DOCSLIB.ORG

Open House Geelong Team Would Like to Thank the Following Organisations and Individuals for Their Assistance with Our Leaders for Geelong Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Open House Geelong Team Would Like to Thank the Following Organisations and Individuals for Their Assistance with Our Leaders for Geelong Project LEADERS FOR GEELONG 2011-13 project LEADERS FOR GEELONG 2011-13 project table of contents Acknowledgements 1 Team Members 2 Executive Summary 3 Project Scope 4 The Inaugural Event 6 The Journey 7 Evaluation 14 Leadership Lessons 22 Conclusions & Recommendations 23 Appendices 36 A cknowledgements. The Open House Geelong team would like to thank the following organisations and individuals for their assistance with our Leaders for Geelong project: The Transport Accident Commission Nicola Thomson Heritage Council Of Victoria Veronica Lyngcoln Central Geelong Marketing Brian Dunn – National Servicemen’s Association Kings Funerals Susan Alsop – Osborne House Association Target Australia Pty ltd Padraic Fisher – National Wool Museum GreenDezign Liz Grant – The Gordon Open2view.com Graeme Vincent – Barwon Water Open House Melbourne Grant Cole – Barwon Water Committee for Geelong Lindsay Allen – City of Greater Geelong Leaders for Geelong Phil Pavey – City of Greater Geelong Asher Terpstra Design Mick Bolte – Geelong Court Complex Sue Dight – Open House Melbourne Malcolm Dunn – Geelong Maritime Museum Petrina Dakin Andy Treffry – Vietnam Veterans Association Helen Meikle – Deakin University Julie Hope – Deakin University Hisham Elkadi – Deakin University Leonie Mitaxa – Deakin University Emily Bogue – TAC Ryan O’Hehir – Rybazoid Joe Calafiore - TAC Pauline Hitchins - Heritage Council of Victoria Amanda Foran - TAC Michael King - Kings Funerals Teresa Hanlon – Target Australia Pty Ltd Caleb Plumridge 1 Team members. Lynne Beaumont Talent Manager, Shell Australia Nina Ellis Manager Client Research, Transport Accident Commission Carol Harrison Company Solicitor, Target Australia Kylie Home Manager Workforce and Business Improvement, Academic Development Deakin, Deakin University Nick Hudson Executive Officer, Barwon Community Legal Service Beth King General Manager, Kings Funerals 2 Executive summary. The aim of the Leaders for Geelong (LfG) program is to provide “the region with inspired and well connected visionaries who are in a position of knowledge and prepared for leadership in their own organisations and in the community”. A major component of the LfG program is for participants to undertake a project that is intended to be of benefit to Geelong and the region. An Open House Geelong event was put forward as a potential project as there was nothing similar being held in Geelong, or indeed in any regional city in Australia. The small LfG project team saw the potential in an Open House event in Geelong to build an increased sense of pride in the City through opening up and celebrating our buildings and spaces of historical and architectural significance. In addition a successful event, promoted widely would attract visitors from outside of Geelong and deliver an economic benefit to the region. The Open House Geelong project team had a very simple goal – to open a small number of buildings of historical or architectural significance to the public at no charge. The inaugural Open House Geelong was held on Saturday 10th November and was an outstanding success with 12 buildings open to the public, and 3,000 visits to these buildings. 48 welcoming and well-informed volunteers provided assistance to visitors across all buildings on the day. Valuable feedback was provided by visitor and volunteer surveys, which will be incorporated into planning for future events. Feedback on the event was overwhelmingly positive with most people indicating they would attend again and recommend the event to others. 3 Project scope. The team’s goal was to promote pride in Geelong started as a Committee for Melbourne Future Focus and encourage tourism from metropolitan, regional Group project. After an extremely successful first year and rural Victoria through running a pilot for a new which saw over 30,000 visits to eight open buildings, annual or biennial event in Geelong which would it has become an annual event which in 2012 opened draw attention to some of the outstanding building 100 buildings and hosted 135,000 visits. and architectural attributes of our City. Ideally, such A core value of these events is providing equal an event would be cheaply and easily staged and access for all, so there are no entrance charges. This involve a broad section of the community. eliminates the ability to offset costs against ticket Open House events are held annually in many revenue but also avoids costs associated with setting cities around the world. More locally, Open House up a ticketing system and hiring box office and front Melbourne (OHM) has been running since 2008 and of house staff. A core value of these events is providing equal access for all. Research indicated that an open house The potential benefits of staging an open event could be successful in Geelong house event in Geelong were: because: • Tourists from out of Geelong with an interest in • There are many buildings from different periods of history and architecture would visit to attend Geelong’s history that have architectural or design this event, including some who may never have significance. visited our region before. • Local residents’ pride in their city • Geelong residents would gain access to buildings that are not normally open to the public. • Local residents’ interest in learning more and having access to buildings that are usually closed • Geelong residents could learn more about the to the public history of their city. • The existing awareness within Geelong of the • Increase the profile of buildings that many may Open House Melbourne event not know about. • Encourage tourism from Melbourne and other parts of Victoria. • Encourage greater appreciation of good design. 4 Having conducted some initial research We identified the following issues as being and received positive responses from key to the event’s success: relevant stakeholders, we committed to the following goals: • Raising sufficient funds to stage the event successfully (sponsorship, grants and government • To organise, promote and run a pilot event support) where up to 10 buildings in the Geelong CBD of • Confirming 28 October 2012 as an appropriate architectural and/or historic significance would date in the Geelong events calendar be open to the public for no charge. Guided tours • Obtaining approval from building owners would be offered at many of the venues. to open their buildings, including incurring • To facilitate the creation of a board of costs associated with being involved in the organisations and/or individuals who would day, in return for intangible benefits (giving commit to running an annual or biennial event. to community, raising profile of the building/ Our aim for the pilot event was to open 6-10 buildings organisation) in the central business district from 10am – 4pm on • Developing and monitoring an interactive website Sunday 28th October 2012 and we hoped to have and social media marketing strategies 5,000+ visits across these properties. • Recruiting enough volunteers to assist on the day (we estimated 100 would be required) • Partnering with CoGG regarding logistics for the event (e.g. arrange any road closures, park and ride bus, extra rubbish bins etc) • Completing risk assessments of all properties and surrounds (both protecting public from injury and buildings from damage) • Obtaining financial and time commitments from many individuals and organisations in order to set up a regular event. The Open House Melbourne team provided great encouragement and were very interested in supporting a regional open house event, sharing intellectual property and event infrastructure. 5 The inaugural event. The inaugural Open House Geelong event was held 3,000 visits recorded across the day. The final budget on Saturday 10 November between the hours of for the event was approximately $17,000, with 48 10.00am – 4.00pm. Twelve buildings were open, with volunteers assisting. 6 The journey. research incorporation The initial focus of the project team’s research was In order to run the event we needed to establish a the Open House Melbourne event. This included structure that provided some financial and legal attending a number of meetings with board members protection to the office holders and allowed the event from Open House Melbourne and volunteering and to receive money and hold insurance. There were two attending the Open House Melbourne 2012 event. options to achieve this, Incorporated Association or Research was also conducted into other ‘Open House’ Company Limited by Guarantee. We decided to form events held in Australia and overseas as well as other an Incorporated Association, Open House Geelong events on the Geelong calendar. Inc., as it was a less expensive and easier process. Rules for the association were drafted and on the 19th of April the inaugural Open House Geelong meeting was held and the association voted into existence. Our project team formed the membership and the In order to run the event inaugural Committee of Management. we needed to establish a sponsorship structure... Meetings were held with representatives from the Events department at the City of Greater Geelong and Regional Development Victoria regarding possible funding by way of grants for the inaugural event. gaining momentum As the pilot was a relatively small scale event, we were advised that it did not fall within the guidelines to To build the profile of the event and to get a view obtain major event funding from the City of Greater from key community stakeholders on the open house Geelong. Neither did it have the DGR tax status to concept for Geelong, we approached a number be eligible for an arts grant. Regional Development of people that we identified as key influencers in Victoria were very supportive of the concept, however, order to gain their support. The majority of those any funding they could provide would be subject to a we approached provided us with a formal letter of commitment of funding from City of Greater Geelong support for the event which both reinforced our belief as well as evidence of economic benefit, which could that the event would be beneficial to Geelong and not be provided until after the event was held.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ports and Environs Advisory Committee
    Planning and Environment Act 1987 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Report of the Advisory Committee pursuant to Section 151 of the Act Advisory Committee: Mark Marsden, Chair Des Grogan, Member Helen Weston, Member David Whitney, Member 29 October 2010 Ports and Environs Advisory Committee Report of the Advisory Committee: 29 October 2010 Report of the Advisory Committee Pursuant to Section 151 of the Act Mark Marsden, Chair Des Grogan, Member Helen Weston, Member David Whitney, Member Page 2 Ports and Environs Advisory Committee Report of the Advisory Committee: 29 October 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO. PART A – BACKGROUND ...............................................................................................16 1. INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................17 1.1 CHALLENGES FOR PORT PLANNING........................................................................17 1.2 STATE AND NATIONAL POLICY CONTEXT...............................................................18 1.3 VICTORIA’S FOUR COMMERCIAL TRADING PORTS ..................................................18 1.4 THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ...................................................................................20 1.5 TERMS OF REFERENCE .............................................................................................20 1.6 COMMITTEE PROCESS..............................................................................................20 2. SUBMISSIONS....................................................................................................23
    [Show full text]
  • Portable Buildings World Heritage Nomination Task Force
    PORTABLE BUILDINGS OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY a proposal for World Heritage listing Portable Buildings World Heritage Nomination Task Force 2 Overseas advisers Marc Braham, Belgium, structural engineer & historian Dr Tomo Inoue, Kyushu University, Japan, architectural historian Dr David Mitchell, Glasgow, Director of Conservation, Historic Scotland. Dr Sara Wermiel, USA, historian of technology Dr Yeo Kang Shu,. President, ICOMOS Singapore Overseas bodies Construction History Society (UK): Dr Nina Baker; Michael Heaton Australian advisers The Hon Dr Barry O Jones, former Vice-President of the World Heritage Committee Sue Balderstone, former ICOMOS World Heritage Advisor Dr Pedro Guedes, Queensland, architectural historian Rosemary Rosario, Western Australia, conservation architect Paul Stark, South Australia, conservation architect Dr John Ting, ACT, architect and conservationist Australian bodies Association for Preservation Technology International, Australasia Chapter: Dr Donald Ellsmore Australian Centre for Architectural History, Urban and Cultural Heritage (ACAHUCH) University of Melbourne, Professor Philip Goad, Professor Hannah Lewi, Professor Julie Willis Australia ICOMOS: Peter Romey, Convenor, Australia ICOMOS World Heritage Reference Group Australian Institute of Architects NSW Chapter Heritage Committee: Dr Jenifer Preston, chair Australian Institute of Architects Victorian Chapter Heritage Committee: Jude Doyle, chair City of Greater Geelong: Councillor Peter Murrihy; David Scott, Senior Heritage Planner Engineering Heritage
    [Show full text]
  • February 2021 MMHN Update These Are Clearly Perplexing
    Melbourne – A Great Maritime City February 2021 MMHN Update These are clearly perplexing, unpredictable and unprecedented times. Just when we thought ‘it safe to go back into the water’ so to speak and that the pandemic tide had ebbed enabling a return to near normality, yet another COVID variant mysteriously penetrated our quarantine strategies and we face Lockdown again. We are grappling with mysterious, invisible viral mutations. And of course, perplexing, unpredictable and, dare I say, unfathomable (!) maritime heritage mysteries also confound us at sea. For example: BASS STRAIT TRIANGLE aka The Great Ship Swallower’ In his book Mysteries of the Bass Strait Triangle J.K. Loney describes the terrible toll it [Bass Strait] has taken of ships, aircraft and men in less than 200 years. Loney poses the question: Do mysterious forces exert a power over this stretch of water to ruthlessly destroy with no logical explanation? Noting a century or so ago seafarers reported sighting more sea monsters in the waters around Australia than any other oceans of the globe. In modern times these tales have been replaced by stories of UFOs… We are assured that all incidents described here have been carefully researched and documented some might say that it is quite easy (but less fun) to understand why sailing in Bass Strait was lethal. Squeezed between the northern coastline of Tasmania and Victoria’s central to eastern coast, Bass Strait is studded with islands, leading to unpredictable sea conditions - Winds, tides and shallow waters result in tall, yet short, waves and the short swell often churns in conflicting directions.
    [Show full text]
  • HMVS Cerberus Conservation Management Plan September 2002
    HMVS Cerberus Conservation Management Plan September 2002 Prepared by Ross Anderson Maritime Heritage Unit Heritage Victoria CONTENTS Acknowledgements 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Scope of Conservation Management Plan 2.0 Definition of the site 2.1 Position of the Cerberus 2.2 Area of the rectangular Protected Zone 3.0 Statement of cultural heritage significance 3.1 International 3.2 National 3.3 State 3.4 Local 3.5 Aesthetic 3.6 Archaeological 3.7 Historical 3.8 Technical 3.9 Scientific 3.10 Recreational 3.11 Ability to demonstrate 4.0 Elements of historic fabric 4.1 Deck and turrets 4.2 Collapsed hull 4.3 Buried hull 5.0 Conservation policy 5.1 Conservation options 5.1.1 Managed collapse and cathodic protection 5.1.2 Removal of deck to a land-based display and more stable environment 5.1.3 Stabilisation of deck in-situ with supporting structure 5.2 Conservation of elements 5.2.1 Guns and turrets 5.2.2 Hull 5.2.2.1 Intrusive materials 5.2.2.2 Destructive works 5.2.3 Buried hull 5.2.4 Timber deck 5.2.4.1 Maintenance 5.2.4.2 Removal 5.3 Support substructure 5.4 Risks, public access and risk management 5.4.1 Assessment of risk 5.4.2 Public access 5.4.3 Risk management 5.5 Flexibility of conservation policy 6.0 Care of Fabric and Maintenance 7.0 Documentation 8.0 Planning and management structure for future work and maintenance 8.1 ‘Save the Cerberus Alliance’ committee members 8.2 Historic Shipwrecks Advisory Committee (HSAC) and Heritage Council 9.0 Bibliography Acknowledgements Many people have assisted with their comments toward the final version of this document.
    [Show full text]
  • Redevelopment of 50 Mackey Street, North Geelong (Powerview Pty Ltd Proposal)
    Planning and Environment Act 1987 Advisory Committee Report Redevelopment of 50 Mackey Street, North Geelong (Powerview Pty Ltd proposal) 1 April 2020 Planning and Environment Act 1987 Advisory Committee Report pursuant to section 151 of the Act Redevelopment of 50 Mackey Street, North Geelong (Powerview Pty Ltd proposal) 1 April 2020 Michael Kirsch, Chair Steve Blackley, Member Redevelopment of 50 Mackey Street, North Geelong (Powerview Pty Ltd proposal) Advisory Committee Report 1 April 2020 Contents Page 1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................1 1.1 The permit application ............................................................................................ 1 1.2 Background .............................................................................................................. 2 1.3 Procedural issues ..................................................................................................... 3 2 Background ...............................................................................................................5 2.1 The subject site and surrounding area .................................................................... 5 2.2 The Pivot City Innovation District ............................................................................ 7 2.3 The Port of Geelong ................................................................................................ 8 3 Planning context ....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Port of Geelong Draft Port Land Use Strategy
    1 Port of Geelong: Draft Port Land Use Strategy Toll GeelongPort and Department of Infrastructure Port of Geelong: Draft Port Land Use Strategy 2 Port of Geelong: Draft Port Land Use Strategy Prepared for Toll GeelongPort and Department of Infrastructure Prepared by Maunsell Australia Pty Ltd Level 9, 8 Exhibition Street, Melbourne VIC 3000, Australia T +61 3 9653 1234 F +61 3 9654 7117 www.maunsell.com ABN 20 093 846 925 March 2007 30023506 © Maunsell Australia Pty Ltd 2007 The information contained in this document produced by Maunsell Australia Pty Ltd is solely for the use of the Client identified on the cover sheet for the purpose for which it has been prepared and Maunsell Australia Pty Ltd undertakes no duty to or accepts any responsibility to any third party who may rely upon this document. All rights reserved. No section or element of this document may be removed from this document, reproduced, electronically stored or transmitted in any form without the written permission of Maunsell Australia Pty Ltd. Cover image Corio Quay, grain bunkers and pier. 3 Contents Explanatory Note 5 Making a submission 5 Executive Summary 6 Summaries of Key Strategies 9 Part A — Need for a Strategic Framework for the Port of Geelong 11 1 Background to the Land Use Strategy 12 1.1 Introduction 12 1.2 Community Feedback in 2004 and 2005 13 1.3 Need for a new approach 13 2 Port Overview 15 2.1 Vision for the port 15 2.2 Land Management 15 2.3 Port Facilities 15 2.4 Economic Value 17 2.5 Port Trade 17 2.6 Port Area of Interest 17 2.7 Transport Infrastructure
    [Show full text]
  • Victorian Heritage Database Place Details - 25/9/2021 OSBORNE HOUSE
    Victorian Heritage Database place details - 25/9/2021 OSBORNE HOUSE Location: 51 SWINBURNE STREET NORTH GEELONG, Greater Geelong City Victorian Heritage Register (VHR) Number: H1101 Listing Authority: VHR Extent of Registration: Under Section14 of the Historic Buildings Act 1981 the Governor in Council amends the Register by adding Historic Building No. 1101: Osborne House, Swinburne Street, North Geelong, City of Greater Geelong. Extent: 1. All of the buildings known as Osborne House, comprising Osborne House marked B-1 and the stables marked B-2, on Plan 605315A, endorsed by the Chair, Historic Buildings Council and held by the Director, Historic Buildings Council. 2. All the land described in Certificates of Title Volume 6400 Folio 850 and Volume 7327 Folio 230 marked L-1 on Plan No. 305315A, endorsed by the Chair, Historic Buildings Council and held by the Director, Historic Buildings Council. Dated 12 September 1995 Responsible Minister ROBERT MACLELLAN 1 Minister for Planning and Local Government KATHY WILSON Clerk of the Executive Council [Victoria Government Gazette G36 14 September 1995 2536] Statement of Significance: Osborne House, stables and courtyard were designed by leading Melbourne architects Webb and Taylor, and erected in 1858 for pastoralist Robert Muirhead, a former overseer with the Clyde Company. Originally built as a two storey bluestone structure with Barrabool sandstone dressings and single storey Doric colonnaded verandah in the Victorian Italianate style, it was extended in 1910, and in 1967. Osborne House is of architectural and historic significance to the state of Victoria. Osborne House is characteristic of the work of Webb and Taylor, and a notable example of the partnership's conservative classical architecture.
    [Show full text]
  • Strategic Implementation Greater Geelong City
    National Trust of Australia (Victoria) ABN 61 004 356 192 7 April 2016 Tasma Terrace 4 Parliament Place East Melbourne Victoria 3002 Coordinator - Strategic Implementation Greater Geelong City Council Email: [email protected] PO Box 104 Web: www.nationaltrust.org.au GEELONG VIC 3220 T 03 9656 9800 F 03 9656 5397 Dear Sir/Madam, Re: Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C341 The National Trust is supportive of the amendment prepared by the Greater Geelong City Council to apply the Heritage Overlay to the Vietnam Veterans Avenue of Honour and Memorial, including a memorial wall, flagpoles and memorial seat, and the Osborne House gates, located near the memorial. The National Trust (Vic) maintains a Heritage Register of Significant Places, including buildings, landscapes and trees. The following complex included in Amendment C341 is also listed by the National Trust (see classification report attached): HO Schedule Place Name NTAV File No. NTAV File Name HO1989 Osborne House Gates B935 Osborne House The National Trust supports the decision to apply the Heritage Overlay to the Osborne House Gates, and to turn on paint controls for the bluestone pillars. In addition, the National Trust acknowledges the significance of the Vietnam Veterans Avenue of Honour, opened in October 1995 and comprised of over 130 mature ironbark trees, as the only Avenue of Honour in Victoria specifically commemorating the Vietnam War. While this Avenue of Honour is not classified by the National Trust, we support the decision to turn on tree controls on both sides of Melbourne Road. The Explanatory Report for Amendment C341 makes a clear distinction between the heritage significance of the Vietnam War Memorial and Avenue of Honour, and the heritage significance of the Osborne House gates.
    [Show full text]
  • North Geelong. Case Study Report
    North Geelong. Case Study Report -·"' .'.i{~r: . '· '. ·! A ENERGY· . " Department of G ENVIRONMENT ERDC VICTORIA Infrastructure ENERGY RESEARCH ~-'-I PROTECTION - '\------- Go\'emmenl AND DEVELOPMENT 1rgy S.ave Money AUTHORITY . of Vk1oria CORPORATION 711-.43 099451 URB:NG copy 1 ~g; ~~~~iii:· .:Jl ·i~~l~~ 4f~; l~~31 n: ~~~~L m:== ~Ir. North Geelong Case Study Report Prepared by Fisher Stewart Pty. Ltd. in conjunction with Ecologically Sustainable Design Pty. Ltd. PLANNING & EPA for LIBRARY City of Greater Geelong Environment Protection Authority, Victoria Energy Victoria Department of Infrastructure Energy Research and Development Corporation ISBN O 7306 9311 2 (- - _,.-~ ----·-~ 711. 43 Urban villages project I August 1996 099451 North Geelong case ' URB:NG study report copy 1 PERSONNEL INVOLVED IN THE PROJECT Peter Krstic Fisher Stewart Pry. Ltd. Charrette Man~er Chip Kaufman Ecological Sustainable Design Leader of Charrette and Urban Design George Simic Fisher Stewart Pry. Ltd. Senior Urban Designer Debra Williams Siteworks Pry. Ltd. Urban Designer Jim Higgs TIM Consulting Traffic Engineer Claire Ferres TIM Consulting Urban Designer Peter van Wyk Fisher Stewart Pry. Ltd. Civil Engineer Peter Edgeley Peter Edgeley Pry. Ltd. Illustrator Neil Savery City of Greater Geelong Council Representative Kent Dogshum City of Greater Geelong Council Representative Scott Pedder City of Greater Geelong Council Representative Yvonne Rust Department of Infrastructure Project Assistant Nathan Alexander Energy Victoria Project Co-ordinator Wendy Morris Department of Infrastructure Working Party Member Martin Halpin Student Working Party Member Sophia Schyshow Environment Protection Authority Project Manager Beverley Smith Energy Victoria Working Party Member CONTENTS Page 1 Introduction 5 2 Existing Conditions and Issues 6 2.1 Function of the Site 6 2.2 Physical Character 6 2.3 Land Use 13 2.4 Zoning 13 2.5 £.P.A.
    [Show full text]
  • William Rooke Creswell
    28 WILLIAM ROOKE CRESWELL By The President NORMAN S. PIXLEY C.M.G., M.B.E., V.R.D., Kt.O.N., F.R. Hist. S.Q. Read at The Annual Meeting of the Royal Historical Society of Queensland 2 7 September i 979. Regarded as the "Father" of the Royal Australian Navy, William Rooke Creswell was born on 20 July 1852 in Gibraltar, where his father was a postal official responsible for the receipt and distribution of mails and despatches from England to Gibraltar and the Meditteranian. He was the fourth of a large family and, as he grew up, spoke Spanish fluently. In January 1866, aged 131/2 years, he joined the training ship Britannia and on completion of his training, was appointed as a midshipman to H.M.S. Phoebe a frigate, in which he sailed round the world. He became a sub-lieutenant on 20 October 1871 and later joined H.M.S. Midge then operating against pirates near Penang. His promotion to lieutenant on 16 September 1873 had been accelerated for his work in these operations. Subsequently he was invalided home with a bad attack of fever, and on recovery he finally joined H.M.S. London a two decker converted screw ship stationed at Zanzibar as a depot ship for the smaller naval vessels operating against the slave traders. This, he says, was the only active naval work going on at that time with hope of promotion: in this Creswell was to be sadly disappointed. At the end of his term of active service in the anti-slavery operations, he mentions that although he and Lieutenant O'Neill were thanked by Lord Salisbury for their work they had little family or other influence which might have helped gain the coveted step in promotion, and that "our own captain's interest in our doings was little more than luke warm." Before leaving Zanzibar, Creswell heard of his father's death: this change for the worse in the family fortune and other considerations, made him decide to leave the Navy and try his luck in Australia, which he had visited as a midshipman in 1869.
    [Show full text]
  • AUSTRALIAN SUBMARINES at PEACE: J BOATS Graham Seal
    AUSTRALIAN SUBMARINES AT PEACE: J BOATS Graham Seal In January 1915 eight J-class submarines were commissioned under the United Kingdom War Emergency Program. Only six were constructed though these were able to reach surface speeds of nineteen knots, attained through a triple propeller system powered by three eight cylinder Vickers Diesel engines. This allowed the submarines to operate with the main battle fleet, trapping slow enemy craft between surface vessels and very fast submarines, a technique that led to them being known collectively as ‘The Reapers’. They were around 100 foot longer than the E-class submarines, of which Australia had two during the war, and were also equipped with long-range wireless. Together with their speed, this enabled them to operate effectively as reconnaissance vessels, with a safe diving depth of 300 feet. As part of the 11th Submarine Flotilla, the J- class boats were to play an effective role in North Sea Naval operations. J-boats with HMAS Platypus Life on board a J-boat was a cramped and dangerous affair. Leading Torpedo-man Tom, or ‘Taff’, Jones had been among the landing boat crews at Gallipoli aboard HMS London. Inspired by the well-reported exploits of VC-winnner Lieutenant Norman Douglas Holbrook in British submarine B11 in the Dardanelles, he joined the submarine service. Jones subsequently served aboard J2 and in 1935 published a rare account of the experience in his Watchdogs of the Deep. According to Jones, after some brief but intense training in HMS Thames at Sheerness, including just one practice dive, he was posted to J2 under Lt-Commander Cooper, DSO.
    [Show full text]
  • J CLASS SUBMARINE Nomination for Heritage Recognition Page 2
    Engineers Australia Engineering Heritage Victoria Nomination Engineering Heritage Australia Heritage Recognition Program J CLASS SUBMARINE IN ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY SERVICE June 2018 Front Cover Photograph Caption J3 in Royal Australian Navy Service. The J class were large, fast and advanced submarines when they entered service at the end of the First World War however they did not reach their potential in Australian service as they arrived at a time when military capability was despised and the coming menace of Germany and Japan had not yet been appreciated. Image: Royal Australian Navy J CLASS SUBMARINE Nomination for Heritage Recognition page 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Table of Contents 3 1 Introduction 5 2 Heritage Nomination Letter 7 3 Heritage Assessment 8 3.1 Basic Data 8 3.2 Historical Notes 12 3.3 Heritage Listings 14 4 Assessment of Significance 15 4.1 Historical significance 15 4.2 Historic Individuals or Association 16 4.3 Creative or Technical Achievement 16 4.4 Research Potential 17 4.5 Social 18 4.6 Rarity 19 4.7 Representativeness 19 4.8 Integrity/Intactness 19 4.9 Statement of Significance 19 4.10 Area of Significance 20 5 Interpretation Plan 21 5.1 General Approach 21 6 References 22 7 Acknowledgments, Authorship and General Notes 23 J CLASS SUBMARINE Nomination for Heritage Recognition page 3 Appendix 1 Images with Captions 24 A1.1 Historical Images 24 A1.2 Recent Images 33 Appendix 2 Drawings and Detailed Images 35 Appendix 3 Historic Individuals or Associations 48 A3.1 Admiral Sir Martin Dunbar-Nasmith VC KCB KCMG 48
    [Show full text]