Email [email protected] Phone 0412 673 548 Address PO Box 479 Lindfield NSW 2070 Australia
Port Arthur Visitor Centre and Site Entry Precinct
Heritage Impact Assessment
August 2016
mackaystrategic.com.au
ABN 26 602 859 414 1
Contents
1. Background ...... 3 2. Heritage Impact Assessment Brief ...... 3 3. Methodology ...... 4 4. The Place ...... 7 5. The Project ...... 8 6. Statutory Context ...... 16 7. Heritage Values and Cultural Significance ...... 20 8. Analysis of Issues and Impacts ...... 22 9. Effect on Heritage Values and Cultural Significance ...... 33 10. Compliance ...... 34 11. Mitigative Measures ...... 36 12. Recommendations and Conclusion ...... 38 Annexures ...... 42 Annexure A: Australian Convict Sites: Statement of Outstanding Universal Value Annexure B: Port Arthur Historic Site National Heritage List – Summary Statement of Significance and Official Values
Annexure C: Port Arthur Historic Site: Statutory Management Plan – Summary Statements of Heritage Value
Annexure D: Port Arthur Historic Site: Tasmanian Heritage Register – Official Summary Statement of State Heritage Values
Annexure E: Port Arthur Historic Site: heritage values and cultural significance matrix
Annexure F: Port Arthur Visitor Centre Redevelopment: projects drawings prepared by Rosevear Stephenson
Annexure G: Port Arthur Visitor Centre Redevelopment: Architecture Modelling and Site View Analysis prepared by Rosevear Stephenson] Annexure H: Documents Consulted
Annexure I: National Heritage Management Principles
Annexure J: Acknowledgements
mackaystrategic.com.au ABN 26 602 859 414 2
1. Background Prof Richard Mackay, AM of Mackay Strategic Pty Ltd has been engaged by the Port Arthur Historic Site Management Authority (PAHSMA) to prepare a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for the proposed Redevelopment of The Port Arthur Visitor Centre and Site Entry Precinct (the Project).
PAHSMA is responsible for the management of visitor services and conservation for three of the sites listed as part of the Australian Convict Sites World Heritage Property:
Port Arthur Historic Site – Arthur Highway, Port Arthur, Tasmania; Coal Mines Historic Site – Saltwater River, Tasmania; and Cascades Female Factory – Degraves Street, Hobart, Tasmania. The Authority’s Vision is: to conserve, manage and promote the Port Arthur Historic Sites as cultural tourism places of international significance1.
The existing Visitor Centre at Port Arthur was designed in the 1990s, and no longer reflects the needs and expectations of visitors, nor the operational requirements of PAHSMA. In October 2014 the PAHSMA Board determined that a redevelopment study of the Visitor Centre and site entry precinct should be undertaken, comprising a staged masterplanning exercise, during which a range of options were identified and analysed. In February 2016 the PAHSMA Board determined that the existing Visitor Centre should be redeveloped and in April 2016 a preferred scheme (the Project) was selected.
2. Heritage Impact Assessment Brief The brief for this Heritage Impact Assessment requires evaluation of the potential impacts of the Project on the heritage values of the Port Arthur Historic Site, together with any recommendations as to mitigating measures for aspects of the proposal which present potential risk. The HIA will form part of statutory applications to local, state and Commonwealth agencies. The HIA should particularly consider implications arising from World Heritage listing and issues arising from the status of the site as part of the Australian Convict Sites World Heritage Property and its inclusion on the National Heritage List and Tasmanian Heritage Register. PAHSMA proposes to refer the Project to the Commonwealth Department of the Environment to seek confirmation that the Project is not a ‘controlled action’ within the meaning of the Environment Protection Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cwth) (EPBC Act) and to seek works approval under the Historic Cultural Heritage Act 1995 (Tas) (HCH Act), through an application for development consent to Tasman Council.
1 See: http://portarthur.org.au/pahsma/about‐us/
mackaystrategic.com.au ABN 26 602 859 414 3
3. Methodology Consistent with the Statutory Management Plan for the Port Arthur Historic Sites, this HIA recognises that the outstanding heritage values of the place imposes an overarching conservation obligation:
In order to achieve the long‐term conservation of the Port Arthur Historic Sites and retention of identified heritage values, the primacy of conservation over other management objectives must be recognised2, and that decisions need to be based on a proper understanding of heritage values:
All management decisions that have the potential to affect the heritage values of the Port Arthur Historic Sites must be founded on a clear understanding of those values. The heritage impact of decisions must be stated and evaluated as part of the decision‐making process3.
This approach embodies the principles and processes of the Burra Charter4 and is consistent with statutory assessment frameworks provided in the relevant legislation, such as the EPBC Act and the HCH Act. It is also consistent with the Guidance on Heritage Impact Assessments for Cultural World Heritage Properties, published by ICOMOS in conjunction with the World Heritage Centre5.
The Project predominantly affects a relatively new building, constructed in the late 1990s to provide visitor services. While this building is itself not identified as having heritage values, it is now part of the overall landscape setting for the Port Arthur Historic Site. The Port Arthur Landscape Management Plan recognises the interrelationship between the place and its landscape setting:
The setting for the Port Arthur Historic site is an important aspect of its cultural significance. In a cultural landscape sense, the setting is not separate from the Historic Site.
Inappropriate development or activities within the wider setting of the Historic site have capacity to significantly impact on the historical character of the site and a diminished visitors experiences6.
This HIA therefore takes a holistic values‐based approach, considering both potential physical impacts, such as possible removal of archaeological features or changes to significant vegetation, as well as less‐tangible
2 Port Arthur Historic Sites Statutory Management Plan: Overarching Principles page 95 3 Port Arthur Historic Sites Statutory Management Plan: Overarching Principles page 96 4 The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance, 2013 5 ICOMOS, 2011. Guidance on Heritage Impact Assessments for Cultural World Heritage Properties. A publication of the International Council on Monuments and Sites. ICOMOS, Paris, France, in collaboration with the World Heritage Centre. 6 Port After Historic site Landscape Management Plan 2000, page 90
mackaystrategic.com.au ABN 26 602 859 414 4
aspects such as views to and from, visitor experiences, the nature of the nearby Memorial Garden and interpretation opportunities.
3.1 Approach to different heritage values assessments There are a range of different listing citations, statements of significance and assessments of heritage value for the Port Arthur Historic Site. Those of particular relevance to this HIA include the Statement of Outstanding Universal Value for the Australian Convict Sites World Heritage Property, the Australian National Heritage List Summary Statement of Significance and Official Values, the Tasmanian Heritage Register Official Summary Statement of Heritage values and the Summary Statement of Significance from the Port Arthur Historic Sites Statutory Management Plan. All of these assessments are provided in annexes to this HIA. Owing to different conventions and statutory requirements, they do not apply a uniform set of criteria, but there is considerable overlap.
In interests of distilling those values which could be affected by the Project, the following attributes have been considered collectively, in a summary matrix at Annexure E: Historic, Aesthetic, Scientific/Research, Social, Technical, Association with Significant People, Representativeness/Principal Characteristics, Rarity, Indigenous, and Natural. This analysis concludes that relatively few attributes of heritage value could potentially be affected by the Project; and it is these attributes that are addressed in the main body of the HIA. While the relevant attributes are few in number, the possible adverse impact is nevertheless considerable. While the project is an extension to an existing building, the additional works will present as a visible built element in an historic cultural landscape and could potentially affect the integrity of the Port Arthur Historic Site.
3.2 Assessing Compliance In addition to evaluating heritage impacts, this HIA also considers compliance with applicable policies and requirements of the Port Arthur Historic Sites Statutory Management Plan, which specifies that
New proposals should be assessed to ensure that they are consistent with the policies of this management plan and with the Authority’s Ministerial Charter. The process should include an assessment of any potential impacts on the heritage values of the Historic Sites and any financial impact on the Authority. It should also include mechanisms for appropriate community and stakeholder consultation.
Decisions about new proposals will be in compliance with the policies of this management plan, and will be based on an assessment of potential impacts on the heritage values of the Historic Sites and consideration of alternative options with lesser impact, and on any potential financial impact7.
7 Port Arthur Historic Sites Statutory Management Plan: New Proposals Assessment, page 111
mackaystrategic.com.au ABN 26 602 859 414 5
3.3 Avoiding and Mitigating Heritage Impacts The HIA process has also involved liaison with PAHSMA, the Project Architects and Project Director, so that potential impacts have been identified early, avoided where possible or otherwise addressed through mitigative measures.
3.4 Documents Consulted A list of the documents consulted as part of the preparation of this HIA is provided at Annexure H.
3.3 Site Inspections Site inspections took place between 15 and 17 June 2016. During the inspections, the Project and its potential implications were considered from a range of viewpoints and discussions were held on site with PAHSMA staff, the Project Architects, Project Director and the Port Arthur Conservation Advisory Committee.
3.5 Consultation Consultation has occurred with:
Martin Stephenson, Rosevear Stephenson Architects; Michael Pender, Project Director, HPA Projects; PAHSMA personnel, including Prof Sharon Sullivan, Chair of the Board, Kristal Buckley, Board Member, Stephen Large, Chief Executive Officer, Dr Jane Harrington, Director Conservation & Infrastructure; Lucy Burke‐Smith, Conservation Manager; Dr David Roe, Archaeology Manager; Dr Jody Steele, Heritage Programs Manager; and Ms Anne McVilly, Director Tourism Operations; The Port Arthur Conservation Advisory Committee, (Helen Lardner (Chair), John Hawker, Richard Mulvaney, Dr Michael Pearson, Diane Snowden); Narelle Sutherland & Heather Agnew from the Assessments Division and Leanne Burrows and Nigar Riva from the Wildlife Heritage and Marine Division of the Australian Department of the Environment; The Tasmanian Heritage Council and Pete Smith, Director, and Russell Dobie, Assessing Officer, as well as other Staff from Heritage Tasmania; and Rob Higgins, General Manager and Shane Wells, Planner from Tasman Council.; Mayor Rosanne Heyward and Members of Tasman Council
The HIA process has not included separate assessment of ‘social’ values through community consultation, nor engagement with Aboriginal agencies or stakeholders. However PAHSMA has regularly discussed the project with the PAHSMA Community Advisory Committee and included their feedback in design considerations.
mackaystrategic.com.au ABN 26 602 859 414 6
4. The Place The Port Arthur Historic Site comprises more than 30 convict‐built structures and substantial ruins in a picturesque and relatively undisturbed landscape of 136 hectares. The extensive suite of structures and their layout reflect the importance of the penal station, its self‐sufficiency and the evolution of penal practices over several decades. The civil and military buildings form two groups at either end of the station. Elevated above the convict precinct are the Church, Parsonage and houses for the Visiting Magistrate and Roman Catholic Chaplain reflecting the pivotal role of religion. The houses of the Junior Medical Officer, Accountant and Government Cottage are also located in this area. At the other end of the penal station are the Commandant’s House, Officers’ Quarters, Guard Tower, Watchmen’s Quarters and ruins of the Senior Military Officer’s Quarters, Law Courts and the Military Barracks8.
The cultural heritage values of the Port Arthur Historic Site are complex. They are found in intangible elements—such as its historical significance and community attachments—and its physical characteristics. The latter comprise a complex layering of natural landscape and topography, with subsequent layers of remnant structures, archaeological evidence and landscape plantings of the former penal settlements and Carnarvon township. The existing appearance of the physical landscape at the Port Arthur Historic Site, which largely comprises historic buildings and ruins in a parkland setting, is predominantly the result of a management approach pursued by the Scenery Preservation Board, the Tasmanian National Parks and Wildlife Service, and the early years of the Authority9.
8 Adapted from Australian Convict Sites World Heritage Nomination 9 Adapted from Port Arthur Historic Site Statutory Management Plan, 2008, p.32
mackaystrategic.com.au ABN 26 602 859 414 7
Figure 1: Port Arthur Historic Site, showing location of the Visitor Centre and Site Entry Precinct
5. The Project 5.1 Context The Port Arthur Historic Site has been a tourist attraction for a much longer period than it was a penal settlement, and tourism is integral to the current operation and economic sustainability of the Site. The Visitor Centre, which was built in the late 1990s, is the primary facility for these services, acting as gateway and commencement point for introductory tours.
In 1998 visitation to Port Arthur was c210,000 people. The summer peak visitation average was c850 people per day. In 2014 this summer peak day rose to c1600 people. Within the broader context of Tasmanian tourism, the total number of visitors to Tasmania increased by 4% in 2014 to just over 1.1 million people. Projections suggest that by 2030 Port Arthur could have an annual visitation of more than 400,000 with peak day visitation in excess of 2300.
The current Visitor Centre facilities are not adequate to meet this expected demand. The operational demands on the building during peak visitation periods already exceed the building’s capacity. There is increased
mackaystrategic.com.au ABN 26 602 859 414 8
pressure on back of house facilities inclusive of storage, deliveries and waste management. In addition PAHSMA’s requirements for office accommodation within the building have increased substantially since it opened, including increased responsibilities under WHS legislation and guidelines.
In combination with the associated car park and traffic arrangements, the Visitor Centre lacks a ‘sense of arrival’ and forgoes the opportunity to interpret the place to arriving visitors, until they reach the ground‐level interpretation gallery. The current interpretation facilities, although innovative when first installed, no longer reflect Port Arthur’s aim to deliver best practice and do not convey a full suite of information about the heritage values of the place, particularly as part of the Australian Convict Sites World Heritage Property.
5.2 Existing Building The existing Visitor Centre is a self‐evidently modern building, constructed using a concrete frame with a simple truss roof. External cladding is timber boarding and the roof is a zinc sheet material. Internally, the fit‐ out of the building primarily relates to food and beverage (i.e. kitchens, food storage and servery), retail shop, back of house staff offices and an interpretation gallery located on the lower storey level. PAHSMA has undertaken a range of works to correct roof and flooring problems since the building opened.
5.3 Proposed Building The siting and design of the building follows an extensive Masterplanning exercise which considered alternate development locations and their potential to deliver the operational and functional requirements of the Visitor Centre while minimising impact to the values of the place, its setting and context and key views and vistas.
Following this exercise it was determined that an extension to the footprint of the existing building presented a lesser potential impact than the development of an entirely new facility. It was demonstrated that the additional floor area could be contained within an extrusion of the current envelope and that the overall form could step down as it interfaced with the adjacent quarry face providing a grounding and solidity to the structure. A palate of recessive materials will sit subtly within the landscape as it is noted that this area is shaded for a substantial portion of the day, further mitigating its impact to the culturally significant setting. At no point does the extension exceed the height of the existing envelope and the ridge line of the current building has over time nestled below deciduous and evergreen canopies of trees along Jetty Road and along Tarleton Street. A change in colouring to the timber boarding of the existing building is a simple but effective means of reducing the visual impacts of the building within the setting.
The fenestration of the building has been carefully considered so as to provide filters views toward key features as a means of improving the sense of arrival, destination and orientation. In doing so views toward the Memorial Gardens and Broad Arrow Café are restricted so as to allow for privacy within this area.
mackaystrategic.com.au ABN 26 602 859 414 9
The project architects, Rosevear Stephenson have provided the following architectural Statement about the project:
In broad terms the work is; the removal of the existing lean‐to shop to give space to the arrival court, the extension of the existing building section to the south to provide a new tall volume entry, the decanting of Felons and Administration into a new lower height addition to the south and the provision a new broad stair to make a grand and more legible connection between arrival and site access. A new deep awning unites the old and the new and provides a generous covered area for external gathering at arrival.
An uncomplicated and recessive palette of materials is proposed. The existing building, as presented at arrival, has vertical timber battens added and the whole refinished in black satin stain, the battens give a new order to the expression which is carried over into the glazing for the new entry to unite the two. The addition is in charcoal black brick with deep openings to acknowledge the solid and void character of the place ‐ a timeless and modest material of permanence, the depth and proportion of window openings providing a sense of passive overview.
Internally the rationale is to declutter and provide light filled open spaces that seek not to distract the visitors purpose. Thresholds between areas are articulated to identify space and use, and to clarify the process of transit through the building. Glazing is provided where a view to the site is available to orientate the visitor.
Landscaping is limited to the extension, legibility and rationalisation of the arrival and site access courts and the minimum clearing and management of the bushland, is required for the new footprint, and to achieve view corridors from selected locations.
The ambition of the building is to emphasise the emotional encounter with Port Arthur, and as such the building itself aims to; be calm and restrained in its expression, be clear about its position in time, provide orientation and surveillance, and be in proud service to the site.
5.4 Drawings and Images The Project that is assessed in this HIA is documented by the following drawings, artists impressions and photomontages which are included as Annexures F and G:
Drawings A1.02 Issue F 22 August 2016 1:200@A1 Site Plan A2.01 Issue F 27 August 2016 1:200@A1 Level 1 & 2 General Arrangement Plans A2.02 Issue F 22 August 2016 1:100@A1 Level 1 Floor Plan A2.03 Issue F 22 August 20161:100@A1 Level 2 Floor Plan A3.01 Issue F 22 August 2016 various scale Elevations
mackaystrategic.com.au ABN 26 602 859 414 10
A3.02 Issue F 22 August 2016 1:100@A1 Elevations A3.04 Issue F 22 August 20161:100@A1 Sections
Photomontages – View points View Point 1 Government Gardens Fountain S 43o05’756” E 147o5’967” 50mm camera lens height RL6.5 AHD View point 2 Memorial Garden S 43o08’787” E 147o151’093” 50mm camera lens height RL6.5 AHD View point 3 Commandants Cottage Verandah S 43o08’923” E 147o151’062” 50mm camera lens height RL17.5 AHD View point 4 Hospital Hill from Smith O Brien’s S 43o08’939” E 147o50’998” 50mm camera lens height RL25.5 AHD View point 5 Penitentiary steps northwest end S 43o08’863” E 147o50’996” 50mm camera lens height RL3.5 AHD View Point 6 Government Cottage Terrace S 43o08’720” E 147o50’915” 50mm camera lens height RL14.5 AHD
mackaystrategic.com.au ABN 26 602 859 414 11
Figure 2: Port Arthur Historic Site: aerial view showing footprint of the existing and proposed Visitor Centre.
mackaystrategic.com.au ABN 26 602 859 414 12
Figure 3: Proposed Visitor Centre – Site Plan (A1.02 Issue F 22 August 2016)
Figure 4: Proposed Visitor Centre – Eastern Elevation (A3.01 Issue F 22 August 2016)
mackaystrategic.com.au ABN 26 602 859 414 13
Figure 5: Proposed Visitor Centre –Western Elevation (A3.01 Issue F 22 August 2016)
Figure 6: Proposed Visitor Centre – Southern Elevation (A3.02 Issue F 22 August 2016)
5.5 Interpretation The Project includes a major upgrade to the interpretation provided within the Visitor Centre and Site Entry Precinct. The Visitor Centre is the primary facility for tourism services and the portal which connects arriving visitors with the Historic Site beyond. Interior facilities, including the interpretation gallery space, are to be upgraded. The current Visitor Centre interpretation gallery was installed in 1999, and, although the concept remains fit for its original purpose, broader interpretive themes should be included within the Port Arthur Visitor interpretation experience, including recognition of the values identified in the Statement of Outstanding Universal Value which underpins the inscription of the Australian Convict Sites property on the World Heritage List. This Project offers an opportunity to tap into new and developing interpretive techniques and technologies, refresh and renew the visitor interpretation ‘experience’ and allow for these new stories and methods to be incorporated within the new gallery and transitional spaces. This in turn will allow a broader range of heritage values and messages to be transmitted to visitors, and the adoption of approaches that connect through multiple communication methodologies.
mackaystrategic.com.au ABN 26 602 859 414 14
5.6 Visitor Facilities The project will substantially improve visitor facilities at the Port Arthur Historic Site. Commencing with arrival, the opportunity will be taken to improve the sense of arrival at this significant site and to convey visitor information. Internally reconfiguration will remedy the current complex route, over‐crowding and convoluted transitions between retail shop, site entry, cafe and restaurant.
The building design provides improved visual access to the site, creating better visitor understanding and a sense of ‘overview’. The redesign of the Visitor Centre, its signage and interpretation and integration with the arrival and departure forecourt will better orient the visitor within the Historic Site, thereby improving visitor wayfinding.
5.7 Stakeholder Consultation The master planning exercise has already involved extensive stakeholder consultation, between July and September 2015, in the form of seven consultative forums, two questionnaires and associated presentations. The summary findings of this process were:
consensus that the Visitor Centre plays a critical role in site management of visitors and of raising revenue that in turn supports the site; a picture of significant dysfunction, congestion, confusion at the site entry point due to the building’s capacity limit particularly in the peak summer period; consensus about significant WH&S issues that are inherent in the building; a desire for significant or major alteration and change to both the facility and visitor management systems / procedures; consensus about predicted increased visitation to the site into the future.
Over the last three years the redevelopment of the Visitor Centre has been a standing item on the agenda for the PAHSMA Community Advisory Committee (PCAC), which meets every two months. As well as members drawn broadly from the local community the membership includes representation from the tourism industry, the local council, the local school and the local historical society. PCAC have endorsed the proposal of a redesign with the only concern expressed being potential for impact on the amenity of the Memorial Garden.
5.8 Design Process and Alternatives Considered The master planning and design process has been thoughtful, staged and iterative.
Following initial scoping and site analysis four broad options, at a range of locations, were developed and costed. They ranged from minimal intervention to major development focused on addressing a 50 year life cycle. Given the importance of the place as part of a World Heritage Property, listed at both national and state levels, an assessment matrix was developed to facilitate review of each option. The assessment matrix
mackaystrategic.com.au ABN 26 602 859 414 15
provided the opportunity of reviewing each option against broad parameters including functional objectives, ability to cater to visitation projections, statutory and heritage issues, cost and program. Based on this analysis, a decision was made to redevelop the existing Visitor Centre building and associated precinct and to pursue an option that had minimal impact on heritage values. Three options for this redevelopment were prepared, each with similar planning principles, but offering different functional responses and building footprints. Two options were developed in detail and the preferred scheme, comprising the current Project, was selected by the PAHSMA Board in June 2016. The PAHSMA Board includes two members who are highly experienced in cultural heritage at an international level: Sharon Sullivan and Kristal Buckley.
Throughout the evaluation process, heritage was a primary concern. Input has been provided by expert PAHSMA staff, a Project Control Group and the Port Arthur Conservation Advisory Committee. The refinement process has continued following the selection of the preferred scheme, with elements (such as a proposed lookout) deleted and discussions regarding facade modulation, materials, colours, views to and from and visibility in the Port Arthur cultural landscape.
6. Statutory Context
6.1 National Legislation - Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999
Port Arthur Historic Site is one of the 11 places that comprise the Australian Convict Sites World Heritage Property which was inscribed on the World Heritage List in 2010. As a State Party, Australia is bound by the World Heritage Convention10 and must comply with the Operational Guidelines11 to the Convention. This is achieved through the arrangements set out in the Australia Convict Site Strategic Management Framework 2008 which outlines the applicable legislative regimes across Australia’s three levels of government. Port Arthur Historic Site is also on the National Heritage List12 and the Tasmanian Heritage Register13.
World Heritage management is primarily achieved through the EPBC Act, which prescribes that World Heritage Properties are matters of ‘National Environmental Significance’, as are National Heritage places. It is therefore open to the relevant Commonwealth Minister to become a consent authority for the Project, in view of its potential impact on a ‘matter of national environmental significance’14. The Commonwealth Minister may also
10 The Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage adopted by the General Conference of UNESCO on 16 November 1972 11 http://whc.unesco.org/en/guidelines/ 12 Established by the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 13 Established by the Historic Cultural Heritage Act 1995 14 https://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/what‐is‐protected
mackaystrategic.com.au ABN 26 602 859 414 16
become a consent authority if the Project were to involve an action by the Commonwealth which affects the environment (including heritage values)15.
The EPBC Act provides for the Commonwealth Minister (or delegate) to become the consent authority for a ‘controlled action’, the test for which is whether the proposed activity will have a ‘significant impact’. The EPBC Act allows proponents to ‘refer’ an action to the Minister (or delegate) for a decision as to whether an action should be ‘controlled’. Depending on the decision taken by the Minister (or delegate) different amounts of information may be required before a decision (on a controlled action and/or to grant approval) can be made.
6.2 State Legislation
The Tasmanian legislation which applies directly to Port Arthur Historic Site includes:
Port Arthur Historic Sites Management Act 1987; National Parks and Reserves Management Act 2002; Government Business Enterprises Act 1995; Nature Conservation Act 2002; Aboriginal Relics Act 1975; Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993, and State Coastal Policy Validation Act 2003.
The heritage impact of the Project is appropriately assessed in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Port Arthur Historic Sites Management Act, the Historic Cultural Heritage Act, the Aboriginal Relics Act; and the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act.
6.3 Port Arthur Historic Site Management Authority Act 1987 (Tas)
The main functions of the Port Arthur Historic Site Management Authority, as defined by the Port Arthur Historic Site Management Authority Act, are to:
Ensure the preservation and maintenance of the historic sites under its management as examples of major convict settlement sand penal institution of the 19th Century; Co‐ordinate archaeological activities on the site; Promote an understanding of the historical and archaeological importance of the site; Promote the site as a tourist destination;
15 Section 28 of the EPBC Act; The EPBC definition of ‘environment’ includes the ‘heritage values of a place’
mackaystrategic.com.au ABN 26 602 859 414 17
Use its best endeavours to secure financial assistance by way of grants, sponsorship and other means; and Provide adequate facilities for the use of visitors16.
The Project is aligned with and incorporates direct implementation of these objectives.
6.4 Historic Cultural Heritage Act, 1995 (Tas)
The Port Arthur Historic Site is entered on the Tasmanian Heritage Register and therefore the proposed works to the Visitor Centre will require a permit from the Tasmanian Heritage Council, under Part 6 of the Historic Cultural Heritage Act 1995. The Tasmanian Heritage Council has issued ‘Works Guidelines’ (2015) to guide this process. The guidelines provide informative commentary, and specify ‘appropriate outcomes’ for different types of work. The guidelines for ‘New Buildings’ are primarily relevant (even though the construction is an extension to an existing building), but those covering ‘Historic Plantings and Landscapes’ and ‘Excavation and Archaeological Investigation’ are also relevant. The Works Guidelines specify that appropriate outcomes are new buildings that respond positively to:
The character of the heritage place. This will normally require consideration of such aspects such as the siting and setting, scale, massing, form and style of historic buildings; materials, building techniques and details; and significant views of these places . . . The scale of the heritage place and its setting. This will mean different things in different contexts . . . The form of the heritage place and setting. Aspects to consider include roofline and roof forms; choice of materials; and the design and arrangement of facades and their window and door arrangement. Established and important streetscapes or significant views. Aspects such as orientation, location and setbacks should be considered. Significant landscape and landform elements and/or significant archaeological values should also be considered when selecting the location for a new building. Existing historic building materials, textures and colour. These characteristics can be creatively reinterpreted as part of a new building. Details that contribute to the character of a place or an area, including things such as predominate building materials; roof forms and materials; chimneys, parapets and so on. Such details do not need to be replicated, but can act as cues for the design details in new buildings17.
The Works Guidelines specify that appropriate outcomes for historic plantings and landscapes include:
16 Port Arthur Historic Site Management Authority Act 1987, Section 7 17 Tasmanian Heritage Council Works Guidelines – New Buildings, page 34 (with irrelevant text deleted)
mackaystrategic.com.au ABN 26 602 859 414 18
Retaining significant historic plantings is the preferred option. Where removal is agreed to, a replacement planting may be required. Removing a significant tree or undertaking substantial pruning, where supported by an arborist’s assessment18.
The Works Guidelines note that for excavation and archaeological Investigation:
The Heritage Council may require a Method Statement. The Heritage Council may condition arrangements for the curation, storage or display of artefacts derived from an archaeological investigation19.
6.5 Aboriginal Relics Act 1975
The Aboriginal Relics Act 1975 provides protection to Aboriginal ‘relics’, specifying that a permit is required for a range of activities including (inter alia) destroying, damaging, to defacing, concealing or otherwise interfering with an Aboriginal relic or removing it from the place where it was found or abandoned, or conducting an excavation for the purpose of searching for an Aboriginal relic 20. ‘Relics’ are defined broadly and include artefacts and sites such as painting, carving, engraving, arrangement of stones, midden, or other object made or created by any of the original inhabitants of Australia or the descendants of any such inhabitants and Aboriginal human remains and graves21.
No Aboriginal heritage sites or relics are recorded within the vicinity of the Port Arthur Visitors Centre.
The Port Arthur Historic Sites Statutory Management Plan and Archaeology Plan both contain provisions for management of Aboriginal heritage, which comply with the Aboriginal Relics Act and also recognise the need for proper notification, interpretation and involvement of Aboriginal people in decisions which affect their heritage. Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania provides a standard ‘Unanticipated Discovery Plan’ to guide matters relating to Aboriginal heritage in the context of development.
6.6 Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993
The framework for Tasmania’s planning system is set out in the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (Tas). This framework provides that planning approval is required for most types of use and development,
18 Tasmanian Heritage Council Works Guidelines – Historic Plantings and Landscapes, page 58 19 Tasmanian Heritage Council Works Guidelines – excavation and archaeological investigation – Page 32 20 Aboriginal Relics Act, 1975 – Section 14 21 Aboriginal Relics Act, 1975 – Section 2 (3)
mackaystrategic.com.au ABN 26 602 859 414 19
including extensions to existing structures. The currently applicable instrument is the Tasman Interim Planning Scheme 201322.
The Port Arthur Historic Site is zoned ‘Environmental Management’, which means that it should be managed in accordance with a Plan of Management – which in this case is the Port Arthur Historic Sites Statutory Management Plan.
If a proposed development is permitted within a zone, the planning authority must approve the development application, if it meets applicable development standards. If a use or development is discretionary, the planning authority has the discretion to approve or reject the application, having regard to its potential impacts. The Port Arthur Visitor Centre is an existing use which is understood to be discretionary within the ‘Environmental Management’ zone.
6.7 Tasman Interim Planning Scheme 2013
Approval for development will be required from Tasman Council in accordance with the provisions of the Tasman Interim Planning Scheme 2015, which identifies the Port Arthur Historic Site as a Local Heritage Place (Table E13.1), but there is no separate assessment of local heritage values provided 23. Tasman Council will refer the application to the Tasmanian Heritage Council and will embody the decision of the Heritage Council in its own determination.
7. Heritage Values and Cultural Significance Annexures A to D of this HIA reproduce the relevant heritage values and cultural significance assessments for the Australian Convict Sites and Port Arthur Historic Site. The ‘heritage value and cultural significance matrix’ in Annexure E considers these assessments, grouped by theme and identifies those attributes of the Port Arthur Historic Site which could be impacted by the Project, using the following categories: Historic, Aesthetic, Scientific/Research, Social, Technical, Significant People and Associations, Representativeness/Principal Characteristics, Rarity, Indigenous, and Natural. With respect to these attributes, the following potential impacts have been identified:
Historic loss of integrity and/or authenticity of the Port Arthur Historic Site cultural landscape; and impact on the visual and sensory environment of the Memorial Garden.
22 A Draft Tasman Interim Planning Scheme 2015 has been prepared and exhibited, but does not currently apply 23 Comprising six entries; one for each land title /parcel
mackaystrategic.com.au ABN 26 602 859 414 20
Aesthetic presence of a new visually intrusive element within the setting of the Port Arthur Historic Site; and loss of amenity in the views from significant elements including the Commandant’s House, the Hospital and the Penitentiary.
Scientific/Research physical impact on unknown archaeological resources.
Social impact on the visual and sensory environment of the Memorial Garden.
Technical no potential impacts identified.
Significant People and Associations no potential impacts identified.
Principal Characteristics and Representativeness no potential impacts identified.
Rarity no potential impacts identified.
Indigenous physical impact on unknown Aboriginal relics.
Natural no potential impacts identified.
The above conclusions regarding potential impact frame the ensuing analysis.
The potential (contemporary) significance of the existing Visitor Centre Building has been considered, having regard to its architectural qualities, designers and potential social values, given the timing and the context of its construction. However, the existing building is not considered to have heritage value – it is not noted as a significant attribute in any of the statutory heritage assessments. (In May 2015 PAHSMA wrote to the original architects, providing a Right of Integrity notification regarding the Project).
mackaystrategic.com.au ABN 26 602 859 414 21
8. Analysis of Issues and Impacts
Overview
The Project is appropriately characterised as a conservation action, which is directly aimed at one of the key requirements from the Operational Guidelines of the World Heritage Convention; namely to transmit the heritage values of the listed places24. The Project does not involve physical impact to a significant historic structure. However, it does involve construction of new built elements within a highly significant cultural landscape and will require the removal of a large mature eucalypt. As noted above, potential heritage impacts of the Project, which require consideration and assessment are:
loss of integrity and/or authenticity of the Port Arthur Historic Site cultural landscape; impact on the visual and sensory environment of the Memorial Garden; presence of a new visually intrusive element within the setting of the Port Arthur Historic Site; changes to views from significant individual elements including the Commandant’s House, the Hospital and the Penitentiary; physical impact on unknown archaeological resources; physical impact on unknown Aboriginal relics; and removal of a eucalypt tree.
These potential impacts are addressed below.
Physical Change
The existing Visitor Centre is not a significant building; indeed, at close range, its form, colour and materials are inconsistent with the visual characteristics of the wider Port Arthur Historic Site and its setting. The physical changes proposed are respectful of the current massing and form and present a cohesive extension of the current building, that will minimise incremental effects on the immediate site.
Archaeological Features
Management of the archaeological values of the Port Arthur Historic Site is afforded high priority and sub‐ surface heritage fabric is managed accordingly, through The Port Arthur Historic Site Archaeology Plan and Archaeological Procedures Manual25.
24 World Heritage Operational Guidelines, Paragraph 15 (a), http://whc.unesco.org/archive/opguide13‐en.pdf 25 Port Arthur Historic Sites Statutory Management Plan, archaeology policies, page 141, Port Arthur Historic Site Archaeology Plan, 2003 and Archaeological Procedures Manual 2005
mackaystrategic.com.au ABN 26 602 859 414 22
There are no known previous archaeological investigations of the subject site; although it is likely that (undocumented) monitoring occurred as part of the program for construction of the Visitor Centre. The landform has been much modified and is certain to have been disrupted through construction of the Visitor Centre itself and by associated service trenches. Photographic evidence shows that there was formerly a toilet block in the vicinity of the proposed extension to the building; (see Figure 7 below).
Figure 7. View from near the Penitentiary. A toilet block (arrowed) is clearly visible at the Project site. Undated but likely to be late twentieth century. Source: PAHSMA 2016.
Historic plans exist which show this area in detail date between 1846 and 1877 (see Figures 7 – 9 below). Overlays which show the proposed building footprint superimposed on these plans indicate that no known historic features will be affected. However, the project does involve work in the vicinity of a ‘Timber Shed’ and ‘Stone Cutters’ building shown in 1858 and it is possible that artefacts and/or deposits associated with these functions, or with the adjacent stone quarry may be found. There are opportunities for interpretation of these activities in this location.
Provided that areas affected by the Project are subject to preliminary testing and either monitoring or comprehensive archaeological investigation (as determined by the testing results), there are unlikely to be substantive adverse impacts on archaeological resources. These works would comply with the Port Arthur Historic Site Archaeology Plan 2003 and Archaeology Procedures Manual 2005. The Tasmanian Heritage Council may require preparation of an Archaeological Method Statement, but this is unlikely to be necessary given the comprehensive requirements of the Archaeology Procedures Manual 2005.
mackaystrategic.com.au ABN 26 602 859 414 23
Figure 8: Project area, with proposed building footprint superimposed on 1846 Hurst Plan. No historic features are shown in the Project area.
Figure 9: Project area, with proposed building footprint superimposed on 1858 Plan. No historic features are shown in the Project area, but a ‘Timber Shed’ and ‘Stone Cutter’ structure are in the vicinity.
mackaystrategic.com.au ABN 26 602 859 414 24
Figure 10: Project area, with proposed building footprint superimposed on 1877 Blackwood Plan. No historic features are shown in the Project area
Aboriginal Heritage
There are no known Aboriginal relics or other Aboriginal associations or values affected by the Project. It is possible that Aboriginal relics would be encountered during works. The Port Arthur Statutory Management Plan includes appropriate policies for management of Aboriginal heritage:
The Aboriginal cultural heritage values of the Port Arthur Historic Sites will be identified, conserved and managed in consultation with the Aboriginal community and the Director of the Parks and Wildlife Service Tasmania or other responsible authority. The right of Aboriginal people to be involved in making decisions that affect their cultural heritage and their concerns in this respect will continue to be acknowledged. The potential for encountering previously unknown Aboriginal cultural heritage during works at the Port Arthur Historic Sites is acknowledged. Appropriate protocols and procedures will ensure that such cultural heritage material is not damaged, disturbed or concealed.
mackaystrategic.com.au ABN 26 602 859 414 25
Aboriginal cultural heritage material discovered at the Port Arthur Historic Sites will be brought to the attention of the relevant authorities and the Aboriginal community and handed into the appropriate custodianship26.
Provided that areas affected by the Project are subject to preliminary testing and either monitoring or comprehensive archaeological investigation, during works, there are unlikely to be substantive adverse impacts on Aboriginal relics or any other Aboriginal Heritage values. In the event that Aboriginal relics were to be discovered, relevant procedures from the and Archaeological Procedures Manual and the Unanticipated Discovery Plan provided by Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania would apply.
Quarry and Timberyard
The Project will not directly affect either the historic quarry or timberyard in the vicinity (See Figures 7 – 9 above). It would be appropriate for these features to be considered for inclusion as part of the interpretation component of the Project.
Memorial Garden
The Project is proposed in the vicinity of the Memorial Garden which relates to tragic events in 1996. This precinct, incorporating ruins of the Broad Arrow Cafe, reflective pool, huon pine cross, inscriptions and landscaping, is a place of considerable social value to the contemporary Australian community, and particularly to those people who were directly affected. The sombre character of the place and its availability as a quiet, contemplative space is paramount.
During the design development phase, the Project was altered to delete a proposed lookout (near the site of an existing more‐modest lookout) in order to retain the quiet nature and character of the space.
Provided that there is an appropriate planting screen between the Project building and the Memorial Garden there will be no substantive adverse impact on its visual setting and sensory environment. Additionally the fenestration of the building is designed so that building occupants do not have direct views over the Memorial Garden.
Blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus)
The Project requires the removal of a large Tasmanian blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus), as noted in Figures 10 and 11 below. Blue gums are a local species which have always been part of the natural environment and
26 Port Arthur Statutory Management Plan, Section 5.3.11 Aboriginal Heritage, page 135.
mackaystrategic.com.au ABN 26 602 859 414 26
visual setting of the Port Arthur Historic Site. They comprise a major component of the dry sclerophyll forest zone. The Port Arthur Statutory Management Plan includes appropriate policies for management of natural heritage values and significant vegetation:
At the Port Arthur Historic Site, remnant indigenous vegetation provides the best indication of the vegetation structure prior to British occupation. The natural heritage values of the Port Arthur Historic Sites will be conserved and managed in consultation with the Director of the Parks and Wildlife Service Tasmania27.
Figure 11: Site plan showing proposed building footprint and the Figure 12: Blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus), canopy / dripline of the large blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus) which between the existing Visitor Centre and the may be affected by the Project. Memorial Garden
This blue gum tree contributes to the cultural significance of the Port Arthur Historic Site. Its planting date has been estimated as late nineteenth or early twentieth century28. The tree is of a size and type that were present on the Tasman Peninsula in large numbers during the convict era and which formed the basis for the timber industry. There are approximately 48 trees of this age within the boundary of the Port Arthur Historic Site; mostly in two small stands near the dockyards and near the Commandant’s House. This blue gum is currently
27 Port Arthur Statutory Management Plan, Section 5.3.10, Natural Heritage Values, pages 132‐33 28 ArbScape tree survey 2000 and ENSPEC Development Impact Report July 2016
mackaystrategic.com.au ABN 26 602 859 414 27
part of the landscape setting of the Memorial Garden and the existing Visitor Centre, but its removal will not substantively affect their visual character, nor the overall visual character of the Port Arthur Historic Site.
Swift Parrot and Tasmanian Masked Owl
The blue gum tree is also part of the local vegetation community, and has been considered not only as an individual element within the Port Arthur Historic Site, but also within the context of the surrounding bushland, i.e. as part of a wider habitat. Large trees are vital in the natural environment as only trees of a certain age (generally older than 80 years) will have formed hollows that different species rely on for nesting habitat. There are two species that could potentially nest in this habitat:
Swift parrot Lathamus discolour; and Tasmanian masked owl Tyto novaehollandia subsp castanops.
Swift parrots nest in E. globulus (and E. obliqua) which must have a diameter at breast height of 105cm, with five or more potential hollows29. The swift parrot is listed as endangered under the EPBC Act and Threatened Species Protection Act 199530. The Tasmanian masked owl has a known breeding hollow in a tree in front of the Commandant’s House. The Tasmanian masked owl is listed as vulnerable under the EPBC Act and endangered under Threatened Species Protection Act 1995.31
However, as this tree does not have any suitable hollows32 it does not provide known or potential habitat for either swift parrot or masked owl at present. Advice from ENSPEC Environment and Risk, who provided an arborist’s report for this tree, in the context of the Project, indicates that retention and preservation of the tree would be possible, but that this would require design changes and long term protection measures.33
A final possible concern is ‘collision risk’ for the swift parrot. The Tasmanian Natural Values Atlas34 reports only three recorded sightings of swift parrots at Port Arthur: two in 1987 and one in 1995, both prior to the construction of the existing Visitor Centre building. There have been no sightings at the Port Arthur Historic Site for over 20 years; the nearest, but anecdotal, recent sightings occurred over 1.5km away. There is no evidence that the Visitor Centre area provides swift parrot flyway and has been operating for 19 years with no
29 Webb, et al., 2012 30 http://www.threatenedspecieslink.tas.gov.au/swift‐parrot 31 http://www.threatenedspecieslink.tas.gov.au/masked‐owl‐(tasmanian) 32 ENSPEC Development Impact Report July 2016, page 6 33 ENSPEC Development Impact Report July 2016, page 3 34 Tasmanian Natural Values Atlas, www.naturalvaluesatlas.tas.gov.au accessed 7/7/16, Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, Tasmania.
mackaystrategic.com.au ABN 26 602 859 414 28
swift parrot collisions ever being observed. The Project involves a new built form of the same (or lesser) height as the existing Visitor Centre. The immediate surrounding area contains no potential swift parrot nesting sites or food trees. The Port Arthur Historic Site has not been identified as a collision hotspot.35 The Project does not constitute a substantive collision risk for the swift parrot.
Appearance and Visual Impact
The major issue to be considered in relation to the potential heritage impact of the Project is its visual impact. Potential impacts include the presence of a new element within the setting of the Port Arthur Historic Site, and changes to views from significant individual elements including the Commandant’s House, the Hospital and the Penitentiary. The question to be addressed is whether the changes are intrusive or would cause loss of integrity and/or authenticity to the Port Arthur Historic Site and its cultural landscape.
The Port Arthur Historic Sites Statutory Management Plan includes appropriate policies for management of the cultural landscape, settings and view sheds:
Significant vistas and view lines within the Port Arthur and Coal Mines Historic Sites will be maintained through vegetation management and avoidance and removal of intrusive elements. New facilities, landscape elements and site furniture may be introduced to enhance interpretation, and visitor safety and/or visitor amenity36.
Significant vistas within and beyond the Port Arthur and Coal Mines Historic Sites will be maintained through vegetation management and avoidance and removal of intrusive elements, in consultation with landowners or managers as applicable37.
New facilities such as the Project proposes are overtly allowed, provided that they are not intrusive and do not obstruct significant vistas. This does not mean that they must not be visible. Indeed, part of the rationale for the Project is to improve on‐site visitor orientation, by enabling the new built elements to be visible, during both day and night.
35 Pfennigwerth, S. (2008). Minimising the swift parrot collision threat: Guidelines and recommendations for parrot‐safe building design. World Wildlife Fund‐ Australia 36 Port Arthur Statutory Management Plan, Section 5.3.12. Cultural Landscapes, page 136 37 Port Arthur Statutory Management Plan, Section 5.7.2. Settings and View Sheds, page 176
mackaystrategic.com.au ABN 26 602 859 414 29
The Port Arthur Historic Site Landscape Management Plan identifies significant vistas. Those which are relevant to the Project (as determined on site, based on visual access) are:
view from the Commandant’s House veranda towards the harbour, with garden in the foreground; and view from the Government Cottage veranda through the Government Gardens38.
During the site analysis undertaken as part of this HIA, the following additional views were also identified as relevant:
the view from the northern side of the Penitentiary; view from the Hospital ruins; view from the Government Gardens pathway towards the Visitor Centre; and the view from the contemplative pool within the memorial garden.
These views/vistas are shown in Figures 13 to 18 below. The existing visitor centre can barely be seen in most of these views, owing to existing vegetation screening. The Project would result in a more prominent built form, generally visible in the same location. However, the intention is to stain existing timber elements in a dark colour, and employ dark tones and materials, such as stone and/or brick, generally following the dark tones and hue of the nearby historic quarry cutting. This would have the effect of making the new building appear as part of the background, rather than a protruding new element. However, it is also intended that the Project will provide outward views, meaning substantial areas of new glazing. It is proposed that the glass will therefore be selected carefully, so as to ensure that it is appropriately non‐reflective.
Annexure G provides a series of six ‘view point’ images showing key perspectives as they are at present, with the proposed new built form shown as a line drawing, then a composite photomontage with the proposed new built element inserted and coloured. These images are informative and enable consideration of the building (and a judgement about whether the design and appearance is appropriate of itself, without landscaping), and an understanding of how the building will appear. These images show that the combination of location, building massing, form and colour means that although the new structure will be more visible than the existing visitor centre, it will actually appear as more subdued and therefore visually recessive in significant views. From close vantage points, such as the junction of Jetty Road and the Government Gardens path (as shown on the cover of this HIS) the new built element will read as a well‐mannered new building.
The addition of the proposed new built element, which is well‐designed and which would be framed by screening vegetation, is consistent with the visual qualities of the Port Arthur Historic Site and its setting.
38 Port Arthur Landscape Management Plan 2002, Part 4: Section 17, page 43
mackaystrategic.com.au ABN 26 602 859 414 30
Figure 13: View from the Commandant’s House veranda Figure 14: View from the Government Cottage veranda towards the harbour, with garden in the foreground. through the Government Gardens. Trees along the edge The existing Visitor Centre is barely discernible. The of the Government Gardens and landscape planting Project is unlikely to substantively alter this view, screen the existing Visitor Centre and car park. This view particularly if non‐reflective materials and recessive would be unaffected by the Project. colours are used.
Figure 15: View from the northern side of the Figure 16: View from the Hospital Ruins. The roof of the Penitentiary. The roof of the existing Visitor Centre is existing Visitor Centre can be seen, through trees. The visible, and the nearby blue gum tree is discernible in the Project would be similarly visible, but the selection of
mackaystrategic.com.au ABN 26 602 859 414 31
skyline. The Project would be more visible, but will materials and finishes means that it would be even less present in darker, recessive tones. prominent in such views.
Figure 17: View from the eastern end of the Figure 18: View from the contemplative pool within the Government Gardens pathway towards the existing Memorial Garden. The existing Visitor Centre building is Visitor Centre. Even in winter, the vegetation provides a barely visible. The large blue‐gum tree terminates the dense visual screen. This view would be unaffected by vista, (but the prominent perspective for most visitors is the Project. In close views the project would appear as a in the opposite direction). Additional vegetative screening well‐mannered new built element, featuring subdued would ensure that the Project does not impinge upon the colour finishes. qualities of this space.
Visitor Experience
The purpose of the Project is to provide improved visitor facilities and services. The Port Arthur Historic Sites Statutory Management Plan includes appropriate policies for visitor facilities and services:
All visitor facilities are to be provided with minimal impact to the heritage values of the Port Arthur Historic Sites. The introduction of any new visitor facilities to the Historic Sites should not result in impacts that cannot be reversed39.
The purpose of the Project is to provide essential visitor facilities and services, as well as associated staff and operational areas, in an environment where growth in visitor numbers and contemporary requirements mean that the current facilities are not adequate. The project will greatly improve the arrival experience, connection
39 Port Arthur Statutory Management Plan, Section 5.4.2. Visitor Facilities and Services, page 147
mackaystrategic.com.au ABN 26 602 859 414 32
with the site and orientation of visitors. Insofar as presentation of the Port Arthur Historic Site is required as part of its conservation, the project is therefore a conservation activity.
The Project has been designed in a way to avoid or minimise heritage impacts. The Project does not require demolition and removal of any known significant built elements or archaeological features. One large eucalypt tree would need to be removed, which will not detrimentally impact the heritage values of the site.
9. Effect on Heritage Values and Cultural Significance The preceding sections of this HIA provide background context, cite relevant sections from the Port Arthur Historic Sites Statutory Management Plan, applicable guidelines and consider the merits and likely impact of the Project on the heritage values of the Port Arthur Historic Site. This very succinct section is included to relate impacts to the relevant heritage values assessment.
Summary of Impact Assessment Historic Values The Project would not cause any substantive loss of integrity and/or authenticity of the Port Arthur Historic Site cultural landscape.
The Project has been thoughtfully sited and designed so that it would not adversely affect the visual and sensory environment of the Memorial Garden.
Aesthetic Values The Project would not be visually intrusive within the setting of the Port Arthur Historic Site and will not reduce the visual quality or amenity in the views from significant elements including the Commandant’s House, the Hospital and the Penitentiary, nor would it adversely affect views around the eastern end of the Government Gardens path.
Scientific/Research Values The project is not expected to affect any historical archaeological resources and appropriate procedures will be followed in the event that any archaeological features are encountered.
Social Values The Project has been thoughtfully sited and designed so that it would not adversely affect the visual and sensory environment of the Memorial Garden.
mackaystrategic.com.au ABN 26 602 859 414 33
Indigenous Values The project is not expected to affect any Aboriginal Relics and appropriate procedures will be followed in the event that any Aboriginal relics are encountered.
Outstanding Universal Value
The Project would not have a significant impact on the Outstanding Universal Value of the Australian Convict Sites World Heritage Property. The Project would not affect either the integrity and authenticity of the Port Arthur Historic Site. The Project would enhance opportunities to transmit the values for which the Australian Convict Sites Property was inscribed on the World Heritage List.
National Heritage Values
The Project would not have a significant impact on the National Heritage values of the Port Arthur Historic Site. The proposed extension to the Visitor Centre has been located, designed and modulated so that, although it would be visible from some parts of the site, it would be visually recessive and would not adversely affect the setting of the place itself nor the setting of, nor views to or from, its individual elements.
The Project requires removal of a blue gum tree, (Eucalyptus globulus), which would change part of the visual setting of the site, but would not affect its National Heritage values. This blue gum tree does not currently provide known or potential habitat for species listed as endangered or threatened under the EPBC Act.
State Heritage Values
The Project would not have any significant impact on the State Heritage values of the Port Arthur Historic Site. The proposed extension to the Visitor Centre has been located, designed and modulated so that, although it would be visible from some parts of the site, it would not adversely affect the visual setting of the place itself nor the setting of, nor views to or from, its individual elements.
Local Heritage Values
There is no separate assessment of local heritage values for the Port Arthur Historic Site.
10. Compliance The Project complies with relevant legislation, guidelines and adopted plans.
mackaystrategic.com.au ABN 26 602 859 414 34
Port Arthur Historic Sites Statutory Management Plan 2008
The Project has been guided and informed by relevant provisions of the Port Arthur Historic Sites Statutory Management Plan.
Provided the mitigative measures outlined below are undertaken, the Project would comply with the Port Arthur Historic Sites Statutory Management Plan.
Landscape Management Plan, 2002
The Project has been guided and informed by relevant provisions of the Port Arthur Historic Site Landscape Management Plan.
The removal of a large blue gum tree to enable extension to the Visitor Centre building is not consistent with some policies of the Landscape Management Plan, but can be mitigated by a replacement planting.
The Project would not otherwise alter the landscape setting of the Visitor Centre or the Port Arthur Historic Site and does not adversely affect any other significant landscape elements.
Archaeology Plan 2003 and Archaeological Procedures Manual 2005
The Project does not affect any known archaeological features. Provided that early site investigations occur and archaeological finds are appropriately managed, the Project would comply with the Port Arthur Historic Site Archaeology Plan 2003 and Archaeological Procedures Manual 2005.
National Heritage Management Principles
The Project is fully compliant with the National Heritage Management Principles (which are reproduced as Annexure I)
Australian Convict Sites Strategic Management Framework 2008
The Australian Convict Sites Strategic Management Framework is an over‐arching compendium which sets out how the 11 places that comprise the Australian Convict Sites World Heritage Property are managed in accordance with the EPBC Act and the Operational Guidelines of the World Heritage Convention. Insofar as the Project complies with these requirements, it also complies with the Australian Convict Sites Strategic Management Framework.
mackaystrategic.com.au ABN 26 602 859 414 35
Tasmanian Heritage Council Works Guidelines
The Project is generally consistent with the Works Guidelines published by the Tasmanian Heritage Council. The new built element complies with the ‘New Buildings’ guidelines. Archaeological resources (if present) will be managed appropriately and in accordance with the archaeological ‘Excavation and Investigation’ guidelines. While the proposed removal of the blue gum tree is not strictly in accordance with the ‘Historic Plantings and Landscapes’ guidelines, this action would not substantively affect the State heritage values of the Port Arthur Historic Site.
Burra Charter
Both the Project itself and this HIA have been guided by and are consistent with the Burra Charter. In particular, there has been a thorough process of assessing and understanding heritage values, analysis of constraints and development of a policy approach and implementation program which addresses constraints, in a manner that retains identified heritage values.
11. Mitigative Measures
11.1 Façade Design and Appearance
The appearance of the redeveloped Visitor Centre building will determine its effect on the visual setting of the Port Arthur Historic Site and thereby determine its heritage impact. The form and massing are considered appropriate. It is also appropriate that the new building will be more visible than the existing visitor centre, provided that (as already intended):
facade modulation and materials, as viewed from within the site are designed and selected in recessive colours, complementary to those of the adjacent stone quarry cutting; glazing is selected to be non‐reflective and visually recessive; detailed design and material selection decisions continue to have strong regard for the appearance of the new building in key vistas.
11.2 Landscaping
Landscaping should be carefully designed to frame the new built element in a manner that is conscious of its appearance in significant vistas40.
40 As nominated in the Landscape Management Plan and this Heritage Impact Assessment
mackaystrategic.com.au ABN 26 602 859 414 36
Provision should be made for ongoing maintenance of the landscape elements, so that intended views to and from the new building are maintained.
New planting should comprise local native species, which are fire resistant.
In relation to the proposed removal of the large blue gum tree:
the Director of the Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service should be advised of the proposed removal (as is the intention of PAHSMA); a replacement specimen of the same species should be planted nearby, to provide for potential future habitat in the long term; dependent on falling technique and success consideration should be given to potential interpretive opportunities regarding the timber getting practices of Port Arthur’s history.
11.3 Archaeological Investigations
Archaeological investigations should be programmed well ahead of other on‐site works, to allow for an appropriate programme of testing, and if necessary additional on‐site investigations.
Programming of the archaeological investigations and management of archaeological resources should be informed by the Tasmanian Heritage Council’s Works Guidelines for Historic Heritage Places November 2015 and Practice Note 2 Managing Historical Archaeological Significance in the Works Process and should comply with the Port Arthur Archaeology Plan and the Archaeological Procedures Manual.
Early liaison should occur with Heritage Tasmania to determine the need for an Archaeological Methods Statement.
Any archaeological finds which are discovered should be utilised, as appropriate, as part of the site interpretation.
11.4 Aboriginal Heritage
On‐site workers (both PAHSMA staff and contractors) should be properly briefed about potential for discovery of Aboriginal relics during on‐site works.
In the event that any Aboriginal relics were to be discovered, these should be managed in accordance with the Port Arthur Historic Sites Statutory Management Plan, the Port Arthur Archaeology Plan, the Archaeological Procedures Manual and the Unanticipated Discovery Plan provided by Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania. This would involve notification to relevant authorities and liaison with Aboriginal stakeholders. Consideration should be given to inclusion of any discovered Aboriginal relics as part of the site interpretation.
mackaystrategic.com.au ABN 26 602 859 414 37
11.5 Interpretation
Interpretation should be regarded as an integral component of the Project, not an optional extra. The arrival forecourt of the redeveloped Visitor Centre building should be utilised for innovative and engaging interpretation which creates a sense of arrival and conveys important messages.
Consistent with the Australian Convict Sites Strategic Management Framework, visitors arriving at the Port Arthur Historic Sites should receive a strong message that the site is one of 11 places that comprise the Australian Convict Sites World Heritage Property.
11.6 Removal of Existing Impacts
In view of the size and scope of the Project, the opportunity should be taken to pursue removal of existing inappropriate or intrusive elements in the precinct, including the existing lookout and nearby shelter structure between the Visitor Centre and Memorial Garden.
12. Recommendations and Conclusion
12.1 Recommendations
1. Detailed design and material selection should have strong regard for the appearance of the redeveloped Visitor Centre building in key vistas. Facade modulation and materials should feature recessive colours, complementary to those of the adjacent stone quarry cutting and glazing should not present reflective planes when viewed from within the Port Arthur Historic Site. 2. Landscaping should frame the new built element in a manner that is conscious of its appearance in significant vistas. 3. New planting should comprise local native species, which are fire resistant and should include at least one new blue gum tree. 4. The Director of the Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service should be advised of the proposed removal of the blue gum tree. 5. The interpretive planning for the project should include consideration of potential interpretive opportunities regarding Port Arthur’s historic timber getting practices. 6. Provision should be made for ongoing maintenance of landscape elements, so that intended views to and from the new building are maintained. 7. Archaeological investigations should be programmed well ahead of other on‐site works, to allow for an appropriate programme of testing, and if necessary, additional on‐site investigations. 8. Management of archaeological resources should be informed by the Tasmanian Heritage Council’s Works Guidelines for Historic Heritage Places November 2015 and Practice Note 2 Managing Historical
mackaystrategic.com.au ABN 26 602 859 414 38
Archaeological Significance in the Works Process and should comply with the Port Arthur Archaeology Plan and the Archaeological Procedures Manual. 9. Early liaison should occur with Heritage Tasmania to determine the need for an Archaeological Methods Statement. 10. Any archaeological finds which are discovered should be managed in accordance with PAHSMAs collections policy. 11. On‐site workers (both PAHSMA staff and contractors) should be properly briefed about potential for discovery of Aboriginal relics during on‐site works. 12. Any Aboriginal relics which are discovered should be managed in accordance with the Unanticipated Discovery Plan provided by Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania. 13. The arrival forecourt of the Visitor Centre building should feature innovative and engaging interpretation which creates a sense of arrival; consistent with the Australian Convict Sites Strategic Management Framework, visitors arriving at the Port Arthur Historic Sites should become aware that the site is one of 11 places that comprise the Australian Convict Sites World Heritage Property. 14. Interpretive planning for the Project should consider potential interpretive opportunities regarding the timber getting practices of Port Arthur’s history, using the fallen blue gum tree or stump (dependant on feeling techniques and success). 15. The existing lookout and nearby shelter structure between the Visitor Centre and Memorial Garden should be removed.
12.2 Conclusion
The Port Arthur Historic Site Management Authority has determined that the existing Visitor Centre at Port Arthur should be redeveloped to meet the needs and expectations of visitors, to address essential operational requirements and to enhance interpretation of the heritage values of the Port Arthur Historic Site.
The proposed extension to the Port Arthur Visitor Centre (the Project) has been located, designed and would be presented so that, although it would be visible from some parts of the site, it would be visually recessive and would not adversely affect the setting of the place itself nor the setting of, nor views to or from, its individual elements. The Project would not physically affect any know features of heritage value, but includes removal of a blue gum tree, which would change part of the associated visual setting. This blue gum tree does not provide known or potential habitat for species listed as endangered or threatened under the EPBC Act.
The Project would not cause a significant impact to the Outstanding Universal Value of the Australian Convict Sites World Heritage Property, but would enhance opportunities to transmit the values for which the Australian Convict Sites Property was inscribed on the World Heritage List. The Project would not have a significant impact on the National Heritage values of the Port Arthur Historic Site. The Project would not have a significant impact on the State Heritage values of the Port Arthur Historic Site.
mackaystrategic.com.au ABN 26 602 859 414 39
The recommendations outlined in this Heritage Impact Assessment provide for the implementation of the Project in a manner which is compliant with all applicable statutory controls and management documents and which will ensure that the outcomes reflect best practice conservation, while improving the experience of PAHSMA staff and visitors.
Prof Richard Mackay, AM Director of Possibilities
mackaystrategic.com.au ABN 26 602 859 414 40
Annexures
Annexure A: Australian Convict Sites: Statement of Outstanding Universal Value
Annexure B: Port Arthur Historic Site National Heritage List –Summary Statement of Significance and Official Values
Annexure C: Port Arthur Historic Site: Statutory Management Plan – Summary Statements of Heritage Value
Annexure D: Port Arthur Historic Site: Tasmanian Heritage Register – Official Summary Statement of State Heritage Values
Annexure E: Port Arthur Historic Site: heritage values and cultural significance matrix
Annexure F: Port Arthur Visitor Centre Redevelopment: projects drawings prepared by Rosevear Stephenson
Annexure G: Port Arthur Visitor Centre Redevelopment: photomontages: before and after – with and without landscaping prepared by Rosevear Stephenson & HPA Projects
Annexure H: Documents Consulted
Annexure I: National Heritage Management Principles
Annexure J: Acknowledgements
mackaystrategic.com.au ABN 26 602 859 414 41
Annexure A: Australian Convict Sites: Statement of Outstanding Universal Value
The property includes a selection of eleven penal sites, among the thousands established by the British Empire on Australian soil in the 18th and 19th centuries. The sites are spread across Australia, from Fremantle in Western Australia to Kingston and Arthur's Vale on Norfolk Island in the east; and from areas around Sydney in New South Wales in the north, to sites located in Tasmania in the south. Around 166,000 men, women and children were sent to Australia over 80 years between 1787 and 1868, condemned by British justice to transportation to the convict colonies. Each of the sites had a specific purpose, in terms both of punitive imprisonment and of rehabilitation through forced labour to help build the colony. The Australian Convict Sites presents the best surviving examples of large‐scale convict transportation and the colonial expansion of European powers through the presence and labour of convicts.
Brief synthesis
The property consists of eleven complementary sites. It constitutes an outstanding and large‐scale example of the forced migration of convicts, who were condemned to transportation to distant colonies of the British Empire; the same method was also used by other colonial states. The sites illustrate the different types of convict settlement organized to serve the colonial development project by means of buildings, ports, infrastructure, the extraction of resources, etc. They illustrate the living conditions of the convicts, who were condemned to transportation far from their homes, deprived of freedom, and subjected to forced labour. This transportation and associated forced labour was implemented on a large scale, both for criminals and for people convicted for relatively minor offences, as well as for expressing certain opinions or being political opponents. The penalty of transportation to Australia also applied to women and children from the age of nine. The convict stations are testimony to a legal form of punishment that dominated in the 18th and 19th centuries in the large European colonial states, at the same time as and after the abolition of slavery. The property shows the various forms that the convict settlements took, closely reflecting the discussions and beliefs about the punishment of crime in 18th and 19th century Europe, both in terms of its exemplarity and the harshness of the punishment used as a deterrent, and of the aim of social rehabilitation through labour and discipline. They influenced the emergence of a penal model in Europe and America. Within the colonial system established in Australia, the convict settlements simultaneously led to the Aboriginal population being forced back into the less fertile hinterland, and to the creation of a significant source of population of European origin.
Criterion (iv): The Australian convict sites constitute an outstanding example of the way in which conventional forced labour and national prison systems were transformed, in major European nations in the
mackaystrategic.com.au ABN 26 602 859 414 42
18th and 19th centuries, into a system of deportation and forced labour forming part of the British Empire’s vast colonial project. They illustrate the variety of the creation of penal colonies to serve the many material needs created by the development of a new territory. They bear witness to a penitentiary system which had many objectives, ranging from severe punishment used as a deterrent to forced labour for men, women and children, and the rehabilitation of the convicts through labour and discipline.
Criterion (vi): The transportation of criminals, delinquents, and political prisoners to colonial lands by the great nation states between the 18th and 20th centuries is an important aspect of human history, especially with regard to its penal, political and colonial dimensions. The Australian convict settlements provide a particularly complete example of this history and the associated symbolic values derived from discussions in modern and contemporary European society. They illustrate an active phase in the occupation of colonial lands to the detriment of the Aboriginal peoples, and the process of creating a colonial population of European origin through the dialectic of punishment and transportation followed by forced labour and social rehabilitation to the eventual social integration of convicts as settlers.
Integrity and authenticity The structural and landscape integrity of the property varies depending on the site, and on the type of evidence considered. It has been affected by local history, at times marked by reuse or lengthy periods of abandonment. The integrity varies between well preserved groups and others where it might be described as fragmentary. Apart from certain visual perspectives in urban settings, the level of the property’s integrity is well controlled by the site management plans.
Despite the inevitable complexity of a nomination made up of a series of eleven separate sites with more than 200 elements that convey the value of the property, the authenticity of the vast majority of them is good.
Protection and management requirements All the sites forming the property are inscribed on the National Heritage List. They are also protected by the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
There is no direct major threat to the sites forming the serial property.
The general protection and management of the property are satisfactory. Conservation is articulated around a positive dynamic driven by the application of the conservation plans at each of the sites. The Brickendon and Woolmers Estate domains are an exception, and require ongoing assistance, both in terms of protection and conservation.
mackaystrategic.com.au ABN 26 602 859 414 43
The management systems of the sites forming the property are appropriate, and they are adequately coordinated by the Strategic Management Framework for the property and its Steering Committee. For the sites involving the participation of private stakeholders for visitor reception, improved interpretation is however necessary; that includes the common objectives outlined in the Strategic Management Framework. It is also important to consider visitor reception facilities and their development in a way which respects the landscape conservation of the sites.
mackaystrategic.com.au ABN 26 602 859 414 44
Annexure B: Port Arthur Historic Site National Heritage List – Summary Statement of Significance and Official Values
Summary Statement of Significance
The Port Arthur Historic Site is a significant national example of a convict site demonstrating, with a high degree of integrity and authenticity, an aspect of the British strategy of convict transportation to Australia. This type of coerced migration had a major impact on the formation of Australia and the Australian psyche. As one of a few major sites now surviving to evidence the secondary punishment aspect of this penal system, Port Arthur Historic Site ably demonstrates the evolution of the penal system to suit Australian conditions. Also, because of its long years of operation, 1830– 1877, which included the cessation of transportation to Tasmania, it provides valuable and tangible evidence of the physical form and evolution of the penal system in Australia and, in particular, in Tasmania, over these years.
Port Arthur was also a key part in the Probation System phase of the Australian convict story. The Probation System of the 1840s was unique to Van Diemen’s Land and Norfolk Island, although short‐lived in the latter, involving less direct physical punishment and more persuasion to reform through education, isolation, work and religion. The solitary punishment process apparent in British penal thinking of this era is particularly well‐ illustrated by the Port Arthur Separate Prison – a relatively rare surviving example of this type of facility in Australia, especially in this kind of setting. Similarly, the Point Puer boy’s establishment provides a demonstration of the spread of British ideas on the treatment of boy prisoners. The evidence of work and religion at Port Arthur still dominates the landscape with the large number of buildings (and their respective functions), major site modifications, known past industrial site functions and related areas, and religion‐ related elements and buildings evident.
The cessation of transportation to Tasmania in 1853 and the decline in the need for Port Arthur for convict use saw this use gradually replaced by a social welfare role with facilities being given over to, or built for ex‐ convicts, convict invalids, paupers and lunatics, demonstrating the legacy of the convict system. The Port Arthur Asylum (1868) is a rare example of this type of facility.
Port Arthur Historic Site is a significant, very rich and complex cultural landscape, the primary layers of which relate to the convict era (1830‐77) and subsequent eras as a country town and tourist site, including a State National Park and a major historic site under conservation management. It combines the contradictory landscape qualities of great beauty and association with a place of human confinement and punishment.
A gunman took the lives of thirty‐five people and wounded nineteen others on 28 April 1996 ‐ an additional layer of tragic significance was added to the place. This tragic loss of life on this scale, and its effect on Australians, led to changes in Australia’s national gun laws.
mackaystrategic.com.au ABN 26 602 859 414 45
Port Arthur Historic Site has extensive research potential primarily related to the convict experience because of its relative integrity and authenticity. This is enhanced because of the extensive other sources of evidence of the past history of the place including documentary, collections, structures, archaeological and landscape evidence.
Port Arthur Historic Site is outstanding in demonstrating the principal characteristics of an Australian convict site related to classification and segregation; dominance by authority and religion; the provision of accommodation for the convict, military and civil population; amenities for governance, punishment and healing, and the elements of place building, agriculture and industry.
Port Arthur Historic Site is a landscape of picturesque beauty. Its ruins and formal layout, in a serene setting, and the care with which this is maintained, symbolise a transformation in Australia from ‘hated stain’ to the celebration of a convict past. The picturesque setting of the place, recognised (and in certain areas consciously enhanced) since the early days of the settlement, features buildings in a landscape of hills with valley, edged by harbour and forest, is a very important aspect of the place’s significance. The parkland of today’s Port Arthur Historic Site is, in part, an accidental and deliberate artefact of park management practices, in the context of ruined buildings and mature English trees, which now seems to project an idealised notion of rustic contentment contrasting dramatically with Port Arthur’s known penal history. This apparent conflict and contrast is a critical element of the place’s significance. This complex, ambiguous character has been further strengthened as a result of the April 1996 shooting tragedy, creating, for many Australians, a more immediate poignancy and symbolism attaching to the values of the place.
Port Arthur Historic Site has outstanding heritage value to the nation because of the place's special association with British convicts in Australia and their administrators in the period 1830 to 1877, exemplifying a world‐ wide process of colonial settlement.
There are many significant people associated with the place from those who developed the penal philosophy used at Port Arthur to people who managed the convict system, those who lived at Port Arthur and ran the establishment, and those incarcerated there.
These include John Howard, Jeremy Bentham, Joshua Jebb and the Prison Reform Movement; Governor Arthur, the Governor of Van Diemens Land at the time that Port Arthur was established as a penal settlement and the person after whom it was named; Sir John and Lady Franklin; the Corps of Royal Engineers; Commandant Charles O’Hara Booth, Commandant William Champ, Superintendent James Boyd, Thomas Lempriere, Commissariat Officer at Port Arthur; political prisoners William Smith O’Brien: the leader of the Young Ireland Movement.
mackaystrategic.com.au ABN 26 602 859 414 46
Official Values
Criterion A Events, Processes Port Arthur Historic Site is a major and critical component of the British convict system constructed in Australia. The system is an example of a 19th century European colonial strategy of exporting prisoners and using their labour to establish a colonial economy. In Australia, this strategy had a significant impact on early colonial development and on the overall Australian psyche.
In particular, Port Arthur demonstrates to a high degree, an aspect of this British colonial process during the 19th century ‐ the adaptation of the British penal system to Australian conditions and the evolution of the secondary punishment system away from its British origins.
The Probation System, 1839‐53 — a system used only in Van Diemen’s Land and at Norfolk Island — was a uniquely Australian approach to convict management, providing punishment to ensure that transportation remained a deterrent, but also opportunities for reform and betterment. The system is important in the context of both Australian and World penal history. Port Arthur is unusual as it operated as a regional centre for a number of probation stations throughout the Tasman Peninsula.
Port Arthur was effectively an industrial establishment. The extent of former industrial operations illustrates the importance of ‘work’ in the penal system and the role of the convict used as human capital in building colonial economies. Port Arthur has seen the advent and growth of a number of key industries in Tasmania including timber, shipbuilding, foundries and the manufacture of building materials including bricks and pottery.
The Point Puer establishment (1833‐1849) and the Port Arthur Separate Prison (erected 1848‐1852) demonstrate the slow global evolution and spread of 19th century ideas about punishment and social reform.
The Separate Prison represents the British (and hence Australian) shift away from the use of physical punishment in an isolated setting to deter crime to an emphasis on psychological manipulation to reform criminal attitudes including isolation from contamination.
After the cessation of transportation in 1853, Port Arthur also became a welfare institution for lunatics (convicts found insane during servitude), ex‐convicts, convict invalids and paupers, demonstrating the human legacy of the British convict system. The Port Arthur Asylum (1868) is an important exemplar of then contemporary British thinking about better ways to manage and cure mental illness.
Port Arthur Historic Site is an outstanding, very rich and complex cultural landscape, the primary layers of which relate to the convict era (1830‐77) and subsequent eras as a country town and tourist site, including a State National Park and a major historic site under conservation management. It combines the contradictory
mackaystrategic.com.au ABN 26 602 859 414 47
landscape qualities of great beauty and association with a place of human confinement and punishment. Since 1830 there have been many phases of significant development, decline and change with several major bushfires, demolitions, constructions, major landscape alteration and maturity of plantings, and more recently, restoration, stabilisation and conservation.
A gunman took the lives of thirty‐five people and wounded nineteen others on 28 April 1996 ‐ an additional layer of tragic significance was added to the place. A memorial marking the event was created around the site of the former Broad Arrow Cafe and includes the Huon Pine cross erected soon after the event. Port Arthur Historic Site is significant as the site of contemporary large‐scale loss of human life outside the context of war, and as an event that led to changes in Australia's national gun laws.
The attribute related to this criterion is the entire place.
Criterion B Rarity Port Arthur Historic Site is one of a small set of penal settlements in Australia specifically developed for convicts described at the time as recidivists and political prisoners. It was established in 1830 as a ‘prison within a prison’. Today, only Port Arthur, Norfolk Island and perhaps Maria Island are able to actively demonstrate this aspect of Australia’s convict history through their cultural landscapes and artefact collections.
The Port Arthur Historic Site includes the satellite convict settlement of Point Puer set up specifically to house convict boys. Point Puer is one of a limited set of convict settlements in the Australian colonies to receive a single category of prisoners and is rare as a reformist institution for convict boys.
The Separate Prison and the Lunatic Asylum are relatively intact rare examples of innovative ways of managing criminals and the mentally ill in the mid‐19th century adapting the most modern European ideas of reform.
The attributes related to this criterion are the entire place, including the artefact collection, and particularly, Point Puer, the Separate Prison, and the Lunatic Asylum.
Criterion C Research Port Arthur Historic Site has extensive research potential because of the place’s relative integrity and authenticity and the ability of the material culture present to provide unique insight, primarily into the convict experience.
In combination, the oral tradition, documentary evidence, collections, structures, engineering relics, (both terrestrial and maritime) archaeological features and landscape at Port Arthur Historic Site have unparalleled potential for community education.
mackaystrategic.com.au ABN 26 602 859 414 48
The Port Arthur Historic Site landscape is, in itself, a complex artefact which illustrates both former uses and changing use over time.
Port Arthur Historic Site’s buildings, engineering relics and other structures contain, within their fabric, evidence of construction technology, available materials and adaptation to suit local conditions.
The Port Arthur Historic Site records and collections, including archaeological, provide a substantial research resource which, in conjunction with documentary evidence, have the potential to reveal and present much of the Port Arthur story.
Port Arthur Historic Site also has the potential to allow the exploration of particular aspects of Australia’s convict past such as how many key industries in Tasmania operated including timber, shipbuilding, foundries and the manufacture of building materials including bricks and pottery, and other early trades; and how the boy’s establishment at Point Puer, a unique experiment in penal segregation, operated.
Lempriere’s tidal benchmark, placed on the Isle of the Dead in 1841, is believed to be the earliest benchmark installed anywhere in the world. As such, it has exceptional historical and scientific significance in the international field of climate research because of the run of the related surviving records from that time until 1848 and the comparative base provided for current recordings on sea levels.
The attribute related to this criterion is the entire place, including its records and collections.
Criterion D Principal characteristics of a class of places Australia’s convict sites share patterns of environmental and social colonial history including classification and segregation; dominance by authority and religion; the provision of accommodation for the convict, military and civil population; amenities for governance, punishment and healing, and the elements of place building, agriculture and industry. Port Arthur Historic Site is outstanding in demonstrating the principal characteristics of an Australian Convict Site because:
It presents important aspects of Australia’s convict system including changing attitudes to punishment, reform, education and welfare; The physical landscape and setting at Port Arthur Historic Site retain a high degree of integrity and authenticity, thereby providing important evidence of the history and use of the place; The form and location of elements at Port Arthur Historic Site display deliberate design and arrangement, reflecting the order and hierarchy of Port Arthur’s military and penal history; The built environment at Port Arthur Historic Site displays a large, surviving concentration and wide range of 19th century design, engineering and construction techniques in a range of materials and built forms;
mackaystrategic.com.au ABN 26 602 859 414 49
Substantial parts of the site include known stratified archaeological deposits of material culture, which can be analysed to yield information about the site unavailable from documentary sources alone; Port Arthur Historic Site’s records, including manuscripts, maps, published material, photographs, historical, archaeological and architectural records, and databases, provide an extensive resource for a broad range of historical and social research; and
Port Arthur Historic Site illustrates changing approaches to heritage conservation philosophy and practice and is considered a landmark place for place and materials conservation;
The attributes related to this criterion are the entire place and its records.
Criterion E Aesthetic characteristics Port Arthur Historic Site is a complex layered cultural landscape, where the topography, plants and built elements combine to provide a physical chronicle of an eventful and dramatic past. The physical landscape present today evokes both the establishment of a British convict settlement in a remote Tasmanian setting and more than a century and a half of human history.
Port Arthur is a landscape of picturesque beauty. Its ruins and formal layout, in a serene setting, and the care with which this is maintained, symbolise a transformation in Australia from ‘hated stain’ to celebration of a convict past.
The picturesque setting of Port Arthur, recognised since the early days of the settlement, features buildings in a landscape of hills with valley, edged by harbour and forest. Port Puer and the Isle of the Dead, especially when viewed across Mason Cove, provide visual and historic focal points in important vistas. Similarly, Port Arthur is dramatic when viewed across the water from these settlements or from the water. The Church and the Penitentiary have both landmark and symbolic value for a variety of vistas to and within the historic site.
The melancholic drama of Port Arthur’s cultural landscape both in the past and today has inspired art and literature including its portrayal in Marcus Clarke’s 1874 novel “For the Term of His Natural Life”.
The Port Arthur penal settlement is one of a small set of places of secondary punishment (together with Norfolk Island, Sarah Island and Maria Island) which relied on an ‘alien’, often water‐bounded landscape to form the bars of the prison. The harbour location and views to and from the water are integral elements of both the visual and historical quality of the place.
The parkland of today’s Port Arthur is, in part, an accidental and deliberate artefact of park management practices. This, in the context of ruined buildings and mature English trees, which in their turn, were, in part, a function of deliberate design intent, now seems to project an idealised notion of rustic contentment contrasting dramatically with Port Arthur’s known penal history. This paradox is a very important part of the
mackaystrategic.com.au ABN 26 602 859 414 50
place’s significance. The built and planted elements at Port Arthur combine in an image of an ‘English’ place established in the strongly contrasting Australian bush and marine setting of a rugged coastline.
For families, survivors, rescuers, staff and others associated with the 1996 tragedy, the Broad Arrow Cafe and other areas on site associated with the tragedy and subsequent memorial services evoke strong emotional responses as a reminder of the event.
The attribute related to this criterion is the entire place in its setting.
Criterion G Social value Port Arthur Historic Site is a place where the aspects of Australia’s convict experience are recalled within a picturesque landscape as a reminder of our inherited psyche and our communal past.
Port Arthur is the best‐known symbol of Australia's convict past, a highly revered icon that symbolically represents Tasmania's place in Australian history.
The Arcadian qualities of the Port Arthur landscape are valued by most visitors to the place and by generations of Tasmanians.
For Australians broadly, particularly those of Anglo‐Celtic background, Port Arthur is a place to reconnect with their colonial roots, real or imagined, and reflect on the meanings of the past. For some, the search for early family associations and identity has led to Port Arthur and the rediscovery of personal links with convictism.
Port Arthur has always been a place where visitors from across the world are moved emotionally, possibly one of the few such cathartic locations in post‐settlement Australia.
Port Arthur Historic Site is a symbol of modern heritage practice in Australia – an expression of how we care (or, as in the past, have not cared so much) about our heritage. It holds an important place in the history of modern heritage conservation in Australia.
Port Arthur has become a particularly poignant, symbolic and special place following the April 1996 tragedy. The tragedy has become a prominent political symbol in Australia – ‘Port Arthur’ is now understood nationally and worldwide to encapsulate the debate and new policies for national gun reform. This has clearly added a new and emotionally powerful layer to the national meaning of the place.
The attribute related to this criterion is the entire place.
mackaystrategic.com.au ABN 26 602 859 414 51
Criterion H Significant people and associations Port Arthur Historic Site has outstanding heritage value to the nation because of the place's special association with British convicts in Australia and their administrators in the period 1830 to 1877.
Port Arthur, in conjunction with other Australian convict sites, exemplifies a world‐wide process of colonial settlement. The British colonial penal system, evident in post‐1788 Australia and demonstrated to a high degree at Port Arthur, was significant in progressing 18th and 19th century European colonization.
John Howard, prison reformer, and Jeremy Bentham, philosopher and jurist, were instrumental in the changes to the criminal system in Britain that advocated reform rather than punishment and inspired the probationary system and the use of separate cells instituted at Port Arthur.
Captain Joshua Jebb designed London’s Pentonville prison, one of the first model prisons erected between 1840 and 1842. Pentonville and its separate system were considered to be a success, and thus were adapted at other penal institutions including Port Arthur’s Separate Prison (c1849).
Governor Arthur: the Governor of Van Diemens Land at the time that Port Arthur was established as a penal settlement and the person after whom it was named. He was involved first hand in the rules and regulations which gave order to Port Arthur.
Sir John and Lady Franklin: Sir John Franklin was the Governor of Tasmania 1837‐43. He and his wife, visited Port Arthur in March 1837 to review operations at the penal settlement.
The Corps of Royal Engineers were responsible for planning, designing and constructing buildings at Port Arthur after assuming responsibility for structures located at penal stations throughout the Tasman Peninsula in 1835.
Commandant Charles O’Hara Booth, Commandant William Champ, and Superintendent James Boyd, were all significant in either the development or in the management of Port Arthur as a penal settlement and several of them had important roles at other places beyond Port Arthur, linked to the wider convict system or related to their period at Port Arthur.
Thomas Lempriere: Commissariat Officer at Port Arthur during the 1830s and 1840s. In 1841, he had a tidal benchmark carved into a north facing vertical rock on the Isle of the Dead from which he took regular tidal readings until his departure from the settlement in 1848.
William Smith O’Brien: the leader of the Young Ireland Movement who was found guilty of treason for his part in a failed armed rebellion against British rule of Ireland – he was a significant political prisoner. He was transported for life to Van Diemen’s Land in 1848. In 1849, he was transferred to Maria Island, and then later
mackaystrategic.com.au ABN 26 602 859 414 52
Port Arthur, where he was placed in the cottage that now bears his name. He gained a ticket‐of‐leave, and left Port Arthur on 18 November 1850.
Other notable inmates were John Frost: Welsh Chartist and leader of the first truly working class movement in Britain providing the foundations of the Westminster System of government; and Linus Miller: ‘Canadian’ patriot and a leader of the anti‐British forces of the Canadian rebellion of 1837‐38.
mackaystrategic.com.au ABN 26 602 859 414 53
Annexure C: Port Arthur Historic Site: Statutory Management Plan – Summary Statements of Heritage Value
Historic Values • Port Arthur is an exceptional example of the 19th‐century European strategy of using the forced labour of convicts to establish global empires. • Port Arthur demonstrates to a high degree the adaptation of the 19th century British penal system to Australian conditions. This regime ensured that men would be punished and reformed. • Port Arthur was an industrial establishment, which engaged in largescale manufacture of a wide range of material and goods for both government and private markets. • A number of Port Arthur’s institutions pioneered new aspects of British and American 19th‐century penal and social ideas and practice: the Point Puer establishment, the dockyard, the Separate Prison, the Paupers’ Depot and the Lunatic Asylum all demonstrate important innovations in attitude and practice. • After closure in 1877, the site became the cradle and exemplar of Tasmanian tourism, and of heritage tourism and management at a national level. • The Soldiers’ Memorial Avenue, established in 1919, and the buildings associated with the Carnarvon period, are of local significance. • The tragedy of 28 April 1996 led to changes in Australia's gun laws. Scientific Values • The Port Arthur Historic Site has extensive research potential because of the high degree of integrity of the Site and its cultural landscape setting. • The Port Arthur Historic Site is a benchmark place in the development of Australian historical archaeological method and theory. • Lemprière's tidal benchmark, in combination with his written records, has exceptional historical and scientific significance in the international field of climate research. Aesthetic Values • The Port Arthur Historic Site, including Point Puer and the Isle of the Dead, is a prominent visual landmark within the marine and terrestrial landscape. • The physical landscape impresses on the viewer the enormity of the task of establishing a British convict settlement in a remote colonial setting. • The gardenesque landscape was intended to model for all inhabitants the desired qualities of a thriving society—order, discipline, beauty and obedience. • The beauty of the landscape, while seemingly paradoxical, is rather more appropriately viewed as an essential component of the coercive system; this essentially 18th—century idea is forcefully expressed at Port Arthur.
mackaystrategic.com.au ABN 26 602 859 414 54
• Its landscape, ruins and formal layout symbolise a transformation in Australian attitudes from revulsion at the hated stain to honouring of and interest in the convict past. • The picturesque quality of its setting and its buildings has been recorded by artists and writers since the early days of the settlement. Technical Values • Lemprière’s tidal benchmark, when combined with the written records, has exceptional historical and scientific significance in the international field of climate research. • The planning and built fabric of Port Arthur’s dockyard, convict tramway, semaphore system, flour mill, hydro‐engineering works and reticulated water systems demonstrate high degrees of creativity in adapting imported industrial practices to local materials and conditions. • The collection of built structures from the convict period of Port Arthur is important in demonstrating the labour, skills and workmanship of convicts. • Port Arthur represents the introduction to the Australian colonies of certain Western ideas and structures concerned with the management of prisoners, the mentally ill and the indigent, which still underpin modern practices. • The gallery of at least 200 photographs of convicts, created by Superintendent Adolarius Humphrey Boyd, is among the earliest‐known instances in Australia of the systematic use of photography in prisons. Social Values • Port Arthur is the best‐known symbol of Australia's convict past: it is an iconic site that represents one of the foundational stories in the State’s and the nation’s history. • The local community values the Site as a former township in which many of them were born and grew up. The cemetery on the Isle of the Dead, the Soldiers’ Memorial Walk and the 1996 tragedy have special significance. The site also has significance as a place of long term employment to many community members. • The heritage community values the Port Arthur Historic Site as a proving ground for new conservation and interpretation practice. • Port Arthur and the associated convict records evoke powerful associations for the descendants of all those who passed through here. • Port Arthur is the cradle of contemporary institutions and practices, such as today’s prisons and detention centres. • The Port Arthur Historic Site has been an important training ground for historical archaeologists and other heritage professionals for 30 years. • For both the broader and local community, the memorial for the 1996 tragedy provides an opportunity to reflect upon that event and the new laws controlling gun ownership that it inspired.
mackaystrategic.com.au ABN 26 602 859 414 55
Special Association Values • The Port Arthur Historic Site has outstanding heritage value to the nation because of the place's special association with notable reformers, administrators and convicts, artists and writers from the British Empire: these include John Howard, Jeremy Bentham, Joshua Jebb, Lieutenant‐Governor Arthur, the Corps of Royal Engineers; Commandants Charles O'Hara Booth, William Champ, and Superintendent James Boyd; John Hampton, Comptroller of Convicts and later Governor of Western Australia 1862–68; Thomas Lemprière, William Smith O'Brien, John Frost, Linus Miller, Martin Cash, Mark Jeffrey, Henry Savery, Thomas Costantini, George Augustus Robinson, John Skinner Prout, Francis Simpkinson de Wesselow, Anthony Trollope, Marcus Clarke, John Watt Beattie, Mark Twain and Bishop Francis Nixon. Indigenous Values • The Tasman Peninsula region generally has significance to Tasmanian Aboriginal people. • The landscape was important to Aboriginal people in the past and provides a connection of importance to Aboriginal people today. The local landscape seems little changed from its pre‐invasion appearance. • The Port Arthur Historic Site and its environs contain a range of Aboriginal sites. • One known Tasmanian Aboriginal person is likely to have been buried on the Isle of the Dead. Rarity • The Port Arthur Historic Site is one of a small group of penal settlements in the Australian colonies specifically developed for recidivists. • The Dockyard is rare as an example of the use of convict labour to build both essential infrastructure and vessels. • Point Puer is unique as the first purpose‐built reformist institution for convict boys in the British Empire. • The Separate Prison and the Lunatic Asylum are rare examples of innovative ways of managing criminals and the mentally ill in the mid‐19th century. • The landscape around the site provides habitat for the endangered Swift Parrot. Representativeness • The form and location of elements at the Site display purposeful design, functionality and arrangement, reflecting the order, operations and hierarchy of a convict penal settlement. • The built environment at the Site displays a large, surviving concentration and wide range of 19th‐century design, engineering and construction techniques, materials and built forms. • The Site represents important aspects of Australia's convict system including changing attitudes to punishment, reform, education and welfare.
mackaystrategic.com.au ABN 26 602 859 414 56
Annexure D: Port Arthur Historic Site: Tasmanian Heritage Register – Official Summary Statement of State Heritage Values
Developed specifically for secondary offenders between 1830 and 1877, Port Arthur is perhaps the best known symbol of Australia’s convict past, representing one of the foundational stories in Tasmania’s and the nation’s history.
Port Arthur demonstrates the adaptation of the 19th British penal system to Australian conditions. Forced labour created essential infrastructure and the foundation for an industrial establishment manufacturing a wide range of material and goods for both government and private markets.
A number of Port Arthur institutions pioneered new aspects of British and American 19thcentury penal and social ideas and practice, for example, the Point Puer reformist institution for convict boys, the Dockyard where convict labour was used to build both essential infrastructure and vessels, the Separate Prison and the Asylum which were used for managing criminals and the mentally ill, and the Pauper’s Depot which was used to maintain men incapable of living independently.
Port Arthur Historic Site has a high degree of integrity and has become the exemplar of Tasmanian tourism. Its landscape, ruins and formal layout symbolise a transformation in Australian attitudes from revulsion at ‘the hated stain’ to a celebration of the convict past.
Over the last 30 years Port Arthur has set a benchmark in the development of Australian historical archaeological method and theory, and also of heritage tourism and management at a national level.
The tragedy of 28 April 1996, when a lone gunman shot and killed 35 people and wounded 19 others, added another layer to the site’s history and as a result of this horrendous event, new guns laws controlling gun ownership were introduced across the nation.
Many notable historic figures, including administrators and convicts, artists and writers have been associated with Port Arthur.
mackaystrategic.com.au ABN 26 602 859 414 57 Email [email protected] Phone 0412 673 548 Address PO Box 479 Lindfield NSW 2070 Australia
Annexure E: Port Arthur Historic Site: heritage values and cultural significance matrix
The cultural heritage values of the Port Arthur Historic Site are complex. They are found in intangible elements—such as its historical significance and community attachments—and its physical characteristics. There are a range of different listing citations, statements of significance and assessments of heritage value for the Port Arthur Historic Site. Those of particular relevance to this HIA include the Statement of Outstanding Universal Value for the Australian Convict Sites World Heritage Property, the Australian National Heritage List Summary Statement of Significance and Official Values, the Tasmanian Heritage Register Official Summary Statement of Heritage values and the Summary Statement of Significance from the Port Arthur Historic Sites Statutory Management Plan.
These assessments are provided in Annexes A to D above. Owing to different conventions and statutory requirements, they do not apply a uniform set of criteria, but there is considerable overlap. While some values could possibly be affected by the Project, others, by their very nature, or the nature or location of the proposed works, cannot be affected. In the interests of distilling those values which could potentially be affected by the Project, the following attributes are considered collectively, in the summary matrix below: Historic, Aesthetic, Scientific/Research, Social, Technical, Significant People and Associations, Representativeness/Principal Characteristics, Rarity, Indigenous, and Natural.
For each grouping of values some short excerpts are cited, focusing on attributes and values that might be affected. Other matters, such as aspects that relate to other parts of the Port Arthur Historic Site (eg: Point Puer) or unrelated attributes, (eg: technical achievement) or unrelated associations (eg: connection with historic figures) are not re‐presented or considered further. Within each grouping a conclusion is presented about specific attributes and values which will not, or potentially could be, affected by the Project.
58
Historic Values Criteria Excerpts from citations Australian Convict Sites: World Heritage Property Criterion (iv) The Australian convict sites constitute an outstanding example of the way in which conventional forced labour and national prison systems Statement of Outstanding Universal Value to be an outstanding were transformed, in major European nations in the 18th and 19th example of a type of centuries, into a system of deportation and forced labour forming part building, architectural or of the British Empire’s vast colonial project. They illustrate the variety technological ensemble or of the creation of penal colonies to serve the many material needs created by the development of a new territory. They bear witness to a landscape which illustrates penitentiary system which had many objectives, ranging from severe (a) significant stage(s) in punishment used as a deterrent to forced labour for men, women and human history children, and the rehabilitation of the convicts through labour and discipline.
Conclusion: these attributes and values will not be affected by the Project
National Heritage List Criterion A: events and . . . demonstrates to a high degree, an aspect of this British colonial processes process during the 19th century - the adaptation of the British penal system to Australian conditions and the evolution of the secondary the place has outstanding punishment system away from its British origins heritage value to the nation . . . operated as a regional centre for a number of probation stations because of the place's importance in the course, or illustrates the importance of ‘work’ in the penal system and the role of the convict used as human capital
59
pattern, of Australia's . . . seen the advent and growth of a number of key industries in natural or cultural history Tasmania
. . .welfare institution for lunatics . . . ex-convicts, convict invalids and paupers, demonstrating the human legacy of the British convict system
. . . outstanding, very rich and complex cultural landscape, the primary layers of which relate to the convict era (1830-77) and subsequent eras as a country town and tourist site
combines the contradictory landscape qualities of great beauty and association with a place of human confinement and punishment
. . .on 28 April 1996 - an additional layer of tragic significance was added to the place . . . significant as the site of contemporary large-scale loss of human life outside the context of war, and as an event that led to changes in Australia's national gun laws
Conclusion: the Project has potential to cause: . loss of integrity and/or authenticity of the Port Arthur Historic Site cultural landscape . impact on the visual and sensory environment of the Memorial Garden
Tasmanian Heritage Register Official Summary . . . best known symbol of Australia’s convict past, representing one of Statement the foundational stories in Tasmania’s and the nation’s history
60
demonstrates the adaptation of the 19th British penal system to Australian conditions.
The tragedy of 28 April 1996, when a lone gunman shot and killed 35 people and wounded 19 others, added another layer to the site’s history and as a result of this horrendous event, new guns laws controlling gun ownership were introduced across the nation
Conclusion: the Project has potential to cause: . loss of integrity and/or authenticity of the Port Arthur Historic Site cultural landscape . impact on the visual and sensory environment of the Memorial Garden
PAHS Statutory Management Plan Summary Statements . . . exceptional example of the 19th-century European strategy of using the forced labour of convicts to establish global empires. Historic Values . . . demonstrates to a high degree the adaptation of the 19th century British penal system to Australian conditions.
. . . After closure in 1877, the site became the cradle and exemplar of Tasmanian tourism, and of heritage tourism and management at a national level.
. . . The tragedy of 28 April 1996 led to changes in Australia's gun laws
61
Conclusion: the Project has potential to cause: . loss of integrity and/or authenticity of the Port Arthur Historic Site cultural landscape . impact on the visual and sensory environment of the Memorial Garden
Potential impacts of the proposed Port Arthur Visitor Centre and Site Entry Precinct Project: . loss of integrity and/or authenticity of the Port Arthur Historic Site cultural landscape . impact on the visual and sensory environment of the Memorial Garden
The proposed Port Arthur Visitor Centre and Site Entry Precinct Project would not affect: . the ability of the place to demonstrate the convict period or aspects of the penal system, or later periods
Aesthetic Values Criteria Excerpts from citations
National Heritage List Criterion E: Aesthetic . . . a complex layered cultural landscape, where the topography, plants Values and built elements combine to provide a physical chronicle of an eventful and dramatic past.
62
The place has outstanding The physical landscape present today evokes both the establishment of heritage value to the nation a British convict settlement in a remote Tasmanian setting and more because of the place's than a century and a half of human history. importance in exhibiting Port Arthur is a landscape of picturesque beauty. particular aesthetic characteristics valued by a . . . ruins and formal layout, in a serene setting community or cultural group . . .picturesque setting of Port Arthur, recognised since the early days of the settlement, features buildings in a landscape of hills with valley, edged by harbour and forest
. . .dramatic when viewed across the water
. . .relied on an ‘alien’, often water-bounded landscape to form the bars of the prison.
The harbour location and views to and from the water are integral elements of both the visual and historical quality of the place.
. . .built and planted elements at Port Arthur combine in an image of an ‘English’ place established in the strongly contrasting Australian bush and marine setting of a rugged coastline . . .
. . . the Broad Arrow Cafe and other areas on site associated with the tragedy and subsequent memorial services evoke strong emotional responses
63
Conclusion: the Project has potential to cause: . loss of integrity and/or authenticity of the Port Arthur Historic Site cultural landscape . presence of a new visually intrusive element within the setting of the Port Arthur Historic Site . loss of amenity in the views from significant elements including the Commandant’s House, the Hospital and the Penitentiary . impact on the visual and sensory environment of the Memorial Garden
Tasmanian Heritage Register Official Summary . . . perhaps the best known symbol of Australia’s convict past Statement . . . a high degree of integrity . . .
. . . landscape, ruins and formal layout symbolise a transformation in Australian attitudes from revulsion at ‘the hated stain’ to a celebration of the convict past
Conclusion: the Project has potential to cause: . loss of integrity and/or authenticity of the Port Arthur Historic Site cultural landscape
PAHS Statutory Management Plan Summary Statements . . . a prominent visual landmark within the marine and terrestrial landscape.
64
Aesthetic Values The gardenesque landscape was intended to model for all inhabitants the desired qualities of a thriving society—order, discipline, beauty and obedience.
• The beauty of the landscape, while seemingly paradoxical, is rather more appropriately viewed as an essential component of the coercive system . . .
. . . landscape, ruins and formal layout symbolise a transformation in Australian attitudes from revulsion at the hated stain to honouring of and interest in the convict past.
The picturesque quality of its setting and its buildings has been recorded by artists and writers since the early days of the settlement.
Conclusion: the Project has potential to cause: . loss of integrity and/or authenticity of the Port Arthur Historic Site cultural landscape
Potential impacts of the proposed Port Arthur Visitor Centre and Site Entry Precinct Project: . loss of integrity and/or authenticity of the Port Arthur Historic Site cultural landscape . presence of a new visually intrusive element within the setting of the Port Arthur Historic Site . loss of amenity in the views from significant elements including the Commandant’s House, the Hospital and the Penitentiary . impact on the visual and sensory environment of the Memorial Garden
65
The proposed Port Arthur Visitor Centre and Site Entry Precinct Project would not affect: . the symbolism of the gardenesque landscape as a model for the desired qualities of a thriving society—order, discipline, beauty and obedience . the symbolism of transformation in Australian attitudes from revulsion at the hated stain to honouring of and interest in the convict past . the image of an ‘English’ place established in the strongly contrasting Australian bush and marine setting of a rugged coastline . the inspirational qualities of the picturesque setting
Scientific/Research Criteria Excerpts from citations Values
National Heritage List Criterion C: Research . . . extensive research potential because of the place’s relative integrity Values and authenticity and the ability of the material culture present to provide unique insight, primarily into the convict experience the place has outstanding . . . landscape is, in itself, a complex artefact which illustrates both heritage value the place former uses and changing use over time . . . has outstanding heritage value to the nation because . . . potential to allow the exploration of particular aspects of Australia’s of the place's potential to convict past such as how many key industries in Tasmania operated yield information that will including timber . . .
66
contribute to an Conclusion: the Project has potential to cause: understanding of Australia's natural or . physical impact on unknown archaeological resources cultural history
Tasmanian Heritage Register Official Summary N/A Statement Conclusion: the Project has no potential for impact under this criterion
PAHS Statutory Management Plan Summary Statements . . . extensive research potential because of the high degree of integrity of the Site and its cultural landscape setting Scientific Values Conclusion: the Project has potential to cause: . physical impact on unknown archaeological resources. Potential impacts of the proposed Port Arthur Visitor Centre and Site Entry Precinct Project: . physical impact on unknown archaeological resources.
The proposed Port Arthur Visitor Centre and Site Entry Precinct Project would not affect: any known archaeological feature or resource the scientific research potential of the wider Port Arthur landscape
67
Social Criteria Excerpts from citations Values
National Heritage List Criterion G: Social Values . . . Arcadian qualities of the Port Arthur landscape are valued by most visitors to the place and by generations of Tasmanians the place has outstanding heritage value to the nation . . . a place to reconnect with their colonial roots, real or imagined, and because of the place's reflect on the meanings of the past strong or special . . . particularly poignant, symbolic and special place following the April association with a 1996 tragedy particular community or cultural group for social, Conclusion: the Project has potential to cause: cultural or spiritual reasons . loss of integrity and/or authenticity of the Port Arthur Historic Site cultural landscape . impact on the visual and sensory environment of the Memorial Garden
Tasmanian Heritage Register Official Summary The tragedy of 28 April 1996, when a lone gunman shot and killed 35 Statement people and wounded 19 others, added another layer to the site’s history and as a result of this horrendous event, new guns laws controlling gun ownership were introduced across the nation. Conclusion: the Project has potential to cause:
68
. impact on the visual and sensory environment of the Memorial Garden
PAHS Statutory Management Plan Summary Statements . . . local community values the Site as a former township in which many of them were born and grew up . . . Social Values . . . the memorial for the 1996 tragedy provides an opportunity to reflect upon that event and the new laws controlling gun ownership that it inspired . . . Conclusion: the Project has potential to cause: . impact on the visual and sensory environment of the Memorial Garden
Potential impacts of the proposed Port Arthur Visitor Centre and Site Entry Precinct Project: . loss of integrity and/or authenticity of the Port Arthur Historic Site cultural landscape . impact on the visual and sensory environment of the Memorial Garden.
The proposed Port Arthur Visitor Centre and Site Entry Precinct Project would not affect: the Arcadian qualities of the Port Arthur Historic Site cultural landscape the connection between the Port Arthur Historic site and the local community
69
Technical Criteria Excerpts from citations Values
National Heritage List Criterion F: Technical N/A Achievement Conclusion: no potential impacts identified the place has outstanding heritage value to the nation because of the place's importance in demonstrating a high degree of creative or technical achievement at a particular period
Tasmanian Heritage Register Official Summary . . . set a benchmark in the development of Australian historical Statement archaeological method and theory, and also of heritage tourism and management . . .
Conclusion: no potential impacts identified
70
PAHS Statutory Management Plan Summary Statements The collection of built structures from the convict period of Port Arthur is important in demonstrating the labour, skills and workmanship of Technical Values convicts.
Conclusion: no potential impacts identified
Potential impacts of the proposed Port Arthur Visitor Centre and Site Entry Precinct Project: . no potential impacts identified
The proposed Port Arthur Visitor Centre and Site Entry Precinct Project would not affect: the collection of built structures from the convict period the role of the Port Arthur Historic Site as a benchmark in the development of Australian historical archaeological method and theory, and heritage tourism and management
Significant People and Criteria Excerpts from citations Associations
Australian Convict Sites: World Heritage Property Criterion (vi) The transportation of criminals, delinquents, and political prisoners to colonial lands by the great nation states between the 18th and 20th
71
Statement of Outstanding Universal Value to be directly or tangibly centuries is an important aspect of human history, especially with associated with events or regard to its penal, political and colonial dimensions. The Australian living traditions, with ideas, convict settlements provide a particularly complete example of this or with beliefs, with artistic history and the associated symbolic values derived from discussions in and literary works of modern and contemporary European society. They illustrate an active outstanding universal phase in the occupation of colonial lands to the detriment of the significance Aboriginal peoples, and the process of creating a colonial population of European origin through the dialectic of punishment and transportation followed by forced labour and social rehabilitation to the eventual social integration of convicts as settlers
Conclusion: no potential impacts identified
National Heritage List Criterion H: Significant . . . outstanding heritage value to the nation because of the place's People and Associations special association with British convicts in Australia and their administrators . . . the place has outstanding heritage value to the nation Port Arthur, in conjunction with other Australian convict sites, because of the place's exemplifies a world‐wide process of colonial settlement . . . special association with the life or works of a person, or British colonial penal system . . . demonstrated to a high degree . . . group of persons, of importance in Australia's natural or cultural history Conclusion: no potential impacts identified
72
Tasmanian Heritage Register Official Summary . . . pioneered new aspects of British and American 19thcentury penal Statement and social ideas and practice . . .
Many notable historic figures, including administrators and convicts, artists and writers have been associated with Port Arthur.
Conclusion: no potential impacts identified
PAHS Statutory Management Plan Summary Statements . . . special association with notable reformers, administrators and convicts, artists and writers from the British Empire . . . Special Association
Values Conclusion: no potential impacts identified
Potential impacts of the proposed Port Arthur Visitor Centre and Site Entry Precinct Project: . no potential impacts identified
73
The proposed Port Arthur Visitor Centre and Site Entry Precinct Project would not affect: . any substantive association with notable reformers, administrators and convicts, artists and writers . the ability of the Port Arthur Historic Site to demonstrate the world‐wide process of colonial settlement and the British colonial penal system
Representativeness / Criteria Excerpts from citations Principal Characteristics
National Heritage List Criterion D: . . . aspects of Australia’s convict system including changing attitudes Representativeness to punishment, reform, education and welfare . . .
the place has outstanding The physical landscape and setting at Port Arthur Historic Site retain a heritage value to the nation high degree of integrity and authenticity, thereby providing important because of the place's evidence of the history and use of the place . . importance in demonstrating the principal . . . known stratified archaeological deposits of material culture characteristics of: . . . illustrates changing approaches to heritage conservation a class of Australia's philosophy and practice natural or cultural places; or Conclusion: the Project has potential to cause:
74
a class of Australia's . loss of integrity and/or authenticity of the Port Arthur Historic Site natural or cultural cultural landscape environments; . physical impact on unknown archaeological resources
Tasmanian Heritage Register Official Summary . . . perhaps the best known symbol of Australia’s convict past, Statement representing one of the foundational stories in Tasmania’s and the nation’s history . . .
Conclusion: no potential impacts identified
PAHS Statutory Management Plan Summary Statements The form and location of elements at the Site display purposeful design, functionality and arrangement, reflecting the order, operations Representativeness and hierarchy of a convict penal settlement.
The built environment at the Site displays a large, surviving concentration and wide range of 19th‐century design, engineering and construction techniques, materials and built forms.
. . . represents important aspects of Australia's convict system including changing attitudes to punishment, reform, education and welfare . . .
Conclusion: no potential impacts identified
75
Potential impacts of the proposed Port Arthur Visitor Centre and Site Entry Precinct Project: . loss of integrity and/or authenticity of the Port Arthur Historic Site cultural landscape . physical impact on unknown archaeological resources
The proposed Port Arthur Visitor Centre and Site Entry Precinct Project would not affect: the manner in which the buildings and landscape at Port Arthur demonstrate aspects of Australia's convict system including changing attitudes to punishment, reform, education and welfare
Rarity Criteria Excerpts from citations Values
National Heritage List Criterion B: Rarity . . . one of a small set of penal settlements in Australia specifically developed for convicts described at the time as recidivists and political the place has outstanding prisoners . . . heritage value to the nation because of the place's Conclusion: no potential impacts identified possession of uncommon, rare or endangered aspects
76
of Australia's natural or cultural history
Tasmanian Heritage Register Official Summary N/A Statement Conclusion: no potential impacts identified
PAHS Statutory Management Plan Summary Statements . . . one of a small group of penal settlements in the Australian colonies specifically developed for recidivists . . . Rarity
Conclusion: no potential impacts identified
Potential impacts of the proposed Port Arthur Visitor Centre and Site Entry Precinct Project: . no potential impacts identified
77
The proposed Port Arthur Visitor Centre and Site Entry Precinct Project would not affect: the rarity of the Port Arthur Historic Site as one of a small group of penal settlements in the Australian colonies specifically developed for recidivists and political prisoners
Indigenous Criteria Excerpts from citations Values
National Heritage List Criterion I: Indigenous N/A values Conclusion: no potential impacts identified the place has outstanding heritage value to the nation because of the place's importance as part of Indigenous tradition
Tasmanian Heritage Register Official Summary N/A Statement Conclusion: no potential impacts identified
78
PAHS Statutory Management Plan Summary Statements The landscape was important to Aboriginal people in the past and provides a connection of importance to Aboriginal people today. The Indigenous Values local landscape seems little changed from its pre‐invasion appearance.
The Port Arthur Historic Site and its environs contain a range of Aboriginal sites.
Conclusion: the Project has potential to cause: . physical impact on unknown Aboriginal relics
Potential impacts of the proposed Port Arthur Visitor Centre and Site Entry Precinct Project: . physical impact on unknown Aboriginal relics
The proposed Port Arthur Visitor Centre and Site Entry Precinct Project would not affect: any known Aboriginal relic, place or value
Natural Criteria Excerpts from citations Values
79
National Heritage List Criteria A, B, C, D N/A.
. Conclusion: no potential impacts identified
Tasmanian Heritage Register Official Summary N/A Statement . Conclusion: no potential impacts identified
PAHS Statutory Management Plan Summary Statements N/A
. Conclusion: no potential impacts identified
Potential impacts of the proposed Port Arthur Visitor Centre and Site Entry Precinct Project: . no potential heritage impacts identified
The swift parrot, which nest in Tasmanian blue gum trees (E. globulus) is listed as endangered under the Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 (Tas). This issue is addressed in this report, but neither the swift parrot, nor its habitat are identified in any heritage listing citation.
The proposed Port Arthur Visitor Centre and Site Entry Precinct Project would not affect: any other natural values of the Port Arthur Historic Site
80 Email [email protected] Phone 0412 673 548 Address PO Box 479 Lindfield NSW 2070 Australia
Annexure F: Port Arthur Visitor Centre Redevelopment: projects drawings prepared by Rosevear Stephenson
A1.02 Issue F 22 August 1:200@A1 Site Plan
A2.01 Issue F 22 August 1:200@A1 Level 1 & 2 General Arrangement
A2.02 Issue F 22 August 1:100@A1 Level 1 Floor Plan
A2.03 Issue F 22 August 1:100@A1 Level 2 Floor Plan
A3.01 Issue F 22 August various scale Elevations
A3.02 Issue F 22 August 1:100@A1 Elevations
A3.04 Issue F 22 August 1:100@A1 Sections
mackaystrategic.com.au
ABN 26 602 859 414 81
Annexure G: Port Arthur Visitor Centre Redevelopment: Architecture Modelling and Site View Analysis prepared by Rosevear Stephenson & HPA Projects
mackaystrategic.com.au ABN 26 602 859 414 82
mackaystrategic.com.au ABN 26 602 859 414 83
mackaystrategic.com.au ABN 26 602 859 414 84
mackaystrategic.com.au ABN 26 602 859 414 85
Annexure H: Documents Consulted
Project Documentation
Port Arthur Historic Site Redevelopment of Visitor Centre & Site Entry Precinct, Stage 1 Masterplan Design Options Analysis, Rosevear Stephenson, HPA Projects, May 2016
Port Arthur Historic Site Redevelopment of Visitor Centre & Site Entry Precinct, Stage 1 Design Review and Preferred Option, Rosevear Stephenson, HPA Projects, May 2016
Port Arthur Historic Site Redevelopment of Visitor Centre & Site Entry Precinct, Stage 2 Design Development Architectural Design Report for Heritage Impact Assessment, Rosevear Stephenson, HPA Projects, August 2016, Rev B1
Drawings A1.02 Issue F 22 August 1:200@A1 Site Plan A2.01 Issue F 22 August 1:200@A1 Level 1 & 2 General Arrangement A2.02 Issue F 22 August 1:100@A1 Level 1 Floor Plan A2.03 Issue F 22 August 1:100@A1 Level 2 Floor Plan A3.01 Issue F 22 August various scale Elevations A3.02 Issue F 22 August 1:100@A1 Elevations A3.04 Issue F 22 August 1:100@A1 Sections
Photomontages – View points View Point 1 Government Gardens Fountain S 43o05’756” E 147o5’967” 50mm camera lens height RL6.5 AHD View point 2 Memorial Garden S 43o08’787” E 147o151’093” 50mm camera lens height RL6.5 AHD View point 3 Commandants Cottage Verandah S 43o08’923” E 147o151’062” 50mm camera lens height RL17.5 AHD View point 4 Hospital Hill from Smith O Brien’s S 43o08’939” E 147o50’998” 50mm camera lens height RL25.5 AHD View point 5 Penitentiary steps northwest end S 43o08’863” E 147o50’996” 50mm camera lens height RL3.5 AHD View Point 6 Government Cottage Terrace S 43o08’720” E 147o50’915” 50mm camera lens height RL14.5 AHD
mackaystrategic.com.au ABN 26 602 859 414 86
ENSPEC Environment & Risk, Development Impact Report prepared for the Port Arthur Historic Site Management Authority, July 2016.
Legislation
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999 (Cwth) Port Arthur Historic Sites Management Act 1987 (Tas) National Parks and Reserves Management Act 2002 (Tas) Government Business Enterprises Act 1995 (Tas) Nature Conservation Act 2002 (Tas) Aboriginal Relics Act 1975 (Tas Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (Tas) Tasman Interim Planning Scheme 2013
Guidelines and Charters
The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance, The Burra Charter, 2013 (Burra Charter)
ICOMOS, 2011. Guidance on Heritage Impact Assessments for Cultural World Heritage Properties. A publication of the International Council on Monuments and Sites. ICOMOS, Paris, France, in collaboration with the World Heritage Centre
Environment Protection & Biodiversity Conservation Regulations, 2000, Schedule 5 ‐ Australian World Heritage Management Principles.
National Heritage Management Principles, www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/c7817f92‐ 4490‐49b2‐a02a‐845b7f1f2ef3/files/mgt‐principles.pdf
EPBC Act environment assessment process—referral flow chart, https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/38fc57cd‐c744‐4727‐8fa0‐51ecbd6e879b/files/flow‐ chart.pdf
Works Guidelines for Historic Places, Tasmanian Heritage Council, 2015
Management Documents
Port Arthur Historic Sites Statutory Management Plan, 2008
mackaystrategic.com.au ABN 26 602 859 414 87
Port Arthur Historic Site Archaeology Plan, PAHSMA, 2003
Port Arthur Archaeological Procedures Manual, PAHSMA, 2005
Port Arthur Landscape Management Plan 2002
Port Arthur Historic Site Conservation Plan, PAHSMA, 2000
Port Arthur Historic Site Management Authority Tourism Strategy, PAHSMA, 2006
Overlays prepared by PAHSMA
Composite overlay Plans, prepared by PAHSMA personnel, showing:
Port Arthur Site Detail Plan, PAHSMA 2002, plus Proposed Visitor Centre perimeter plan, Rosevear Stephenson 2016 Port Arthur Site Detail Plan, PAHSMA 2002, plus Proposed Visitor Centre perimeter plan, Rosevear Stephenson 2016, plus Port Arthur Aerial Imagery, georeferenced Tasmanian LiST Map data 2016 Port Arthur Site Detail Plan, PAHSMA 2002, plus Proposed Visitor Centre perimeter plan, Rosevear Stephenson 2016, plus Port Arthur Tree Data, PAHSMA 2015 Proposed Visitor Centre perimeter plan, Rosevear Stephenson 2016, plus Plan of Port Arthur Penal Colony, Hurst 1846 Port Arthur Site Detail Plan, PAHSMA 2002, plus Proposed Visitor Centre perimeter plan, Rosevear Stephenson 2016, plus Plan of Port Arthur Penal Colony, Hurst 1846, plus Proposed Visitor Centre perimeter plan, Rosevear Stephenson 2016, plus Plan of Port Arthur, [cartographer unknown] 1846 Port Arthur Site Detail Plan, PAHSMA 2002, plus Proposed Visitor Centre perimeter plan, Rosevear Stephenson 2016, plus Plan of Port Arthur, [cartographer unknown] 1846 Proposed Visitor Centre perimeter plan, Rosevear Stephenson 2016, plus Plan of Port Arthur, Blackwood 1877 Port Arthur Site Detail Plan, PAHSMA 2002, plus Proposed Visitor Centre perimeter plan, Rosevear Stephenson 2016, plus Plan of Port Arthur, Blackwood 1877
Other Documents
The Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, adopted by the General Conference of UNESCO on 16 November 1972 the World Heritage Convention)
The Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, adopted by The World Heritage Committee, 2015
mackaystrategic.com.au ABN 26 602 859 414 88
Annexure I: National Heritage Management Principles41
1. The objective in managing National Heritage places is to identify, protect, conserve, present and transmit, to all generations, their National Heritage values.
2. The management of National Heritage places should use the best available knowledge, skills and standards for those places, and include ongoing technical and community input to decisions and actions that may have a significant impact on their National Heritage values.
3. The management of National Heritage places should respect all heritage values and seek to integrate where appropriate, any Commonwealth, state, territory and local government responsibilities for those places.
4. The management of National Heritage places should ensure that their use and presentation is consistent with the conservation of their National Heritage values.
5. The management of National Heritage places should make timely and appropriate provision for community involvement, especially by people who: (a) have a particular interest in, or associations with, the place, and (b) may be affected by the management of the place.
6. Indigenous people are the primary source of information on the value of their heritage and the active participation of Indigenous people in identification, assessment and management is integral to the effective protection of Indigenous heritage values.
7. The management of National Heritage places should provide for regular monitoring, review and reporting on the conservation of National Heritage values.
41 https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/c7817f92‐4490‐49b2‐a02a‐845b7f1f2ef3/files/mgt‐principles.pdf
mackaystrategic.com.au ABN 26 602 859 414 89
Annexure J: Acknowledgements
This Heritage Impact Assessment report, while representing the professional opinions and conclusions of the author, has relied heavily on advice and information provided by a range of colleagues, but particularly PAHSMA staff, including the Project Manager, Lucy Burke‐Smith (Conservation Manager), Dr Jane Harrington (Director Conservation & Infrastructure), Dr David Roe (Archaeology Manager), Dr Jody Steele (Heritage Programs Manager), Anne McVilly (Director Tourism Operations), Ms Cait Vertigan (Conservation Project Officer), Mr Gareath Plummer (Garden Crew Supervisor), and Nicky Corbett (Conservation Project Officer).
PAHSMA Board members Prof Sharon Sullivan, (Chair) and Kristal Buckley, and Stephen Large (Chief Executive Officer), provided strategic perspectives and wise counsel. Ms Vicki Skeggs and Ms Paulette Wallace provided necessary practical support.
Project briefings and discussions about approaches, design options, and significant vantage points were contributed by Martin Stephenson, Rosevear Stephenson Architects, and Michael Pender, Project Director, HPA Projects.
Over two separate on‐site sessions the Port Arthur Conservation Advisory Committee; Ms Helen Lardner (Chair), Mr John Hawker, Mr Richard Mulvaney, Dr Michael Pearson, and Dr Diane Snowden; offered considerable expertise and experience in World Heritage and cultural place management.
Pre‐lodgement consultation occurred with the Australian Department of the Environment: Narelle Sutherland & Heather Agnew from the Assessments Division and Leanne Burrows and Nigar Riva from the Wildlife Heritage and Marine Division, The Tasmanian Heritage Council and Heritage Tasmania; Pete Smith, Director, and Russell Dobie, Assessing Officer, as well as other Staff from Heritage Tasmania; and with Tasman Council; Rosanne Heyward, Mayor, Council Members Rob Higgins, General Manager and Shane Wells, Planner.
mackaystrategic.com.au ABN 26 602 859 414 90