Document title: Problems of heritage assessment: A case study of the Athe- nium (sic) Theatre, Junee, New South Wales.

Author/s: Ross Thorne,

Summary / abstract: Local shire and municipal councils frequently develop dreams of a facility or development that seems to preclude rational thought or assessment. This paper describes a few that came to light through public official inquiries into local councils but, upon being commissioned to write a heritage assessment of a picture theatre in a country town the author found that its council also had a dream. When the assessment was com- pleted and the New South Wales Heritage Office decided to heritage list the theatre, “all hell broke loose”. The paper re- views the tactics of the town’s local council that did not wish the theatre to be retained for community use, although the town had no similar space for the stage, cinema and social events. It describes the content of the heritage assessment and the reaction to it. Quotations are provided from the local newspaper and letters of objection.

Key words: Heritage significance; Local government; Heritage assess- ment; Cinema heritage.

Illustrations: By the author of the Athenium Theatre, and from historical sources.

Original publication date: 2006

Original publication source: People and Physical Environment Research, 58-60, pp.92-122

Complete / extract: Complete paper with references.

ISBN / ISSN: ISSN 1031-7465

Copyright owner: Ross Thorne 2006. Extracts according to Australian Copy- right law may be used with acknowledgement to the owner and original publication. Copyright is waived upon death of the owner with the exception of acknowledgement. 92

Problems of heritage assessment: a case study of the Athenium Theatre, Junee, New South Wales.

Ross Thorne

Introduction: some impediments to heritage listing Establishing the importance of cultural heritage of an item has its problems, not so much for the actual research but for the social environment in which that importance is bestowed; and, of course, the resultant reaction to that occurrence.

In New South Wales there are two levels of heritage significance – state and local. Local councils are required to nominate places of heritage significance to be included in their Local Environmental Plans (LEPs). These places are not established in any systematic way as, say, had been done in Cleveland, Ohio. In that city’s central area of 733 hectares every street and place was assessed for buildings, sites and objects in 1987 and 1988, finally listing 1150 as heritage items. The city’s suburban areas were then assessed for heritage districts. Local councils in NSW are frequently too small in population to afford anyone more than a “heritage adviser” for one half to one day a month. Some do not even do this. Suggestions for heritage listing on local environment plans may only come from members of the community – perhaps from the local historical society.

Once on the LEP specifically, or within a listed conservation area does not mean that an item is “safe”. For example, the fine 1871-built Literary Institute in Bombala, NSW, is on the list of the local council but the council does not give the impression that it insists on basic maintenance by the owner of the property. Two other examples were provided in the editorial of People and Physical Environment Research No 57. One of those, the historically important Collins House at Palm Beach, suffered both from a lack of heritage expertise in a local council of a sizeable population (about 50 000 people), and a lack of sensitivity to heritage issues by the architects who proposed alterations, and at the NSW Chapter of the Royal Australian Institute of Architects, to which the local council referred the proposal for advice. (Architects, as with many members of the general population may have an inappropriate idea of cultural heritage where it comes to buildings.)

The state government’s Heritage Office, with its relatively small staff accepts that it will be the National Trust, local community groups or individuals that alert it to items of possible cultural heritage for the state. Frequently this occurs when the building is under threat (for example, of closure, sale or demolition). When the privately-owned Saraton Theatre at Grafton was, in 1999, under threat from being demolished (and turned into a car park to suit the desires of a shopping centre developer) it was one of its employees who alerted the National Trust, thence the Heritage Office.

. Cleveland City Planning Commission, Cleveland Civic Vision 2000 Downtown Plan, Cleveland, Ohio: Cleveland City Planning Commission, 1988. Cleveland City Planning Commission, Cleveland Civic Vision 2000 Citywide Plan, Cleveland Ohio: Cleveland City Planning Commission, 1991. . The planner at the Pittwater Council spoke to this author in early 2003, commenting on the Collins House. She said that she was not expert in heritage so sent the drawings of alterations and additions to the RAIA (NSW Chapter) for an opinion. The advice was that the proposed additions showed a suitable “adaptive reuse” of a heritage building. As a result the original building is almost obliterated thus losing its meaning as a heritage item. . Architects and the general public often assume that a heritage building has to be a “good” building according to their value judgment at the time. An example, previously cited, is the reason for much-respected architect, Harry Seidler, resigning from the committee set up to plan the Ultimo-Pyrmont peninsula in Sydney. The Sydney Morning Herald (13th March 1995, p.1.) quoted him as saying that there were no buildings worth saving on the peninsula. Historian, Shirley Fitzgerald, however, saw a great many buildings worth preserving. They provided, for future generations, an idea of what the industrial, working class suburb was like in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. They were examples of cultural heritage. . In this case there was a basic history of the building in the Movie Theatre Heritage Register for NSW 1896-1996 and the employee sought out more information from the local historical society and its old newspapers. For the subject theatre at Junee there was no such history. 93

This last-minute urgency to decide whether a building should be listed for its cultural heritage value does have some impediments. Frequently those involved in wanting to get rid of a building have a dream. Some will dig in their heels and show considerable angst at possible or actual listing. They have little in the way of creativity for viewing options for satisfactory use of the item. In the 1970s the Sydney City Council’s dream was to pull down the Queen Victoria Building and replace it with an open city square (as Lord Mayors had seen in European cities). Fortunately, activist pressure and change of the elected council produced the decision to seek options for re-use. As a result it became a unique shopping arcade and the building most liked by Sydney-siders. When conducting a public meeting on cultural facility needs (including a performance space) in the Warringah Shire (north of Sydney Harbour) a co-researcher and myself found one person’s dream was that Warringah needed a facility to “rival the Opera House”. Nearly 30 years on and the Shire (and its neighbour Manly) still has no large performance space. If adjacent rivalries of local councils could have been put aside before 1984, and a moderate vision for the area developed, the adequate historic Odeon Theatre at Manly could have supplied a “town hall” performance space for the Manly-Warringah area. Instead, it was demolished.

Liverpool Council (a south-west district of Sydney) had a dream of a sports centre that would attract big-name football and basketball teams to provide “role models” for young people in the municipality. The scheme escalated alarmingly and went horribly wrong. A Commission of Inquiry found a lack of probity and competence by Council and some of its officers, resulting in the dismissal of the Council.

In Walgett Shire (north-west NSW), the councillors that represented Lightning Ridge had a dream of a Community Centre that was entirely beyond the means of the Shire Council. As with Liverpool this dream took on obsessive proportions with some councillors wishing to deny what it would cost – even attempting to persuade the quantity surveyors who costed the project, that their calculations were wrong. A Commission of Inquiry into this Shire Council also found that councillors did not fulfill their role adequately, and the Council’s general manager was quite inadequate in performance of his duties.

Dreams of this kind are quite different to a broadly encompassing vision for a town or local government area. One State Government officer has related how he had been to two country councils and asked them what was their vision for their respective principal towns. The towns had seen industry disappear and their populations decline, but the people who appeared to be attracted to standing for council wrung their hands and had no ideas. Frequently, if they do have ideas they are very conventional, such as attracting old-style industries, building a sports centre or attracting a commercial developer for a shopping centre. The officer cynically commented of one town, “If a polluting industry wanted to build in the town the council would jump to accept it”. The same town, through bureaucratic adherence to rules devised by its council, and lack of flexibility by its general manager, has thwarted efforts by members of the community (not on council) to provide recreational and educational facilities for, particularly, younger members of the town’s population. This has occurred where the community group has obtained monetary grants and the blessing of the State Government.

Such behaviour is in stark contrast to that in the former Bingara Shire (far northern NSW tablelands) where the general manager was a leader in assessing the assets of the town of Bingara. He saw that an old cinema – closed for some 45 years – could be put to good use for the community. After bringing councillors on board he sought grants for the council to buy, and through local volunteer groups, restore the building for use as cinema and general performance venue (in a town of only 1250 people). . M. T. Daly (Commissioner), Final Report, Findings and Recommendations, Public Inquiry into the Liverpool City Council, Volume 3, Sydney: Department of Local Government, 26th July 2004. . R. A. Bulford (Commissioner), Report of the Public Inquiry into Walgett Shire Council, Sydney: Department of Local Government (NSW), June 2004. . Personal communication with former project manager of the Heritage Office, Dennis McManus, in 2003/4. . Interview by the author of the Acting General Manager of the Gwydir Shire Council, Max Eastcott on 28th June 94

In 1999, when the heritage assessment of the Saraton Theatre at Grafton was completed, the city had a population of some 17,000 people with another 11,000 in adjacent environs. Following that assessment the theatre was listed on the State’s register. At first the owners were disappointed, believing the listing would require them to spend a considerable amount of money. It was offered to the Grafton council for one dollar. Although there was no other large place for assembly, performance or cinema in the city the council refused the offer. The council had earlier prevented live performance in the theatre for reasons of its stage not complying with fire regulations. It was discovered, while researching the theatre for the heritage assessment, that the officer responsible for administering the regulations had misconstrued the National Building Code in relation to fire protection on theatre stages. Council had incorrectly banned live performance, thus depriving the town’s population of such amenity, and the owners of the theatre some income. The owners, however, after negotiation with the Heritage Office, found that grants and tax relief on a heritage building would largely provide for basic restoration. In the heritage assessment, options were suggested for making the theatre more viable as a cinema. One of these – adding two small cinemas within the confines of the existing site – was accepted by the owners, pending financial arrangements being made.

An influential group of people in the subject town of this case study (Junee) also developed a dream, a component part of which was to demolish its former theatre (the Athenium). As with Grafton, Junee had no other venue, except its theatre that could be used as a public hall and for live performance. The Junee dream, however, has been difficult to identify precisely and discover who formulated it, and why it seemed to manifest itself quite suddenly.

The theatre, as I later discovered through the Theatres and Public Halls files at the NSW Archives Office, had been purchased in 1977 by a local community group that, as is usual, placed the property in the trusteeship of the Ilabo and Junee Councils (that were later amalgamated). According to a Statutory Declaration on file, no money was contributed by the councils but the community raised $60 000 to buy and renovate the building. When management of the community group faltered the Junee Council took control.

In 1998 the Junee Council spent $31,012 on installation of a commercial kitchen and repainting. This sum included a Small Grant from the Heritage Office of $3,900 for “repairing a landmark building within the town to its former glory so that residents and visitors to the town can appreciate the period, style and significance of the building and its contents. The function of the building will include civic receptions, private receptions, theatre and hopefully cinema”10. The grant was approved in March 1998, but the expenditure was not reconciled until a letter (to the Heritage Office Project Manager) dated 6th March 2002, itemised expenditure and profusely thanked the Heritage Office for its help. Within a year the theatre building was seen by council as only fit for demolition. The apparent dream was to provide a medical centre on its site but, I later discovered, a similar medical centre was being planned within an upgrade proposal for the Junee Hospital by the NSW Department of Health Area Service. It was put to me by some local residents that the medical centre had been sought by a developer of the Broadway Stores opposite the theatre. How true this is I do not know, but the story goes that a major supermarket chain could be introduced to the town if a medical centre was nearby – the supermarket containing a pharmacy (as was proposed in 2003). Large supermarket chains were then advocating a change in the law to allow pharmacies in their supermarkets to accord with competition policy but, in 2004, the Federal Government decided to maintain the status quo – no pharmacies in supermarkets. Had the real dream of the Junee Shire Council been to build a medical centre to attract a supermarket chain?

2004 (video recorded). . R. Thorne, “An Assessment of the Saraton Theatre, 95-97 Prince Street, Grafton, for the New South Wales Heritage Office”, Parramatta, NSW, November 1999. 10. On the application for 1997/8 Small Grants and loans program – application number 98-404 on file number H97/01252, Part 1, at the Heritage Office of NSW. 95

I did not know any of this when the Heritage Office first approached me for my opinion of a document. It is at this point that the story of my involvement starts. However, it should be mentioned that dates of events are important for, as will be seen, some events were taken out of sequence in order to provide a more convincing “spin” to denigrate those who, for one reason or another, wished to retain the theatre building.

Establishing heritage significance of the former Athenium Theatre, Junee (also known as the Jadda Centre). On the 14th May 2003 I had a telephone inquiry from the Heritage Office about the Junee theatre that was then known as the JADDA Centre. It was unknown to any of the authors of the Movie Theatre Heritage Register for NSW 1896-1996 in 1996 when that book was prepared, so research possibly had to start from scratch. The next day a principal heritage officer wrote me, asking if I could “comment” on the Centre. A copy of the application to demolish it, including the Statement of Environmental Effects, Statement of Heritage Significance and Statement of Heritage Impact, were enclosed for me to read. The Junee Shire Council was both the developer and applicant to demolish the building, and the authority to approve both the demolition and the proposed medical centre, with which the developer wished to replace the theatre.

The documentation concerning the former theatre arrived on 19th May. Between 14th and 19th May, however, I had been in contact with amateur theatre historian, Les Tod, to see if, since 1996, he had any information on the building. He had a comprehensive set of colour photographs. These were invaluable, since the documents from the Shire Council, via the Heritage Office, had no illustrations. On 21st May I wrote my response to the “Statement of Environmental Effects, etc” compiled by the Junee Shire Council. I drew the attention of the Heritage Office to a confusion of two issues in the document: there was the perceived need of a medical centre by many in the town, including a majority of the Council and its general manager; the second issue was the value of the theatre. Could it be suitably reused? Did it possess heritage value?

I knew the attitude of the Shire Council from the Statement of Environmental Effects, Heritage Significance and Heritage Impact. I did not need to contact it on the matter. I did, however, need to contact someone else in the town – a town and its people of which I knew nothing except these Statements, and the fact that the Heritage Office had had some representations from the public. I also had Les Tod’s colour photographs of the said building. Normally, one would contact the local council as first call to obtain information about the town and its facilities. This would be inappropriate in this case since the Junee Council was the developer and had made an application to itself to demolish the theatre. My next thought was to try the local high school. In research at another town in NSW I had discovered that the principal and deputy principal at its local high school had encouraged their students to have a loyalty to the town, its history and its future11.

I therefore phoned Junee High School and spoke to Person A. I first wanted to know what facilities were in town: Was there a town hall? Was there an operating cinema? Was there a performance space? Where were dances and socials held? What facilities were there for children and adolescents for entertainment? I was told that there were three principal facilities – a new and expensive (in capital and ongoing costs) covered swimming pool and sports hall; a multi-purpose sports and assembly hall at the high school; and the Services Club where social events were held. The last was satisfactory for those who liked clubs, but not for children and adolescents, and those who were not attracted to that type of environment.

The former Athenium Theatre, I was told, had been a community facility forwedding 11. The town was Canowindra where, from 1999 through 2001, oral histories were recorded in audio and video relevant to its former cinema. Also, the principal and deputy principal had described their attitudes on radio programs, such as “Bush Telegraph” on ABC Radio National. 96 receptions, dances, meetings, and discos for young people. Person A also mentioned that it was closed down because the Council did not wish to pay the sudden explosion of cost for indemnity insurance (that occurred across Australia in 2003). I had been told that people of the town had donated money to buy and repair the former theatre some decades preciously. I asked whether Person A had heard of the Premier’s Initiative on Country Cinema, thinking that if people in Junee had heard of it, and rejected it, then that was one possibility out of the way12. “No”, was the reply. I was given the name of Person B who might know more.

I asked similar questions of Person B. He also thought it a pity to demolish the building, mentioning that the Council had allocated $80,000 to demolish it. I asked him if he had heard of the Premier’s Initiative on Country Cinema. His answer was also in the negative. I explained how the Ministry of the Arts, Heritage Office and NSW Film and Television Office had been brought together to fund country communities to establish a community cinema in towns with populations too small for commercial exhibition. I informed him that up to that time about six seminars had been held to advise on the setting up of such a venture. The next would be in the relatively nearby town of Tumut which had converted its former cinema to a community cinema and performance venue. I told him that the local council would have received information on the concept and advice on all the seminars. This, it seems, had not been forwarded to any community group (according to Persons A and B). Person B gave me the name of another person to phone. Person C provided general information about the functions that had occurred in the building over its life. He also remarked that there was a terrible culture for young people in Junee.

It seemed, (from these phone calls to people who, by my accident and good fortune, were not reactionaries but had the best of motives and intentions for their town), that they had lived there for most, or all of their lives. Perhaps they could go back a number of generations; but they were worried about the future of Junee, particularly the lack of adequate social outlets in the evenings for young people. As the project progressed I would learn that “newcomers” to the town had taken positions of power, perhaps believing that they knew what was “best”. During the recent few years, there had been some worthwhile revitalisation with construction of the sports complex13, urban landscaping of newly paved footpaths and the precinct to the railway station, support for the Junee Historical Society in obtaining a former hotel for its premises, and other works.

In the very limited time available to respond to the inquiry concerning the Junee Council’s Statement (three days from arrival to faxing my comments), I could see that there was some community support not to demolish the Athenium. The Heritage Office desires that there is at least some community support (from a cultural, sporting or business, etc. group) for an item before determining whether the process of investigating its value should be commenced. In reading the “Statement of Environmental Effects, etc”, I was concerned at the approach taken in establishing that the building should go. I wrote:

“The argument by the author of the statement gives the impression that the person had assumed that the Jadda Centre [formerly Athenium] is not worth retaining – that it had no possible usefulness – that it is old and a relic of a long gone society with its outmoded social mores. What the author seems to be saying is that urban renewal is the way to go – a kind of call for modernisation of country towns that persisted from the 1930s through the 1970s before the Heritage Act (1977). The urban renewal alternative is a medical centre[for doctors and para- medical professions]. The whole proposal is presented as an “either-or” situation. The sentence: 12. The Premier established this initiative for towns where commercial cinema ventures were not viable. He intended that a community (volunteer) group might take over former cinema or other premises to establish a local cinema . Grant money would be available.

13. The complex cost some millions of dollars, creating a large debt for the Council to Service. So far its running costs exceed its income by a significant amount – around $200,000. 97

‘The extent of the building’s [Jadda Centre] current social significance can be measured by the reaction to the public exhibition for the proposal’, indicates this by implication. The proposal was for a new medical facility to replace the cinema.”14

The term “current social significance” was in a draft of heritage guidelines for some time but had been changed to either current, or social significance in an historical sense, before I wrote my comments. From my telephone interviews it appeared that the community had not been presented with any possibilities for the reuse of the Athenium. “One of those possibilities is the Premier’s Initiative on Country Cinema, in speeches on which Mr Carr has extolled the virtues of holding on to old picture theatres in country towns, not only as heritage items but reused for cinema and other community activities (as at Bowraville, Tumut and Bingara)”15. My interviewees were also surprised at the level of grants given to other towns (upwards of $250,000) to restore and establish a community cinema.

In the Council’s statements I was surprised at the emphasis on “urban renewal”. The concept became popular after World War II in Europe (to clear away bombed-out districts of often, poor standard 19th century housing). It spread to USA and Australia. The US Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funded some projects to remove run-down housing and replace it. In Australia, particularly in Victoria, although there were some projects on the fringes of the Sydney CBD, housing authorities had decided that most terrace houses were “slums” and should be removed. The late 1960s started to see a shift in that thinking. Like Europe and USA, urban renewal projects proposed for the Rocks and McMahons Point, and ones built at Surry Hills, Redfern, Waterloo, and Carlton in Melbourne, relied on building simple modernist high-rise structures. By the mid-1970s this approach was discredited with quite a few multi-storey blocks of flats in Britain, USA, France, the Netherlands, etc. being demolished or rehabilitated (as in Stockholm16) for a new clientele of residents.

Junee and urban renewal did not seem synonymous. What was being proposed seemed, in my opinion, to be more like old-fashioned “modernisation” that had occurred in country towns in the 1950s to 1970s when they tried to ape outer suburban, strip-shopping centres of Sydney or Melbourne. As for the need for a medical centre, I was informed that one was required, but there was also a committee, not associated with the Council, working with the Area Health Service of the State Department of Health, for improvements to the hospital situation. This would include a medical centre for doctors and paramedical services. The Council, it seems, could not wait until there was an outcome to the Health Department negotiations. I was informed, by my interviewees, that the Council medical centre was tied to a development proposal for the historic Broadway Stores building opposite the former theatre17. The Statement of Environmental Effects, etc showed other site options but its author(s) decided the theatre site was the only suitable one.

The Statements from the Council included a report by architect John Armes of Yass. I largely agreed with his heritage report but was able to add more on the rarity of both the building type and the work of its architects, Kaberry and Chard, who had designed a considerable number of (mostly picture) theatres across Australia.

David Scobie, Heritage Adviser to Junee Shire Council, independently wrote an assessment of the development application by the developer (the Junee Shire Council) for submission to the approval authority – the Junee Shire Council (dated 18th May 2003). He enumerated six key issues, two of which were that: 14. Letter to Mr Vincent Sicari, Principal Heritage Officer, NSW Heritage Office, dated 21st May 2003. 15. Ibid. 16. White multi-storey concrete box-like blocks of flats built in an outer suburb of Stockholm in the early 1970s soon suffered badly from both social and environmental problems. It was decided to rehabilitate them in 1990s by brick-veneering, refitting the interiors, and re-roofing them with traditional pitched roofs. 17. Two of the interviewees would be termed local community leaders who were very aware of what was going on in the town. 98

“The Athenium building or JADDA Centre is a significant heritage site in historic, social and aesthetic terms and it is a rare example of its type.” “The loss of the building would have a considerable loss of significance within the Junee Conservation Area by virtue of the scale, character and historic use of the site”.

He was critical of the poor documentation in the proposal, particularly its being deficient for an area that was defined as a Conservation Area. Almost the whole built-up street, in which stood the Athenium, was included in the Conservation Area.

Both John Armes and David Scobie thought the theatre an example of Art Deco style about which, at the time, I was doubtful. This aspect will be dealt with later.

On Friday 23rd May, a disturbed citizen of Junee phoned me to say that, on that day the Council had “put out to tender” the demolition of the Athenium. This seemed to ignore the request by the Heritage Office to delay a decision (as well as ignoring its independent consultant’s advice, and that of its Heritage Adviser). It also appeared to dismiss both the opinion and exhortation of citizens and the local Heffernan family (seven generations in the town) whose grandfather had built the theatre. I sent this information by fax to the Heritage Office on Monday.

During the morning of Tuesday 27th May the Heritage Office phoned to inform me that an Interim Heritage Order had been placed on the former Athenium Theatre18. I phoned Person B in Junee. He told me that he had heard the news the previous night. After its release the mayor went on local radio to say, I am told, “We’ll beat this order – the medical centre will go on that site”19. To an outsider, such as myself, this comment gave the impression that Junee Council considered itself to have autonomy outside the framework of the Local Government Act 1993 – the Act that allows a council to exist – and could ignore the fact that under the environmental planning and heritage legislation the Heritage Council can override a decision by the local council.

As my few new contacts in Junee had not heard of the Seminars held to publicise the Premier’s Initiative on Country Cinema, I forwarded copies of the program for the next Seminar to Person B.

On 5th June Person B phoned to tell me that the Council demonstrated a new move in its effort to pull down the former picture theatre20. I was beginning to wonder what was really going on in the town. I wished to obtain more detailed information about the High School and Sports Centre facilities. Could cinema be held in either place, requiring, of course, a short reverberation time? I telephoned Person A to obtain an opinion that cinema could not be held in these spaces nor, for the Sports Centre, dances or a number of social events (for fear of harming the quality of the floor that required rubber soled shoes).

I was told that there had been Youth Councils in Junee and thought that with this tradition, informing senior high school students of what “heritage” is, under the Act (1977), and provide them with information on the Premier’s Initiative on Country Cinema might have been a good idea. At the same time I could discover what these 16 to 18 year olds felt about the concept of, and preparedness to assist in running a community cinema, if such was an option.

I phoned the Principal of the High School. I outlined my being prepared to speak to the students. He said he could only agree if the “other side” also spoke to the students. He

18. Interim Heritage Order No. 00077, Government Gazette of the State of New South Wales, No.91, 26th May 2003, Special Supplement. 19. Diary entry, 27th May 2003. 20. Diary entry, 5th June 2003. 99 said he would get back to me. “The other side?” I knew what he meant but it was really meaningless in terms of heritage. In summary I saw the situation as (i) a developer that wished to redevelop a site; (ii) there was a building on that site that was being held in trust for the community by the local council; (iii) there was the question whether that building was a heritage item; (iv) there was the issue of how the building could be reused or rehabilitated if it was found to be a heritage item; and (v) the issue of being able to demolish a building, whether or not it is a heritage item.

In the requests to me by the Heritage Council of NSW (and Heritage Office), and by local councils and the New Zealand Historic Places Trust for heritage assessment21, I have been asked to report on item (iii) and consider item (iv). What the developer proposes has nothing to do with items (iii) and (iv) nor me as consultant. Item (iii) is related to an Act of Parliament with specific criteria which, for a building, are often misunderstood by lay- persons, councillors, council staff and even architects. They think that by denigrating the perceived quality of the design, or state of repair of a building, that they are saying that it is not worth preserving. They are wrong. I wished to indicate to the High School students what the various criteria are under the Act. There is simply no “other side” to this. Under item (iv), it is , in this case, quite valid to seek out interest by members of various groups in using the building if it is declared to be a heritage item. One of those uses has the backing of the State Government that initiated it – community cinema. I wished to explain this to the students. The “other side” could only be argued on heritage grounds but, at this time there was no full heritage assessment of the building upon which a counter argument could be mounted. Indeed there had been no historical survey of the building in relation to the criteria stated in the Heritage Act 1977.

With regard to item (iv), seeing that there were possibilities for reuse, there was a precedent with the Saraton Theatre, Grafton, for which I completed a Heritage Assessment in 1999, when it was threatened with demolition. In that case a shopping centre developer wished it removed to make way for car-parking for an extension of his centre (including a three screen cinema). Like Junee, Grafton possessed no large space for attendance at performance by all groups of the community, except for the old theatre. In the heritage assessment of the Saraton options were suggested for retaining a large auditorium but also adding two small cinemas adjacent. As with Junee, Grafton Council did not wish to conduct the theatre as a community facility.

What confused the whole thinking processes and the actions taken was the fact that the Junee Shire Council was the developer. Because it was also the approving authority it had power far superior to any commercial developer.

The Principal of Junee High School never got back to me. I do not know whether anyone encouraged the students to both take a role in deciding future directions for their town and understand the legal criteria for cultural heritage, for which Junee is rich. As I had discovered some years before in Wagga Wagga, during a public meeting of invited stakeholders and interested parties, the youth of the town are simply overlooked – out of sight. At Wagga Wagga it became apparent that a proposed arts/senior citizens centre was of less ‘urgency’ than a number of basic, previously unexpressed needs of young people of the town22. Were the younger residents of Junee also overlooked?

21. For example, in reporting to the NZ Historic Places Trust, it was of no concern of mine what the developer, Chase Corporation wished to build on the site of the St. James Theatre, Wellington. Heritage is quite independent until, as for the Capitol Theatre, Sydney, the developer enters discussions on how best to preserve the building but upgrade it for modern audience and technical standards. Similarly, in my heritage reports for the Wintergarden, Theatre, Rose Bay; Odeon Theatre, Manly; former Kings Theatre, Rose Bay North; Regent Theatre, Sydney; and Saraton Theatre, Grafton, there was no “other side” in the assessment of heritage. The other side only enters the picture in other forums, such as Commissions of Inquiry or the Land and Environment Court.

22. R. Thorne and T. Purcell, “Participation and Non-Participation: Public Meetings and Surveys”. In M. Munro- Clark, ed., Citizen Participation in Government, Marrickville, NSW: Hale & Iremonger, 1992, pp. 131-150. 100

On 7th July the Heritage Office wrote me and forwarded a contract for an Independent Assessment of the former Athenaeum (sic) Theatre, the Broadway, Junee, for a set fee of $3000.00 incl. GST (the previous work having been done gratis). After some deliberation and modifications, which were agreed to on 22nd July, the contract was signed. However, the heritage assessment was originally required by 8th August. This limited period of time would not be sufficient for the necessary research, including, as required by the Heritage Office and myself, a visit to Junee.

In the meantime, on 4th July, I commenced a database on the known theatres that were partly or wholly designed by architects, Kaberry and Chard – the aim being to find out how rare were the examples still in existence and in moderately to good condition. My list was checked and added to by Les Tod. The list was corrected on 14th July. On the 19th, a previously prepared list of (picture) theatres in county NSW was printed out for updating. The list was of those that existed in 1951. The updating was to identify those remaining in moderately original condition or adapted (to being supermarkets etc.). This list was worked on for the next few days, a copy being sent to Les Tod for checking according to his files. The final list would identify the rarity of this building type (constructed from circa 1910 to 1950)23. (See Appendix to this paper.)

This was important for the rarity criterion for determining heritage significance.

THE SITE VISIT On 23rd July I commenced organising the trip to Junee. Arrangements were completed by Friday 24th. I then found out some names of elderly residents who might have remembered the Athenium in the 1930s, 40s and 50s, before television had infiltrated country towns. My intention was to attempt to interview a few of them to gain an idea of the historical social significance of the building. I also decided not to take my old second hand 35mm camera but only a digital video camera, which has a still-frame facility recorded on a memory stick. I had to learn how to use the memory stick that Saturday. (This seemingly inconsequential detail was to become important in the overall story.)

A friend and I drove to Junee on Sunday 26th . Arriving mid-afternoon we decided to detour along the main street, but as we passed the railway crossing, I glanced right, along what I would discover was The Broadway. Immediately, I could identify an old picture theatre down on the left. From the railway crossing there is a narrow dog-leg to arrive in the main street. It zig-zags around a square in front of the railway station.

Many towns have fine main streets that one travels through on the way to somewhere else (for example, Orange and Adelong), or one off at right angles to the road through the town

The Broadway, Junee: The southern side and street with the Art Nouveau bank building in the foreground and theatre in the distance. The landscaped central median strip is at right.

23. Few new picture theatres were constructed after this time up until a completely different form of design came into being – the multi-screen cinema. Whereas many earlier examples in country towns had stages used for performance, the new ones were entirely for projected images. Some larger towns built separate theatres for live performance such as at Orange and Griffith. 101

(e.g. Tumut). This dog-leg around the Junee railway station plaza, and the extraordinary quality of the 1883 station architecture, produce a uniquely charming town centre. The scale is made all the more intimate by the two late 19th century, two storey, verandah’d hotels on the two lengths of one right angle of the dog-leg. It was apparent that, in recent years, some effort had been made to upgrade, to repaint buildings, and renew footpath paving in this part of the town.

Junee grew around the railway facilities – engine sheds, marshalling yards for shunting of trucks and passenger carriages for interchanging and making up trains to Leeton and Griffith – Narrandera and Hay – with return goods from these Irrigation Area districts to be transported to Sydney and Melbourne (with an interchange at Albury). A rough count of parallel railway tracks remaining at the former Junee station marshalling yard, came to eleven. The population of the town grew as the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area and Riverina districts gradually got on their productive feet during the 1920s. Junee’s urban population soon shot up to around 4000 people. It has stayed a little above and a little below that ever since. Junee’s population is only a quarter to one fifth of the population that can support a commercial multi-screen cinema (with the length of hire required for films by distributors)24.

My friend and I drove across to the western side of the railway to the motel. We then walked back to, and down The Broadway. This singularly broad avenue – two streets divided by a wide landscaped strip in which is a central row of tall palm trees, could not be of greater contrast to the railway station precinct. Yet it had its own charm before fading into the countryside beyond.

The central median strip along The Broadway; the War Memorial is in the foreground. the theatre is in the background (as it was in 2003). This difference of the business district on both sides of the railway almost epitomised the old fashioned ‘religious divide’ that occurred in many country towns. In 1884, when Crown land was being granted mostly by sale in Junee, the eastern side of the railway had been sub-divided into streets, sections and town allotments. The Church of England obtained free grants for its use. The western side of the line was granted in large areas (by sale) to C

24. The magic population has been stated by exhibitors to be 15,000, but it is possibly higher. Country cities such as Grafton with 17,000 people need to have added to its single screen cinema, two additional screens to cater for the film distributors’ and towns population’s requirements to prevent some people travelling for one hour to Coffs Harbour to its five screen cinema. 102

W Crawley in 1881 and 188425. He and his family gradually subdivided and sold off sites through the early years of the 20th century. He dedicated a site for the Roman Catholic Church and built a large house on the highest hill closest to the town.

A reconnoitre of the western side of the railway would provide an impression of the type of environment in which the theatre was situated. This informal investigation is always important, not only to get a “feel” for the part of the town or landscape in which an item is situated, but also to provide descriptive evidence that might assist to illustrate the importance of an item to its surroundings or vice versa.

Walking down The Broadway, one noticed on the left, a two storey, brick Art Nouveau bank building with pitched roof, then a wonderful high, single storey solicitor’s office in a domestic style. A little further down was the brick picture theatre with typically, a cement rendered façade. Although rated as two stories, it appeared closer to three stories in height. Then there were some low nondescript buildings (one of which was important historically) and finally, before a street intersection, a 1950s style, NSW Housing Commission, three storey brick block of flats. The height of these two and three storey buildings produced a sense of scale to the enormously wide avenue. Beyond was only a low, brown building in a sea of car parking. Like so many Services Clubs of the 1960s and 1970s it was completely undistinguished and architecturally, did not address the outside in any way.

Returning up the opposite side of The Broadway, we commenced at a 1914 example of a two storey hotel with verandah -- delicensed and now the premises of the Junee Historical Society, and museum. There were some former small industrial premises (garage, etc.), a two-storey butchers shop and residence over (now demolished), then a quite wonderful development for its time – the Broadway Stores building. This was built by local businessman, J S Taylor. It contained his own emporium in the centre of a very long building. Smaller shops were on each side. The whole was tied together by the common style of architecture in its parapet above a very wide verandah, and the display windows, most of which were original (from the early 20th century).

Up a side street a quite old single storey pub caught our eye. We walked around its two street frontages. It seemed to have been built in the 19th century. As we walked in we received the usual “howdy” that country people warmly give to strangers. Although there had been some tarting up from the 1930s onwards there were some interesting features. The manager noticed our interest and directed us “out the back” where there was a collection of memorabillia. Framed railway timetables of 100 years ago were amazing for the frequency of passenger services, both locally and to Sydney. Over the century the time it takes by train from Albury to Sydney has really only shortened marginally. An elderly lady who was cleaning up after a function began chatting to us. She was the mother of the licensee, used to live in Junee, now in Young. Without mentioning my purpose in seeing the Athenium, I simply commented on it. She thought it should not be pulled down.

Back at the motel, in an almost deserted dining room, a man introduced himself as from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, in the district on business. He also had not known the town before his arrival. He commented that it was a great little town and added enthusiastically, “And there’s even an old theatre down the road here”.

I excused myself temporarily from the conservation to telephone Mr Eisenhauer, a former President of the Shire, to arrange an appointment to interview him, and also Allen McEwen, a former Shire Clerk, on the morning of Tuesday. They would be my local “elderly” residents who might remember visiting the Athenium Theatre in their childhood to young adult years. They would supply an idea of the social significance of the theatre in the heyday when going to the pictures was the dominant entertainment activity (and possibly attended in greater

25. Land originally granted (by sale) to Christopher William Crawley in 1881; Volume 530, Folio 78, and in 1884, Volume 713, Folio 139, Land Titles Office, Sydney. 103 numbers than church). Movie attendance far outstripped that for all sports, including horse racing and other entertainments when all were added together26. Mr Eisenhauer, I had been told, might provide information about the non-Council proposal for a medical centre related to the town’s hospital upgrade.

At 9.15am on 28th July my friend and I arrived outside the Athenium Theatre. A man was taking photos of the exterior. Being a complete stranger, he introduced himself as Neil Smith and presented me with his card. The Council Planning Officer arrived at 9.30 to let me in and put on the lights. Neil Smith asked if he could take photos inside too. I was busy taking both movie and still digital pictures inside, outside and along The Broadway, the railway station and streets nearby. Both my friend and Neil Smith had departed soon after I commenced.

I then went to see what local newspapers were held at the local library – only a microfilm of random miscellaneous issues of the Junee Southern Cross27. I commenced at the year, 1917, to get an idea of what was going on prior to 1929 when the Athenium opened. I hoped to obtain information about the building immediately before and after the date of its opening – but nothing (due to lack of relevant editions). By accident there was one notification of some possible importance. A tour of a major Australian star with the complete musical company that performed Rio Rita at Sydney’s St James Theatre, was announced by the manager of the Athenium28. This would become important.

Early next morning I recorded an interview with moderately elderly Junee citizens, Dal Eisenhauer and Allen McEwen. Mr Eisenhauer had been one-time President of the Shire, and was active in the committee liaising with the Area Health Service for the hospital upgrade. Mr McEwen had been Shire Clerk at Ilabo Shire Council, then Shire Clerk at Junee after amalgamation of the two councils. They clarified the situation between the competing medical centres and related their experiences of attending the Athenium Theatre in their youth (and rushing across to the milk bar in the Broadway Stores at interval).

While I was photographing the previous day my friend chatted to Neil Smith, discovering that he was putting together a proposal to reuse the Athenium for community purposes. He found that Neil Smith had a panoramic photograph, dating back to the 1930s, of The Broadway, from the Art Nouveau bank to the Athenium. This seemed to be the only photograph found of the building when a picture theatre. As a heritage consultant, I would be negligent in not making an effort to inspect that photograph, so one could see what alterations had taken place over the intervening 65 years. While I was researching newspapers I asked my friend if he would try to arrange for us to view the photo. This was organised for about 4.00 pm. In the meantime we visited that other unique feature of Junee, the engine Roundhouse, built in 1947 – the largest in the Southern Hemisphere – and saved from demolition in the early 1990s by the Junee community.

At Neil Smith’s house the panorama of a series of large black and white prints had been taped together. I placed them so I could videotape it both as a panorama, and of the Athenium Theatre itself, with its adjacent advertising hoarding. The films advertised were checked in Halliwells Film Guide in order to narrow down the year in which the photograph was probably shot29.

26. See K. Cork and R. Thorne, “The social significance of the picture theatre: how many people really did attend picture theatres in New South Wales before television and video” in this issue of People and Physical Environment Research. 27. Only miscellaneous issues of the Junee Southern Cross exist from early 20th century to the end of the 1940s. It was a time when deposit of every issue at the State Library was not compulsory, and the only running set was destroyed by fire at the home of the publisher. 28. Athenium Theatre: “To the General Theatre-going public of Junee”, Junee Southern Cross, 30th November 1929. There was also an advertisement across two columns, of the performance to be on Tuesday 3rd December. It noted that a Special Train Service would run from Wagga Wagga for patrons wishing to attend from that larger town.

29. The photograph shows hoardings advertising the films, The Good Earth, made in 1937 and Desire (1938), 104

I noticed something else.

Upon looking at the present building there seemed to be a lack of cinematic decoration, remnants of neon or other lighting. I asked Messrs Eisenhauer and McEwen if they remembered any such advertising lighting, but they could not. Here it was in the photograph: patterns of neon tubing on the neo-classical piers, three lamp standards supporting spherical lamps on the parapet and possibly a neon tube outline of the parapet itself.

On Wednesday 30th July we returned to Sydney via Gundagai.

SECOND PART OF THE FIRST STAGE OF RESEARCH The next day I recorded an interview with Blanche Heffernan at Queenscliff. She was born in 1914; her father, Ben Cummins was a “silent partner” in building the Athenium Theatre. In about 1931 she worked in the ticket box of the theatre, related how the itinerants from the Great Depression, being moved on from town to town looking for work, would come into the theatre in winter to get some warmth. After the interval in the movie program Blanche Cummins would let them in to sit against the rear wall of the stalls to gain some warmth.

Anecdotes such as this are important for the understanding of the social significance of a picture theatre in the town. Another was the Greek immigrant community’s association with these theatres. The incorporation of the Greek immigrants into country towns of Australia through fruit shops, cafes and cinemas, was quite remarkable. More remarkable was the fact that nearly all were poorly educated and came from the island of Kythera. They made good, almost isolated from any of their co-countrymen, in towns with populations as small as 1500 to 2000 people. For a multi-country immigrant nation, such as Australia, this alone is important in defining cultural heritage of an item that is associated with this group of people.

The major cinema entrepreneur in Wagga Wagga was Jack Kouvelis30. He was an in-law relative of the Cummins (who had been farmers and Junee town business people for some generations). Blanche Heffernan related how Kouvelis had advised her father against going into business with Nicholas Laurantus, but he still did (to build the Athenium). Nicholas Laurantus was building up a small empire of picture theatres in the smaller towns from his base in Narrandera. By the mid 1930s most of the Riverina towns had their picture theatres either leased or owned (partly or wholly) by Greeks who had mainly emigrated in the early years of the 20th century from the island of Kythera. They may have commenced working as fruiterers, in milk bars, then the picture theatre. They learnt to do things well. The country town “Greek café” in the 1930s was no cheap amateur design. It usually had the best shop outfitting for the time with lots of black glass, mirrors and chromed metalwork. When they built or refurbished picture theatres they used the most experienced architects such as Crick and Furse, or Kaberry and Chard. They rarely put their own cultural stamp on a theatre but George Laurantus, Nicholas’s brother, obviously did add his decorative skills to some of the more austere panelling, during the period of his management of the Athenium at Junee. These Greek picture show proprietors often became stalwarts of the local community. This particular theatre is one of the very few remaining built (as half share) by Sir Nicholas Laurantus (and managed by his brother, George).

From 1st to the 5th August, I spent around a couple of hours on each of four days trying to advertised for Tues, Wed, Thurs, October 26th, 27th, 28th and Tues, Wed, Thurs, October 19, 20, 21, respectively. Most likely the photograph was taken in 1939 – films at the time being shown in Australia anything from one to two years after release in USA, with no blanket release (as commenced to occur after the introduction of television). The dates of production/release were from Halliwell’s Film Guide, 9th Edition, London: Harper Collins, 1993. 30. Jack Kouvelis operated the Strand, Capitol, and Wonderland cinemas in Wagga Wagga. He also had the Capitol, Tamworth, and picture theatres in Armidale, Young and Yass. Wagga Wagga Daily Advertiser, 9th November 1929. He later sold his chain to Hoyts Theatres, becoming a director of that company, according to Blanche Heffernan. 105 get the memory stick reader to work. Its software was meant to work on Windows 98. I tried it on a second computer with Windows Millenium – still no success. I phoned Sony (8th August) who suggested opening it in “Photoshop”, but still no luck. I was becoming desperate. I decided that, in lieu of still photos, I would put together a video for what could only be an interim report.

On Saturday 2nd August I searched my library of cinema architecture books for an architectural style commensurate with that of the Junee theatre. Although the interior contained a couple of Art Deco motifs most seemed to be neo classical, some on the exterior being highly simplified. It reminded me of parts of the Junee Cenotaph built at the head of the landscaped strip down the centre of The Broadway.

From the 4th to the 7th August I transcribed much of the recorded interviews and collected Census figures for this town and other similarly sized towns in NSW. On the 8th, a parcel of oral history books31 and local newspapers arrived via the Heritage Office from Person D in Junee. All references to performance in the books – live and cinematic in them were summarised as a source of information. The documented oral histories provided more social “evidence”; the newspapers provided local council attitudes to the Interim Heritage Order.

Person D also gave me the name of the former wife of an owner, Kevin Manion. They jointly operated the theatre through much of the 1950s decade. Now Yvonne Kingsford-Archer, she was phoned on the evening of the arrival of the parcel (8th August). Over a number of interviews her information on the interior décor, how the theatre was managed, the use of the theatre for balls, charity functions, and live shows was invaluable.

Having previously ascertained from the State Records Office the existence of the Chief Secretary’s Theatres and Public Halls licensing files for the theatre at the Office, I visited it at Kingswood in the far Western Suburbs of Sydney on Saturday 9th. (These files are the best comprehensive records of theatres and public halls in NSW, if the records still exist, and if the date of the file is outside the 30 year embargo limit on government files32.) Fortunately, there were two files, one from 1929 to the end of the 1960s, and a second one from the time that the building was taken over by a community organisation. At this time I only had access to the first file33.

The Heritage Office was wanting some form of report as soon as possible. The Junee Shire Council was attempting a new manoeuvre. The previous development application had been what is called a “designated development” but now the Council, as the developer, had submitted a new application to itself, this time titled an “integrated development”. With an integrated development the approving authority has 21 days to approve after closing date for objections to the application. The Council assumed that the Heritage Office was now the “approving” authority. It was the Council’s method of attempting to truncate the 12 month Interim Heritage Order to less than a month34. In a response dated 17th June 2003, the Heritage Office advised “that section6 3(2)a of the Heritage Act 1977 provides that . . . the approval body (the Heritage Council) must determine the application by refusing approval” to demolish whole or part of the theatre35. Another letter from Junee Shire Council referred the Heritage Office to Section6 3(2)c of the same Act36. But the Heritage Office responded

31. Sherry Morris, ed., Junee, Speaking of the Past, Junee Shire Arts Council, Volume 1, 1997; Volume 2, 2001; Volume 3, 2001. 32. State Records New South Wales web-site on which are these files is http://investigator.records.nsw.gov.au for searching Agency No 1706, Agency Title, Theatres and Public Halls Branch (1896-1982) and its subsequent titles until end date in the 1990s. 33. The first file is Item No 1069, titled “Broadway Theatre, Junee”, 1st January 1929 to 31st December 1972. The second file is Item No 81/0109, titled “JADDA Centre, Junee”, st1 January 1978 to 31st December 1990. 34. Junee Shire Council, Integrated Development Application 2003/42. 35. Letter from Director of Heritage Office to James Davis, with regard to Integrated Development Application, dated 17th June 2003, on Heritage Office file number 7H9 /01252 Part 1. 36. Letter from James Davis, Junee Shire Council dated 19th June 2003; and reply from the Heritage Office dated 8th July 2003, on Heritage Office file number 7H9 /01252 Part 1. 106 by indicating that this part of Section 63 did not apply in this situation. The Office formally requested Junee Council not to determine the application (of its own development to itself) until receipt of further advice from the Heritage Office.

However, the Heritage Office was conciliatory towards the Council, and desired to have some report from me submitted quite quickly. On 10th August I commenced writing the Report. It was hand delivered to the Heritage Office on the 14th.

On Friday 15th August, as a substitute for the still photographs that I could not include in this Initial Report, I commenced work on the video editing. This work comprised editing the images, writing and recording the commentary, and putting up music on the sound track. Both a DVD and a VHS copy were made and delivered to the Heritage Office on the 18th August. Anthony Mitchell at the Heritage Office told me that the Minister in charge of Heritage, Diane Beamer, and the Principal Heritage Officer, Cameron White, were visiting Junee two days hence.

General content of initial report on athenium theatre (delivered 14th August; DVD delivered 18th August). The initial report contained a long preamble “thought necessary after seeing the concluding remarks to the Statement of Environmental Effects etc. where the benefits of urban renewal are emphasised”. I could not see “how urban renewal should be a vision. It should, instead, be sympathetic infill (to replace semi-vacant sites or defunct service stations) that becomes the vision”.

The great social significance in an historical sense to the town of the building was noted, together with references to current historians and cultural studies academics who have a view of social significance in keeping with this concept37. I then quoted Commissioner Simpson in his Report on the Inquiry into the Regent Theatre, Sydney for his stating the heritage value of picture theatres for their social and cultural importance38. This was supported by the judgement of Judge Pearlman of the Land and Environment Court, where she ruled that an item, far more ephemeral than a movie theatre, in fact an advertising hoarding that had been much altered, had “historical and social value (based on what it originally was)”39.

The theatre was an important part of the major development period of the town – from 1883 to 1950. There remained so many built examples of that period – Crawley’s mansion, a flour mill, the engine roundhouse, the Broadway Stores, hotels, the bank building, theatre, 1920s shop fronts etc. – that I went beyond my immediate brief to state: “Collectively, these buildings provide an historical story of a town that is unique in New South Wales. Therefore the logical process to maintain this story is to heritage list those parts of Junee as an entity including The Broadway from the Hotel Junee (1912) on one side down to the former Broadway Hotel (1914) on the other”.

A twenty year partial history of cinematic and live performance, as was allowed by the selection of newspapers available, was then outlined from 1917. It included mention of the visit by Gladys Moncrief with full 90 members of cast and orchestra to the Athenium shortly after its opening in 1929. From reports of the theatre being full on Saturday night

37. For example, R Waterhouse, Private Pleasures, Public Leisure: A History of Australian Popular Culture since 1788, South Melbourne: Longman, 1995; G Dening, Performance, Carlton South: Melbourne University Press, 1996; P Bell and R Bell, “Introduction: The Dilemmas of Americanisation’”. In P Bell and R Bell, Eds., Americanisation and Australia, Sydney: University of NSW Press, 1998, pp 1-14. 38. W Simpson, “Report to the Minister of Planning and Environment of an Inquiry under the Heritage Act 1977 into the Regent Theatre, George Street, Sydney”, Sydney: Office of the Commissioners of Inquiry for Environment and Planning, 1986, p 109. 39. J Pearlman, South Sydney Council: Nettlefold Advertising Pty Ltd, and Anor (1999), NSW Land and Environment Court 18, 1999, p 6. 107

(lesser so on Friday) it was worked out that about one third of the 4213 Junee population40 attended each week-end program. Junee suffered far less from the Great Depression than other districts. In 1933 it only had 11 per cent receiving below 52 pounds (including nothing) per annum, while Tumut Shire had almost 23 per cent41. But being such an important railway junction it saw many itinerants “riding the rattlers” (goods trains) looking for some kind of work (and being provided with warmth in the theatre following the evenings’ interval between films).

In this initial report the general importance of “Going to the Pictures” for Australians was outlined together with the importance of the railways for that activity in country towns. To the hundreds of country picture theatres in NSW the films arrived and were returned or sent on to another town by railway. Junee, as a point of transfer to major Riverina towns, would handle and trans-ship some hundreds of film cans a week42.

All this dealt with the socio-cultural importance of the Junee theatre. The next section was on the building itself – trying to unravel its design in relation to general architectural styles for 1928 (when designing would have occurred) and cinema design in particular. It possesses a simplified neo-classical appearance. A couple of London suburban picture theatres had some similarity of style, but it was closest to those in Sweden from 1925 to 1930 (illustrated in Cinema Theatres in Sweden)43.

These examples were important in arguing that the building was not Art Deco in design in the traditional sense of the UK, France, USA or Australia where the style had not been seen in cinema design until after 1931. Yet the Athenium opened in 1929. But there were some minor strange elements, two of which were Art Deco, and a third, a kind of trellis and vine motif never seen before. Both Blanche Heffernan and Yvonne (Manion) Kingsford-Archer, remembered these vine motifs in gold. The latter also remembered a “trellis” ceiling which was possibly similar to those in other Kaberry and Chard picture theatres designed at the same time. It would take some time to identify these “wayward” design elements.

The general rarity of the building type was provided in detail through the table of all picture theatres in country NSW in 1951 (before television came in and decimated the number). The population of the town for 1954, the seating capacity of each cinema, and whether it had been adapted, destroyed, existed close to original design or, if it had originally been built as a hall, and whether it had reverted to being used as a community hall, were tabulated. Out of 351 venues in 289 towns in 1951, only 12 still existed with obviously original cinematic decorative interiors and exteriors. (See Appendix.) Another 19 existed as either hall-like spaces, unused or adapted. This large table was not included in the final report, but the summary figures were given by the Minister for Planning as one reason for placing an Interim Heritage Order on the Junee theatre. The rarity of the extant theatres designed by architects, Kaberry and Chard, was abstracted from the second prepared list.

Returning to a second stage of research Now that the Heritage Office had the Initial Report, the DVD, and the CDs ofthe interviews I could organise a second stage of research. Neil Smith had sent me his proposal for reusing the Athenium Theatre. I phoned him on 19th August to thank him, and thank him also for finding the early photograph of the theatre. In gratitude for his assistance I posted a copy of the DVD to him on 21st August. On 19th, I checked some video footage, taken earlier in the year, of the Tumut Montreal Theatre. That theatre was designed about

40. Australian Bureau of Statistics Census for 1933. 41 Ibid. 42. It was calculated that some 5568 film movements took place every week in non-metropolitan NSW – almost all by rail. These estimates were based on the number of cinemas in the state and an analysis of some 3500 film hire documents found for the 1950s decade at the former Strand Theatre, Canowindra. 43. Two sources of examples: D Atwell, Cathedrals of the Movies: A History of British Cinemas and their audiences, London: The Architectural Press, 1980, pp 54, 58; K Furberg, Cinema Theatres in Sweden, Stockholm: Prisma, 2000; examples on pp 237, 150 & 165. 108

nine months after the example in Junee. It had many similar design elements but I was interested in the wall finishes. Junee had the same egg and dart cornice moulding but the wall surfaces above a dado line were different – they were of a rather coarse rough cast as opposed to a kind of bagged brick at Tumut. They both had a similar, more refined rough cast plaster below the dado.

After obtaining written permission from the NSW Department of Infrastructure and Planning (to inspect the Theatres and Public Halls file under the 30 year embargo), I was back at Kingswood on Saturday 23rd August to inspect the second file at State Records, and take a set of notes of its history from the time it closed as a picture theatre44.

The theatre was purchased on2 5th November 1977 by the Junee and District Development Association (JADDA). This association was formed on 25th October 1976 at a public meeting, to “promote social recreational, cultural and commercial activities” within the Junee and Illabo local government areas. Both Councils accepted trusteeship of the property for the JADDA. Purchase price was $20,000, raised by the association without money from either council. The association spent about another $45,000 in real or in-kind value to bring it up to a condition for a new licence – again community funded. The local council – now Junee and Illabo amalgamated to be Junee Shire – assumed control for alterations in, it seems, 1984. In 1985 the Shire Clerk refers to a “Committee of Management” for the Centre rather than JADDA that had had management problems. There is, on the Theatres and Public Halls file, a colour photograph to show that the whole had been repainted inside in very bland blues, greys and white. In fact, the alterations of 1977/8 appeared to have done their best to simplify and eliminate many of the superficial theatrical design elements. The exterior was stripped of all lamps, neon lighting and awning display. The trellis ceiling was covered with plasterboard. The ticket box in the lobby was removed and the shutters on the side walls were also removed to be replaced by cheap aluminium windows.

In my view, since the community raised the money for purchase and original repairs, there should have been at least a local plebiscite to find out what the community wished for the Centre/theatre, given the options for its reuse, without the false dichotomy that actually occurred – i.e.: if you want a medical centre, you do not want the theatre; if you want the theatre, you do not want the medical centre. Because the Council was the trustee it virtually had complete control.

Now with some breathing space, further research and searching for leads could be resumed. The decoration that was not typically of the architects’ style for this period of their theatre design was troubling. I made the guess that the vine and trellis motifs in the normally plain panels on the front of the dress circle may have either been a Wunderlich metal pressing or some Greek-inspired element. On 26th August I telephoned a Greek-Australian architect and described them to him. He said that it sounded like a traditional and popular symbol in Greece – grape vine leaves with the type of vine-growing trellis made out of thin tough reed stalks. I then phoned the curator of the Wunderlich collection at the Powerhouse Museum (and forwarded him close-up photographs of the decorations). He later came back to say that he had never seen such decorations, and after a quick inspection of the catalogues he found nothing that resembled them.

In the evening Yvonne Kingsford-Archer was again telephoned for a longer interview. She told me that the decorations had caught her eye when she and her husband assumed management, and she asked the former owners about them. The ownership had been transferred from Cummins and Laurantus to Begg, to Pollard, then Manion45. The Pollards told Mrs K-A that the decoration was the “Greek influence” – George Laurantus having managed the theatre for his brother for ten years from its opening. 44. JADDA Centre, Item 81/0109, Series 15318, State Records Office, Kingswood. 45. Certificates of Title, Vol. 3958, Fol. 152, and Vol. 4209, Fols. 131 & 132, Land Titles Office, Sydney. For dates of change of licences from 1929 to 1971, see Theatres and Public Halls files Series 15318, Item 1069 at State Records Office, Kingswood. 109

The unusual vine leaf and trellis decoration on the dress circle balustrade panels.

When Les Tod saw the interior photographs of the Athenium, and I mentioned my difficulty with the decoration, he remembered some similar Greek-type decoration in the Lockhart picture theatre (that he had photographed when it was a motor repair shop). He sent copies of his photographs to me. There were stylised birds and sea waves as traditionally depicted since ancient Greek times. There were also the same two applied plaster Art Deco elements as used at Junee. One was a kind of Art Deco rosette backing for light fittings, the other was used as a continuous ceiling mould at Lockhart and as a dado line at Junee. The Lockhart theatre was built by Nicholas and George Laurantus in 1935 – in the hey day of Art Deco. Its interior décor appeared somewhat amateurish without any coherence of design. George Laurantus loved his Junee theatre and the town, according to his son46; the theatre inside was fairly austere except for false proscenium walls, the proscenium and plush curtain. Did George decide, around the time the Lockhart theatre was built, to “tart-up” the Junee one? Kaberry and Chard normally placed a wooden dado board in the form of a narrow shelf on the stalls walls. Did George remove such a dado, apply rough-cast plaster (similar to that seen by the author in a Greek restaurant at Petersham, Sydney) above that line and replace the dado with an Art Deco strip in cast plaster? At the same time did he place the vine and trellis decoration in the otherwise plain panels of the dress circle balustrade? Every second panel also had a light fitting in the shape of a shell affixed – another motif never seen in photographs of Kaberry and Chard interiors.

One at first disturbing feature for this conjecture was that a careful scrutiny ofthe photographs showed that the vine motif panels were fixed by Phillips-headed screws. They have only been regularly used in the last 30 or so years.

However, around 31st August, Yvonne Kingsford-Archer came up with a find. They were photographs taken when she and her husband took over management – an interior and an exterior (circa 1954). This was the first interior found showing its original, or almost original condition. The exterior appears quite handsome while on the interior there can be seen the vine-trellis decorations in a shimmering metallic finish. “Gold!” said both Blanche Heffernan and Yvonne Kingsford-Archer.

As for the Phillips-headed screws? My theory is that when the interior was painted either at the end of the 1970s or for the shooting of a sequence for the film The Crossing in circa 1989, the panels may have required securing more firmly. From a viewing of the film, the interior of the theatre was white with the dado painted red. The vine-trellis panels are at present in a kind of multi-coloured, spray painted, antique coppery appearance – as one might expect from a film scene-painter.

A contact person put me in touch with George Laurantus’ daughter in Western Australia. A call provided some information; but she mentioned that her brother had her late father’s photographs. I contacted Peter Laurantus; he looked out some photos that arrived on 8th September. I now only had a few days to complete the final report. It was delivered to the Heritage Office on th15 September.

46. Telephone interview with Peter Laurantus on 1st September 2003. 110

The heritage assessment recommended permanent listing for the theatre based mainly on the criteria of social significance, rarity and historical significance. Virtually all the objections to its retention were based on a criterion that I did not use – that of aesthetics (including architecture). This is so often the only one used in relation to a building by its detractors.

The exterior in 1954 after the theatre had been retitled “Broadway”. Note the shadows of the neon lighting strips on the parapet and of the neon patterns on the wall piers.

The auditorium in 1954 showing the original proscenium, ceiling, and wall shutters over the side wall openings.

An unnecessary interlude On 24 July 2003 the Heritage Office sent a facsimile of a report by a Mr Robert McGregor on the Athenium Theatre. My comments on it were requested. I glanced at it but left it until after I had seen the theatre on 28th July. Upon meeting James Davis, the Council Planner, to open the door to the building, he commented that he had borrowed a copy of my Cinemas of Australia via USA. After reading it he felt that the building was not an example of Art Deco style. I told him that I thought he was correct. After that confirmation I considered that the report by Robert McGregor was now redundant, so I ignored it until reminded by the Heritage Office that it still wanted my comments.

Mr McGregor was Executive Director of the Art Deco Trust at Napier, New Zealand, -- Napier being rebuilt in the 1930s style after a devastating earthquake. His “heritage assessment” as he terms his document was “based on the photographs and written material which I have been sent” by a member of the Council’s staff on behalf of the Junee Shire. It is 111 assumed that the General Manager, Greg Campbell, may have prompted this request since he had worked in Napier prior to his move to Junee.

Mr McGregor did not visit the building but the material sent, although not stated, seemed to include the Statement of Impact, and John Armes and David Scobie’s assessments. What other “written material” forwarded is not apparent. It seemed most unusual that Mr McGregor was not requested to see the building in relation to its context in Junee. The Heritage Office requests visits to possible heritage sites. Lecturers in the post-graduate course in Heritage Conservation at the Faculty of Architecture, University of Sydney, were surprised that he did not visit the site. Even in New Zealand, from where both the Junee Shire’s general manager and Mr McGregor come, the Historic Places Trust has required that I visited the sites in New Zealand before I made my report on them.

Without knowing precisely what photographs and written material were received by Mr McGregor one does not know on what criteria he was basing his assessment. Accordingly, there was no basis on which I could evaluate his assessment. Taking it on its face value it simply demonstrated that he did not understand the NSW Heritage Act 1977, nor the Heritage Office guidelines on how to interpret the Act, nor, certainly, the judgements of NSW Land and Environment Court cases that established heritage under criteria other than aesthetic/architectural.

From the covering letter to McGregor’s report on the Athenium, sent me by the Heritage Office, the Junee Shire also took an unusual view of heritage as exists in New South Wales. It said in that letter: “Mr McGregor’s assessment on the other hand, is an honest, realistic assessment which accords with the actuality. The actuality is a precinct [i.e. The Broadway]of 36 premises, 24 of which are dilapidated, six are derelict and 15 are vacant. Even given that mediocre context, Mr McGregor’s view is that the JADDA Centre [Athenium] makes a negative impact.”

Dereliction, dilapidation and vacancy has nothing to do with heritage. One only need study the example of “Lyndhurst” at Glebe when rescued47. The dereliction was far more extreme than any building in Junee’s Broadway. Another example of saved heritage is the Convict Barracks Building, Macquarie Street, Sydney. It was considered an eyesore and of no historic merit, earmarked for demolition up until the end of the 1950s. It is now one of the most revered heritage buildings in the State. A further example of a dilapidated building, where its poor condition was used as a reason for lack of heritage and for its demolition was the Capitol Theatre, Sydney. Dilapidation had nothing to do with its heritage value, and accordingly, it has been saved and rehabilitated48.

I raised the above points in my review of Mr McGregor’s assessment. I noted that “there is nothing [in McGregor’s report] that relates this theatre [Athenium] to others designed by the architects – nothing that places it within the philosophical framework of theatre design by these particular architects – nothing that relates it to the existing body of movie theatres or former movie theatres from the period before multi-complexes were constructed”.

Unfortunately, in the documentation received, there was no elaboration on who was Robert McGregor except his title as Executive Director of the Art Deco Trust of Napier. (The Art Deco Trust is a volunteer organisation with one salaried administration officer, the Executive Director.) There was nothing about expertise – neither biographical statement nor qualifications. I was bemused by some of his statements. One was: “I cannot comment on the building’s rarity as I am not familiar with enough Australian towns. . . .” 47. “Lyndhurst” was a derelict 19th century house with windows, doors, fireplace surrounds vandalised and missing, rotting floors and broken roof. It was a nightmare that would have been bulldozed by those people who do not think a dilapidated building should be saved. It was taken over and restored by the NSW Historic Houses Trust and became its headquarters premises until 2004, when it moved to the Mint building, Macquarie Street, Sydney. 48. One referee of this paper commented about the writer of the Junee Shire Council’s covering letter to McGregor’s report with regard to dereliction, “I wonder what he would have said of the Greek theatre at Ephesus”. 112

My comment was: “Fair enough, but he should have stopped there and not proceed to make an incorrect assumption” which was: “. . . but it would seem unlikely to me that there aren’t many towns with similar theatres of this type”. This is the kind of careless assumption that one might expect from a lay person who does not believe historical research is important – not by a person who professes to be an expert. He was wrong.

In the light of heritage of cinemas in New South Wales – the opinions of cultural historians, the Planning and Environment Commissioner, W Simpson, Judge Pearlman of the Land and Environment Court, all cited earlier in this paper; and the Premier of the State – a concluding remark by Robert McGregor was, in my personal opinion, completely in error. It was: “. . . to say that it [the Athenium] has significance because it demonstrates the practice of film entertainment in an era when the industry had reached its peak is drawing a very long bow. The fact is that the building does not demonstrate any such thing”49.

He completely misunderstood the point of social and cultural significance, particularly social significance in an historical sense as has been spelt out in Commissions of Inquiry and the Land and Environment Court in New South Wales. If Junee was anything similar to the town of Canowindra, the whole population, on average, would have attended the Athenium around 25 times a year50. This alone indicates social significance of a high order.

On the day that I received the copy of Robert McGregor’s assessment of the theatre, media statements from the general manager appeared in two local newspapers. Although both articles were written by Dane Fuller (The Daily Advertiser, Wagga Wagga, and Southern Cross, Junee for 24th July 2003), the one in the Junee newspaper (although both are from the same stable) was more extreme in its tone than the other. The first paragraph was a nice throw-away line, but nothing to do with heritage: “The JADDA Centre is not worth the material from which it is made, according to a New Zealand art deco expert”.

The aftermath: events following submission of my heritage assessmentth on15 September 2003. On 25th September, more than five weeks after I had sent the DVD of Junee and its theatre to the Heritage Office, Friends of the Athenium Theatre showed it at a meeting at the Golf Club in order to enlist members to its group. Like the heritage assessment delivered 10 days before, this was now a public document. However, at the meeting, the General Manager of Junee Council sought a copy of it.

During October-November the Heritage Office sent interested parties my assessment for their comments, then there were interviews of both for and against the theatre’s listing at the office of the Heritage Council. This, in itself, showed the importance of a group in opposition to the developer. It vindicated my interviewing people opposed to the destruction of the building, not that I sought them out specifically. It showed that the Heritage Council (and Office) wanted to know what community opinion existed for retention of the building. This is the policy of the Heritage Council, and I was simply conforming to that policy. It was a reasonably democratic process of assessing community opinion. The General Manager of Junee Shire was allowed to provide his opinion – one of being against heritage listing. If the building possesses heritage value the Heritage Council only wishes to know that there is some community support for its retention.

49. Memorandum to Alice Brandjes and Anthony Mitchell NSW Heritage Office Re: Assessment Report to Junee Shire Council by M Robert McGregor, printed 31st August 2003. 50. The figure is derived from the receipts of the Strand Theatre, Canowindra, for the first six months of 1950, calculated on the capacity night of Saturday as set out in the daily receipt-per-program book, dated 1947 to 1950. See database of receipts on The Strand Theatre, Canowindra, NSW, 1922-1970, Data CD No 2, compiled by Ross Thorne, deposited at the National Film and Sound Archive, Canberra. 113

The auditorium in 2003 showing the proscenium that was widened for Cinemascope films, circa 1959.

After its deliberations the Heritage Office notified the Junee Shire Council that itwas recommending to the State Minister for Planning that the Athenium should be listed on the (permanent) State Heritage Register. In response, the Junee Shire Council wrote a letter of objection (dated 4th November 2003). Having acknowledged my being commissioned by the Heritage Office to write a Heritage Assessment of the theatre, it goes on to say:

“We have obviously read Dr Thorne’s report. We have also seen a DVD prepared by Dr Thorne which has been used by the Junee “Friends of the Athenium” for some weeks. We ask whether you believe that Dr Thorne’s involvement with an advocacy group such as this is in accord with his brief by the Heritage Office”. The letter, under the heading, “Assessment of the Item” resumes in similar vein: “We are all too aware of Dr Thorne’s assessment and believe that he has totally over-egged the pudding. We also believe that he has exceeded his brief by including extraneous matters in his report. It would seem, to assist the “Friends of the Athenium” by producing a video for them which they have used on many occasions since”51. In these quotations a number of assumptions are made, then appear to be believed as facts. Of course the video was not produced “for them”, i.e. the “Friends of the Athenium”. It was produced in an effort to provide illustrative material for my Initial Report submitted to the Heritage Office on th18 August three days before Minister Diane Beamer and officers from the Office made their initial visit to Junee. This was not the first time I had provided video material for viewing by the Heritage Council. A short video was shown of the Amusu Theatre, Manildra, and environs when that theatre came up for consideration for listing52.

Once the Heritage Assessment became a public document, after its distribution by the Heritage Office, I saw no reason why I should restrict distribution of the DVD. The time- line of events should have been checked before questioning whether Thorne’s “involvement with an advocacy group . . . is in accord with his brief by the Heritage Office”. The “advocacy group” was set up on 25th September when the DVD was first shown. My brief with the Heritage Office concluded on 14th September when the final Heritage Assessment was

51. Letter from G. F. S. Campbell, General Manager, Junee Shire Council to Director NSW Heritage Office dated 4th November 03, sent by Facsimile. Heritage Office file number 7H9 /01252 Part 1, sighted on 21st October 2004. 52. The Amusu Theatre, Manildra, was placed on the State’s Heritage Register as an example of an unpretentious ‘iron-shed’ style of cinema as built in small country towns and for its relationship with the family of Allan Tom, cinema pioneer. 114 delivered to the Office at Parramatta. “Ádvocacy” seems a strange word to use when the Heritage Office considers the Friends of the Athenium a properly registered community group such as the local brass band, arts council, historical society or railway museum, all of whom may seek consideration for their “causes” from local council and other authorities.

The “totally over-egged pudding” and reference to “extraneous matters”, without examples to backup such claims, is a mild way of attempting to impart the idea that the Council possesses greater knowledge than the person researching and writing the Assessment. The Assessment was purposely a very detailed report to explain the context (historical, environmentally and socially) within a town that few Australians know about.

In the local Southern Cross newspaper (11th December,2003) it became clear how the Junee Shire Council did not understand its proper role in regard to heritage listing. On Monday 8th December the Junee Council held an extraordinary meeting “to continue the fight against having the building listed on the heritage register (sic)”. Councillors, according to the Southern Cross, were in receipt of Council’s response to the Heritage Council’s recommendation that was: “Prepared by council’s general manager, Greg Campbell at the instruction of councillors, the response literally and emphatically carved up the Heritage Council’s reasons for listing.

This is where Glady’s Moncrief’s name entered the equation.

“The Heritage Council said: ‘the building symbolises those lost country theatres, in NSW, in which Moncrief appeared in major Sydney-produced productions on tour’”

This was correct but the first paragraph of theSouthern Cross article stated: “Although she never set foot inside the building Gladys Moncrief OBE has been nominated as a person of importance in the history of Junee’s Athenium Theatre”. Whoops! What journalist(s) did not do their research of their own newspaper or its sister Daily Advertiser in Wagga Wagga? Both newspapers mentioned the visit. (A very little bit of investigative journalism into the “morgue” of the Daily Advertiser also would have produced a review of the performance.)

Then, came this paragraph: “Junee Mayor Lola Cummins [no relation to the old Junee Cummins family] told the meeting enquiries she had made of long term residents had drawn a blank when Gladys Moncrief’s name was mentioned.

People who were regular attendees of the old theatre in its heyday cannot recall Ms Moncrief appearing there”.53

If the Mayor had looked at the date of her appearance (1929), then worked out how old a person should be who remembered the event, she would have had to enquire of people aged at least 90 years of age and upwards.

The Council did not wish to believe that Ms Moncrief visited the theatre with the production of Rio Rita. When confronted with the letter by George Laurantus in the Junee Southern Cross54, and the advertisement for the event in the same newspaper, the response was, “How do we know that she actually turned up?”

I went to the Wagga Wagga Daily Advertiser. On 23 November 1929 there was an advertisement for the event in Junee and a brief news item on the next day. More importantly, was a review of the performance of Rio Rita at the Junee Theatre55. It was titled “’Rio Rita’ 53. Southern Cross. 11th December 2003. 54. Junee Southern Cross, Friday 29th November 1929. 55. The Daily Advertiser, 5th December 1929, p.6, column 7. 115

The auditorium of the former Athenium at Junee – A Splendid Performance”, followed by a wide half column-length description, Theatre in 2003, showing the false commencing with “Citizens of Junee are particularly fortunate in having a beautiful and up- proscenium walls and balustrade to the side boxes of the dress circle. to-date theatre – the Atheneum (sic) – the new playhouse recently erected in the town”.

It should be remembered that there were no relatively permanent opera companies in any State until the 1950s, that Australia’s greatest singers Dame Nellie Melba and Florence Austral became expatriate Australians in Europe until death and multiple sclerosis respectively in the early 1930s. Moncrief, only spending a brief time in England, returned to Australia at the height of her career, singing in the only vehicles available – musicals. As ‘Queen of the Australian Stage’ she was the mainstay of local productions for two decades from 1928. The Rio Rita production was possibly the only full-scale city production to tour outside of capital cities. Fullers Brothers converted their theatres to cinema when sound came to films. J C Williamson Theatres, the other major entrepreneur, only toured to country towns, pared-down second and third companies of the one production. This knowledge illustrates how Junee, possesses the only remaining small-town theatre in the State in which a full city production with, at the time, the most famous Australian-resident performer appeared.

Members of the Junee Shire Council still evaded the issue, attempting to deny the evidence, but certainly not admitting their error.

On 28th November 2003 I wrote to the Heritage Office to let it know that some information being promulgated in Junee showed a lack of understanding of the Heritage Act 1977 in relation to the Athenium Theatre. The letter also brought the Office up to date with some 116

post-assessment research. I was able to provide dates of all property transfers from 1928 to 194656 (after which it was available in my assessment).

I was also able to elucidate the architectural style of the exterior. Seeing a reference to a new book published on Art Deco by what, I presumed, would be a reputable authority – the Victoria and Albert Museum, London, I telephoned the museum and obtained a copy by air mail. I had likened the Junee style to Swedish cinema exteriors of the time. In this book is a chapter entitled “Lovely Neoclassical Byways: Art Deco in Scandinavia”. The author refers to the Swedish style, with its absence of jazz, angular decoration, as “modernized traditionalism…with its tendency towards classical elegance”. Where I had referred to the style on the Athenium as slimmed-down neo-classical, the author of this chapter uses the phrase “attenuated depiction” of classical decoration57. Unfortunately the New Zealand consultant to the Junee Council did not realise this aspect of Art Deco but, give him his due, he did not have a copy of the photograph of the exterior in 1954 which illustrates how cinematic and handsome was the façade in the Australian cinema-design tradition.

I also referred to the local journal, Architecture, (that would be received by architects at the time) to see what examples of architecture had been illustrated, and which might influence the current design of 1928/9.. Most local examples were generally strongly revivalist in their style. An article on modern German architecture gave an imprimatur to “attenuated depiction” of classical decoration with photos of a 17 storey office building in Cologne, and Planetarium in Dusselforf58.

An employee of the central office of the Junee Shire Council invited residents to call in at her home address to participate in a petition to object to the heritage listing of the Athenium Theatre. It was not a petition in the usual sense but a two and one half page handwritten letter, photocopied, that Junee residents could pick up and sign at the bottom of the third page together with their individual address and any further comments. At the head of each of the 100 or more circular “letters” received by the Heritage Office was the address of 8 Macquarie Street, Junee, and the date 19 November 2003. A quick perusal of the objections to listing as a heritage item showed a singular lack of understanding of the Heritage Act 197759. The file of objections (over 25 mms thick at the Heritage Office) provides brief to long statements mostly in exasperated tones. An office-bearer of the Junee Historical Society was against retaining the theatre. A person who was around in 1978, when the alterations were made, gave the reason for sealing under the trellis ceiling one of pigeons in the roof. As well, the floor was too near the ground, and the ends of the dress circle were unsafe, therefore the building should not be retained. (These factors have nothing to do with heritage under the Act. All can be easily remedied during repairs or restoration.) Another person commented on the cost of upkeep (nothing to do with heritage). Another complained that the building had been much altered over its life-span (also nothing to do with heritage. If the alterations – almost all in 1978 – had emaciated a number of cinematic features the complaint should have been addressed to the people in Junee who did the alterations.) A further complaint was that there were always problems with the management committee with the centre (theatre) limping from one crisis to another; the objector said, it would continue to do so in the future. (Nothing to do with heritage. Also, there are plenty of other voluntary community groups in the town that do not seem to have this ‘problem’.)

One person who claimed to be a councillor said the “people” did not want the heritage listing – they wanted a medical centre. (Nothing to do with heritage, but the person should be reminded that in 1997/8, the “people” must have wanted the opposite – council then

56. Land Titles Office Vol. 2958, Fol. 152 and Vol. 4209, Fols 131 & 132. 57. Jennifer Hawkins Opie, “Lovely Neoclassical Byways: Art Deco in Scandinavia”. In C Benton, T Benton and G Woods, Eds., Art Deco 1910-1939, London: V & A Publications, 2003, pp, 204, 205. 58. Architecture, September 1928. 59. NSW Heritage Office file number 7H9 /01252 Part 3 (ring binder). 117 spending over $30,000 to upgrade the theatre’s facilities and bring it back to its “former glory”.)

Who was the person who organised the petition? An indication is given on the document reference printed in miniscule size at the bottom of a letter from Junee Shire Council to the Heritage Office datedth 5 December 2003. It is “JUNEE_NT_SERVER/Payntera/General Manager/2003/Heritage Office response to recommendations in report.doc”60 It is the letter that, according to the local newspaper, “literally and emphatically carved up the Heritage Council’s reasons for listing”61. This letter stated that“The nomination is objectionable on the grounds of both tone and substance”. It then went on to say “Junee Shire Council does not accept there is ‘demonstrated State significance” and “What the Heritage Office sees as a ‘comprehensive assessment of significance’, we see as a mass of largely irrelevant detail and tenuous inferences from that detail”62 (the “comprehensive assessment” referred to being my heritage assessment).

The Heritage Office had been critical of Robert McGregor’s report, based only on photographs and written material. “He and we would argue that you don’t need a site inspection to recognise mediocrity; photographs can portray that perfectly adequately” said the Junee letter. The use of the word “mediocrity” was a blanket attempt at denigration that, in this case, denied all heritage criteria except that of the visual (derived from photographs) as perceived by the writer about whom we know nothing of cultural heritage expertise. It was an attempt to exclude any further discussion. If mediocre means “ordinary”, as defined by the Macquarie Dictionary, an item so described may be very important to the understanding of cultural heritage of a state. For example, miners’ cottages or terrace houses of the 19th century may well be ‘ordinary’ but most important to retain as items of cultural heritage.

The letter showed a lack of investigation. One example: “It is not clear to us, for example, that Gladys Moncrief, who may or may not be the most famous soprano in Australia since the retirement of Florence Austral whoever she may be [this author’s emphasis], is directly connected with the JADDA Centre”.

The issue of Gladys Moncrief performing in the theatre, has been covered above, but a telephone call to the librarian of Council’s library could have discovered that Florence Austral was Australia’s 1920s-1930s equivalent of, say, 1960s-1980s Joan Sutherland or New Zealand’s 1980s-1990s Kiri Te Kanawa63.

In the NSW Heritage Manual 2, Assessing heritage significance, one of the guidelines for inclusion as an item of state significance is that is “shows rare evidence of a significant human activity important to a community.” The letter from Junee Shire Council states that it “rejects the proposition that the JADDA Centre shows rare evidence of a significant human activity important to a community. Put another way, rarity is directly attributable to the redundancy of the activity in this sort of setting”. In another part of the letter is made the more succinct comment, “Dr Thorne’s rarity is another man’s proof of redundancy”.

This is a curious concept. It gives the impression that Junee Council is telling astate government authority, that one part of the Heritage Act is silly and has no place in the Act. The connotation of such a concept is that it is implying that all items of rarity, if they are not needed today for their original use, are redundant. Most items held by the Junee Historical Society Museum, the Junee Engine Roundhouse, the Convict Barracks in Macquarie Street, Sydney, would be examples of rarity and according to the Junee Council’s concept, therefore redundant. 60. Letter, Junee Shire Council Reference PO8.17GFC:AP. “Payntera” is Anne Paynter (AP) who typed the letters for the General Manager of the Council. 61. Southern Cross (Junee), 11th December 2003, p.1. 62. This is reference to my heritage assessment delivered to the Heritage Office on 14th September 2003. 63. Florence Austral “One of the Wonder Voices of the World”, born in 1892 was one of the finest Wagnerian singers of her generation. From about 1922 to 1940 she performed in the leading operatic roles at Covent Garden, Berlin Opera, in other European cities and USA. Multiple schlerosis caused her to halt her career, retire to Newcastle and die in 1968. 118

Under Criterion (g) – an item is important in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a class of NSW’s cultural or natural places – the guidelines include that it should be a fine example of its type or has the principal characteristics of an important class or group of items. Junee Council rejects both guidelines and completely misses the point of cultural heritage. It says: “On the contrary it [the theatre] is remarkable for its banality”. The word “banality” is also used to denigrate and exclude further discussion. However, ‘banality’, meaning “commonplace character”64 can have relevance and importance for cultural heritage65. If the Athenium is remarkable for its presumably visual commonplace character, as claimed by the writer, that in itself may make it an important heritage item. (However, the theatre was not commonplace when it was built and was certainly not commonplace in 2003.) Banality or commonplace character (for its time) in the form of a builder’s speculative fibro cottage of the late 1940s, may make it a suitable item of cultural heritage. Just as the Junee theatre is a fine example of its type, so might be the fibro cottage. So is the Amusu Theatre at Manildra, NSW, (also listed on the State Register). It is no more than a corrugated iron shed lined with cheap fibre board. The State Premier, Bob Carr, understood this way of using the word “fine”, when he saw the theatre at Manildra. He encouraged its being listed on the State’s Register both for being a fine example and demonstrating a particular way of life, now gone, in relation to the size of the town in which it was built. Junee Council does not see that going to the pictures en masse in a country town represented a “particular way of life, philosophy, custom…or activity”, as has been recognised by cultural historians, heritage conservationists and even a number of politicians.

Other aspects of this letter were the incorrect assumptions made and the conclusions derived from those incorrect assumptions, and a pedantic interpretation of the meaning of words that ignore the contexts in which they are used – as for instance, the word “fine”. Another is “independent” as used by the Heritage Office for its outside consultants. The troubling paragraphs are: “When Dr Thorne came to Junee for his assessment, he specifically requested not to speak to the Junee Shire Council [since Council was the developer and its views were well known from documents]. We had the impression that the same would apply to other protagonists. He did however talk with those whose opinions helped his case, it seems. [The “other protagonists” at that time had no documentation as the Council did. All those individuals previously spoken to on the phone, by accident rather than design, did not see or speak to me in Junee. Of the other “protagonists” seen in Junee none were known to me, nor did I know their views until after they had spoken to me.] State significance has supposedly been ‘confirmed by a comprehensive and independent assessment’. We are unable to imagine anything less independent than Dr Thorne’s assessment. He is obviously totally consumed by old run-down cinemas”. [The Heritage Office uses the word “independent” in relation to being independent from the Heritage Office – an ‘outside’ consultant, an expert in the area of study. The expectation expressed by the Junee letter could only be achieved by a person without any expertise.]

The Junee letter took “this opportunity formally to request of you why it is that Dr Thorne can produce a DVD presentation on the JADDA Centre (incidentally of dubious worth) for use by the Friends of the Athenium. One hopes that it wasn’t a formal component of his brief by the Heritage Office. And if it wasn’t what does the Heritage Office think of Thorne’s partiality in this regard”. [The need for the DVD has already been related, but it certainly was not produced with any thought of its use by the Friends of the Athenium, which did not exist until some five weeks after production of the DVD.] “Junee Shire Council asserts that Thorne’s report needs to be read in the light of some demonstrated, partial duplicity.”

64. The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 1993 Edition, p.176. 65. In 1998 the Bankstown Council heritage listed a number of fibro houses – commonplace in the 1960s but rapidly disappearing in 1998. See Charles Pickett, “The Puzzle of Suburban Heritage: Fibro Houses and the Modern Vernacular”, in S. Burke, ed., Fibro House: Opera House, Conserving Mid-Twentieth Century Heritage, Sydney: Historic Houses Trust of New South Wales, 2000, 101-110. 119

The Assistant Minister for Planning, Diane Beamer visited Junee with officers ofthe Heritage Office on Wednesdayth 17 December. They spent some hours with the Shire Council, delaying the public announcement outside the theatre66. My information, from the Heritage Office on2 3rd December, was that the reaction was “unbelievable” for the “rude vitriol” expressed about my heritage assessment and indeed myself. The local newspaper noted that “Ms Beamer offered a conciliatory package” – possible grants of up to $252,000 for refurbishment subject to council support. But “it is understood council stood on its digs [and refused] and eventually Ms Beamer agreed to provide up to $50,000 for designing a refurbishment plan for the theatre”67. My information from the Heritage Office supported this but went further. If the National Trust was surprised at having received from Junee a somewhat “robust” letter68, after it showed interest in preserving the Athenium Theatre, the Heritage Office and its consultants now received similar treatment.

Strangely, on the day following Ms Beamer’s visit to Junee to declare the theatre listed on the State’s Heritage Register, the Southern Cross showed on page one, an “artist’s impression” of a medical centre next to the Broadway Stores opposite the theatre. So much for the theatre being the only available site for the medical centre. However, to achieve this part of the dream (to build a medical centre) the Council still had to negotiate with a butcher to buy his shop and dwelling over69. This was rapidly done and construction commenced, but by June a newspaper report blamed the “dispute” over the JADDA Centre having increased the cost of the medical centre by $270,000 to a total of $1.1 million. The newspaper stated, next to an emotive full page illustration, that the “Junee Shire Council has blamed the blow-out on the New South Wales government intervention . . . to stop its [JADDA Centre] demolition”70. The mayor, in the same article, was quoted as saying“that the ratepayers would be slugged with the inflated cost because the council had to pay for the land”. The chairman of the Friends of the Athenium Theatre“said council could save the whole medical centre budget if the centre was built as part of the multi-purpose service” to be associated with an upgraded Junee hospital.

The Council had, by June 2004, “decided upon an architect and was meeting with him” on Friday 25th June. He would study the possible uses of the theatre (under the Heritage Office funding)71. The architects completed their plans and report on costings, forwarding them to the Junee Council on 1st April 200572. At commercial rates the costs estimated were significantly more than those for similar projects where the community (and volunteer labour) was brought into the restoration process. The NSW Government still provided its ¼ million dollar grant with the expectation that the Council would finally restore the theatre.

Conclusion Although one may be dismayed at the behaviour displayed during this project, it has raised some important issues related to local government responsibilities. One of those issues is to do with development by a local council on its own land.

If one looks at the three levels of government in Australia we find that the first two receive comment from organised pressure groups whether industry, academic, or ad hoc protest groups. Local government – the third level – is somewhat different. Because the elected

66. Listing of the Athenium Theatre on State Theatre Register SHR No1687, dated 17th December 2003, Government Gazette of the State of New South Wales, No. 8, 9th January 2004, p.147. 67. Southern Cross, 18th December 2003. 68. The National Trust of Australia (NSW) had its Historic Buildings Committee review material on the Junee theatre. The building was placed on the Trust’s list and Junee Shire Council advised accordingly. The response from the Council, dated 8th September 2003, in part said “your assessment is full of manifest nonsenses and irrelevancies” (Junee Shire’s Reference: PO8.17GFC:AP). 69. Southern Cross (Junee) 18th December 2003, p.1. 70. Southern Cross (Junee) 10th June 2004 , pp.1&3. 71. Southern Cross (Junee), Thursday 24th June 2004, pp.1,5. 72. Fax to James Davis, Junee Council, from David Hobbes of Philip Leeson, Architects Pty Ltd, Manuka, ACT, on 1st April 2005 120

representatives know many of the local inhabitants, requests may be made for assistance for items of a personal nature – additions for a home, to develop a small block of land, or repair a footpath – councillors may become closer to some residents in comparison to others. This is likely to be particularly so in low population LGAs, although it was seen by the Commissions of Inquiry set up to investigate the two high population LGAs of Liverpool and Warringah Councils in the Sydney Region. For example, estate agents and owners of trucking companies, as elected councillors may personally benefit from their councils approving as much development as possible in an area. This type of conflict of interest created considerable divisions in the community and the council of Warringah.

Following the Commission of Inquiry into its affairs, Warringah Council was dismissed and an administrator appointed. As generally, with the first two tiers of government, the administrator is socially and psychologically further removed from the pressure groups and individuals. Administrators are less likely to show any particular ideological stance; they consult and negotiate, then assess, from the evidence what in their opinions are the best decisions. They usually have an excellent understanding of the Local Government Act 1993, which bestows onto a local council its limited “rights” and duties. Some of the recent Commissions of Inquiry (e.g. Liverpool, Rylestone, and Walgett) found that a number of councillors, and even general managers neither adhered to the Charter nor the Code of Conduct set up under the Act.

The Junee Council’s dream of a medical centre seemed somewhat obsessive. Blaming “the intervention” of the State Government for not permitting demolition of the theatre could be expected from a private developer, but seems odd from a council, the existence of which is entirely mandated by that government. It seems odd that it is blaming the result of the legal operation of an Act of Parliament that council itself is meant to be administering (i.e. the Heritage Act 1977).

Was this dream reckless in the light of the centre that was being planned in relation to the hospital upgrade?

How many people in Junee knew that the then heritage adviser had fitted the accommodation required for the council’s medical centre on the vacant, council-owned land next door to the theatre? (Evidently not the councillor who wrote an objection to the Heritage Office.) This would have saved the $270,000 cost blow-out. The Junee Council had allocated about $80,000 to demolish the theatre. If the medical centre was built adjacent, that sum could have been used to help upgrade the theatre. With the addition of $252,000 in grants (as outlined by Minister Diane Beamer) this would have meant that $332,000 could have been used to restore the theatre. Additional “in-kind” support would have increased this further.

This dream was not quite as wild as that at Walgett Shire (the Lightning Ridge Community Centre), and certainly miniscule compared to the one at Liverpool (which lost the council about $15 million), but it again illustrates the difficulties in conflicting interests when a council wishes to develop or redevelop community property for which it is trustee.

As well as the dream of a medical centre, someone, or a number of people, had the dream of ridding the town of the theatre building. Otherwise, why were such “robust statements” made to everyone, every organisation, and every consultant who stated that it should be retained both for heritage and community reasons. What makes this ‘dream’ strange was what has finally been admitted through the Junee Shire general manager: “We need to establish ourselves as a residential satellite of Wagga through all facets of amenity” (this author’s boldened type)73. Stange, because 18 months previous I had been told anecdotally that the general manager wished to attract to live in Junee, professional people who would be working in Wagga Wagga, but when the council was asked whether it wanted Junee to 73. Southern Cross (Junee) 11th November 2004, p.3 121

be a suburb of Wagga, the response was “No!”74. The article,“Town rejuvenated in five years”, mentions upgrading the townscape (which I have already complimented), the building of the skate park ($101,000), the swimming/sports centre ($3,100,000), and the medical centre (now $I,100,000). It already possessed a library, and community groups conducting the local museum, brass band and Junee Arts Council. There are also the Services Club, golf club, etc. as well as the unique engine roundhouse, half of which is a museum.

Most of these are the conventional amenities that have spread across local governments in recent decades. What seems to be inconsistent in behaviour, and a display of lack of awareness, is the absence of cultural facilities in this list. Professional people, such as University lecturers, managerial staff and school teachers expect more than sporting facilities and a services club. To gravitate from Wagga to Junee they will want something distinctive that is unavailable in Wagga. The Junee Arts Council has no hall for performances. There are no places for under-18 year olds to go for entertainments in the evening. Wagga Wagga has no old-style theatre, nor many historic buildings at all (following the ravages of fast development).

Perhaps, some day, a majority on the Junee Shire Council might realise the role that the Athenium Theatre can play in increasing the cultural pursuits of the town.

Athenium Theatre, Junee: LEFT; The auditorium as it was in 1954 with original ceiling, otherwise little had changed to RIGHT in 2003. The main beams of the ceiling are still visible; the panel decoration on the dress circle balustrade still exists; the main change being the windows on the side walls and opening up of the shops into the auditorium (below the balustrade) to provide both storage and food preparation facilities.

74. As heard by the Principal Heritage Officer, Cameron White, during the meeting of Junee Shire Council and its General Manager, with Assistant Minister Diane Beamer and her advisers from the Heritage Office, on 71 th December 2003, where she discussed, among other things, the intention to place the Athenium Theatre (JADDA Centre) on the State’s Heritage Register. Related to the author and diary-entered on 23rd December 2003. 122

Part of the panorama photograph, dated from the film titles to have been taken in 1938/39, of The Broadway, Junee. The Art Nouveau decorated bank building is at the far left; the solicitors’ office is almost at the centre; the film hoarding advertising The Good Earth (with Paul Muni) is on land that originally belonged to the theatre, but became Council-owned when the theatre reverted to the trustee after the demise of the community group that purchased it in 1977. Finally, the theatre displays thin lines of neon lighting and lamp standards on the roof parapet.

From a small poor photograph, taken about 1933, of the very broad Broadway, looking west from the railway crossing. The War Memorial is centred on the wide median strip; the verandah of the Broadway Stores is at the right; and the Athenium Theatre is the dominant building to the left. The lamp standards, (on the roof-hiding parapet) that supported spherical opalescent luminaires can be seen silhouetted against the sky.