTS The Aborigines who originally occupied the area that the early settlement of Newcastle was built upon primarily belonged to the Awabakal language group. The estuary of the Hunter River and its surrounding environment provided the Awabakal with abundant supplies of fish and wildlife. Early artistic representations of the river estuary depict Aborigines hunting and fishing, and resting around a campfire on the shores of the harbour. Shellfish were harvested for thousands of years, their discarded shells forming enormous middens which were exploited by Europeans during the nineteenth century for limeburning purposes.2

Despite the devastating consequences that resulted through a gradual process of increasing European contact, in 1825 Aborigines were still camped on the western boundaries of the newly opened free settlement of Newcastle at Honeysuckle near the government farm cottage occupied by the missionary the Reverend Lancelot Threlkeld.3

The continued presence of the Europeans at Newcastle impeded the ability of the Awabakals to maintain traditional pursuits resulting in a number of fringe dwellers on the edge of the township. The 1828 Census recorded that there were 140 members of the so-called Coal River Tribe and 120 in the nearby Ash Island Tribe.4 In his 1846 report to the Select Committee Inquiry into the condition of the Aborigines, the Rev. C.P.N. Wilton of Christ Church, Newcastle, believed the population of 'the Newcastle tribe' had been halved in the previous ten years and by May 1846 numbered only 29.5 A report published in the Maitland Mercury on 21 June 1854 claimed that Harry Brown, 'the last of the Newcastle Tribe' had died at the Blacks' Camp at Newcastle Beach.6

In recent years historical-archaeological investigations have identified a number of Aboriginal sites at Newcastle. The closest known sites in the vicinity of the study site include those identified by investigations undertaken at the Boardwalk site (near the former Civic Railway Workshops Group), 700 Hunter Street, and the Frederick Ash Building site.7

2.2 EARLY TOWN DEVELOPMENT AND THE AUSTRALIAN AGRICULTURAL COMPANY (A.A. CO.) European settlement commenced at Newcastle in 1801 when a penal outpost was established at the mouth of the Hunter River as a place of secondary punishment for convicts who had re- offended after transportation to New South Wales. While the fledgling settlement operated solely as a penal outpost, built development was largely confined to land in the eastern end of the present day CBD. Although town growth was slow in the decade following the opening up of Newcastle to free settlement in the early 1820s, commercial, industrial, and residential development in the ensuing decades was closely linked to the presence and expansion of activities of the A.A. Co. This company had been granted 2,000 acres of land at Newcastle in 1828 for the purpose of mining coal and established its first mine, called the 'A' Pit, in 1831 near Church and Brown Streets. By the 1840s the A.A. Co. had several mines operating and imported British miners to supplement their workforce that was largely made up of assigned convicts. 8

2 Hunter History Consultants Pty. Ltd., A History of the Port of Newcastle, report prepared for EJE Architecture, November 2004. 3 John Turner and Greg Blyton, The Aboriginals of Lake Macquarie, A Brief History, Lake Macquarie City Council, 1995, p. 30. 4 M.R. Sainty and K.A. Johnson, eds., Census of New South Wales, November, 1828, Sydney, 1980, p. 15. 5 Extracts from replies given by the Rev. C.P.N. Wilton of Christ Church, Newcastle, to the Select Committee Inquiry into the condition of the Aborigines, cited in D. O'Donnell, The History of Early Newcastle 1800-1870, Documents and Illustrations, p. 35. 6 Turner and Blyton, The Aboriginals of Lake Macquarie…, p. 43. 7 See, Godden Mackay Logan, Heritage Consultants, Lee Wharf Newcastle, Aboriginal Assessment, Draft Report prepared for Lee Wharf Developments Pty. Ltd., September 2003, pp.40-45. 8 Hunter History Consultants Pty. Ltd., Historical Development of the Land within the Newcastle City Centre Heritage Conservation Area: An Overview, prepared for EJE Architecture, October, 2005; J.W. Turner, Coal Mining in Newcastle, 1801 – 1900, Newcastle History Monographs No. 9, Newcastle Region Public Library, Newcastle, 1982, pp. 24-31, 38-41. Prepared by EJE Heritage Page 10 Nominated Architect – Peter Campbell No. 4294 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE

Brown Street marked the western boundary of the government town of Newcastle as surveyed by Henry Dangar in 1823. The A.A. Co.'s grant initially formed a barrier to westward expansion and for two decades after its arrival in Newcastle the Company declined to subdivide any of its holdings. However, when its exclusive coal mining privileges were challenged in 1847, the A.A. Co. agreed to abandon its protected position in return for the right to sell its estates. In 1852, English born surveyor, George Elde Darby, was engaged to oversee the subdivision of the Company's Newcastle Estate. The first land sales were held in 1853 opening up the western development of the town along Blane Street (later Hunter Street West) and into Cook's Hill along Darby Street. The progressive establishment of A.A. Co. mines provided impetus for town development and an accompanying demand for land. Ongoing A.A. Co. land sales continued to shape the city well into the twentieth century.9

2.3 COMMENCEMENT OF THE CIVIC PRECINCT BUILDING SCHEME In 1921 Newcastle City Council began a process of gradual acquisition (that has continued until recent years) of properties within the curtilage of what is today referred to as the ‘civic and cultural precinct’. The instigator of the 1925 proposal for the commencement of a building scheme that would include not only a town hall but also a municipal theatre was the newly elected Mayor, Alderman Morris Light. Since that time, the area around City Hall and Civic Park has been gradually transformed, fulfilling the dream of Mayor Light whose vision was for a civic centre that would be the heart of government, administration and culture for the local community.10

During the 1930s the area bounded by Hunter, Burwood, King and Auckland Streets was transformed from a mix of industrial buildings, warehouses and unviable small shops to a civic centre which brought renewed life to the block. Redevelopment began in 1929 with construction of the City Hall and Civic Theatre and associated shops, followed by a new shop and office building on the corner of Auckland and Hunter Streets in 1933. Public access to the new development was improved with the construction of Civic Railway Station in 1935. Although hampered by the presence of rail lines until the 1950s, the development of Civic Park (diagonally opposite the study site) also began in conjunction with the construction of the Newcastle City Hall in 1929.

2.4 THE CONCEPT Newcastle City Council began to generate electricity for street lighting in 1890 and from that small beginning its electricity department grew into one of its largest undertakings. Originally concerned only with its own small borough, the Council moved in 1892 to establish a district supply, providing electricity to neighbouring councils and to private consumers.

Progress was very slow until the opening of the BHP Steelworks in 1915. Industrial developments stimulated population growth as the increasing popularity of electrical appliances also contributed to the consumption of power. Thus, by 1937, the Electricity Department of the Council was providing over 87 million kilowatt hours of power and attracting an annual revenue of £450,000. To do this, the Department had expanded to seven distinct divisions, namely, Finance, Correspondence and Records, Power Generation, Distribution, Customer Installations, Planning and Sales. However, the high rate of growth in the industry between the wars created an accommodation problem for the Council’s Electricity Department.

9 Hunter History Consultants Pty. Ltd., Historical Development of the Land...; Dr. John Turner, Newcastle Central Business District Heritage Study Draft Statement of Historical Themes, in Suters Busteed Corner Clode Pty Ltd., Newcastle Central Business District Heritage Study: Interim Report, March, 1988; P.A. Pemberton, Pure Merinos and Others: The Shipping Lists of the Australian Agricultural Company, ANU Archives of Business and Labour, Canberra, 1986, pp. 38, 39, 95, 96, 100. 10 Hunter History Consultants, History of Newcastle City Hall, prepared for Draft Conservation Management Plan Newcastle City Hall, 2001. Prepared by EJE Heritage Page 11 Nominated Architect – Peter Campbell No. 4294 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE Although the Council had opened an impressive administration centre for its various departments in 1929, (Newcastle City Hall) its electricity undertaking soon outgrew the space provided for it. By 1937, when the Council decided to construct a separate administrative centre for this department, it was a large undertaking supplying to an area stretching from Wyong in the south to Port Stephens in the north and inland for twenty miles from the seaboard. However, as the Council explained when N.E.S.C.A. House was opened, the Electricity Supply Department has been compelled in the course of its growth to make use of space wherever it was available with the peculiar and extremely unfortunate result that a member of the public with business to do several sections of the Department was frequently obliged to travel half the city’s length in the course of doing it. Others, in the adjustment of quite simple matters, found it necessary to go from the Electric Shop to Accounts Section and thence to the Section dealing with Installations, once more at the cost of a great deal of time and more than a little inconvenience.

The Department’s various sections were widely distributed, some being housed in Newcastle City Hall, others a block away, the section dealing with range hire and demonstrations was separated from the main body by half a dozen streets, and a retail shop completely segregated from the rest of the organisation. Similarly, within the Department itself the wide separation of executive officers involved a good deal of time loss, both irksome and costly.

Thus when the Newcastle Council approached the planning of its new electricity building, it had nearly forty years of experience in the industry and a keen appreciation of the problems caused by ad hoc accommodations.

2.5 PLANNING N.E.S.C.A HOUSE Early in 1937 the Electricity Committee of the Council recommended the construction of a new administration centre on the site adjacent to the Town Hall. Selection of an architect for the project which was expected to cost between forty and fifty thousand pounds was delegated to the Mayor Aldermann H. Fenton, and the Electrical Engineer, Guy Allbut. Their choice was Emil Sodersten (whose name was Sodersteen until changed by deed poll in 1941) of Sydney who was to have full responsibility for design and supervision although the local architects, Pitt and Merewether, were to be his associates on the project.

The choice of Sodersten is still being researched and there may have been an earlier link between Fenton and/or Allbut and the architect. At this stage of the enquiry, however, it is possible to throw some light on reasons for a choice that was adventurous to say the least.

It was accepted that the new building would have to be designed to complement the 1929 Town Hall, which was the work of the outstanding Sydney theatre architect H.E White. Moreover, the Electrical Engineer, a dominating and efficient officer, had been in the United States in 1936 to study electricity undertakings and he had definite ideas about the interior of the building. As the Newcastle Morning Herald (2 July 1937) remarked:

Its exterior will be a design in keeping with the Town Hall. The interior, which is to embody decorative and other ideas secured by the Electrical Engineer during his tour overseas, will provide for what is to be known as a demonstration theatre, for displaying the works of various types of domestic and office electrical equipment, a showroom, administrative and business offices, and staff accommodation.

Apart from these considerations and the previous abilities of the chosen architect, there was another relevant influence on the council’s decision-makers. Electricity, which is now taken for granted completely, was still relatively novel in the 1930’s. It was the age of electrical wonders, particularly of the cinema, and the documents explaining the building to the public are persuaded with the theme of progress through electricity. Thus, it would have been unthinkable

Prepared by EJE Heritage Page 12 Nominated Architect – Peter Campbell No. 4294 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE for the Council’s electricity administration centre to have been traditional in design: it would inevitably be modern, efficient, timesaving and functional.

2.6 THE ARCHITECTS Emil Sodersten was born in Sydney in 1900. He was educated at Sydney Technical College and the University of Sydney and began his practice in Sydney in 1925. In 1927 he achieved national prominence by winning the competition for the design of the Australian War Memorial in Canberra and in the early thirties Sodersten was an established architect engaged in large commercial projects. At this stage of his career he was one of the two leading Australian exponents of the Art Deco School producing Birley Towers and Wynchbury Flats in 1934, extensions to the Hotel Manly and the Australia Hotel in the following year and the City Mutual Building in 1936. (Sodersten was also the architect for the Segenhoe flats in Wolf Street, Newcastle circa 1930’s.)

Having established his reputation with Art Deco, Sodersten went abroad in 1935 and his experience had a profound effect on his architecture and on N.E.S.C.A. House. As Figure 2.1: Studio portrait of Emil Ian and Maisy Stapleton show, in Architects Sodersten in 1940. One of the leading of Australia (ed. H.Tanner, Melbourne, 1981) Australian architects working in the Art Deco Sodersteen, who had regarded the American style. skyscraper as the acme of efficiency and Source: http://www.pictureaustralia.org/ perfection (P.125) returned to Australia disenchanted with the skyscraper idiom and impressed with the functional modernism of Europe.

As a result N.E.S.C.A. House was designed on the contemporary English lines in keeping with the work of Wells Coats and George Coles. Described by the Stapletons as a heavy, streamlined battleship form, Newcastle Councils new electricity administration building marked a new era in the architect’s development. The new style was streamlined uncompromising functionalism of leading European architects and the results are clearly shown in the stark interiors of the N.E.S.C.A. House (Figure 2.5 – 2.9).

Although the well-known local architects, Pitt and Merewether, were also associated with N.E.S.C.A. House, the contract made it very clear that the responsibility for design was to rest with Sodersten. This evoked some controversy as there were complaints about local architects not being allowed to design what was, after all, NOT “a very expensive” building. The cost was originally stated to be about £50,000 sterling and the actual cost was £74,000 sterling.

The Council’s resistance to this pressure was commendable in hindsight for it gave the city a building which represents a key period in the development of one of Australia’s greatest twentieth century architects. At this stage of research, it would appear that the credit for that achievement is due to Mayor Fenton and Electrical Engineer Guy Allbut.

Prepared by EJE Heritage Page 13 Nominated Architect – Peter Campbell No. 4294 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE 2.7 ALDERMAN H FENTON H.F.C Fenton served as a mayor for the last two years of Newcastle City Council’s existence, 1937-1938. He was then the manager of the Civic Theatre, a post he held for twelve years before continuing his business career in Sydney. Fenton had been born in Armidale and was at one time a miner. He died in 1954.

2.8 GUY ALLBUT Allbut came to Newcastle in 1911 from a post in Tamworth’s Electricity Department and he retained the leadership until retirement in 1950. He was a duly religious man of Plymouth Brethren persuasion and he avoided publicity, making difficult the task of researching his formative period.

Allbut was a true professional, keeping up with developments in his chosen field “and he, more than any other individual, was the guiding hand behind the growth and steady development of N.E.S.C.A. until his retirement in 1950” (Shaping the Hunter, p.138). He published scholarly papers on electrical engineering on several occasions and in 1924 and 1936 travelled abroad to study recent developments. It may be purely coincidental that his second trip to the United States was so close to Emil Sodersten’s overseas tour but they would have been subject to similar intellectual influences at this time. However, the electrical engineer’s input to the design of N.E.S.C.A. House was almost certainly, confined to its internal features and not to its design.

2.9 DESIGNING N.E.S.C.A. HOUSE After the appointment of Sodersten as architect was announced in July 1937, the Newcastle Morning Herald reported that plans would be begun immediately for presentation to the Council. At this stage the Mayor and Electrical Engineer justified their decision to appoint Sodersten and Pitt and Merewether as ‘architects in association’:

It was decided by us that a joint arrangement would be preferable to entrusting such an important piece of work to any individual.

Furthermore, Fenton and Allbut inserted a provision in the agreement with the architects that the external design would have to satisfy the Council. (Report of Mayor and Electrical Engineer, No.176/37, 5 July 1937. Newcastle City Archives).

On 27 September 1937 Sodersten was ready to present, in person, the elevation of the new building although the proposed internal arrangements had not yet been designed.

By 18 October 1937, fifteen tenders ranging from £80,234 to £97,642 for construction had been received and the Council opted for the lowest tenderer, Ratcliffe and Kersopp, one of Newcastle’s best known building firms, but asked the architects and electrical engineer to reduce the cost by at least £9,700. In response, Sodersten, Pitt and Merewether proposed by letter of 25 October 1937 the elimination of a storage wing at the rear of the ground floor and the staff change rooms and lavatories on the third floor and drastic reductions in the p.c. items. (Appendix B) However, the architects opposed reductions on this scale, arguing that:

It would be unwise to make these drastic cuts, especially as regards the finish of the job, as the specification provided for lasting materials which could be easily cleaned, and the substitutes, if agreed to, would require fairly constant upkeep and perhaps later on renewal.

Alternatively they recommended more moderate changed in the p.c. items and the elimination of the storage wing and the staff change rooms. The Council agreed to the elimination of the storage wing and change rooms at a saving of £2,600 but by the middle of 1938, the architects successfully argued for their reinstatement. Certain savings had already been achieved and Sodersten disapproved of such cheeseparing:

Prepared by EJE Heritage Page 14 Nominated Architect – Peter Campbell No. 4294 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE The Committee placed before the council a letter from the architect, in which he stated that he had consistently disapproved of the economy suggested. There was no law to compel an office building to provide luncheon and change room accommodation for staff, or even the additional lavatory accommodation, which was essential, but it was the custom to make such a provision in all modern office buildings. He considered it highly desirable. To his mind it was unhygienic and likely to encourage vermin into the building to allow staff to have their meals in the surroundings in which they worked. (N.M.H. 28 July 1939) By accepting this argument, the Council restored the project to its original form, although the final cost reached 77,000 pounds.

2.10 CONSTRUCTION Progress of construction reports submitted to the City Council are extremely brief but they do indicate two reasons for delays in completion. By January 1938 the architect had to modify his plans to deal with excessive water on the site. Then there were delays caused by difficulty in obtaining certain steel sections and Sodersten had to provide alternative specifications to allow the building to progress. There was, however, also some good news for considerable savings had been effected in the cost of the Trachyte base course and the lifts (Appendix C).

Messrs Radcliffe and Kirsopp provided a general description for the booklet prepared for the official opening by the Hon. E.S. Spooner, a former minister for Works and Local Government, on 8 September 1939 (Appendix D).

Figure 2.2: Commencement of construction Source: Newcastle Herald 7-5-1938

Prepared by EJE Heritage Page 15 Nominated Architect – Peter Campbell No. 4294 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE

Figure 2.3: During Construction 1939 Source: Newcastle Herald 11-2-1939

Figure 2.4: Completion of Construction sometime after 1939 Source: http://collections.ncc.nsw.gov.au/keemu/pages/nrm/index.htm

Prepared by EJE Heritage Page 16 Nominated Architect – Peter Campbell No. 4294 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE

Figure 2.5: Service Hall 1939 Source: N.E.S.C.A House Conservation Plan EJE Architecture 1990.

Figure 2.6: Demonstration Theatre 1939 Source: N.E.S.C.A House Conservation Plan EJE Architecture 1990.

Prepared by EJE Heritage Page 17 Nominated Architect – Peter Campbell No. 4294 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE

Figure 2.7: Main Stair Well 1939 Source: N.E.S.C.A House Conservation Plan EJE Architecture 1990.

Prepared by EJE Heritage Page 18 Nominated Architect – Peter Campbell No. 4294 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE

Figure 2.8: Demonstration Theatre 1939 Source: N.E.S.C.A House Conservation Plan EJE Architecture 1990.

Figure 2.9: Electrical Centre 1939 Source: N.E.S.C.A House Conservation Plan EJE Architecture 1990.

Prepared by EJE Heritage Page 19 Nominated Architect – Peter Campbell No. 4294 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE 2.11 LATER EXTENSIONS AND ALTERATIONS In 1940 there were plans to construct and air-raid shelter in N.E.S.C.A. House but whether this was done is not yet known.

Some 20 years after its opening, the Shortland County Council, which had just assumed control of power supplies for the Hunter Region, constructed a three storey extension at the rear of N.E.S.C.A. House.

In 1967 a decorative tower was added to N.E.S.C.A. House (Figure 2.10)

Two years later, in 1969 Messrs Rodd and Hay of Newcastle were employed to remodel the theatre and demonstration centre. This works appears to have been carried out by the building department of the County Council.

One of the major extensions to N.E.S.C.A. House occurred in 1970 when two floors were added to the 1959 structure and the original council chamber was remodelled to suit a new purpose. The work was done by W. Stronach Pty Ltd to design by Rodd and Hay and the cost was $500,000 (Plate 3.12). Air conditioning was provided for the new section and the work was finished for an official opening by the Minister for Local Government P.H. Morton, on 30 April 1971.

In 1979, the facade of N.E.S.C.A. House was altered by the removal of the original curved glass front windows (Figure 2.14). The explanation for this change, which was deplored by the National Trust, was that the windows were leaking and likely to fall apart. Other work undertaken at this time involved the sealing of “the hundreds of blocks of Wondabyne sandstone facing on the building. The project involved cleaning away all the old caulking using a power saw and replacing it with a new silicon seal (N.M.H. 12.12.1979).

In recognition of the building’s architectural and historical significance, the New South Wales State Government protected it with conservation orders in 1984 and again in 1986.

The construction of a new centre at Wallsend for Shortland Electricity (previously Nesca) left Nesca House vacant from 1990, when it was partially leased for professional purposes and partly occupied by the Conservatorium of Music. In 1992 the building was purchased by the University of Newcastle and it is now used by the Faculty of Law and the Conservatorium of Music.11

11 C. Hunter, ‘Newcastle Civic & Cultural Precinct Historical Development, 2003, p.36.

Prepared by EJE Heritage Page 20 Nominated Architect – Peter Campbell No. 4294 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE

Figure 2.10: Tower 1967 Source: N.E.S.C.A House Conservation Plan EJE Architecture 1990.

Prepared by EJE Heritage Page 21 Nominated Architect – Peter Campbell No. 4294 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE

Figure 2.11: 1971 Additions Source: N.E.S.C.A House Conservation Plan EJE Architecture 1990.

Prepared by EJE Heritage Page 22 Nominated Architect – Peter Campbell No. 4294 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE

Figure 2.12: Aerial view of King Street, Nesca House and Christie Place, 1972 Source: http://collections.ncc.nsw.gov.au/keemu/pages/nrm/index.htm

Figure 2.13: Christie Street running between Nesca House & Newcastle City Hall, 1972. Source: http://collections.ncc.nsw.gov.au/keemu/pages/nrm/index.htm

Prepared by EJE Heritage Page 23 Nominated Architect – Peter Campbell No. 4294 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE

Figure 2.14: original shopfronts removed 1979 Source: Newcastle Morning Herald 7.12.1979

Prepared by EJE Heritage Page 24 Nominated Architect – Peter Campbell No. 4294 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE

Figure 2.15: Original shopfronts replaced and silicone seal applied Source: Newcastle Morning Herald 12.12.1979

In 2006 the University of Newcastle undertook internal works to fit out the original ‘Electrical Display Centre (formerly used as an Exhibition Space) located on the ground floor on King Street to an information resource and study facility. (Refer Figure 2.16)

Consequently the work was limited to the fit out of loose furniture and the construction of several light weight partitions to form three (3) new offices (to house operational staff) located within the low ceiling height alcove (originally used as a sales counter and display space) at the western end of the Main Hall, and the installation of two aluminium glazed partitions in the King St Display alcoves. The installation of the proposed new office walls did not penetrate original fabric, where as the two glazed partitions were mechanically fixed through the original travertine floor (approximately 10-12mm holes). Holes were filled to match previous similar penetrations should the partitions be removed in the future.

Other physical works included the provision of electrical and data service to various points within the Main Hall. As per existing, new cabling ran in the underfloor space and penetrated the existing travertine floor via the original steel pipe penetrations cast in the slab to access island computer desks.

Repainting occurred to ceiling and abutting rendered walls of the main hall, and existing painted wall surfaces located within the subject space.

A non original aluminium window on the west elevation of the building was modified to enable a new stainless steel book return chute.

Prepared by EJE Heritage Page 25 Nominated Architect – Peter Campbell No. 4294 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE

Figure 2.16: Ground floor changes undertaken in 2006 Source: EJE Architecture 2010

2.12 CONCLUSION University House must be considered significant in heritage terms because of its architecture and the role that it played in the development of electricity supply in the Hunter Region.

Not only is Sodersten acknowledged to be an important architect in the first half of this century in Australia but University House reveals a new stage in his development. It is an early Australia example of the European functional school of the 1930’s and, because of its ownership and location it has been preserved in good condition and in a form close to its original design.

At the local level, it reflects the surge of economic growth that resulted from the transformation of Newcastle from a coal port to a heavy industrial city and it is associated with a key civil servant, the electrical engineer, Guy Allbut.

Prepared by EJE Heritage Page 26 Nominated Architect – Peter Campbell No. 4294 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE

3. PHYSICALEVIDENCE

3.1 CONTEXT OF THE SITE University house is located within Newcastle’s Civic and cultural precinct, which is the heart of government, administration and culture for the local community. The site is adjacent to Civic Park surrounded by the Town Hall, Civic Administration Centre, Art Gallery, Library, and Conservatorium. The precinct also has a strong religious presence in the south western section, where members of the Baptist and Presbyterian faiths have worshipped since 1890, and the Salvation Army established a hostel in 1928, not far from its Citadel on the corner of King and Gibson Streets.

Figure 3.1: Surrounding context of University House (highlighted in pink). The red line shows the curtilage of the Newcastle Civic and Cultural Precinct Source: www.nearmaps.com

Prepared by EJE Heritage Page 27 Nominated Architect – Peter Campbell No. 4294 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE

3.2 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION AND DESIGN Designed by Sydney architect Emil Sodersteen in association with the Newcastle architectural firm, Pitt & Merewether, was designed on contemporary English lines in keeping with the work of Wells Coates and George Coles. Described as having a 'heavy, streamlined form', the 'new style was the streamlined functionalism of leading European architects'.

The resulting styler and form of University House was described by Hamilton and Stafford as:

...powerfully sculptural, hybrid form of NESCA House, deferring to the modernists in its strong horizontal banding and curved glazing, to Art Deco in its dramatic stacking of vertical elements around its axis of symmetry, and to the City Hall in its use of Woodabyne sandstone facing. Internally the building combined the latest interior design with the latest technology, including a pneumatic document transfer system and a rotating theatrette for public demonstrations of cooking with electricity.

The building comprised three main floors with a fourth floor for staff accommodation and a small area on the fifth floor for records and other services. Structural drawings show the main buildings framework to be of concrete encased structural steel. The steelwork is shown in the drawings to be shop riveted and site bolted using fitted bolts. Some shop welding appears to have been carried out in attaching cap plates to the columns. Concrete floors and some secondary floor beams appear to have been cast in-situ and were specified to use normal Portland Cement, sand and course aggregate. Mild steel reinforcing rods were used throughout and were bent and placed in a manner typical of practice until the early 90’s.

It is our opinion that neither the materials nor techniques used in the building structure have any heritage value. It was designed and built using basically modern practice: such a building would need to be 10 or 20 years older to be indicative of the evolution to modern practice and there are many examples of such older buildings in Newcastle.

Internally, located on the ground floor were the cashiers as well as a demonstration theatre described as being “unique of its type, consisting of three stages which are viewed from one seating space constructed on a turntable, electrically driven and turned as required for the series of demonstrations, to face any of the stages, whilst the audience is in position”.

If the building is to have major modifications requiring new openings in floors it would be advisable to consult with a structural engineer early in the design development. As was typical at the time, the concrete reinforcement has been carefully detailed with no excess steel and the ability of the floor to accept changed loadings is limited compared with more modern buildings.

Machinery Much of the building’s machinery seems to have been continually updated, particularly when the building was extended.

The building was originally equipped with a pneumatic document transfer system. Some terminals could be found and conduit can still be seen in service ducts. An original compressor (York, USA) driven by a 150 HP motor (Brook Motors Ltd, U.K.) is still present in the plant room. Even this machinery appears to be of modern design and of no heritage significance, Further information indicates that the motor and compressor may be from post World War II and not original. An experienced mechanical engineer from the heritage sub-committee of the Institution of Engineers has been consulted and has re-inforced the opinion that the motor and compressor have no heritage value.

The turntable in the theatrette appears to have received slight damage (bogey wheels displaced) apparently in the earthquake. While the turntable machinery does not appear particularly significant, the use to which it has been put appears to be of potential heritage interest.

Prepared by EJE Heritage Page 28 Nominated Architect – Peter Campbell No. 4294 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE

Earthquake Damage In addition to the possible earthquake damage to the turn-table noted above, the only damage noted in the building was possibly caused by the December 1989 earthquake was “cosmetic” in nature ands readily repairable. Cracking occurs in a number of locations in the render of brick infill panels. Our experience of this type of damage in other buildings suggests the very small cracks might be seen in brick joints after the render is removed: these can be re-pointed and the render repaired. Elsewhere there appears to be some moisture penetration which could be due to flashing damage or disturbance: again this can be readily repaired.

3.3 SUBSEQUENT ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS A three storey addition to the rear of the building was commenced in 1957 designed by Sodersten, and a further two floors were added in 1970 by architects Rodd and Hay.

The construction of a new centre at Wallsend for Shortland Electricity (previously Nesca) left Nesca House vacant from 1990, when it was partially leased for professional purposes and partly occupied by the Conservatorium of Music. In 1992 the building was purchased by the University of Newcastle and it is now used by the Faculty of Law and the Conservatorium of Music.12

A thorough search of N.E.S.C.A. records and information in the Newcastle Regional Library Local History Section revealed detailed information about the works to the building. Although this research has not given a complete picture the following outline sequence of works to the building was prepared.

September 1937 – Elevations of new building presented to Newcastle City Council October 1937 – Tenders for construction received January 1938 – Plans modified to deal with excessive water on site September 1939 – Official Opening of building 1957 – Three Storey extension to rear of N.E.S.C.A. House Constructed 1957 – Additional toilets to light well area at first floor area added November 1959 – Extensions officially opened 1967 – Decorative Tower added 1969 – Theatre and Demonstration Centre remodelled 1970 – Two floors added to the 1959 structure 1970 – Original Council Chamber remodelled to new purpose April 1971 – Additions officially opened 1976 – Raised floor installed in first floor of 1939 building 1979 – Original curved glass windows replaced 1979 – Silicone sealing of sandstone carried out 1981 – Alterations to covered way in light well 1982 – Executive suit remodelled. 1994 – Interior fit out work to first floor and second floor 1998 – Fit out and extension to levels three and four 2006 – Internal alterations to ground floor area

12 C. Hunter, ‘Newcastle Civic & Cultural Precinct Historical Development, 2003, p.36.

Prepared by EJE Heritage Page 29 Nominated Architect – Peter Campbell No. 4294 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE

3.4 REMAINING ORIGINAL STRUCTURE AND INTERPRETATION The following section provides a graphical summary of the alterations and additions made to the fabric at University House. Those areas highlighted refer to fabric constructed during the referred period of time.

3.4.1 Original University House 1939 The original building by Sodersten remains largely intact, however evidence of later additions remain evident. Internally the building has undergone many functional rearrangements, although the original plan is still evident throughout the building.

Prepared by EJE Heritage Page 30 Nominated Architect – Peter Campbell No. 4294 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE

Prepared by EJE Heritage Page 31 Nominated Architect – Peter Campbell No. 4294 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE

3.4.2 Additions 1957 - 1959 A three storey addition to the rear of the building was commenced in 1957 designed by Sodersten and completed in 1959.

Prepared by EJE Heritage Page 32 Nominated Architect – Peter Campbell No. 4294 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE

Prepared by EJE Heritage Page 33 Nominated Architect – Peter Campbell No. 4294 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE 3.4.3 Additions 1971 In 1971 two floors were added by architects Rodd and Hay.

Prepared by EJE Heritage Page 34 Nominated Architect – Peter Campbell No. 4294 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE

3.4.4 Additions 1981 In 1981 alterations to covered way in light well were made.

Prepared by EJE Heritage Page 35 Nominated Architect – Peter Campbell No. 4294 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE

3.4.5 Additions 1998 Fit out and extension to levels three and four

Prepared by EJE Heritage Page 36 Nominated Architect – Peter Campbell No. 4294 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE

3.5 GENERAL CONDITION OF THE FABRIC University House is in good condition, however some of the significant fabric is in need of repair and maintenance. Some of the original fabric that has been removed or relocated should be replaced to its original location (e.g. flagpoles).

Structurally the building is sound however some damage has occurred due to the 1989 Newcastle Earthquake. This should be assessed fully prior to refurbishment works.

The condition of particular fabric is shown in Appendix H. Specifically the condition of highly significant fabric is as follows.

3.5.1 External Fabric: Trachyte – very good condition, joints have been raked out to a depth of 5mm and a white gunned silicon has been installed two coats of Silicone sealer was then applied to each block, the effect of this is still to be fully assessed.

Sandstone – appears to be in very good condition, joints have been raked out to a depth of 5mm and white gunned silicone has been installed, two coats of silicone sealer was then applied to each block. The effect of this is still to be fully assessed.

Roof Material: To be assessed by refurbishment Architects

Metal Windows: Bronze in 1939, 1959 building requires conservation. Aluminium in 1971 addition appear in good condition 1979 shopfronts appear in good condition

Embedded metals: To be assessed by refurbishment Architects Flagposts: All appear in good condition.

Prepared by EJE Heritage Page 37 Nominated Architect – Peter Campbell No. 4294 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE 3.5.2 Internal Fabric

Travetine flooring: Requires conservation and cleaning Rubber flooring: Has been overlaid with carpet and glue applied to surface – conservation to be reviewed by refurbishment architect.

Terrazo skirting & sills: Some damaged but generally in good condition. Scagliola: Cracked badly in places especially to columns delamination from base material is extensive, requires urgent conservation.

Scagliola tile: Cracked badly and delamination from base material has occurred, requires urgent conservation

Fibrous plaster: Appears in good condition Timber veneers: Appears in good condition Timber partitions: Where remaining they appear in good condition Ceramic tiles and Bathroom fitments: Appear in good condition Electrical fitments: Majority have been replaced, some original switches, signage and smoke detection still remains.

Prepared by EJE Heritage Page 38 Nominated Architect – Peter Campbell No. 4294 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE 4. COMPARATIVEANALYSIS

The determination of the significance of an item of European heritage depends on an understanding of the range and significance of comparable items elsewhere in a local and state context. The intention of the Comparative Analysis is to place University House in context to other buildings constructed of similar architectural quality, and designer/architects.

4.1 ARCHITECTURAL STYLE The Art Deco style embodied dynamic progress and faith in modern technology. The style suggested arrested vertical and/or horizontal motion. There was less emphasis on an open and glossy appearance than the European International Style. It was predominantly a commercial style. The setting of Art Deco building was principally urban and high density suburban.

Symmetry was common and concern for three dimensional quality in mass and details was important. Vertical and horizontal fins, stream lined effects, geometric curves, and stylised decoration are typical of the style.

Favoured materials, included faience, polished granite, Vitrolite featured face brick sandstone, and chromium plated steel shopfronts. Steel and reinforced concrete was used to achieve wide spans. Extensive use of metal framed windows was common.

Key practitioners of the style were, C. Bruce Dellit; Fowell and McConnell; Hennessy and Hennessy; Emil Sodersten, J.H. Wardrop.

“Popularity of Art Deco, the Architecture of C. Bruce Dellit and Emil Sodersten was inevitably short lived. Ousted by the proliferation of the austere international style of the post war years, the discordantly decorative and flamboyant Art Deco Architecture of the late twenties and thirties has long been discussed as the very nadir of modern thinking. Yet as the first flowering of modern commercial architecture, this style merits appraisal. It provided a distinctive and ingenious architecture that distilled the essence of the time and encapsulated a period of rapidly changing values”. 13

“N.E.S.C.A. House; Newcastle (1939), with heavy streamlined battleship form was decidedly English, reminiscent of the work of Wells Coats and George Coles”.14

“The Art Deco work of Dellit and Sodersten together forms a link between the innovation of modern Architecture and the traditions of the Victorian era. Their buildings were able to respond to new forces: modern materials, technology and explicitly new images without renouncing the popular values and sentiment of the period”.15

4.2 EMIL SODERSTEN Emil Sodersten is regarded as the greatest architect of the Australian Art Deco style in Sydney. However, his architectural styles included Australian Art Deco, Functionalist and Modern.

In 1925 Sodersten entered the international competition to design the Australian War Memorial in Canberra. His design was considered be 'exceptionally restrained and expressive of the purposes of the building' and breaking with stylistic tradition, his domed hall of memory rose from a fortress-like base. However, as with most of those entered, Sodersten was over budget. The only entry within budget was by John Crust and so the two architects were commissioned to work together on an amended design. Crust project managed the new building to Sodersten's

13 “Bruce Dellit 1900-1942 and Emil Sodersten 1901-1961”, Ian Stapleton, Maisy Stapleton Architects of Australia (ED. H. Tanner, Melbourne 1981) 14 ibid 15 ibid Prepared by EJE Heritage Page 39 Nominated Architect – Peter Campbell No. 4294 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE even more monumental design. After conflict arose with Crust, Sodersteen withdrew in 1938. Sited at the top of Anzac Parade on Walter Burley Griffin's Parliament House axis, Sodersteen's building was the first national architectural monument in Australia.

Figures 4.1 & 4.2: The Australian War Memorial in Canberra. Source: http://wychbury.com.au/archives/

In Sydney he designed numerous apartment blocks, including the nine-storey Birtley Towers (1934) at Elizabeth Bay, and several other apartment blocks in Potts Point including, Werrington (1930), Cheddington (1930), 20 Macleay Street (1930) and Marlborough Hall (1938). Other Sodersen buildings include Kingsley Hall (c1925) 14-18 Darlinghurst Road, St Bede’s Church of England (1931) in Drummoyne, No 7 Apartments, (1930s) 7 Elizabeth Street, Sydney, Elizabeth House (1939) 230 Elizabeth Street in Surry Hills, and the Grosvenor Theatre in Summer Hill.

Apart from residential buildings, Emil Sodersten was also Architect responsible for a number of highly significant commercial buildings, including the City Mutual Life Assurance Society (1936), the QBE Building (1939-40) (formerly Bryant House) and was also responsible for the extension to the Hotel Australia in Martin Place (1935 – demolished).

Apart from NESCA House, Sodersten also designed another building in Newcastle known as the Segenhoe Apartments located in Wolfe Street, Newcastle.

Figures 4.3 & 4.4: Segenhoe Apartments in Newcastle and Birtley Towers in Elizabeth Bay Source: http://wychbury.com.au/archives/8

Buildings by other Architects that compare with University House include: x Former Australian Institute of Anatomy Canberra A.C.T W Hayward Morris and Robert Casboutte. x Forst Church of Christ Scientist Perth W.A. Architect unknown. x The Anzac Memorial Sydney (1930), C. Bruce Dellit

Prepared by EJE Heritage Page 40 Nominated Architect – Peter Campbell No. 4294 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE x Former Patent Office Canberra A.C.T. 1936 Commonwealth Department of works architect.

Figure 4.5 & 4.6: Forst Church of Christ Scientist Perth W.A. Architect unknown and Former Australian Institute of Anatomy Canberra A.C.T Architects: W Hayward Morris and Robert Casboutt Source: http://www.csperth.org.au/cms/ and http://www.twentieth.org.au/canberra_screensound.html

Prepared by EJE Heritage Page 41 Nominated Architect – Peter Campbell No. 4294 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE

5. THECULTURALLANDSCAPEANDVISUAL ENVIRONMENT

The Australian Heritage Commission describes a cultural landscape as resulting from “the evolution of human society and settlement over time, under the influence of the physical constraints and/or opportunities presented by their natural environment and of successive social, economic and cultural forces, both external and internal” (AHC, 2000).

For a landscape to be listed as a heritage item, amongst other criteria, it must be a good or rare example of a traditional human settlement or land use that is representative of a culture, especially when it has become vulnerable or under impact or irreversible change. Certainly the landscape of the Civic and Cultural Precinct of Newcastle possesses these attributes. In particular, it shows the relationship between humans and the land; changing perceptions of appropriate land-use either due to physical, economic and cultural forces; and evidence of past technologies and practices.

5.1 LANDSCAPE AND SETTING The setting of University House in the Newcastle Civic and Cultural precinct and its relationship to significant heritage places and spaces such as Newcastle Town Hall, Civic Park, Civic Theatre and Christie Place, and is of HIGH heritage significance.

While most of the landscaping around University House is of LITTLE significance, the original planter beds observed below in Figures 5.1 & 5.2 remain and are of HIGH heritage significance. The pre-war photograph of Nesca House shows pre-cast concrete paving units in a regular pattern on both sides of King Street. Whilst, pre-cast concrete pavement remains in places on both sides of King Street, it has in some areas been covered with bitumen or is poorly repaired in concrete. The King Street pavements are in poor condition. Similar pavement is found along the axis of Civic Park.

Figure 5.1 & 5.2: University House 2010 and as it was in 1939. Source: EJE Architecture 2010 and Source: http://collections.ncc.nsw.gov.au/keemu/ pages/nrm/index.htm

Prepared by EJE Heritage Page 42 Nominated Architect – Peter Campbell No. 4294 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE

5.1.1 HISTORY, CHARACTER AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE NEWCASTLE CITY CENTRE CONSERVATION AREA The local area surrounding University House is located within the Civic and Cultural Precinct of Newcastle. Attributes of this cultural landscape identified as the Newcastle City Centre Conservation Area is defined by NCC as follows:

The Newcastle City Centre Heritage Conservation Area is significant on many levels The assemblage of commercial and civic buildings is a powerful reminder of the city’s rich history and it’s many phases of development. The number of historic buildings surviving is quite remarkable for a city of this size, with a number of pre-1840s buildings surviving (Rose Cottage, c1830, Newcomen Club, 1830, Parts of James Fletcher Hospital. All of these are associated with the city’s penal heritage It is also know to be a city with a rich archaeological record of national significance, for its potential to yield information about the early convict settlement and early industrial activities. The city area is known to have been a place of contact between colonists and the Indigenous population, who owed the land on the southern shores of the Hunter River. This evidence is available in historical accounts and in the archaeological record surviving beneath the modern city The high numbers of commercial and civic buildings of the 19th and 20th centuries gives the city a historic character which is notable and allows an understanding of the importance of the city as a place of commerce, governance and city building. The historical foundation of the city was the discovery and exploitation of coal with good shipping access via a safe and navigable harbour. The tow's layout by Surveyor General Henry Dangar In 1828 is still visible in the city’s streets, and is an element of historical value.

In this respect University House is an important component of the Newcastle Civic and Cultural precinct as it reflects the early development of Newcastle and is located within one of Newcastle's most historically significant locations. It contributes to the setting of the area as it is an imposing largely intact example of the Art Deco style with tendency towards Functional Modernism and is a central landmark feature of the civic and cultural precinct of Newcastle.

Other aspects related to cultural landscape are setting and curtilage as they have the potential to assist in the interpretation of a heritage item such as University House. Therefore it is important that a minimum curtilage be defined and view corridors considered both to and from the building when proposing any new development.

5.2 UNIVERSITY HOUSE AND VIEWS University House is orientated to the south on the corner of King and Auckland Streets opposite Civic Park and adjacent to Christie Park. University House is a local landmark and forms part of the Civic and Cultural Precinct of Newcastle. Its relationship with Civic Park, Newcastle Town Hall and the premier Civic buildings in the area provide a very important focus in the townscape of Newcastle. This setting makes a major contribution to the significance of the building.

The following images (Figures 5.3 – 5.8) are exemplar of views to and from University House from street level locations in the immediate vicinity of the site. Views to the site from within Civic Park and along Auckland Street are obscured by existing vegetation.

Prepared by EJE Heritage Page 43 Nominated Architect – Peter Campbell No. 4294 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE

Figure 5.3: View to University House from the southern end of Auckland Street looking north. Source: EJE Architecture 2011

Figure 5.4: View to University House from the southern end of Auckland Street looking north. Source: EJE Architecture 2011

Prepared by EJE Heritage Page 44 Nominated Architect – Peter Campbell No. 4294 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE

Figure 5.5: View to University House from the northern end of Auckland Street looking south. Source: EJE Architecture 2011

Figure 5.6: View to University House from King Street looking west. Source: EJE Architecture 2011

Prepared by EJE Heritage Page 45 Nominated Architect – Peter Campbell No. 4294 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE

Figure 5.7: View to University House from King Street looking towards University House and Town Hall. Source: EJE Architecture 2011

Figure 5.8: View to University House from within Civic Park. Source: EJE Architecture 2011

Prepared by EJE Heritage Page 46 Nominated Architect – Peter Campbell No. 4294 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE

6. HERITAGESIGNIFICANCE

The basis of assessment used in this report is the methodology and terminology of the Burra Charter 2013, The Conservation Plan and the criteria of the NSW Heritage Branch. Potential heritage significance of a place is assessed using guidelines established by the Australian Heritage Commission and the NSW Heritage Branch. These guidelines set put criteria for assessment and encompasses four generic values of heritage significance:

1. Historical significance, 2. Aesthetic significance, 3. Research/technical significance, and 4. Social significance.

Upon determining the values of heritage significance, they are then graded to assess their relative contribution to the heritage value of the place. Grading is as follows:

1. Exceptional (rare or outstanding element directly contributing to an item’s significance), 2. High (high degree of original fabric; demonstrates a key element of the item’s significance), 3. Moderate (elements with little heritage value, but which contribute to the overall significance of the item), 4. Little (alterations detract from significance; difficult to interpret), 5. Intrusive (damaging to the item’s heritage significance).

Additionally, an assessment of significance also requires that a level of significance be established for the place.

1. National (significant to the people of Australia). 2. State (significant to the people of NSW). 3. Local (significant to the local government area).

The Comparative analysis undertaken in Section 4 of this report helps to determine the significance of the place. Such an analysis is based on the assessment criteria given by the NSW Heritage Office related to rarity (criteria (f)) and representativeness (criteria (g)), and on a knowledge of existing similar places.

6.1 HISTORICAL THEMES The relationship of a potential heritage item to its historical context is an underlying thread to assessing significance. There is a direct connection between historical themes and the evaluation procedure, with the themes providing a context within which an item can be understood, assessed and compared, especially when considering its historical value.

A historical theme is described by the Heritage Office as a major force or process that has contributed to our history. Themes may be identified as specific to state areas or local area. Themes can also reflect function.

Historical themes specific to the assessment of University House are listed below in the following table:

Prepared by EJE Heritage Page 47 Nominated Architect – Peter Campbell No. 4294 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE

Australian Theme NSW Theme Local 3. Economy - Commerce - Activities relating to buying, (none) - Developing local, selling and exchanging goods and regional and services national economies 3. Economy - Communication - Activities relating to the Utilities - Developing local, creation and conveyance of information regional and national economies 3. Economy - Technology - Activities and processes Technologies for electrical supply Developing local, associated with the knowledge or use of - regional and mechanical arts and applied sciences national economies 4. Settlement - Towns, suburbs and villages - Activities Creating landmark structures and Building associated with creating, planning and places in urban settings - settlements, towns managing urban functions, landscapes and cities and lifestyles in towns, suburbs and villages 4. Settlement - Towns, suburbs and villages - Activities Developing civic infrastructure and Building associated with creating, planning and amenity - settlements, towns managing urban functions, landscapes and cities and lifestyles in towns, suburbs and villages 4. Settlement - Utilities - Activities associated with the Distributing electricity - Building provision of services, especially on a settlements, towns communal basis and cities 7. Governing - Government and Administration - Activities Developing roles for government - Governing associated with the governance of local providing education - areas, regions, the State and the nation, and the administration of public programs - includes both principled and corrupt activities. 8. Culture - Creative endeavour - Activities associated Architectural styles and periods - Developing cultural with the production and performance of Art Deco/Jazz Age - institutions and literary, artistic, architectural and other ways of life imaginative, interpretive or inventive works; and/or associated with the production and expression of cultural phenomena; and/or environments that have inspired such creative activities. 9. Phases of Life - Persons - Activities of, and associations Associations with Emil Marking the phases with, identifiable individuals, families and Sodersteen, architect - of life communal groups

6.2 PRE-EXISTING STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE OF NESCA HOUSE: NSW STATE HERITAGE REGISTER

NESCA House is of state significance as an outstanding Art Deco building by the architect Emil Sodersten. The House is evidence of Newcastle's shift from a coal port to a heavy industry city. It is also intimately linked to perceptions of electricity in the 1930s as a novel energy source that was the way of the future. The Art Deco style, rather than a more traditional building, is a reflection of these perceptions. NSW State Heritage Register http://www.heritage.nsw.gov.au/

Prepared by EJE Heritage Page 48 Nominated Architect – Peter Campbell No. 4294 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE

6.3 NSW HERITAGE ASSESSMENT – ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE

HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Criterion (a) An item is important in the course, or pattern, of NSW’s cultural or natural history (or the cultural or natural history of the local area).

Criterion (b) An item has strong or special association with the life or works of a person, or group of persons, of importance in NSW’s cultural or natural history (or the cultural or natural history of the local area).

x University House is significant in the Evaluation and Pattern of the history of Newcastle and the Region x The building contains major evidence of its own history and therefore a major theme of the development of Newcastle and the region. Namely the rapid expansion of industrial development in Newcastle between the wars. x University House is of State significance as evidence of the development of Newcastle from a coal port into a heavy industry city and the subsequent increase in importance to the State's economy. x The building is of State significance as evidence of the historical integration of electricity into society and the notion of "progress through electricity". x The building is of State significance as evidence of the practice of local government activities and the shift through local and regional to state electricity supply. x University House is of State significance as the work of Emil Sodersten, an eminent architect of the 20th century.

AESTHETIC AND TECHNICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Criterion (c) An item is important in demonstrating aesthetic characteristics and/or a high degree of creative or technical achievement in NSW (or the local area).

x University House is significant in displaying creative and technical accomplishment in Australia x University House is of State significance as an outstanding example aesthetic accomplishment of the Art Deco style with tendency towards Functional Modernism. It expresses the change from traditional design towards the concepts of modern efficiency, timesaving and functional designs. x The major contribution that the building makes to the townscape of Newcastle (specifically the civic cultural precinct and its relationship to the Town Hall and Civic Park); x Evidence of decorative devices, material and techniques which express the popular taste of Art Deco.

SOCIAL SIGNIFICANCE

Criterion (d) An item has strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group in NSW (or the local area) for social, cultural or spiritual reasons.

University House is significant through association with Newcastle City Council, the Community of Newcastle and the Region for the following social and cultural reasons:

Prepared by EJE Heritage Page 49 Nominated Architect – Peter Campbell No. 4294 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE x The development of University House and the Shortland County Council from its humble beginnings as the Electricity Supply Department of Newcastle City Council; x The use of the building by the community to view new electrical products and demonstrations for a period of 50 years, as individuals and as social groups.

RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE

Criterion (e) An item has the potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of NSW’s cultural or natural history (or the cultural or natural history of the local area).

The building is significant for its potential to yield information about:

x The work of Emil Sodersten; x The Art Deco period in Australia; x The installation of modern materials and services into buildings.

RARITY SIGNIFICANCE

Criterion (f) An item possesses uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of NSW’s cultural or natural history (or the cultural or natural history of the local area).

x University House is significant in being a rare example of Art Deco Architecture in Australia at a time of dramatic change in Architectural design x The rare association of an Art Deco building with the development and novelty of electricity supply during the 1930’s.

REPRESENTATIVE SIGNIFICANCE

Criterion (g) An item is important in demonstrating the principle characteristics of a class of NSW’s cultural or natural places; or cultural or natural environments (or a class of the local area’s cultural places; or cultural or natural environments).

The building is representative of: x The work of Emil Sodersten; x The Art Deco period in Australia; x Of the development of Newcastle from a coal port into a heavy industry city and the subsequent increase in importance to the State's economy. x The development of N.E.S.C.A. and the Shortland County Council from its humble beginnings as the Electricity Supply Department of Newcastle City Council

Prepared by EJE Heritage Page 50 Nominated Architect – Peter Campbell No. 4294 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE 6.4 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANCE This section of the report is a summary of the significance analysis undertaken in Section 6.3 above of this report.

Value Grade Level Degree of of Significance of Significance of Significance Significance exceptional/high/mod Local/State/National Rare or Representative erate/little /intrusive Historical High State Representative Aesthetic High State Rare Research Little State Representative Social High Local Representative

It is considered that University House for reasons stated in the above assessment is an item of state heritage significance.

6.5 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE University House is of outstanding heritage significance

x For its rare evidence of Art Deco Design in Newcastle and Australia x For its potential to display information about the Art Deco period. x For its association with Architect Emil Sodersten. x For its evidence of a major theme of Newcastle and the Region’s history, particularly the development of Electrical supply from Newcastle City Council to Shortland County Council. x For its association with the Newcastle and region community 1937-1987. x For its contribution to the townscape of Newcastle and the Civic precinct.

6.6 TREATMENT OF SIGNIFICANT FABRIC The treatment of existing component spaces, fabric and contents of the building should be in accordance with their assessed level of significance and generally as set out in the following table below. Grading of fabric, where appropriate, is given in the Inventory Datasheets contained in Appendix H.

LEVEL OF ACCEPTABLE ACTION SIGNIFICANCE EXCEPTIONAL Rare or outstanding element directly contributing to the items significance with a high degree of intactness. Preservation, restoration or reconstruction. Adaptation in accordance with the Burra Charter guidelines may also be acceptable provided the change is compatible with retaining the overall significance of the place. HIGH High degree of original fabric, demonstrates a key element of the items significance. Preservation, restoration or reconstruction. Adaptation in accordance with the Burra Charter guidelines may also be acceptable provided the change is compatible with retaining the overall significance of the place. MODERATE Altered or modified elements. Elements with little heritage value, but which contribute to the overall significance of the item. Preservation, restoration or reconstruction or adaptation to assist in ensuring the continual use and security of the building provided that no adverse effect is created to more significant fabric.

Prepared by EJE Heritage Page 51 Nominated Architect – Peter Campbell No. 4294 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE LITTLE Alterations detract from significance, difficult to interpret. Fabric may be altered or removed with little consequence to the overall significance of the place. INTRUSIVE Damaging to the heritage significance of the item/place. Fabric should be removed.

6.7 FABRIC AND OTHER FEATURES WHICH CONTRIBUTE TO SIGNIFICANCE (LIST OF HERITAGE ITEMS)

6.7.1 Major Components The major components which constitute the fabric of significance are:

x The 1939 building designed by Emil Sodersten and constructed by Ratcliffe and Kirsopp. x Including but not limited, all stonework, bronze windows, original finishes and fitments (travel time, scagliola, partitions, timber veneers, fibrous plaster, terrazzo rubber flooring, original light fittings, pneumatic document transfer system, demonstration theatre. x The 1959 building extension designed by Emil Sodersten, construction by W. Stronach. x Stonefaced exterior and windows only. x Evidence of the 1939 occupation of the building by the Newcastle City Council Electricity Supply Department.

6.7.2 Minor Components The minor components of its fabric which contribute to significance are:

x Evidence of concealed services, hydraulic, mechanical, electrical, pneumatic and fire services.

6.7.3 Setting University House forms part of the Civic and Cultural Precinct of Newcastle and its relationship with Civic Park, Newcastle Town Hall and the premier Civic buildings in the area provide a very important focus in the townscape of Newcastle. This makes a major contribution to the significance of the building.

Prepared by EJE Heritage Page 52 Nominated Architect – Peter Campbell No. 4294 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE

7. CURTILAGEOFUNVERSITYHOUSE

The Burra Charter does not describe “curtilage”. However, it does state, “Environmental intrusions which adversely affect appreciation or enjoyment of the place should be excluded”. The NSW Heritage Office publication “Heritage Curtilages” describes “Curtilage” as the extent of land around [a place] which “should be defined as encompassing its heritage significance”. This area of land is known as a heritage curtilage. There are four types of heritage curtilage:

‰ Lot Boundary Curtilage: where the legal boundary of the allotment is defined as the heritage curtilage. The allotment will in general contain all related features, for example outbuildings and gardens within its boundaries. ‰ Reduced Heritage Curtilage: where an area less than total allotment is defined as the heritage curtilage, and is applicable where not all parts of a property contain places associated with its significance. ‰ Expanded Heritage Curtilage: where the heritage curtilage is actually larger than the allotment, and is predominantly relevant where views to and/or from a place are significant to the place. ‰ Composite Heritage Curtilage: relates to a larger area that includes a number of separate places, such as heritage conservation areas based on a block, precinct or whole village.

An appropriate curtilage for the University House would be a Lot Boundary Heritage Curtilage. The proposed lot boundary heritage curtilage will adequately protect the historical significance of this site and building. The curtilage of the Newcastle Civic and Cultural Precinct (as shown below) is considered to be an appropriate “heritage setting” for University House, which adequately protects the setting of the site and retains visual links between University House and the Civic and Cultural Precinct. Diagrammatically, the assessed curtilage is shown below.

Figure 7.1: The heritage curtilage for University House is shown by the blue line. The red line shows the curtilage of the Newcastle Civic and Cultural Precinct which is considered to be an appropriate “heritage setting” for University House. Source: www.nearmaps.com edited by EJE Architecture

Prepared by EJE Heritage Page 53 Nominated Architect – Peter Campbell No. 4294 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE

8. OBLIGATIONSANDOPPORTUNITIES

8.1 CONSTRAINTS & OPPORTUNITIES ARISING OUT OF CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE The place has been identified as having State significance, therefore any works that take place should be undertaken so as not to diminish that significance and be undertaken in accordance with the conservation principles, processes and practices of the Burra Charter. Adaptation of the place for future use may be undertaken with regard to the assessed heritage significance and the recommendations made within this Conservation Management Plan.

Physical constraints and requirements arising from the significance of the site are:

x No activity should occur which affects the capacity of the building to demonstrate its own history. x Physical evidence of the occupation of the building by Newcastle Council Electricity Supply Department (1939) may be revealed at the expense of later periods.

The obligations arising from the statement of significance are that:

x The fabric of the 1939 building and portions of the 1959 extensions and 1971 extensions should be conserved in accordance with the principles embodied in the Burra Charter. x Parts of the building should be available to the public and interpreted

With the general obligation to interpret the history of the building, there are four specific obligations:

I. to explain the history of the building and the remaining physical fabric; II. to explain the history of the locality and the buildings role within the history of N.E.S.C.A. and the Shortland County Council; III. to explain the role of the building in its relationship to Newcastle and the regional community; IV. to explain the buildings relationship to the Art Deco period and other buildings comparatively.

8.2 STATUTORY CONTROLS

8.2.1 Australian Heritage Council Act 2003 (AHC Act) The Act establishes a heritage advisory body to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage – the Australian Heritage Council and retains the Register of the National Estate. As part of the legislation, the Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Act (No.1) 2003 established two new heritage lists – the National Heritage List and the Commonwealth Heritage List.

Following amendments to the AHC Act 2003, the Register of the National Estate (RNE) was frozen on 19 February 2007, which means that no new places can be added, or removed. From February 2012 all references to the Register will be removed from the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) and the AHC Act. The RNE will be maintained after this time on a non-statutory basis as a publicly available archive. Until then the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts (the Minister) is required to continue considering the Register when making some decisions under the EPBC Act. This transition period also allows states, territories, local and the Australian Government to complete the task of transferring places to appropriate heritage registers where necessary and to amend legislation that refers to the RNE as a statutory list.

Prepared by EJE Heritage Page 54 Nominated Architect – Peter Campbell No. 4294 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE University House is not listed on the Register of the National Estate.

The National Heritage List includes natural, historic and Indigenous places that are of outstanding national heritage value to the Australian nation. University House was not listed on the National Heritage List at the time of this report.

The Commonwealth Heritage List consists of natural, Indigenous and historic heritage places or groups of places owned or controlled by the Australian Government. University House was not listed on the Commonwealth Heritage List at the time of this report.

8.2.2 Disability Discrimination Act 1992 The DDA requires that all buildings, facilities and services provided to the general public be accessible to people with disabilities. This access is to be equitable, independent and dignified.

8.2.3 NSW Heritage Act 1977 The Heritage Act of NSW is an item of legislation administered by the Minister for Planning on the advice of the Heritage Council of NSW. The Heritage Act creates opportunities for administration, control, protection, maintenance, preservation, restoration, enhancement and conservation of natural and built heritage in NSW. The act is binding on all State Government agencies. Items of heritage significance are protected by the means of Interim Heritage Orders or by listing on the State Heritage Register.

University House is listed on the NSW Heritage Register.

Minimum Standards of Maintenance and Repair Owners of State Heritage Listed items must ensure that minimum standards of maintenance and repair are maintained. (Refer to Appendix F for standards).

Under the NSW Heritage Act the University of Newcastle has a legal responsibility to maintain minimum standards of maintenance and repair at University House. These include:

x Protection from damage or deterioration due to weather x Protection and prevention from damage or destruction by fire x Provision of security measures x Any essential maintenance or repair which will prevent serious or irreparable damage or deterioration

If maintenance or building works are proposed for an item listed on the State Heritage Register, approval from the NSW Heritage Branch (S.60 application) is required. The only exceptions are where standard or special exemptions apply or an endorsed Conservation Management Plan is available.

Major Works – Application under Section 60

If major works are proposed for an item on the State Heritage Register, an application under Section 60 (s.60) of the Heritage Act will be required and will be determined by the NSW Heritage Branch. Note that this application must be obtained prior to any other consent or approval.

If this Conservation Management Plan is endorsed, and the proposed works are in accordance with the CMP an s.60 application will not be required. For works not in accordance with the CMP an application will be required.

An s.60 Application should be accompanied by appropriate documents. They typically take the form of a Statement of Heritage Impact, Conservation Management Plan, Conservation Plan, or

Prepared by EJE Heritage Page 55 Nominated Architect – Peter Campbell No. 4294 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE an Archaeological Assessment. A qualified heritage consultant should prepare such documentation.

If the Heritage Council determines that a proposal, if approved, will materially affect the value of an item, it may consider that the application be advertised. In the case that this may occur, it should be noted that the process of advertising might add a considerable amount of time to the applications determination.

Exemptions from Heritage Branch Approval

To allow owners to undertake basic repairs and maintenance on State Heritage Register items a series of standard exemptions have been formulated. Generally exemptions apply to, maintenance; repairs; painting; excavation and restoration. The University of Newcastle should consult the standard exemptions document in Appendix G for details to determine whether they apply to any proposed works.

Excavation Permits – Section 140

If relics are likely to be disturbed or excavated as a result of proposed works an application under Section 140 of the Heritage Act will be required and will be determined by the NSW Heritage Branch. If the planning stage for a proposal shows that it affects known archaeological sites or areas where archaeological sites may be, then it is necessary to undertake an Archaeological Assessment in accordance with guidelines issued by the NSW Heritage Council.

8.2.4 Environmental Assessment and Planning Act 1979 University House is listed in the Newcastle Local Environmental Plan 2003 and Newcastle City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2008 as a heritage item. The site is located within the boundary of the Newcastle City Centre Conservation Area, which is listed under the Newcastle Local Environmental Plan 2003 and the Newcastle City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2008.

Future work to, and development of, the building will be subject to the LEP and should be developed in accordance with the relevant policies and Development Control Plans (DCPs).

University of Newcastle Responsibilities – items listed on the Newcastle City Centre Local Environmental Plan 2008

Development in the Newcastle City Council Local Government Area is controlled under the Newcastle City Centre LEP 2008.

Part 5 – Heritage Conservation; Clause 46 - of this Plan is the heritage clause. Under the Plan development consent is required for any of the following:

(a) demolishing or moving a heritage item or a building, work, relic or tree within a heritage conservation area, (b) altering a heritage item or a building, work, relic, tree or place within a heritage conservation area, including (in the case of a building) making changes to the detail, fabric, finish or appearance of its exterior, (c) altering a heritage item that is a building by making structural changes to its interior, (d) disturbing or excavating an archaeological site while knowing, or having reasonable cause to suspect, that the disturbance or excavation will or is likely to result in a relic being discovered, exposed, moved, damaged or destroyed, (e) disturbing or excavating a heritage conservation area that is a place of Aboriginal heritage significance, (f) erecting a building on land on which a heritage item is located or that is within a heritage conservation area,

Prepared by EJE Heritage Page 56 Nominated Architect – Peter Campbell No. 4294 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE (g) subdividing land on which a heritage item is located or that is within a heritage conservation area.

Consent is not required under clause 46 if: (a) the applicant has notified the consent authority of the proposed development and the consent authority has advised the applicant in writing before any work is carried out that it is satisfied that the proposed development: (i) is of a minor nature, or is for the maintenance of the heritage item, archaeological site, or a building, work, relic, tree or place within a heritage conservation area, and (ii) would not adversely affect the significance of the heritage item, archaeological site or heritage conservation area, or (b) the development is in a cemetery or burial ground and the proposed development: (i) is the creation of a new grave or monument, or excavation or disturbance of land for the purpose of conserving or repairing monuments or grave markers, and (ii) would not cause disturbance to human remains, relics, Aboriginal objects in the form of grave goods, or to a place of Aboriginal heritage significance, or (c) the development is limited to the removal of a tree or other vegetation that the consent authority is satisfied is a risk to human life or property, or (d) the development is exempt development.

8.2.5 Building Code of Australia (BCA) The BCA contains technical provisions for the design and construction of buildings and other structures, covering such matters as structure, fire resistance, access and egress, services and equipment, and certain aspects of health and amenity.

8.3 NON-STATUTORY CONTROLS National Trust of Australia The National Trust of Australia is a community-based, non-government organisation, committed to promoting and conserving Australia's indigenous, natural and historic heritage through its advocacy work and its custodianship of heritage places and objects. The Trusts register performs an advisory and educational function. The listing of a place on the register as ‘classification’, has no legal force, nevertheless it is generally accepted as an authoritative declaration of the cultural heritage significance of a place.

University House is listed on the NSW National Trust Register. The building is classified as part of the City Hall Group, which is comprised of University House and: x City Hall including 23 cast iron lamp posts x Civic Centre Building x Christie Place including Shortland Centenary Fountain x Civic Park including mature fig trees on Laman Street

Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter The Australia ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance1999 (Burra Charter) provides the philosophical framework for decisions about items of significance. It includes statements regarding conservation principles, processes and practices and is supplemented by guidelines. Whilst the recommendations of the Charter have no legal status, it is broadly accepted as a basis for heritage conservation philosophy, procedures and practice throughout Australia.

Prepared by EJE Heritage Page 57 Nominated Architect – Peter Campbell No. 4294 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE RAIA 20th Century Buildings of Significance Register The NSW Chapter of the Royal Australian Institute of Architects has maintained a register of notable 20th Century NSW Architecture since October 1949. The listing does not carry statutory obligations.

University House is identified on this register. (Register No. 4702448)

Newcastle Cultural and Civic Precinct draft Master Plan design report NSW Government Architect and Newcastle City Council, October 2003. On 16 March 2004 NCC adopted a Civic and Cultural Precinct Master Plan. The Master Plan for the Civic and Cultural Precinct provides guidelines to promote sustainable development in the vicinity that respects the local landmark values of University House.

Conservation Plan: NESCA HOUSE (EJE ARCHITECTURE, 1990) A Conservation Plan was prepared in 1990 by EJE Architecture; however it was not endorsed by the NSW Heritage Branch.

8.4 CONSTRAINTS & OPPORTUNITIES ARISING OUT OF HERITAGE CURTILAGE & VIEWS Issues Constraints Opportunities Heritage Future development on the site needs Interpretation of former use of the Curtilage to respect original buildings and their building original allotments. The building forms part of the Civic and Cultural Precinct of Newcastle Views Identified view corridors must be Maintain existing landscaping maintained Setting Situated in largely intact heritage Incorporate and draw from conservation area and the Civic and surrounding heritage conservation Cultural Precinct of Newcastle. area.

8.5 CONSTRAINTS & OPPORTUNITIES ARISING OUT OF CONDITION & INTEGRITY OF BUILT FABRIC Element Description Constraints Opportunities Exterior Intact exterior in poor Restoration & Restoration of original 1939 condition conservation of all fabric. remaining original Reconstruction of lost 1939 fabric. significant fabric. Repair or replacement Removal of intrusive elements. with like materials. Interior The interior is in Numerous layout Conservation of some 1939 relatively good alterations with material needs careful condition numerous changes of consideration and regular use maintenance, for example the Scagliola.

8.6 STAKEHOLDERS The following groups are considered stakeholders in the conservation and future use of University House: x Newcastle City Council (Consent Authority) x NSW Heritage Branch (Consent Authority) x Residents of Newcastle (Neighbours)

Prepared by EJE Heritage Page 58 Nominated Architect – Peter Campbell No. 4294 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE The University of Newcastle may wish to seek comment on any future works to the site from these or any other community groups.

8.7 CLIENT’S REQUIREMENTS The University of Newcastle wish to address the following:

x Immediate liability issues, undertake urgent works, and address issues for which further deterioration will result in a significant increase in remediation costs.

x Understand the extent to which the existing building can be modified (including additions) to suit the future accommodation needs of the University within the existing City Campus.

x Understand the existing condition of the building, in particular those elements of heritage significance.

Prepared by EJE Heritage Page 59 Nominated Architect – Peter Campbell No. 4294 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE

9. CONSERVATIONPOLICYANDIMPLEMENTATION

9.1 INTRODUCTION Conservation in this context necessarily relates to the preservation of an item of heritage significance. Specifically, conservation relates to the preservation of the original building form and fabric. Contextually, this building sits well within the streetscape. Its sandstone walls and architectural style have sympathetic links to a number of surrounding buildings. Therefore the external form and appearance of the building is by far the most significant element of the building. The relative heritage values of individual components of internal rooms have been identified in the inventory datasheets (Refer Appendix H). A conservation approach that conserves the original fabric of the building, particularly the external fabric, but allows the adaptive re-use of the building is considered possible and is supported by this Conservation Management Plan.

This Conservation Management Plan therefore requires an approach that identifies the specific items of high quality be identified for conservation, including preservation; restoration; re- construction; adaptive re-use and maintenance. This Conservation Management Plan makes such an identification of all the fabric within the building in the inventory datasheets (Refer Appendix H) for each room or space, and nominates the process for its conservation. Those items that must be conserved are listed as having “Exceptional” significance. Items that have similar but slightly less heritage significance are nominated as “High” significance.

9.2 GENERAL POLICY AND STRATEGY Policy University House is a place of cultural heritage significance, and which should be managed and conserved accordingly for the benefit of future generations.

x The statement of significance should be adopted as one basis for heritage management. All decisions should consider and seek to retain the values identified in the Statement of Significance. x Decisions about the management, conservation, maintenance and development of University House should be carried out in accordance with the Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter. This includes any and all work proposed for the building fabric, the site and context of the building. x This Conservation Management Plan should be distributed to the Newcastle City Council Local Library, the University of Newcastle and Newcastle City Council. This Conservation Management Plan should be made readily accessible to the public. x This Conservation Management Plan should be endorsed by NCC and the University of Newcastle as part of the future management of the site. This Conservation Management Plan should be reviewed on a need-based schedule.

Prepared by EJE Heritage Page 60 Nominated Architect – Peter Campbell No. 4294 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE

9.3 CARE OF FABRIC Policy To retain the form and external fabric of the 1939 Building and 1959 & 1971 sandstone additions. To retain and repair as much of the 1939 internal fabric as possible and to replace missing external fabric of the 1939 building with material of the same detail.

The primary significance of the building is attached to the form, character, façade and remaining original 1939 materials of the building. The façade merits conservation, as does the original internal fabric. The majority of the remaining internal sections of the building do not merit conservation per se, as they have little or no authentic material left, but do retain a distinctive heritage significance associated with the use of the building.

The buildings of heritage significance, the sum of any conservation works is to retain the fabric of significance which makes the place of value. The building is of value not only for its history and architectural style but also its evidence of occupation. In planning and undertaking the works, the first priority is to halt decay or damage to that fabric. Specifically the protection of: x sandstone (1939, 1959, 1971), x trachytes (1939, 1959), x metal windows (1939, 1959), x travertine (1939), scagliola (1939), x scagliola tiles (1939), x rubber flooring (1939), x fibrous plaster (1939), x timber glazed partitioned (1939), x veneered panelling (1939), x and terrazzo (1939).

Much work is needed to halt decay and stabilise some of the fabric (in particular the scagliola and scagliola tile finishes).

In general there are three options for the care of the fabric:

1. Reconstruct the damaged fabric with new fabric exactly to the detail as deducted from existing fabric and drawings.

2. To replace the damaged fabric with new fabric not necessarily the same as the original fabric.

3. Repair the fabric insitu.

Option 1 would result in the building appearing virtually as new.

Option 2 would create an unusual feature of the building with only some internal finish remaining and then obvious areas of replaced fabric. The new work would be obvious and suggest that original material had been lost.

Option 3 would retain the aged appearance of the building and the original material.

Of the three options, Option 3 is the preferred option as it will retain more of the history of the building (than options 1 and 2)

Policy Implementation To implement the policy the following action is recommended:

Prepared by EJE Heritage Page 61 Nominated Architect – Peter Campbell No. 4294 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE x That investigation into the effects of the 1979 silicone treatment of the sandstone be carried out immediately. x A stone repair package the upgrade of the stonework externally should be undertaken. x That works be undertaken to halt decay of significant material. x That consultants and tradesman experienced in heritage conservation of materials be engaged to prepare guidelines and carry out the work. x The remaining significant original fabric having a rating of “Exceptional” or “High” in the Inventory Datasheets (Appendix H) for each room of University House should be preserved, restored and maintained in accordance with the provisions of the Conservation Management Plan. x If opportunity arises, missing original fabric should be reconstructed in the known detail of that fabric. x Intrusive elements that obscure or compromise significant original fabric should be removed when appropriate or when need determines a functional change. x Wherever possible, future developments should allow currently compromised detail and fabric to be revealed and interpreted. x Investigate the removal of intrusive elements, particularly in the light of future uses.

Policy Implementation This section sets out strategies for conservation action based on the principles of the Burra Charter and the information assembled earlier in this work.

The following definitions taken from the Burra Charter are used in the general statement of approach.

- Conservation means all the processes of looking after a place so as to retain its cultural significance. It includes maintenance and may according to circumstance include preservation, restoration, reconstruction and adaption and will be commonly a combination of more than one of these.

- Maintenance means the continuous protective care of the fabric, contents and setting of a place, and is to be distinguished from repair. Repair involves restoration or reconstruction and it should be treated accordingly.

- Preservation means maintaining the fabric of a place in its existing state and retarding deterioration.

- Restoration means returning the existing fabric of a place to a known earlier state by removing accretions or by reassembling existing components without the introduction of new material.

- Reconstruction means returning a place as nearly as possible to a known earlier state and is distinguished by the introduction of materials (new of old) into the fabric. This is not to be confused with either re-creation or conjectural reconstruction which are outside the scope of this Charter.

- Adaption means modifying a place to suit proposed compatible uses.

- Compatible Uses means a use which involves no change to the culturally significant fabric, changes which are substantially reversible, or changes which require a minimal impact.

Prepared by EJE Heritage Page 62 Nominated Architect – Peter Campbell No. 4294 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE

1939 Any work which affects fabric, or spaces of the 1939 building should be confined to preservation, restoration, reconstruction and adaption and compatible uses should be carefully managed. 1959 Work affecting fabric or spaces of the 1959 building is acceptable provided it does not affect the external appearance and form of the building nor interfere with the interpretation of the 1939 building. 1971 Work affecting fabric or spaces of the 1971 building is acceptable provided it does not affect the external appearance and form of the sandstone portion of the addition not interfere with the interpretation of the 1939 building.

Management of fabric of exceptional significance Aim to retain all fabric of exceptional significance.

Guidelines x Preserve, restore, reconstruct in accordance with the Burra Charter. x If adaptation is necessary for the continued use of the place, make changes minimal, do not remove or obscure significant fabric. x Design changes so they are reversible. In this case the condition of some of the buildings will affect the feasibility of conserving them.

Management of fabric of high significance Aim to retain most of the fabric of high significance.

Guidelines x Conservation of the overall form and configuration is desirable. x Some of these items are already substantially altered internally and can accommodate further major changes. x Compatible new construction can be added and fabric may be removed in part as necessary to accommodate new uses. x If adaptation is necessary, more changes can be made than would be possible for fabric of state significance, but the same principles apply. x Retention may depend on issues other than heritage value, such as financial viability.

Management of fabric of moderate significance Fabric may be retained, modified or removed as required for the future use of the place.

Guidelines x Fabric of moderate significance may be removed only if its removal causes no damage to more significant fabric.

Management of fabric of little significance Fabric may be altered or removed with little consequence to the overall significance of the place.

Management of intrusive fabric Remove or alter intrusive fabric to reduce the adverse impact when the opportunity arises.

Guidelines x Appropriate care should be taken when removing intrusive fabric so as to not disturb significant fabric.

Reconstruction of missing fabric Reconstruction of missing fabric may only be undertaken when sufficient documentary evidence survives to form a basis for reconstruction.

Prepared by EJE Heritage Page 63 Nominated Architect – Peter Campbell No. 4294 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE

Guidelines x Reconstruction should not be based on conjecture. x Reconstruction of missing fabric should be conducted by those with professional knowledge and demonstrated experience with buildings and materials of this nature.

9.4 MAINTENANCE WORKS Policy The significant fabric of University House should be maintained by the implementation of a preventative and regular maintenance strategy which should be prepared and implemented by the owners.

As a minimum, the ongoing maintenance should include works that will ensure that each element retains its current level of significance and not allow the loss of significance due to the deterioration of fabric.

Maintenance is an important part in the process of conservation. A cyclical maintenance plan should be developed and coordinated with the management and use of the place. The plan should include actions which effectively maintain significant heritage fabric in accordance with this CMP.

The nature of any building is that its fabric will deteriorate due to the effects of age, maintenance, weather, vegetation incursion and use. To ensure the on-going conservation of significant building fabric, a regular maintenance schedule should be implemented, which provides for regular inspection and for remedial action to be taken where necessary.

The building fabric and services should be subject to continuing care and maintenance by the owners.

Policy Implementation x Prepare a cyclical maintenance plan for University’s House to include regular inspections to be undertaken annually. x Preserve the fabric in the short term by stabilising deterioration (eg making the building water tight and structurally stable). x Preserve the fabric in the long terms by continuing maintenance x Prevention of continuing deterioration should take priority over widespread repair or reconstruction. x Inspection and maintenance works should only be conducted by those with professional knowledge and demonstrated experience with buildings and materials of this nature. x Maintenance works should take regard for the Burra Charter principal of doing as much as necessary but as little as possible. x No maintenance work or repairs should negatively impact on significant fabric

Prepared by EJE Heritage Page 64 Nominated Architect – Peter Campbell No. 4294 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE

9.5 USE OF SITE AND BUILDING Policy That the building be conserved, interpreted and used in accordance with its significance and the principles embodied in the Burra Charter, using the statement of significance.

Policy Implementation To implement the policy the following action is recommended:

x That University House should be used for Commercial purpose x That the general public be allowed access to parts of the building for use and allow for interpretation of significance be made x Any future use of the building must respect the key elements identified for conservation. x There will always be the need to respond to changes in circumstance and use. However a more reversible approach that considers the significant original fabric will be required wherever possible. x Wherever possible, any alterations or additions should preserve the visual aesthetics of University House. x Wherever possible such alterations and additions should work to restore University House.

9.6 APPROPRIATENESS OF USE Policy That University House is used for commercial purposes that allow it to be conserved in accordance with the Burra Charter.

Policy Implementation To implement the policy the following action is recommended: x That works be undertaken to halt decay and water penetration of the building and its finishes. x That guideline’s for the conservation of materials and use of the building be prepared. x That University House be used for commercial purposes that allows it to be conserved in accordance with the Burra Charter and in particular does not require: o Any addition to the external fabric of the building. o Significant demolition of any external sandstone walls. o The unsympathetic insertion of new openings in the sandstone walls (windows and doors). o The unsympathetic removal of existing windows, doors and architectural details of the 1939 design. o The removal of interior finishes and fitments of the 1939 Building.

9.7 NEW WORK POLICIES Policy Appropriate conservation skills and experience should be employed in the documentation and supervision of conservation, maintenance and adaptive re-use programs.

Appropriate Conservation Skills and Experience The Burra Charter encourages the use of skilled and appropriate professional direction and supervision from a range of disciplines for conservation activities.

The skills and experience required and creative approaches taken in the context of a conservation project are quite different to those applied to the design and construction of new buildings.

Prepared by EJE Heritage Page 65 Nominated Architect – Peter Campbell No. 4294 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE Policy Implementation x Multi-disciplined teams should be formed for each project, with appropriate experience in all fields relevant to the brief. x Contractors, project managers and trades personnel should demonstrate their experience in projects of similar scale and complexity for each program of work to University House.

9.7.1 Integration of New Work The scope for the development of University House should be guided by its significance. Reversible alterations could occur to facilitate new/adaptive re-use. New work should be carefully designed and integrated with the original character of the significant components.

Policy The introduction of new fabric should be undertaken in such a manner that it does not result in a lessening of the cultural significance of the place. New work should be identifiable as such and should, wherever possible, be capable of being removed without damage to significant fabric or spaces.

Policy New work should be guided by the policies of this Conservation Management Plan and the identified significance of the place.

Guidelines x The conservation, adaptation and maintenance of University House should be approached with the general principle of changing “as much as necessary but as little as possible”. x When a new function is being introduced, a new architectural vocabulary of details and materials should be adopted to complement the existing architectural character. x Careful detailing will ensure minimal damage to the significant fabric and will allow for reversibility. x Retain significant fabric that is removed from the building for future reinstatement or maintenance where other fabric is beyond repair.

There are constraints that shape the potential future development of University House. However, internal modifications such as the City Hub and Information Common (CHIC) located on the Ground Floor demonstrate that future development is not prohibitive. External modifications such as the Graduate School of Business also illustrate how the exterior of the building can be altered.

The principal constraint to future development that impacts the exterior of the building is the retention (and ongoing maintenance) of existing external fabric and the existing Architectural form of the building. This limits the ceiling space of future developments (such as lecture theatres) to the existing floor to floor dimension and existing roof heights of the building.

The principal constraint to future development that impacts the interior of the building is the retention (and ongoing maintenance) of existing internal fabric of significance such as the scagliola walls, travertine floors, and other items deemed to be of exceptional heritage value. These are predominantly restricted to the public foyers on each level whilst the remainder of the spaces remain free of such fabric, and therefore are more available to development.

Some spaces contain equipment of exceptional heritage value which restricts their ability to be modified for alternative use. The original demonstration theatre is fitted with a rotating tiered seating bay which dictates the use of the space. One proposal could be to relocate and rebuild the rotating seating bay within a museum such as Sydney’s Powerhouse, thus availing the space for alternative use such as an extension of the CHIC or a 50 seat Seminar Space.

Prepared by EJE Heritage Page 66 Nominated Architect – Peter Campbell No. 4294 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE 9.8 NEW WORKS RESULTING FROM STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS Policy When taking into consideration compliance with Codes and Regulations seek to prevent or minimise their impact on significant fabric. Advice should be sought from specialist consultants and/or the Heritage Councils Fire Access and Service Advisory Panel (FASAP).

Policy Implementation Works to ensure the following codes and regulations are satisfied is acceptable provided all possible options for compliances have been investigated, considered and logically agreed prior to proceeding: x Compliance with relevant current building safety codes x Compliance with relevant current fire safety codes x Compliance with relevant emergency exit egress path requirements x Compliance with relevant disabled access and freedom of access codes

Policy Implementation x Conservation and on-going use programs should not place undue stress on the building fabric in order to meet excessive requirements of ordinance compliance. x Methods of complying with ordinance requirements which utilise fire or smoke detection and active fire suppression are preferred to the addition of fire rating material, which may obscure extant finishes. x Future upgrades of the building should take into consideration any newly developed approaches for the implementation of fire safety standards that do not harm the existing significant fabric. x When dealing with disability access issues, refer to the document “Access to Heritage Buildings for People with Disabilities” prepared by E.J. Martin (Cox), August 1997. x Consultation with the NSW Heritage Branch FASAP advisory panel may also assist in achieving appropriate compliance solution.

9.9 RECORDING POLICIES FOR CONSERVATION WORK Policy Prior to, during and after any proposed fabric intervention or conservation work, the area and materials are to be fully recorded using: x How to Prepare Archival Records of Heritage Items, Heritage Office, 1995, revised 1998 x Photographic Recording Of Heritage Items Using Film or Digital Capture, Heritage Office 2001, revised 2004, 2006

These records are to be kept as part of a permanent collection within University House and to be used as reference material for all works and actions on the University House Building. Copies of all record documents are to be kept by the National Trust at Regional and State level as well as provided to the local authorities as background for approval processes (specifically in the National Trust Archive at Observatory Hill and in control of the National Trust Architect).

Policy Implementation This policy is to be implemented in conjunction with any proposed construction work on the University House Building.

Further, as an initial establishment process, all documentary material associated with University House is to be collected, catalogued, stored and displayed in the building so that information is made available to those using the building. 9.10 POLICIES FOR INTERPRETATION Policy

Prepared by EJE Heritage Page 67 Nominated Architect – Peter Campbell No. 4294 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE An interpretation strategy for University House should be prepared and implemented by the owners.

Interpretation is intended to increase the public’s understanding and appreciation of the place by presenting the history and significance of the place, which is otherwise not obvious by its fabric and setting.

An Interpretation Strategy provides policies and strategies and should identify key themes and relevant audiences, with recommendations of appropriate media. Appropriate media may include signs, guided tours, events, displays, exhibitions, lighting, oral history, publications, artwork and educational programs.

An interpretation strategy for the University House Building should be prepared and implemented for visitors to have a greater understanding of the cultural significance of the place.

Policy Implementation a) Interpretation should provide equitable physical, spiritual and intellectual access to the cultural significance of University House. b) Interpretation of University House should take into account all the historic phases of the sites history and be presented in an accurate and insightful manner. It should reveal and interpret the significance of the building. c) Reference should be made to the NSW Heritage Branch Publication Interpreting Heritage Places and Items Guidelines 2005. d) Appropriate conservation skills and experience should be employed in the documentation and supervision of interpretation works and works.

9.11 CONSERVING THE CULTURAL LANDSCAPE AND SIGNIFICANT SPATIAL RELATIONSHIPS Policy The heritage curtilage as defined in Section 8 of this document should be adopted and consciously protected.

Ensure that the cultural significance of the buildings, landscape and overall site, as well as the linkages to the Civic and cultural precinct and Conservation Area continue to be acknowledged and appreciated by future generations.

The relationship and setting between University House and the Civic and Cultural Precinct of Newcastle is significant and it is for this reason that any work on or in the vicinity of either must consider the impact upon the other.

Implementation a) The defined curtilage in this document of University House should be considered and managed in accordance with any future strategies. b) Views to the site from the streetscape, where currently available, be protected and enhanced where possible. c) Any proposed significant development or works within the curtilage should take into consideration the impacts on the cultural significance of the Civic and Cultural Precinct. d) The design of signage should not detract from the visual character of the place e) Retain existing landscaping

Prepared by EJE Heritage Page 68 Nominated Architect – Peter Campbell No. 4294 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE

10. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Official Sources

1. Records of the Newcastle Council, 1937-1959

Minute Books and report on the N.E.S.C.A. House site, Newcastle Region Public Library.

2. Records of the Shortland County Council

Plans and photos relating to N.E.S.C.A. House, Shortland County Council Administration Centre, Wallsend.

3. Biographical notes of the Australian Dictionary of Biography, Australian National University, Canberra, A.C.T.

4. Architectural index, Stanton University Library, Sydney

Published Sources

1. H. Tanner (ed) Architects of Australia, Melbourne 1981

2. Australian Dictionary of biography, Biographical Register

3. J. Armstrong (ed) Shaping the Hunter, Newcastle 1983

4. Australia Architects 1901-1951

5. R. Appealy, R. Irving, P. Reynolds, A Pictorial Guide to Identifying Australian Architecture, Angus and Robertson, 1989

6. James Semple Kerr The Conservation Plan, The National Trust of Australia (NSW) 1982

Newspapers

1. Newcastle Morning Herald, 1935-1988

2. N.E.S.C.A. House and Shortland County Council Cuttings Files, Newcastle Region Public Library

Prepared by EJE Heritage Page 69 Nominated Architect – Peter Campbell No. 4294 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE

APPENDIX A: CONSERVATION TERMINOLOGY

Prepared by EJE Heritage Nominated Architect – Peter Johnson #3700 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE CONSERVATION TERMINOLOGY

The terms place, cultural significance, fabric, maintenance, compatible use, preservation, reconstruction, restoration, adaptation and conservation used throughout this report are as defined in Burra Charter, Article 1.1 to 1.17.

1.1 Place means site, area, land, landscape, building or other works, group of buildings or other works, and may include components, contents, spaces and views.

1.2 Cultural Significance means aesthetic, historic, scientific, social or spiritual value for past, present or future generations. Cultural significance is embodied in the place itself, its fabric, setting, use, associations, meanings, records, elated places and related objects. Places may have a range of values for different individuals or groups.

1.3 Fabric means all the physical material of the place including components, fixtures, contents and objects.

1.4 Conservation means all the processes of looking after a place so as to retain its cultural significance.

1.5 Maintenance means the continuous protective care of the fabric and setting of a place, and is to be distinguished from repair. Repair involves restoration or reconstruction.

1.6 Preservation means maintaining the fabric of a place in its existing state and retarding deterioration.

1.7 Restoration means returning the existing fabric of a place to a known earlier state by removing accretions or by reassembling existing components without the introduction of new material.

1.8 Reconstruction means returning a place to a known earlier state and is distinguished from the restoration by the introduction of new materials into the fabric.

1.9 Adaptation means modifying a place to suit the existing use or a proposed use.

1.10 Use means the functions of a place, as well as the activities and practices that may occur at the place.

1.11 Compatible use means a use which respects the cultural significance of a place. Such use involves no, or minimal impact, on cultural significance.

1.12 Setting means the area around a place, which may include the visual catchment.

1.13 Related place means a place that contributes to the cultural significance of another place.

1.14 Related object means an object that contributes to the cultural significance of a place, but is not that place.

1.15 Associations mean the special connections that exist between people and a place.

1.16 Meanings denote what a place signifies, indicates, evokes or expresses.

1.17 Interpretation means all the ways of presenting the cultural significance of a place.

Prepared by EJE Heritage Nominated Architect – Peter Johnson #3700 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE

APPENDIX B: REDUCTIONS SUGGESTED BY THE ARCHITECT, 25 OCTOBER 1937

Prepared by EJE Heritage Nominated Architect – Peter Johnson #3700 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE

APPENDIX C: ELECTRICAL ENGINEER AND MANAGERS REPORT

Prepared by EJE Heritage Nominated Architect – Peter Johnson #3700 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE

APPENDIX D: PART OF 1939 COMMEMORATIVE BOOKLET

Prepared by EJE Heritage Nominated Architect – Peter Johnson #3700 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE

APPENDIX E: ONLINE HERITAGE LISTING DATABASE SHEETS

Prepared by EJE Heritage Nominated Architect – Peter Johnson #3700 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE

APPENDIX F: MINIMUM STANDARDS OF MAITENANCE AND REPAIR

Prepared by EJE Heritage Nominated Architect – Peter Johnson #3700 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UNIVERSITY HOUSE, NEWCASTLE

APPENDIX G: STANDARD EXEMPTIONS

Prepared by EJE Heritage Nominated Architect – Peter Johnson #3700 8836-CMP-Volume 1 of 3.doc