4.0 Trial Bay Gaol Today
Section 2 set out a brief history of the Gaol and site to assist in understanding the values and significance of the historical fabric and features of the site that are discussed in Section 3. This section of the report provides an overview of Trial Bay as it is today. While it is easy to see sites such as the gaol as having ‘heritage value’ because of their history it is also important to understand why visitors and users of the site value the place for other reasons. It is also important to understand how the site operates and to identify the strengths and weaknesses of its current operation.
The following sections set out the DEC requirements and management objectives for the site, describe the site facilities and how they are currently used by visitors.
4.1 Statutory and Other Controls
This section outlines statutory and other constraints that affect Trial Bay Gaol and the Arakoon State Conservation Area that surrounds it.
Statutory controls NP&W Act and DEC Policy Requirements All historic remains and all potential subsurface archaeological features at Trial Bay Gaol are protected under the provisions of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 as part of Arakoon State Recreation Area, with the addition of Gap Beach in 1977 and further additions at Front beach and Saltwater Lagoon. The NP&W Act sets out that removal of any deposit, object or material evidence relating to the settlement or occupation of NSW (not being Aboriginal settlement or occupation) is an offence if the material is more that 25 years old at the date of interference.
The National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 requires the preparation of a Plan of Management for every reserve. Trial Bay Gaol is subject to the Arakoon State Recreation Area Plan of Management endorsed by NPWS in 1987. This document will be reviewed following endorsement of this CM+CTP.
All flora and fauna occurring on the site that have been identified as being Vulnerable, Endangered or Protected, are protected under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 and the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. NSW Heritage Act The site is not included as an item on the State Heritage Register but is included on the Section 170 Register. The place is clearly a place of State significance and should be nominated for inclusion on the State Heritage Register.
Apart from setting out why the place is significant the Act requires applications for any work to the place to be made under the provisions of Section 60. NPWS have standard exemptions for a range of works. Following the endorsement of this Plan further exemptions
TRIAL BAY GAOL PAUL DAVIES PTY LTD CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL TOURISM PLAN APRIL 2004
71 could be provided, however major works, even where endorsed will require an application under Section 60 of the Act.
All historic remains and all potential subsurface archaeological features over 50 years of age are also subject to the relics provisions of the NSW Heritage Act 1977 and are therefore afforded concurrent statutory protection under this Act. Other Controls Under the Rural Fires Act 1997 a local Bushfires Management Committee is required to produce a Bushfire Risk Management Plan and a Bushfire Operational Plan. This committee, which includes members of the local community and a representative of NPWS, will need to consider this CMP during the formulation of these plans.
Where this site is deemed to be a high risk area, appropriate fire management controls may need to be put in place. These controls should endeavour to respect the significance of the place while seeking to reduce the fire risk on the site. These plans may need to consider the processes proposed in conservation policies of this document. These plans may also need to consider undertaking cultural and natural heritage surveys in areas specifically marked for hazard reduction works, ie backburning or general vegetation clearing around site boundaries. Approvals Following endorsement of the CMP and listing on the State Heritage Register, work that complies with the policies and maintenance schedules within it will not require further approval under the NSW Heritage Act. The CMP will be the guiding document (with the Management Plan for the place) in assessing work.
Approval to undertake work is required under the National Parks and Wildlife Act, the Epand A Act and the NSW Heritage Act.
Routine and regular maintenance works are exempt works and may be undertaken without approval.
Aboriginal Heritage Aboriginal cultural heritage in Australia is protected and managed under the following Commonwealth and State legislation. Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975 The Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975 established the Australian Heritage Commission (AHC) to identify places of importance to the National Estate. The AHC maintains a register (the Register of the National Estate) of places that are significant in terms of their association with a particular community or social group for social cultural or spiritual reasons. Currently Arakoon State Recreation Area is listed on the Register of the National Estate but contains no reference to significant Aboriginal heritage. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Amendment Act 1987 The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Amendment Act 1987 is a federal act administered by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission and provides blanket protection for Aboriginal heritage in circumstances where such protection is
TRIAL BAY GAOL PAUL DAVIES PTY LTD CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL TOURISM PLAN APRIL 2004
72 not available at state level. This Act comes under Commonwealth jurisdiction which means that it can override State and Territory provisions. New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 All Aboriginal relics are protected under Section 90 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974. Sites of traditional significance that do not necessarily contain archaeological materials may be gazetted as Aboriginal places and are protected under Section 84 of the Act. This protection applies to all sites regardless of their significance or land tenure. Under Section 90 of the Act it is an offence to knowingly disturb, damage or destroy relics or Aboriginal places without prior written consent of the Director-General of DEC.
Under the Act a relic is defined as: 'Any deposit, object or material evidence (not being a handicraft for sale) relating to indigenous and non-European habitation of the area that comprises New South Wales, being habitation both prior to and concurrent with that area by persons of European extraction, and includes Aboriginal remains.' A site register search of the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service Aboriginal Sites Register identified 115 Aboriginal archaeological recorded within roughly 10km of the Trial Bay Gaol area. See Appendix F for further details.
The NPWS Field Management Policies Manual (currently being updated) contains general policies and procedures which cover Aboriginal sites within the local region. In relation to Aboriginal sites these include consultation, conservation and impact assessment.
The Policies Manual specifies that Conservation Management Plans should be prepared for both site types and that management or other decisions should not be undertaken until the Conservation Management Plan has been prepared. In dealing with Aboriginal sites there is a heavy emphasis on consultation with Aboriginal communities and local Land Councils. This document satisfies that requirement.
Non-Statutory Controls Register of the National Estate Arakoon State Recreation Area is listed on the Register of the National Estate. A copy of the listing is included at Appendix K.
This listing recognises the national significance of the site but does not invoke applications for works. National Trust of Australia (NSW) The National Trust has included the place on its register of significant places. This register is non-statutory but recognises places of potential significance and provides an indication of places held in esteem by the broader community. No applications or consultations are required as a result of this listing.
TRIAL BAY GAOL PAUL DAVIES PTY LTD CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL TOURISM PLAN APRIL 2004
73 4.2 DEC Management Objectives
The Department of Environment and Conservation sees the Trial Bay Gaol precinct as the key tourist cultural heritage destination in the mid-north coast region.
Its close proximity and links with Smoky Cape Lighthouse, another important cultural site in the area, provides opportunities for high levels of visitation and a greatly enhanced visitation experience. While NPWS are keen to see the whole site provide a high level experience for a range of visitors, the gaol complex provides the focal point for future interpretation and activities should focus on the gaol and its interpretation and presentation.
NPWS have a number of specific immediate requirements for the place to improve its appeal, operation and safety. These include: • ongoing conservation and management as a key destination to support heritage conservation outcomes • separation of camping enquiries from the gaol building • improved staff facilities and security at the gaol • upgrade of the current interpretation as an interim measure to provide a better visitation experience • strategies to manage the broader site and landscape in accordance with its cultural and natural values • reach a broader visitor group to expand the current gaol visitation numbers • sustainable management seen in activities such as increased revenue from the site to allow greater investment in the place The longer term requirement for the place is to provide an exceptional visitor destination that draws patrons back for repeat visits and which provides a memorable destination not only for its evocative setting and ruins but also for the interpretative elements that are experienced. Objectives for managing Trial Bay Gaol The Arakoon State Recreation Area Business Management Plan (Price Waterhouse Urwick 1991 pg 47) defines the Arakoon SRA Mission Statement as follows: Arakoon SRA will endeavour to: • Provide high quality recreational experiences for the local community and visitors alike • Preserve and enhance the natural, cultural and scenic attributes of the Park's environment • Operate efficiently • Become self-funding These four principles underlie the policy of this plan and establish the parameters for setting broad and specific policies.
The Business Management Plan sets out the following goals for the site: 1 To protect the cultural and natural features of the place 2 To enable the local community, visitors and descendants of former staff and inmates of the place to celebrate and commemorate its history and culture
TRIAL BAY GAOL PAUL DAVIES PTY LTD CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL TOURISM PLAN APRIL 2004
74 3 To promote controlled economic and tourism development of the place that will allow it to move towards self-sustainability 4 To inform and educate people about the culture and history of: • Aboriginal people • prisons and internment • the Macleay River region • the natural environment 5 To provide enhanced and managed public access to the site that is compatible with the protection of the place and which achieves minimal impacts on the fabric and setting 6 To provide interpretation of all the key themes of the place and the surrounding region 7 To retain the special quality of the place that is recognised by visitors and the local community 8 To retain significant aspects and recover lost aspects of the setting
4.3 Key Management Documents for Trial Bay Gaol
The proposals, management objectives and policies set out in this plan have their foundations in the policies already developed in earlier, though still current, documents covering the management and vision for Trial Bay Gaol and Arakoon State Conservation Area (formerly Arakoon State Recreation Area). These documents are: • Arakoon SRA Plan of Management NPWS 1987 • Mid North Coast Region Cultural Heritage Management Strategy (NPWS Final Report March 2003) • Trial Bay Prison Study Jackson Teece Chesterman Willis & Partners Pty Ltd with Dr J S Kerr 1982 • National Parks and Wildlife Act • NPWS Corporate Plan 2000-2003 • Australia ICOMOS Charter of Places of Cultural Significance (Burra Charter) • Land Resource Management Plan 1984 • Arakoon State Recreation Area Business Management Plan Price Waterhouse Urwick 1991
TRIAL BAY GAOL PAUL DAVIES PTY LTD CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL TOURISM PLAN APRIL 2004
75 4.4 Background to Policy 4.4.1 Analysis of Visitor Behaviour and Site Use
The current site use is mixed and while a comfortable fit in many respects does not provide the best experience for many of the users of the place. The principal uses of historic site, camping area and day use site are appropriate to its high level of significance and to provide for the recreational potential of the area. The following discussion looks at the main groups of site users and their current patterns of use of the site.
The users of the site fall into the following broad groups: Tourists visiting the historic site This group of people almost exclusively drive to the site and park outside the entry gates to the gaol. Some visit the interior of the gaol, others elect not to pay the entry fee and look around the site. Most visitors appear to walk to the edge of the quarry and take in the broader view.
After entry to the gaol the interior is freely accessible with a self-guided tour. Visitors appear to use the guide material and nearly all visitors photograph themselves in the one cell with an openable door, climb the observation tower, lie in the concrete baths and visit the isolation cells. A considerable number of visitors also view the explanation video, even though it is not well set-up. Guided tours are also well-subscribed. Several seats and tables are provided within the gaol and although no one was observed using them for picnics a number of people stopped for a rest as it is one of the few locations within the complex where visitors can sit down. It appears that while a need exists for some seating, the current fittings are random in their form and location and require a more planned and integrated approach.
Illustration 4.4.1 Entrance to gaol as approached Illustration 4.4.2 Mess Hall viewed from immediately from the main entry road. The view is dominated inside the gaol entry. Paul Davies 2003 by the sign and the carpark. Paul Davies 2003
Many visitors on leaving the gaol building continue to drive around the site, usually around the base of the gaol, past the beach and along the ocean front. Few stop or leave their cars. Those that do were observed to do so near the area of the former tennis courts where they can easily access the views of the coast.
TRIAL BAY GAOL PAUL DAVIES PTY LTD CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL TOURISM PLAN APRIL 2004
76 Some visitors stop at the restaurant and some stop for picnics. Many do not appear to spend much time at the site if they don’t visit the gaol interior.
A modest entry fee is charged for gaol access. There are no other charges or fees for day visitor tourists. Day visitors to the waterfront This group comprises a wide range of users including local residents who use the area for recreation such as beach use, picnics, water access for boat launching and for fishing. Other users are holiday-makers who use the beach and beach edge facilities due to its safe waterfront and idyllic setting; others are tourists visiting the site, in particular the gaol.
Day users tend to drive to the site, park in close proximity to the beach and picnic facilities and use the immediate amenities including picnic facilities and the provided firewood. There are no restrictions on this use of the site and no fees are charged except for shower use.
An amenities block in the former quarry area on the ocean front provides toilets specifically for day visitation. Other amenity blocks are shared use with campers.
Beach access for vehicles is provided in two locations, one near the NPWS office to the west of the site and one near the end of the breakwater. This location was not observed to be used during the first site visits probably due to the long distance from that point to deep water but was in use during later site visits. It has been advised by NPWS staff that the beach conditions change regularly and this is likely to impact on usage patterns. Camping area users The camping area is reported to be one of the most popular on the NSW coast. This is understandable given its stunning peninsula setting, the relatively safe waterfront and the general amenity of the locality. The camping area is laid out with 73 sites (refer to figure 4.4.1). They extend along the beachfront, back into the valley below the gaol and into the coastal teatree scrub below the entry road. Sites are marked, but some not clearly and are mostly grass or sand. Access roads are sealed but relatively informal and a significant number of trees and planting remains. Prime sites are located on the beach edge and are booked at peak periods on an ongoing basis by regular users. There is a high level of return visits with many campers visiting the same site for many years.
Three main amenities blocks, one of recent construction as described later in this section serve the camping area. There are no other amenities such as a kiosk or shop for campers.
At peak periods the camping area is regularly overstretched and overflow areas are used to accommodate sites. They are roughly marked on the NPWS plans (figure 4.4.1). It was observed over the 2003 Christmas period that campsites extended around the base of the gaol and along the oceanfront, with several attached to day visitor picnic facilities and barbeques. These were outside the areas marked on the camping area plan.
Campers on arriving at the site book in at the gaol. New campers park outside the gaol (with caravan or van) to book in, are given directions to their site or are invited to find a site in non- peak times. They then drive into the camping area. Regular campers tend to go directly to their site and then book in. This eases the congestion at the gaol entry.
TRIAL BAY GAOL PAUL DAVIES PTY LTD CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL TOURISM PLAN APRIL 2004
77 Figure 4.4.1 The NPWS plan of the camping area identifying marked and unmarked sites. Overflow camping is indicated around the wall of the gaol, along the entry road to the area and at the eastern end of the waterfront. At peak times camping has also extended below the restaurant area and along the waterfront. NTS NPWS
Visitors using the restaurant The restaurant located near the entry road provides for semi-formal dining at lunch and dinner and morning and afternoon teas. It provides a very small retail service for campers, but this is clearly not a preferred activity. Users of the restaurant comprise local residents, tourists and campers (but it appears not regularly). There is little observed use of the restaurant by beachfront users.
Access to the restaurant is by car except for residents of the camping area. Parking is available immediately adjacent to the restaurant for a small number of vehicles and there is a large roughly sealed carpark below the building for larger events or peak periods. It is not necessary for restaurant users to access the camping area or gaol precinct.
TRIAL BAY GAOL PAUL DAVIES PTY LTD CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL TOURISM PLAN APRIL 2004
78 4.4.2 Assessment of Site Facilities and Presentation
This Plan is required to look at the current NPWS operation of the site and the facilities provided for staff, day visitors, campers and patrons of the gaol. The following discussion looks at each section of the site and how it functions, then sets out difficulties and issues that arise from site analysis and observation of those uses and activities, as well as identifying opportunities for the future.
The current situation on site is that the NPWS occupy an office and compound on the southern boundary of the site and maintain a small office at the gaol where camping bookings and enquiries as well as gaol entry and discovery ranger programs are based. All activities are serviced by a single counter at the gaol entry. This area was upgraded in July 2003 to better address OH & S issues for staff and patrons. One small office is located on the first floor of the entry building amongst the interpretation. A second office was removed in the recent upgrade work to provide additional interpretation space. Generally two staff attend the counter and there is a small separate enclosure behind the counter which forms an office.
There is little signage that indicates either the NPWS presence on the site or the location of facilities.
The other occupied (non-amenity) building on the site is the restaurant that is located approximately on the site of a former gaol residence. Built initially as a kiosk with a range of functions it now largely serves ‘sit down’ patrons and provides only limited takeaway facilities.
The other buildings on the site are four toilet/shower blocks serving mostly campsite occupants but also day visitors. They vary in age and condition.
Site Presentation While most visitors express a degree of satisfaction with the available interpretation, information and presentation of the gaol and site generally, some visitor and local comment suggests that there is significant room for improvement. Observation of the operation of the site over several weeks during peak tourist season in early 2003 noted significant difficulties in the management of the site. This particularly related to the inability of the office to handle gaol entry and tours apart from the added roles of campsite office and retail outlet. While this has improved with the recent office upgrade the shared use of the area still presents operating difficulties.
There are also difficulties in the differentiation between day visitor and camper use at peak times with significant encroachment of camping sites onto potential archaeological sites, into day visitor areas and along the oceanfront day use area. The Camping Area and Day Visitation Areas The camping area is well-established with prime camp sites located along the water's edge. It is divided into the core camping area and overflow areas.
TRIAL BAY GAOL PAUL DAVIES PTY LTD CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL TOURISM PLAN APRIL 2004
79 It has however been observed that a number of camp sites are located on the sites of former buildings that have archaeological potential and that carparking also occupies former building sites where building foundations are still clearly visible, eg the stables building. Both activities should be managed to avoid potential impacts and should preferably take place on areas of minimal archaeological potential to protect cultural values.
The extent of camping (and day use) needs to be considered in relation to acceptable levels of impact. Limits on carrying capacity for camping need to be enforced even in peak periods and if demand for sites continues to grow, consideration to alternative camping sites should be given possibly at Little Bay or adjacent to the NPWS office.
However although this may lead to some adjustment of camping sites, there is also an opportunity to provide additional sites. The southern end of the quarry could be developed as a small separate campsite and some additional camping sites could be created at the southern end of the main camping area. Van sites could also be provided along the oceanfront in designated areas.
Overflow camping should not encroach on day visitor areas and these sites should also be clearly marked and managed with occupation limits established.
The relationship between camping and day visitors is difficult as there is competition for the prime waterfront locations. The access road for both camping and day visitation separates the camping area into two zones and places the principal beach access in the centre of camping areas, separating some sites from amenity blocks. A clear delineation between the two uses with less encroachment of camping onto the beachfront embankment and day visitor areas would reduce this conflict.
The day visitation activities within the overall headland that impact on camping are: • access to the beach with associated parking • beachfront barbeques and picnic shelters • shared use of amenity buildings (users pay for showers but they are not restricted to campers) • access to the quarry area which traverses a road that separates the beachfront camping area from the amenities block • access to the restaurant/kiosk is through the camping area • the boat ramp (access onto the beach) is immediately adjacent to camping areas • other picnic areas are located around the edge of the camping area Camping area activities that impact on day visitation include: • overflow camping that extends across access roads • overflow camping that uses day visitation areas including picnic facilities • restricted access to the beach at formed entry points All these activities also impact on the conservation values of the site and contribute to the difficulties of appropriate heritage management.
NPWS has recognised the conflict between day visitor and camping uses and has proposed a number of solutions including changing road patterns to remove the major access to the beach from direct camping area access. This conflict of use was raised at the community consultations as a significant issue for local residents and is discussed further under Section 4.4.12 Vehicular Access and Movement.
TRIAL BAY GAOL PAUL DAVIES PTY LTD CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL TOURISM PLAN APRIL 2004
80 Day visitors also require upgraded facilities and access to take advantage of the site and its visitation potential: • A more extensive area adjacent to the beach that is not traversed by road access, additional picnic and barbeque facilities and separated parking would enhance the visitor experience at the front beach. • Additional day use facilities near the breakwater could provide an additional day visitor area with parking. • The quarry area could be further developed with restrictions on car access and additional picnic facilities that would enhance what is already a popular and interesting day visitation area. • The current vehicular access point to the beach at the breakwater is appropriate, however use of the top of the breakwater for vehicular access to the beach conflicts with general beach use by day visitors. It is suggested that access to the beach at this location should be closed. • Clear separation of parking and picnic areas to enhance the overall amenity of the site. • Improved signs showing day visitor areas would assist in directing visitors to picnic and beach access areas. • Defined access points to the beach at a range of locations and along existing desire lines (indicated by tracks) should be provided. • A kiosk facility located near the beachfront could provide food, beverages and groceries for both day visitors and campers. New Facilities The following structures on the site (not archaeological elements) do not have heritage significance and are not constrained in the same way as the gaol buildings. However, the form and operation of these buildings does impact on the place either visually or operationally. The operational structures need to be maintained and presented to enhance the overall setting of the gaol. They also require regular maintenance and in some cases require substantial rebuilding or replacement to satisfy the operational requirements of the site. The Restaurant and its Surrounding Area This area has been developed to provide both internal and external dining with views to the gaol and headland that are important to its sense of place and to clearly link it to the gaol. However while its location takes advantage of the setting it has little actual relationship to the camping area. Its scale and materials are uncharacteristic of the historic development of the site although its visual impact could be minimised through landscaping.
The building is a relatively well-presented modern building in good condition and provides for current requirements. It adequately separates visitor and service areas so that service areas do not impact on visitor enjoyment of the area, but they are visible from the entry road and require further screening to enhance the arrival experience to the site.
The building should continue to be maintained to a good standard. Should future expansion of the facility beyond the immediate setting be proposed, an assessment of the impact on site features would be required. It is also desirable that adequate open space be maintained between the restaurant and the camping area to provide for the privacy of campers and amenity of diners.
TRIAL BAY GAOL PAUL DAVIES PTY LTD CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL TOURISM PLAN APRIL 2004
81 Parking access comes directly from the main access road with parking spaces immediately adjacent on the road and below the site in a roughly formed parking area. This is a large area out of character with the remainder of the site as it is open, partially sealed, not well- maintained and poorly defined. The parking space available would generally provide for most events at the restaurant but it requires refinement particularly to reduce the visual impact of the large open parking area below the restaurant building. The entry road to the restaurant is also an entry road to the camping area. Signs do not adequately direct visitors as they approach the restaurant site.
Illustration 4.4.3 Restaurant viewed from the northwest Paul Davies 2003
Amenities Blocks Until recently three amenities blocks served the area, one on the seafront (principally for day visitors) one at the beach front and one below the kiosk. A large central facility has more recently been constructed at the centre of the camping area (on the site of the observatory) that contains washing up and other facilities in addition to toilets and showers. It is a modern building in good condition and should continue to be maintained to a good standard, however it would benefit from additional landscaping to reduce its scale in relation to its siting.
The three older amenities blocks, the Front Beach facility, the oceanfront block in the old quarry and the block below the restaurant, vary in condition but all require substantial upgrade as they no longer meet current visitor expectations, BCA or health standards. This could provide opportunities to separate camping and day visitor facilities. Removal or replacement may be considered, especially in the case of the ocean front block, provided that sufficient facilities remain in place to service site use. Section 6.2.5 Site Use and General Site Facilities provides an assessment of the current amenities blocks and actions required to upgrade the facilities.
Illustration 4.4.4 The toilet block directly below Illustration 4.4.5 The oceanfront toilet block with the restaurant. Paul Davies 2003 disabled facilities added to the left hand end. Paul Davies 2003
TRIAL BAY GAOL PAUL DAVIES PTY LTD CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL TOURISM PLAN APRIL 2004
82 Illustration 4.4.6 The main toilet block. Illustration 4.4.7 The rear of the Front Beach Paul Davies 2003 block showing leaking pipes. Paul Davies 2003
Picnic Shelters The picnic shelters are small relatively neutral elements that have an appropriate scale and provide a good level of amenity. They are located along the oceanfront, the beachfront and within the main camping area. Primarily they are provided for day use and should be separate from camping areas. They should also be clearly separated from parking areas. The current facilities should be maintained and will continue to present well within the overall setting. Additional facilities, if required, should either follow the form of the current structures or, if a new form is adopted, should in time replace the current facilities so that there is a consistent approach to these structures.
Illustration 4.4.8 Picnic Shelter along ocean front with concrete barbeque. Paul Davies 2003
4.4.3 Interpretation
Interpretation is a key activity on the site. It should offer the visitor information, insight and inspiration and should be a vehicle for people to discover not only the history and the stories of Trial Bay but to explore their responses to this extraordinary place. Interpretation can, if carefully implemented, touch people in unexpected ways. If the interpretation leaves people uninformed and unmoved it has failed.
It is not sufficient to provide only facts about the place: visitors will neither be interested in nor retain information that is not contextualised; that engages them only at an intellectual
TRIAL BAY GAOL PAUL DAVIES PTY LTD CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL TOURISM PLAN APRIL 2004
83 level rather than emotionally; or that fails to appeal to their sense of adventure and discovery by stimulating the 'wow' response.
All the interpretation, both around the site and within the main interpretive areas, should be considered as an integrated whole that will provide the visitor, should they choose to access all the information, with a complete understanding of the site, its history, the natural and built heritage, the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal heritage and the contemporary social values of the place.
This section: • establishes themes for interpretation • establishes interpretation concepts • sets out a broad interpretation strategy • develops an outline interpretation plan The interpretation should also be considered in relation to other site management issues such as access, both able-bodied and disabled, staffing and other site uses, such as camping. Current Site Interpretation A detailed assessment of the current interpretation is provided at Appendix D. In summary the current interpretation now presents as dated and tired even though recent improvements have been made to some of the interpretation areas. Visitor expectations demand innovative interpretation that allows either in-depth study or quick perusal with the ability to gain enough information to understand the place. Future interpretation should provide a high quality experience.
It is recommended that a major upgrade of the present interpretive display not be undertaken until an Interpretation Plan is adopted. However interim measures to improve the current display are recommended in Appendix D. Key Themes The themes that should be used to direct the interpretation plan are: Table 4.4.1 Themes
Themes Sub-themes or topics
Pre-contact and post-contact Aboriginal sites, and usage of the area and its resources Aboriginal history Maintaining traditions and cultural practices Convicts and Prisoners of War Prison life in a remote place Life as an internee Migration Being an 'alien' Recording experiences Law and order Penology in NSW Prisons Defence Detention camps and defence
TRIAL BAY GAOL PAUL DAVIES PTY LTD CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL TOURISM PLAN APRIL 2004
84 Themes Sub-themes or topics
Death Monuments and cemeteries Leisure Seaside holidays Camping Visiting ruins and tourism Culture Cultural pursuits Making films Towns, suburbs and villages Establishing South West Rocks and Arakoon Labour and technology Building and failing to build public works Horsepower and manpower Transport Exploration and Shipping Harbours and breakwaters Environment Flora Fauna Cultural landscapes including vistas and views Changes to the environment
The key themes of the site are its brief history as a public works prison and later as a detention camp during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Its uniqueness in Australia as a public works prison makes it of national significance and consequently an exceptional site for interpretation around some aspects of Australia's settlement, such as its beginnings as a penal colony. Interpretation spaces While Trial Bay Gaol and its precinct constitutes a substantial site with a range of facilities available to the visitor, it is lacking in appropriate facilities to provide visitors, particularly large groups such as schools and bus tours, with gathering and briefing spaces. There is also a lack of conservation appropriate storage facilities for interpretation and collection material. As discussed in Section 4.4.7 New Structures this CM+CTP recommends the creation of an education centre that would include a storage facility for movable heritage and the small documentary and object collections relating to Trial Bay Gaol. The centre would comprise a room for group briefings and learning sessions, and a range of hands-on resources including natural heritage material to introduce groups to the full extent of onsite experiences available to them. This would allow NPWS to package a fully-managed site visit that has the potential to be either self-funding or deliver a profit. The opportunity identified in the Vision Statement to create an adequately resourced Interpretation Space is the re-roofed Mess Hall building. A flexible space could provide for exhibition facilities incorporating artefacts from the collection, and an events venue. While there are some conflicting needs for each of these purposes, the fitout and installation can be managed to accommodate both uses. The following Outline Interpretation Plan is predicated on the existence of these two spaces.
TRIAL BAY GAOL PAUL DAVIES PTY LTD CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL TOURISM PLAN APRIL 2004
85 Outline Interpretation Plan The table below provides an outline interpretation plan for the place that addresses the range of themes, choice of strategies and potential links to other sites in the region. Table 4.4.2 Interpretation Concepts and Strategies
Concept Possible location of Strategies Links to other sites in the interpretation region
Pre-contact history Aboriginal • As considered • Aboriginal led guided tours • Smoky Cape and occupation and use appropriate by • Develop stories (in Smoky Cape of sites in the area Aboriginal consultation with local lightstation • Trial Bay Gaol community Indigenous community) about • Wigay Aboriginal site around the site occupation and use of the Culture Park, • Front Beach • Education Centre area for interpretation signage Kempsey • Site 22-4-052 • Recognise the fragility and • Others as agreed vulnerability of many with Aboriginal • others as agreed Aboriginal sites and interpret community with community them accordingly • Highlight ongoing attachments to region and ongoing cultural practices where appropriate • Utilise Education Centre for visiting school/tour groups Use of local plants • Locations as • Develop stories (in and animals considered consultation with local appropriate by Aboriginal community) of use Aboriginal of plants and animals for community interpretation signage around • Education Centre site Law and order Penology in NSW • Education Centre • Tour brochure to include • Macleay River mention of uniqueness of Trial Historical Society • Gaol Bay Gaol as 'model' prison interpretation area • Interpretation signage and exhibition panels to include discussion of changes in attitudes to prisoners and prisons • Schools/education package to include discussion of penology Prisons • Education Centre • Tour brochure to include • Macleay River mention of other prison sites Historical Society • Gaol in NSW and uniqueness of Interpretation Trial Bay Gaol as public works Area prison • Interpretation signage and exhibition panels to include discussion of prisons in NSW • Schools/education package to include discussion of prisons and incarceration
TRIAL BAY GAOL PAUL DAVIES PTY LTD CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL TOURISM PLAN APRIL 2004
86 Concept Possible location of Strategies Links to other sites in the interpretation region
Detention camps • Education Centre • Tour brochure • Macleay River and defence Historical Society • Gaol • Interpretation signage to tell Interpretation story of homeland defence Area during times of war and its effect on 'enemy aliens' • Site generally • Exhibition of artefacts and • Oceanfront photographs to tell stories of detention Convicts and Prisoners of War Prison life • Interpretation • Ranger-guided tours on a • Link to other Space theme detention sites (eg old lock-ups) in the • Selected • Tour brochure district locations around • Exhibition of artefacts and the site such as photographs to tell stories of the quarry, prisoners' lives and the monument, etc. experiences of their families • Performances based on oral histories and documentary sources • Soundscapes • Utilise the Mess Hall (Interpretation Space) as a key location for interpretation of prison and internee life • Utilise kitchen for interpretation • Tell stories of remote life and death - vegetable gardens, fishing, looking after animals especially horses, dying
Life as an internee • Interpretation • Soundscapes Space • Utilise the Mess Hall (Interpretation Space) as a key location for interpretation of prison and internee life • Utilise the kitchen, both for interpretation purposes and to protect remnant structures • Tell stories of remote life and death - vegetable gardens, fishing, looking after animals especially horses, dying far from 'home' • Use photographic and documentary archives to explore the recording of experiences and the pursuit of cultural life in difficult
TRIAL BAY GAOL PAUL DAVIES PTY LTD CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL TOURISM PLAN APRIL 2004
87 circumstances
Concept Possible location of Strategies Links to other sites in the interpretation region
Leisure Seaside holidays • Interpretation • Performances based on oral • Other sites around Space and histories South West Rocks, exhibition eg beachfront • Oral histories of local business people (past and present) and their experiences with seasonal influxes of visitors Camping • Interpretation • Interpretation signage Space and • Oral histories of local business exhibition people (past and present) and • Sites around their experiences with camping area and seasonal influxes of visitors Gaol precinct Visiting ruins and • Interpretation • Interpretation signage to tell • Kempsey Visitor tourism Space and stories about 'the romance of Information Centre exhibition ruins' • Links to other ruins • Sites around • Ranger-guided tours on the coast camping area and Gaol precinct Making films • Interpretation • Show shorts of the various Space and films that have used Trial Bay exhibition Gaol as a location • Show films made at the site at peak visitation periods Towns, suburbs and villages Establishment and • Interpretation • Interpretation signage • Historic sites around growth of South Space and referring to role of Gaol in South West Rocks West Rocks and exhibition establishment of both and Arakoon Arakoon townships • Tourism • Macleay River Information • Tour brochure on district Historical Society Centre, Kempsey • Walking Tracks to Arakoon and South West Rocks Building public • Interpretation • Tour brochure works Space and • Ranger-guided tours exhibition • Schools/education package to • Education Centre include discussion of technology of designing and constructing buildings especially using difficult materials such as granite • Tell the story of all the different skills and tasks necessary to the successful completion of the job Environment Flora • Education Centre • Ranger-guided tours • Smoky Cape and Smoky Cape • Sites around • Schools/education package to lightstation camping area and include exploration of local
TRIAL BAY GAOL PAUL DAVIES PTY LTD CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL TOURISM PLAN APRIL 2004
88 Trial Bay Gaol flora and fauna • Walks around area precinct (Section 6.2.10)
Concept Possible location of Strategies Links to other sites in the interpretation region
Fauna • Education Centre • Ranger-guided tours • Smoky Cape and Smoky Cape • Sites around • Schools/education package to lightstation camping area and include exploration of local Trial Bay Gaol flora and fauna • Walks around area precinct (Section 6.2.10) Cultural landscapes • Education Centre • Ranger-guided tours • Smoky Cape and Smoky Cape • Sites around • Schools/education package to lightstation camping area and include discussion of Trial Bay Gaol differences between native • Walks around area precinct and introduced species (Section 6.2.10) • Illustrate the early landscape through documentary and physical evidence as a starting point for interpreting landscape changes Vistas and views • Sites around • Tour brochures • Smoky Cape and camping area and Smoky Cape • Interpretation signage Trial Bay Gaol lightstation directing visitors to points of precinct interest around coastline and • Historic sites around to changes in the views over South West Rocks time due to changes in and Arakoon with vegetation and clearing etc. views to Gaol • Walks around area (Section 6.2.10) Transport Shipping • Education Centre • Tour brochures • Boatman's Cottage No 1 (South West • Sites around • Interpretation signage telling Rocks Maritime camping area and stories of shipwrecks, Museum) and other Trial Bay Gaol transporting goods up and maritime sites around precinct down the NSW coast, South West Rocks travelling by sea • Performances of Australian folk music
• Soundscapes incorporating • Appropriate stopping sounds of the sea, rigging etc points along the Macleay and Belmore Rivers, and Gladstone tourist sites • Macleay River Historical Society Harbours and • Education Centre • Ranger-guided tours • Boatman's Cottage breakwaters No 1 (South West • Breakwater and • Tour brochures Rocks Maritime waterfront • Interpretation signage telling Museum) and other stories of shipwrecks, maritime sites around transporting goods up and
TRIAL BAY GAOL PAUL DAVIES PTY LTD CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL TOURISM PLAN APRIL 2004
89 down the NSW coast, South West Rocks travelling by sea • Macleay River Historical Society
Concept Possible location of Strategies Links to other sites in the interpretation region
• Soundscapes incorporating sounds of hard labour, horses etc • Tell the story of how the environment of Trial Bay has changed through human intervention Horsepower and • Interpretation • Tell the story of the manpower Space importance of horses and oxen in the construction and • Education Centre day-to-day life of the Gaol • Sites around Trial • Tell the story of hard physical Bay Gaol precinct labour and dangerous working such as the conditions quarry • Soundscapes incorporating sounds of hard labour, horses etc
The Trial Bay site is extensive, with opportunities to undertake interpretation within the gaol and its interpretive areas and at key locations around the site. It is recommended that particular aspects of interpretation be linked to specific site locations. For example the story of the breakwater construction should be linked to the actual breakwater with a short interpretive walk and a focus on the quarrying aspect at the proposed day use area where there are examples of blasting and rock formations.
4.4.4 Cultural Tourism and Regional Context
One of the most important aspects of Trial Bay Gaol and its site is its role in tourism in the district and the mid-north coast. As discussed earlier in the study the place is a well-known destination for a wide range of visitors and tourists. It potentially offers a range of experiences and has the capacity to be a major tourist destination. While the site has obvious natural and heritage attraction it does not currently take full advantage of its potential. The above section on interpretation sets out some opportunities to connect Trial Bay to other sites in the region with linked stories and themes and to achieve cross- promotion.
The various descriptions in the study along with policy and implementation section identify problems with current site functioning that restrict the visitor experience. The various policies also look to ways to enhance visitor experiences of the site. A clear strategy is required to ensure that as many opportunities to enhance visitation experiences as possible are taken. This section looks at the major visitor groups discussed in Section 4.4.1 Analysis of Visitor Behaviour and Site Use, how they can be managed and what can be done to provide more integrated visitor experiences.
TRIAL BAY GAOL PAUL DAVIES PTY LTD CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL TOURISM PLAN APRIL 2004
90 Visitors come to the site to: • visit the historic gaol and its associated elements •camp • visit the waterfront to enjoy the beach or boating •fish •dine •picnic • walk, using the established walking tracks in and around Arakoon SCA Most visitors do not come for more than one or two reasons, although campers may engage in a number of site activities during their holidays.
The needs of the various groups vary considerably. Campers stay at the site because of its location and to enjoy the beach and water. Local residents come to fish, to swim, go boating to picnic or dine. Most do not regularly visit the gaol, however some use the walking tracks. The gaol complex is mostly used for special events by this group. Other tourists who visit the site for a day or less may visit the gaol, may use the beach or have a picnic, may dine or undertake a walk, but often do little that provides an understanding of the place or takes advantage of the range of experiences possible. They visit the site often within the context of visiting a range of other tourist or cultural sites in the region.
The Trial Bay area attracts a significant number of visitors who come to see the gaol, Smoky Cape lighthouse and to enjoy the spectacular scenery. There is seasonal visitation for whale-watching and for other community events in the area.
Visitor Numbers and Regional Tourism While summer attracts the highest visitation, with the Christmas holidays being the peak visitor period, there is consistent visitation throughout the year. There are also distinct variations in the visitor profile between school holidays and other periods. The gaol precinct offers an exceptional opportunity to enhance visitation and to provide an interpretive experience that is linked to other sites in the area, particularly Smoky Cape lighthouse. There are also opportunities to link gaol visitation to local business through accommodation and meal packages that encourage visitors to stay in the area and not only visit the gaol and lighthouse but to participate in other activities. Some visitor survey or related work has been carried out by NPWS on Trial Bay Gaol and the Arakoon SRA. Summaries of the surveys are included in Appendix E.
Tourist Activities There is also a need to provide a suite of activities on the site to cater for a wide range of user groups. The types of activities suggested include: • Enhanced gaol visitation experience with improved interpretation, good published material and a retail facility that provides relevant merchandising. • Guide-led and self-guided tours of the gaol. One of the attractions of the place is its ability still to be seen as a ruin. The ability of people to discover the place for themselves holds a strong appeal and should be provided for. This requires minimal
TRIAL BAY GAOL PAUL DAVIES PTY LTD CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL TOURISM PLAN APRIL 2004
91 signs and barriers but alternative form of interpretation as people move around the site. • A network of walking tracks within the site, with self-guided walking tours to link interpretative sites and key site features, to look at natural values and features, etc • An improved walking track network outside the cultural landscape area that provides short circuit walks incorporating Monument Hill, the cemetery and the powder magazines without having to ‘double-back’. • Walking track links to Arakoon and in the longer term South West Rocks • Improved signs at the entry and other orientation key points that clearly direct visitors to their selected destinations and parking areas. • Improved amenities on the site generally. • Additional picnic areas and day use facilities linked to interpretation themes. • Packages of activities that provide enhanced visitation for groups of people as well as individual visitors. Table 4.4.3 below sets out a range of possible packages. Table 4.4.3 Visitation and Tourism Activities
Visitor group Package
Bus tour group Pre-paid tour including one or some of the following: Guided tour of gaol, morning or afternoon tea at education centre with talk/video, lunch at the restaurant, and if the group are ambulatory one of a range of walking tours that could explore a special or general interest. School group Pre-paid tour including one or some of the following: Morning or afternoon tea at education centre, tour or gaol activity (Discovery Ranger program), site activity (supervised) based on exploration of natural or Aboriginal values, picnic lunch, possible beach or recreational activity. Day visitor Not pre-booked: Tour and lunch ‘day ticket’. May include publications and merchandising as part of the packages. (Lunch either at restaurant or kiosk depending on cost structure). Overnight visitor Pre-booked: Tour, dinner and accommodation packages for overnight stay. Form partnerships with local accommodation providers and local restaurants to offer discounts with package. Form partnership with Smoky Cape Lighthouse for accommodation, gaol visit, lighthouse visit etc. At peak season add enhanced gaol activities such as cultural program (concerts, events, etc) or evening gaol activities.
NPWS should further consider: • Enhanced and coordinated links to other local tourist locations including Smoky Cape Lighthouse, the Boatman’s Cottage No 1 visitor centre, Kempsey Visitor Centre, Port Macquarie and Coffs Harbour visitor centres. • Establishing the local visitor centre at the Gaol site.
TRIAL BAY GAOL PAUL DAVIES PTY LTD CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL TOURISM PLAN APRIL 2004
92 • Establishing a website with the gaol history, conservation plan, tourist information, event information, etc. • Creating a diary of regular events and a cultural program during peak seasons to establish additional uses for the gaol. 4.4.5 Aboriginal Heritage and Archaeological Sites
Archaeological Background There are currently 115 Aboriginal archaeological sites recorded within roughly 10km of the Trial Bay Gaol area. The vast majority of these are registered as middens or middens containing other components, such as burials or camp sites suggesting that middens would be the most common site types likely to occur within the study area.
Middens have been recorded at several locations along the nearby coast including the beach to the north of Crescent Head, and on the beach between Hat Head and Smoky Cape but not within the study area. Such middens could be associated with sandy shore or rocky platform sections of the coastline where suitable conditions exist, ie flat surfaces suitable for camping which have not been too much altered or disturbed by natural or human agents.
Sites located in the sandy sections of the study would most likely date to the last 6,000 years, while there is some (small) potential for older sites to exist on the higher hilly parts of the study area.
No previous Aboriginal archaeological work appears to have been undertaken within the Trial Bay Gaol study area itself, although one feature of significance to local Aboriginal people has been placed on the AHIMS register. This consists of site 22-4-052 at Laggers Point which appears on the register as a ‘Natural Mythological (Ritual)’ site (NPWS AHIMS register 3/2/03). It is known as the ‘Gulgarng Sea Eggs’ and is described as
‘a natural pool of seawater trapped in the rock platform during high tide. In the bottom of the pool are some rounded boulders, resembling giant eggs. There are three main rocks, according to Victor Shepherd’s account, which move around with the tide, sometimes becoming concealed under the rock ledge.1’ The next nearest recorded site is a midden, recorded as site 22-4-008, in 1968. At the time of its recording it was noted to have been ‘almost entirely removed (NPWS 22-4-008 site card). This site is located outside of the Trial Bay Gaol study area, being situated approximately 700m to the southwest of the NPWS Arakoon offices.
Fieldwork The survey of Aboriginal sites/places aimed to identify areas of known and potential archaeological and Aboriginal cultural sensitivity within the Trial Bay Gaol study area.
As the land surface of much of the Trial Bay Gaol study area has been subject to extensive modification since European occupation of the site it is probable that much of the Aboriginal archaeological material that may have once existed within the area has been destroyed or
1 NPWS 22-4-052 site card
TRIAL BAY GAOL PAUL DAVIES PTY LTD CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL TOURISM PLAN APRIL 2004
93 displaced. The survey for Aboriginal sites was therefore aimed at inspecting those parts of the study area which appear to have suffered less drastic disturbance, although it is probable that the entire area has been subject to some modification in the past.
Figure 4.4.2 Trial Bay Aboriginal site survey plan. Paul Davies 2003.
TRIAL BAY GAOL PAUL DAVIES PTY LTD CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL TOURISM PLAN APRIL 2004
94 Figure 4.4.2 highlights those areas that have suffered a lesser degree of disturbance and which were targeted by the ground surface survey. Generally these were areas where there was less evidence of landscape modification, ie areas which had not been substantially levelled or banked for the construction of historical or more recent buildings; and areas which had not been quarried. In addition the flat sandy beach on the western side of the study area was excluded as this beach has largely formed in the recent past as a result of the construction of the breakwater at Laggers Point.
TRIAL BAY GAOL PAUL DAVIES PTY LTD CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL TOURISM PLAN APRIL 2004
95 Figure 4.4.3 Areas of potential and known Aboriginal archaeological sensitivity at Trial Bay Paul Davies 2003. The exclusion of the above areas leaves Monument Hill and the scrubby sandy dune area behind the flat beach as the potentially less modified parts of the study area. It should be noted however that these too have undergone some form of ground surface disturbance,
TRIAL BAY GAOL PAUL DAVIES PTY LTD CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL TOURISM PLAN APRIL 2004
96 although this past disturbance is not as overtly obvious on the ground. Historical photographs indicate that Monument Hill was relatively clear of vegetation at times in the past, and that this was presumably cleared post-European occupation.
Photos also suggest that the scrubby dune area might have been modified or have been recently created by the movement of the inlet to the south of the camping ground. Site Survey Outcomes The survey was for the most part hindered by a general lack of ground surface visibility. A single Aboriginal artefact was located during the fieldwork and three areas considered to hold some archaeological potential were identified during the fieldwork and Aboriginal community consultation (Table 4.4.4 and figure 4.4.3). Survey results are summarised in the table below: Table 4.4.4 Summary of survey conditions and results
Survey Area Landform Approx. Exposure % Visibility % Estimated Results Units area Effective Coverage Monument Hill Crest 150m x 5% 5-10% 5-10% Identified area of 500m potential sensitivity (B)
Slopes 120m x 5% 10% 10% 800m Identified area of potential sensitivity (A)
Scrub Behind Sand dunes 200m x 5% 5% 5% Identified area of Beach 300m potential sensitivity (C)
Remainder of Varying 500m x 5% 10% 5-10% Isolated artefact Study area landforms 500m TB-IA-1 identified. (less heavily intensively disturbed by surveyed) development
Identified Areas of Potential Archaeological Sensitivity It is considered unlikely that any substantial stratified Aboriginal archaeological sites (ie sites that would be considered to be of high archaeological significance) exist within the Trial Bay Gaol study area. Some areas are considered to be of moderate archaeological potential, in that they might contain archaeological material in the form of sparse scatters of archaeological material - most likely shell or stone artefacts - or in the case of area C, the remains of post-contact (historical) Aboriginal sites.
Areas examined by the ground surface survey and areas subsequently identified as containing some archaeological potential as described below.
TRIAL BAY GAOL PAUL DAVIES PTY LTD CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL TOURISM PLAN APRIL 2004
97 Monument Hill (Areas A and B) The slopes of Monument Hill are relatively steep and could be considered too steep to contain the remains of substantial Aboriginal archaeological sites. Ground surface visibility over much of the hill is poor.
The crest, northern and eastern slopes of the hill were examined during the archaeological survey. The Aboriginal community representatives present on the fieldwork commented that this part of the hill is exposed to wind and would not be considered an ideal camping location.
Near the base of the northern slopes a small scatter of very fragmented shell was noted at the edge of a small flat area (Area A). The shell fragments all appear to be cartrut shells (Thais orbita). There is no evidence that the shells formed part of an Aboriginal midden. This area is situated a few metres above a rocky shoreline and could be considered an area of potential archaeological sensitivity. Note that this area is situated within 200m of the known Aboriginal spiritual site identified.
The crest of Monument Hill has likewise been identified as an area of potential sensitivity (Area B). While no indications of archaeological material were identified there during the survey, the Aboriginal community representatives stated that they had, before the creation of the present gravel-surfaced path, seen sparse scatters of shell on the relatively flat area followed by the path between the crest of the hill and Little Bay. Scrubby Sand Behind the Beach (Area C) The heavily vegetated area behind the beach was also examined. The area consists of sand dunes and scrub, ground surface visibility through the area is poor except in small patches exposed by informal tracks. A few very sparse scatters of shell (mainly pipi Donax deltoides) were noted on the flat beach sand adjacent to the dunes/scrub but these appeared fresh.
While much of this area has been formed or modified in the relatively recent past, it has been identified as an area of archaeological potential because: • The extent of these modifications is not known, and an Aboriginal midden site has been recorded within a 1km radius to the southwest in a similar landform situation • This area was identified during the Aboriginal community consultation as a more recent (20thc) camping place used by members of the Aboriginal community. It is uncertain how far back in time such usage extends. Thus there exists some potential for this area to be an historical Aboriginal site. The remainder of the study area is considered to hold little or no Aboriginal archaeological potential.
4.4.6 Built Heritage
The built heritage relates to the surviving gaol complex structures (even though in abandoned and ruined form) as distinct from archaeological elements found around the site. Interpretation and occupational fitout of the buildings are not considered in detail in this section.
TRIAL BAY GAOL PAUL DAVIES PTY LTD CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL TOURISM PLAN APRIL 2004
98 Overall the gaol within its exterior wall presents as a peaceful, almost cloistered area where the shells of the buildings (the ruin) are perceived as the remnants of a long past era. Many visitors enjoy this atmosphere of calm contemplation without necessarily understanding that in its two major periods of use the gaol would have presented very differently. The photographs on the interpretation panels go some way to suggest the bustle of activity of the place when it was in use, but they do not create the movement of people and the noise of machinery, or recreate the sense of the crowded complex that existed as a result of the large number of buildings that were part of the gaol but which are no longer there.
An interpretation plan (Section 4.4.3) for the place considers how these issues could be more effectively addressed. The vision for the gaol (Section 5.0) provides a restructured gaol operation that provides for both the interpretation and the conservation of the fabric including the more fragile site elements.
The current gaol complex comprises a number of elements: • the gaol structures built up to the 1903 disestablishment • the refit of the entry building by the Arakoon Trust with its new roof, walls and fitout, the tower access and the reconstructed toilet block from recovered material • minor additions including the shed enclosure to the east of the entry building and the concrete slab housing the artefacts • interpretive elements and general fitout including signs, tables, seats, drainage covers etc. The pre-1903 elements of the site are of primary significance and are to be retained. Very little of the internment period fabric survives but all remains are significant. All other elements are of lesser significance and can be removed or adapted to suit policy requirements as set out in Section 6.0.
Each of the gaol elements has been assessed for comparative significance in Section 3.0.
The following sections discuss in detail each element of the complex, focussing on the built aspects of the place but also referring to the use and the suitability of the present uses and operation. Gaol Entry and Interpretation Area The current arrival and entry to the gaol complex is perhaps the worst aspect of the visitation experience. It is acknowledged that the fitout dates from the Arakoon Trust period and at that time the facility was appropriate. However, access is not inviting or clear and the first impression is of a barred gateway without an obvious point of entry. A number of visitors were observed turning away at the entry gate. The experience within the entry foyer/office is also poor. The area is crowded, counter space is inadequate and at peak periods there is conflict between camping enquiries and visitor entry. Much of the display and retail items are out of date and do not attract customers. The display is divided into the two major themes of gaol/breakwater construction and internee camp, but many visitors fail to understand the two separate periods of occupation. There is no material concerning natural or Aboriginal heritage.
TRIAL BAY GAOL PAUL DAVIES PTY LTD CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL TOURISM PLAN APRIL 2004
99 Figure 4.4.4 Plan of Gaol identifying main site elements. NTS Paul Davies 2003.
Key: 3.03 mess hall 3.18 kitchen/scullery/bakehouse 3.31 pathways 3.04 cell block A 3.19 lavatories/latrines 3.33 terracing 3.07 walls/observation towers 3.22 brick store 3.34 granite masonry 3.08 gatehouse/offices 3.27 brick storage shed 3.35 concrete blocks 3.09 silent cells 3.28 concrete display slab 3.36 concrete flooring 3.14 iron rail/dwarf fence 3.29 wooden stair to west tower 3.43 stone retaining wall 3.17 cell block B 3.30 drainage and sewerage 3.45 steps
TRIAL BAY GAOL PAUL DAVIES PTY LTD CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL TOURISM PLAN APRIL 2004
100 At present the only access to the museum/interpretation is through the entry, up a set of stairs, past several partitioned offices and then into a two-level interpretation area. Disabled access is not available and while possible to the main gaol area, cannot be provided to the interpretation or office/shop areas.
The current office/retail area is also not adequate for staff as it provides little operational space, no security and does not separate camping and gaol visitor enquiries.
There is a need to separate camping enquiries from gaol visitation and to provide a facility with disabled access, adequate display space, storage, security and staff facilities. The location of the interpretation and staff at the gaol is however advantageous as it provides good security and clearly identifies the gaol as the core of the site.
This building does not currently satisfy operational needs, disabled access, fire safety or egress requirements based on its public access. It would be desirable to remove public functions from this building providing enhanced staff offices overcoming the significant access difficulties that currently exist. One of the ground floor spaces could however be used for interpretation, for example to accommodate the video presentations.
The building requires a detailed design response to suit the selected use. Consideration should be given in future works to: • replacing the glass block windows which are intrusive with openable framed windows of the same pattern as the original windows • upgrading stair access to ensure compliance with the BCA • addressing water ingress problems through the stonework • provision of disabled access if public functions are to take place in the building • removal of the area on the upper floor above the entry to reinstate the planned open form of that area • providing alternative entry gates that reflect either the original form of gates or a modern interpretative form (similar to the outer stainless steel gates) • retaining surviving original fabric Gaol Interior The gaol fitout is now presenting as tired and requires at least a temporary upgrade and in the longer term a new approach to interpretation. The current elements that require upgrade include: • The two cells representing the two major periods of occupation. The interiors and mannequins have deteriorated to a point where they are no longer acceptable. Temporary repairs and refurbishment of the interpretation content of these cells is highly desirable. • The concrete baths require either securing to prevent access or conservation work to stabilise the elements so that controlled access can continue. In either case the deterioration of the baths is advanced and they require stabilising. • The stair access to the guard tower (surviving from a film set) provides access to magnificent views, however the structure is showing evidence of deterioration and does not satisfy current code requirements for railings and access. Future planning may change the tower access. • The rusted industrial relics on the concrete slab area are in very poor condition and present a very poor image to visitors. Kerr recommended action to these artefacts in
TRIAL BAY GAOL PAUL DAVIES PTY LTD CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL TOURISM PLAN APRIL 2004
101 1984 but it appears no action has been taken. Many of these items are now lost due to rust and exposure. • The video display area is poorly presented. The video is of interest and many visitors attend the presentation but the setting does not encourage interest in the site. It is recognised that this is a temporary set-up.
Pre-1903 Gaol Structures Mess Hall Area The mess hall retains its walls and floor but no roof, windows or doors. The building is sound in its current form requiring generally only routine maintenance. Should the building be used for future interpretation (including the potential to enclose all or part of the structure) or other uses as noted in the policy section (6.0) care should be taken to conserve all of the significant fabric of the place.
Some steel bars to windows and remnant timber elements from the former roof survive. Ongoing repair and painting of the steelwork is required and capping of some parts of the parapets is required where capping stones have been removed.
Regular maintenance including weed removal is also required.
Cell Blocks
These blocks are partially open to the sky with the cells themselves roofed. NPWS provided a membrane roof with a concrete covering which is now allowing water into the cell areas. The work required includes: • Repair the concrete roof preferably retaining the NPWS work to prevent water entry to the structure • Clean interior surfaces to remove mould and growth, protect early finishes and graffiti • Undertake initial and regular maintenance and repair as set out in the maintenance schedule (separate document) including regular cleaning and repair of water damage to internal finishes. • Remove stored building materials from cells. Silent Cells
This block retains its original form and internal finishes but had the roof removed in 1922. A bituminous membrane was applied to the concrete cell roof but this has now failed. • Retain the building for interpretation in its current form. • Provide a new roof membrane over the existing concrete roof. • Undertake initial and regular maintenance and repair as set out in the maintenance schedule (separate document) including regular cleaning and repair of damaged internal finishes to ensure they suffer no further deterioration. Former Kitchen Block
This block is deteriorating due to exposure to weather. It contains part of the main oven which has risk of collapse and which is publicly accessible. The building is at high risk of significant fabric loss over the next 5 to 10 years. • Provide a new protective roof to the building to prevent further fabric deterioration.
TRIAL BAY GAOL PAUL DAVIES PTY LTD CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL TOURISM PLAN APRIL 2004
102 • Reinstate the perimeter fencing at the rear of the kitchen to achieve a secure inner precinct. • Restrict public access to the area containing the oven and if necessary support the arched roof of the oven. • Undertake structural analysis of the stability of the structure. • Carry out maintenance to the walkway structure. Observation Towers
Little original fabric remains in these structures apart from the granite walls. One is currently accessed by a stair within the gaol compound (constructed as part of a film set) with a viewing platform within the top of the tower. This structure does not relate to the original form of the building as they were roofed and viewing was undertaken from the narrow stone platforms flanking the tower and not within the structure. Several of the towers have metal and timber elements surviving from their original construction that are now in poor condition. These require stabilising and securing to prevent collapse and rusting and cracking of stonework.
Some door hardware remains at the base of the towers, mostly in deteriorated condition that should be stabilised.
Arakoon Trust Period Building Works These buildings were rebuilt or significantly altered during the Arakoon Trust management of the site. They are capable of removal or adaptation to suit future uses. Toilet Block This structure was built by the Arakoon Trust from recovered stonework around the site. It presents as an unusual structure with its random use of stones rather than the regular and refined use of stone in the earlier gaol buildings, and there is some potential for confusion over its history.
It is in poor overall condition both inside and out and requires substantial upgrade to meet current expectations but is capable of considerable adaptation. Toilets are required within the gaol and the immediate vicinity for both current and future potential uses. If the building is retained the following minimum changes are recommended: • refit the interior to provide contemporary standard facilities that can be maintained in a clean state • provision of disabled access and disabled facilities • improved lighting and security • clear interpretation signage to clarify which aspects of the building are new and which are original, located at the entrance to the toilets rather than some distance away as is the case with the current interpretation panel about the toilets and ablutions block.
TRIAL BAY GAOL PAUL DAVIES PTY LTD CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL TOURISM PLAN APRIL 2004
103 Illustration 4.4.9 Contemporary signage on the toilet could be misunderstood by visitors as dating from the gaol's period of use.
Minor Additions to the Gaol These comprise the shelter shed in the south-east corner and the concrete slab in the main courtyard area.
The concrete slab was provided to house the artefacts now sitting upon it. These artefacts are also discussed in Section 4.4.10 Management of Artefacts and Records. It is recommended in Section 6.0 that these items be removed from the gaol interior and consequently the slab should then be removed.
The shelter building has developed in an ad hoc way and has little relationship to the gaol. It currently serves a necessary interpretive and storage use but presents poorly. When the interpretive function is relocated removal or an alternative use could be considered. It is noted that there was a building in that location in the past. The building could be utilised for site storage but if it is to be retained it should be redesigned to a more neutral appearance. Site Fitout Elements These elements comprise signs, fencing, pit covers, seats, tables and miscellaneous elements. The intent of the vision is to establish and retain the outer area of the gaol in its ruined form with little intervention or addition of contemporary features. Some signing may be required and fencing will be needed to protect fragile or dangerous site elements. It is proposed that site elements such as fencing be designed to minimise impact using standardised materials and details, and distributed judiciously so as not to clutter the site. If seating is to be introduced for example it should be located to minimise visual impact and preferably grouped in one area. Gaol Maintenance While the gaol is constructed of granite and concrete that shows little overall deterioration, there is a need to undertake regular maintenance and address a number of urgent maintenance matters. Considerable work was undertaken by the Arakoon Trust and then by NPWS to prevent water entry to the cell blocks, to stabilise steel bars, etc. Much of this now requires additional work to ensure that ongoing damage does not take place. A separate maintenance plan is being prepared for the gaol buildings, however the key areas requiring maintenance work are:
TRIAL BAY GAOL PAUL DAVIES PTY LTD CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL TOURISM PLAN APRIL 2004
104 • The cell block roofs (A + B) are allowing water into the concrete roof structure causing considerable damage and deterioration to the interior finishes of the cells. Both the roof and the interior finishes require repair. • The roof of the silent cell building requires a new roof cladding to protect the increasingly fragile roof structure. • Repair of gutters and downpipes generally around the gaol. • Sections of wall require pointing to prevent water ingress. • Steel bars require cleaning and repainting. • Tops of both the perimeter wall and exposed building walls require capping in some locations to prevent water entry and deterioration. • Cells require cleaning and removal of rubbish, fungal growth and tiles. • The concrete baths require stabilising and plant removal. • Clean drainage systems. • Stain and paint finishes to be applied to non-heritage stained and painted surfaces. • The stairs to the lookout require maintenance and work to provide compliance with the BCA. • Paths require re-gravelling. • Replace and install new fences to satisfy OH&S requirements to an appropriate design and in appropriate materials, such as stainless steel wire.
Illustration 4.4.10 Cell block wall illustrating water Illustration 4.4.11 Cell block interior illustrating damage in the blockwork from failed roof effect of water penetration on rendered finishes. membranes. Paul Davies 2003 Paul Davies 2003
Illustration 4.4.12 Roof of silent cells showing existing bituminous membrane, cracks with plant growth and the brick parapet. Paul Davies 2003
TRIAL BAY GAOL PAUL DAVIES PTY LTD CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL TOURISM PLAN APRIL 2004
105 4.4.7 New Structures
There is a long tradition at Trial Bay of structures being built and removed to suit the various phases of occupation and use. It is appropriate for that tradition to continue with suitable controls to protect significance.
Two clear needs that arise in this study are for a separate camping office, located away from the gaol management, to provide direct supervision and management of the camping area and for a kiosk facility to serve campers and day visitors who do not wish to use the restaurant.
Another space need arising from discussion with NPWS staff is a space for accommodating activities such as Discovery Ranger activities, school groups or tours. This area, which does not fit into any existing spaces on the site, would ideally accommodate a school or bus group and be capable of fulfilling a range of educational and tourism activities. It could take a range of forms and could be related to the kiosk noted above or a larger visitor centre if that activity is not undertaken in the gaol itself. The building should be located near the entry point to the camping area, should have adequate short-term parking and should be clearly recognisable to prevent campers arriving at the gaol. Clear site signage would address most of these issues. A suitable location for such a facility would be the area immediately below the gaol wall on the main entry road on the site of former staff quarters (4.06).
There is also a need to provide controlled storage for artefacts and movable heritage. This is a further function that could be housed in a new building. This area would need to accommodate the extensive photographic and object collections currently on display or in various storage locations. The area would require permanent climate control, and would need to be appropriately sized for the material to be housed.
It is not envisaged that other structures will be provided on the site although they may be required in the future. If further buildings are proposed they should be considered in relation to: • their relationship to core site activities • their scale, form and materials • their ability to be removed without significant impact should the need for the structure cease • their siting in relation to archaeological features or zones • their siting in relationship to interpretation activities and their ability to aid interpretation Note that while this Plan recommends that a minimum number of new structures be provided and only when existing buildings cannot satisfy the operational requirements of the site, new buildings should nonetheless be located only as described in the policy sections and should in themselves have an interpretive value.
The form of new buildings should derive from historical precedent, in scale, siting and pattern of development but should be clearly contemporary in design and detail. It would be desirable for new structures to take the external ground form of earlier buildings to create additional opportunities for interpretation (in contrast to the restaurant building which although well-designed is in conflict with earlier patterns of development). If new structures are of lightweight design similar to most of the former structures on the site, they could be lightly placed over the sites of their predecessors with minimal impact.
TRIAL BAY GAOL PAUL DAVIES PTY LTD CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL TOURISM PLAN APRIL 2004
106 A similar proposal was made in earlier development plans for the site where the superintendent's house immediately adjacent to the gaol was mooted for reconstruction to replicate the earlier external form of the structure. That is not proposed in this Plan.
Figure 4.4.5 Site plan showing locations of existing site features, preferred locations for future development and proposed extent of camping areas. Refer to Figure 5.1 for a larger format version of plan. NTS Paul Davies 2003.
There are several preferred locations for new facilities. The locations are recommended for: • their ability to reflect earlier patterns of site development • their ability to aid interpretation • their ability to link to related activities on the site • their siting in relation to traffic patterns, available parking and general site management • their siting to provide site supervision to oversight the main use areas • their impact on the gaol building The design of the new buildings should adopt the following principles: 1 Most buildings constructed on the site (except the gaol) were lightweight timber buildings on brick piers with stone or brick foundations. They were often ephemeral in nature and had little impact on the site except for the levelling of platforms on which to locate them. New buildings should follow the same principle of lightweight design. 2 The form of new buildings should reflect traditional forms and elements, such as pitched roofs of gable and hipped form, verandahs, timber cladding, etc, although designs may be contemporary in nature.
TRIAL BAY GAOL PAUL DAVIES PTY LTD CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL TOURISM PLAN APRIL 2004
107 3 New building (or buildings) may be located on the sites of former buildings following the tradition of a number of sites. The design must ensure that impacts on existing foundations or archaeological material is minimised.
4.4.8 Historical Archaeological Sites
An archaeological survey was undertaken to locate and identify all archaeological sites and areas. Use was made of the 1982 report by Teece, Chesterman, Willis and Partners Pty Ltd in association with Dr J S Kerr. Kerr’s data sheets were found to be detailed and mostly accurate. All the archaeological sites and features recorded by Kerr were re-identified. The following table shows the features that were examined by name and identification number and a brief description of the nature of the remains. Also included are a brief description of the nature of the remains, their construction date or phase, and their archaeological zone location (for planning purposes only): • The gaol or core zone is the area contained within the gaol wall • Everywhere else within the archaeological zone is designated as general The Kerr numbering system has been retained throughout this study to avoid confusion.
Table 4.4.5 Table of Archaeological Site Features
Kerr name Kerr no. Davies date of date of demol/ description archae- archae- no. construct disposal ological ological potential zone Gaol internal mess hall 3.03 1877-80 extant, roof extant high core removed c1922 cell block A 3.04 1877-80 extant extant high core kitchen/ a 3.05 1880-81 1922 Footings, concrete flooring high core and nine conc baths remain. hospital 3.06 1880-81 1922 Footings, cement flooring, high core cellar and terrace remain. walls 3.07 1884-86 extant extant na na gatehouse/ 3.08 1885-86 extant extant high core entry, offices silent cells 3.09 1884-87 extant high core blacksmith's 3.10 1884 dem before No visible remains. This high core shop Cell block B building was located under constructed the nw corner of extant Building 3.17 - Cell Block B carpenter's shop 3.11 1884 dem before No visible remains. This high core Cell block B building was located under constructed the sw corner of extant c1899 Building 3.17 - Cell Block B WCs 3.12 1884 dem before No visible remains. These high core Cell block B are probably situated below constructed an extant concrete tank c1899 stand.
TRIAL BAY GAOL PAUL DAVIES PTY LTD CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL TOURISM PLAN APRIL 2004
108 Kerr name Kerr no. Davies date of date of demol/ description archae- archae- no. construct disposal ological ological potential zone Shelter shed 3.13 1884 dem before Approximately 50% of the high core Cell block B concrete floor surface of this constructed building is still extant and c1899 visible. iron rail/dwarf 3.14 extant Dwarf wall and base of high core fence railings are extant. internal fresh 3.15 1884- filled in Tank has been filled-in and high core water-tank 1890 c1963 grassed over. The outline of storage the tank is visible in the form of stone and cement (or concrete) alignments marking the position of the top of the walls. wooden sleeping 3.16 1880- removed No visible remains. Note: high core accomm. 1887 before Jan buildings had tongue and 1901 groove floorboards. The area is now grassed. Cell Block B 3.17 1899- walls extant, extant high core 1900 stairs etc sold c1922 Kitchen, scullery 3.18 1899- still in use extant high core and bakehouse 1900 1915-17. Dis-est 1922 lavatories and 3.19 1899- extant Cement floors and castings high core latrines 1900 survive. The lavatory area is intact, the WC area is heavily modified by recent construction. Shelter/weather 3.20 1899- prob dem Building removed, but high core shed 1900 1903 coursed granite footings and cement floor remain. saltwater 3.21 1899 removed Some of the footing pads high core storage c1922 remain in situ. These are granite and feature mortises for timber legs. brick store 3.22 1887-89 prob dem Only cement floor and lower high core 1903 parts of wall and footings remain. The wall blocks are concrete while the footings along the south wall are granite. Stairs on west side are of concrete. telephone 3.23 c1900 na na communication electric light 3.24 before na na system 1901 wooden hospital 3.25 1915 dem by 1922 No visible remains. A stone high core kerb has been constructed across this site and parallel to Cell Block B. Toward the north east, there is a graveled area. A new grate has been installed over an old but still active stormwater pit. decorative 3.26 1915-17 some extant na na program in cells
TRIAL BAY GAOL PAUL DAVIES PTY LTD CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL TOURISM PLAN APRIL 2004
109 Kerr name Kerr no. Davies date of date of demol/ description archae- archae- no. construct disposal ological ological potential zone brick storage 3.27 NPWS Extant. Same site as bldg high core shed period ident as barracks on Germ plan concrete display 3.28 on site Trust extant extant high core slab of 3.15 period wooden stair to 3.29 NPWS extant extant na na west tower period drainage and 3.30 1898- some extant some extant high core sewerage 1901 pathways 3.31 1899- some extant some extant high core 1900 fencing 3.32 1899- extant extant na na 1900 terracing 3.33 some extant some extant high core granite masonry 3.34 1877- some extant some extant na na 1900 concrete blocks 3.35 1898- some extant some extant na na 1900 concrete flooring 3.36 1880-81, some extant some extant high core 1899- 1900 water damage 3.37 N/A
vegetation 3.38 N/A growth repair and 3.39 N/A maintenance to retard deterioration mostly 3.40 1915-17 dem by 1918 No visible remains. high core weatherboard bldgs built onto internal walls of gaol - eg Edelweiss laundry underground 3.41 Tops of walls partly visible high core cells relocated water 3.42 c1914- Within 3.41 high core tanks 18 stone retaining 3.43 c1880 extant extant N/A wall brick/concrete 3.44 extant extant N/A steps steps 3.45 extant extant N/A concrete slab 3.46 extant extant high core near 3.18 tank stands near 3.47 extant extant high core kitchen, cell walls unknown 3.48 1915-17 dem by 1922 No visible remains. high core weatherboard German plan identifies as bldg Officers' cells
TRIAL BAY GAOL PAUL DAVIES PTY LTD CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL TOURISM PLAN APRIL 2004
110 Kerr name Kerr no. Davies date of date of description archaeol- archaol no. construct demol/disposal ogical -ogical potential zone theatre 3.49 1915-17 dem by 1922 No visible remains, high core identified on German plan as 12. Existence disputed by H Wilcke (internee). See MRHS files other buildings 3.50, dem by 1922 No visible remains, billiards high core on German plan 3.51, tent visible in 7271,7273 not easily 3.52 identified/ located billiard tent, chess club, old officers' mess, warm water bath Laggers Point
resident 4.02 1878- demolished No visible remains. Area high general engineer's 1900 by 1917 now grassed and treed. house (also called visiting officers qtrs) governor's 4.03 1880 moved by No visible remains. Site now high general residence internee occupied by a standard phase - barbecue unit and protected Kinchela by Norfolk Island pine (destroyed barricades. by fire) chief warder's 4.04 also 1880 removed by No visible remains other high general qtrs site of 1903 than those of the W.C. 4.54 which can be seen at the base of the watch tower. Other remains are obscured under car park asphalt surface. general warders' 4.05 also 1880 demolished Fragments of the building high general qtrs/store; also site of by 1922 remain on site, many of single warders' 4.54 them are displaced or qtrs and rocket obscured by the forecourt store asphalt paving. The concrete floor of the rocket store remains with its iron door stop for restraining a pair of doors. A tank stand also remains on eastern end of the site. married men's 4.06 same 1880 removed by No visible remains other high general qtrs site as 1903. During than large well grassed 4.63 internee terrace. New (or possibly phase replacement) brick spoon powerhouse drain constructed across (4.63) east end. erected against wall on same site timber jetty 4.07 1885 No visible remains. The site na outside has been modified by silting study up of the bay. area blacksmith's qtrs 4.08 c1889 gone by No visible remains. high general 1915 Probably lies partly under the road.
TRIAL BAY GAOL PAUL DAVIES PTY LTD CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL TOURISM PLAN APRIL 2004
111 Kerr name Kerr no. Davies date of date of description archaeol- archaol no. construct demol/disposal ogical -ogical potential zone 3 x 4 room 4.09 1889 gone by Remains of a concrete slab high general warders' qtrs 1915 exist at the rear of each cottage site. There are also lines of stones - possibly garden edges. Ass Engineer's 4.10 1889 dem or One piece of dressed high general qtrs moved by granite and some brick is 1915- visible on the north corner Smithtown of the terrace. Site now police station occupied by standard or house at barbeque unit and protected Jerseyville by Norfolk Island pine near punt barricades. Surgeon's qtrs 4.11 also 1889 dem or No visible remains other low general site of moved by than terrace presently 4.56 1915- occupied by the restaurant. Smithtown police station or house at Jerseyville near punt stables and cart 4.12 by 1889 extant 1900 Some concrete floor or high general shed footing remains are visible on a large flat terrace previously occupied by the building. harbours/rivers 4.13 by 1889 No visible remains other high general office than terrace. harbours/rivers 4.14 c1889 No visible remains. The medium outside store terrace on which it stood is archae still in evidence but was ological modified by works during zone the period 1915-1917 and subsequent erosion. boatshed 4.15 1889 No visible remains. Site medium general may be partly located beneath a standard barbeque unit sawmill, 4.16 1884- initially 1, No visible remains other medium general carpenter's and 1889 then 2, then than terrace on which it paint shop group of 3 stood. The site is presently buildings, occupied by a standard 1903 barbeque unit. morgue 4.17 by 1899 no No visible remains other high general information than terrace on which it stood. gasoline house 4.18 pre-1901 no No visible remains. medium general information 45,900 gallon 4.19 1884-89 Filled in The tank is now filled in. high general tank before 1915 The earth berm around it is visible from the south in particular. main drain 4.20 extant Point of exit from prison wall high general is extant, identifiable as a brick box 1m x 0.6m x 1m high. Drain has had a modern PVC pipe inserted into it. Appears to be active.
TRIAL BAY GAOL PAUL DAVIES PTY LTD CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL TOURISM PLAN APRIL 2004
112 Kerr name Kerr no. Davies date of date of description archaeol- archaol no. construct demol/disposal ogical -ogical potential zone foreman's qtrs 4.21 gone by No visible remains. Site high general 1915 currently occupied by concrete ablutions building (4.35). unmarried 4.22 gone by Part of stone fireplace and high general foreman's house 1915 chimney survive on a terrace. steps to married 4.23 after partially Stone steps are still intact. high general qtrs 1890 extant steps to quarry 4.24 extant Concrete stairs of recent high general origin built on 1889 access route. saltwater supply 4.25 1889 No visible remains of high general pumphouse six-inch sewer 4.26 partially partially extant medium general extant 10 cottages for 4.27 1899 some dem, N/A na outside married some study warders, removed area Arakoon graves on 4.28/ at least extant high outside 1 in situ archae monument hill 7.08 by 1889 ological zone prison burial 4.29 reported as No visible remains. This high general ground still extant area currently has powered 1915-17 camping sites located on it. Arakoon 4.30 outside study site na outside cemetery study area period of 4.31 1915-17 N/A na internment well 4.32 1915-17 not sighted high general footbridge 4.33 extant The present bridge is of medium general since at recent origin. least 1901 toilet block in 4.34 Trust or Extant, modern nil outside quarry NPWS, archae on site ological of 4.52 zone ablutions block, 4.35 NPWS This is partially built on the high general Front Beach site of 4.21 (Foreman’s Quarters) toilet block near 4.36 NPWS Concrete block construction nil general kiosk kiosk/ 4.37 1981 Built on site of the low general restaurant on site Surgeon’s Quarters (4.11). of 4.11 No visible remains other than part of terrace. standard BBQ 4.38 Trust or Extant, modern nil general unit/picnic NPWS shelter
TRIAL BAY GAOL PAUL DAVIES PTY LTD CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL TOURISM PLAN APRIL 2004
113 Kerr name Kerr no. Davies date of date of description archaeol- archaol no. construct demol/disposal ogical -ogical potential zone Norfolk Island 4.39 1981 Extant, modern nil general pines barricade relocated 4.40 N/A na outside houses in study district area old roadways 4.42 Roadways on old low general alignments observatory 4.43 by 1889 No visible remains high general
water supply 4.44 No visible remains low general line fence lines 4.45 No visible remains low general flagstaff 4.46 by 1889 No visible remains low general signal horn 4.47 gone by No visible remains low general 1922, possibly earlier windmill (poss 4.48 gone by No visible remains low general flagstaff) near 1922 4.46 stables 4.49 by 1899 gone by No visible remains medium general 1922 windmill - at 4.50 1915-17 gone by No visible remains low general entrance 1922 lagoon/marsh 4.51 shoreline No visible remains high general changed over time, filled in quarry tennis 4.52 on site gone by No visible remains low outside court of 5.04, 1922 archae 1915 -17 ological zone staff tennis court 4.53 1915-17 gone by No visible remains low general 1922 post office and 4.54 1915-17 gone by No visible remains other high general canteen 1922 than those of the W.C. which can be seen at the base of the watch tower. Other remains are obscured under car park asphalt surface. On the same site as 4.04 internees' hobby 4.55 1915-17 gone by Visible remains mainly high general huts 1922 limited to benches and terraces. Most of this area located all over western and overgrown. northern parts of site outside gaol walls weatherboard 4.56 1915-17 gone by No visible remains low general barracks on site 1922 of governor's cottage high tank stand 4.57 1915-17 gone by Not sighted low general 1922
TRIAL BAY GAOL PAUL DAVIES PTY LTD CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL TOURISM PLAN APRIL 2004
114 Kerr name Kerr no. Davies date of date of description archaeol- archaol no. construct demol/disposal ogical -ogical potential zone lamp-posts 4.58 1889- gone by Not sighted low general 1903 1922 small WB bldg 4.59 gone by Not sighted low general south of walls 1922 east of site of 4.13 2 large 4.60 gone by No visible remains medium general structures, 1890 possibly barns, to south of 4.06 parade ground 4.61 gone by No visible remains low general (internee phase) 1922 unknown buildings 4.62 gone by No visible remains medium general (possibly barns) 1922 around parade ground lean-to 4.63 c1915 gone by No visible remains high general powerhouse in 1922 same location as 4.06 small structure 4.64 c1889- dem with No visible remains low general to west of 4.06 99 4.06 small buildings: 4.65 c1880- mostly dem No visible remains high general huts, barns, 84 by 1889 coops to southeast and southwest of walls retaining wall, 4.66 c1880- extant Retaining wall and benching medium general benching to 84 west of 4.06
internee phase 4.67 1915-17 dem by 1922 No visible remains high general buildings at Identified on German plan southwestern as officers' facilities 26-30 corner of complex storage shed for 4.68 1915-17 dem by 1922 No visible remains medium general gym equipment gardens 4.69 1915-17 removed by Now partly carpark low general 1922 stables, 4.70 1915-17 removed by No visible remains medium general paddock area 1922 smithy 4.71 1915-17 dem by 1922 No visible remains medium general carpentry shop 4.72 1915-17 dem by 1922 No visible remains medium general horse fodder 4.73 1915-17 dem by 1922 No visible remains medium general shed sentries shelters 4.74 1915-17 dem by 1922 No visible remains low general guardhouse 4.75 1915-17 dem by 1922 No visible remains low general boxing ring 4.76 1915-17 dem by 1922 No visible remains low outside archae ological zone beach cafe 4.77 1915-17 dem by 1922 No visible remains medium general
TRIAL BAY GAOL PAUL DAVIES PTY LTD CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL TOURISM PLAN APRIL 2004
115 Kerr name Kerr no. Davies date of date of description archaeol- archaol no. construct demol/disposal ogical -ogical potential zone machinists 4.78 1915-17 dem by 1922 No visible remains medium general school watertower 4.79 1915-17 dem by 1922 No visible remains low outside archae ological zone reading room 4.80 1915-17 dem by 1922 No visible remains medium general duck coop 4.81 1915-17 dem by 1922 No visible remains medium general WC 4.82 1915-17 dem by 1922 No visible remains low general breakwater wharf and quarry breakwater 5.02 washed Still partly extant. About 100 low outside away over metres long. A piece of archae time railway line was noted in the ological scrub at the landward end zone of the breakwater. wharf 5.03 gone by The stumps of several piles medium outside 1903 are all that remain. The archae earthworks at the landward ological end of the wharf are also zone intact. prison quarry 5.04 before extant extant low outside 1897 archae ological zone breakwater 5.05 1889- extant extant low outside quarry 1903 archae ological zone powder 5.06 c1895 dem by 1922 Demolished to floor level. medium outside magazine 1 Lower parts of walls are archae probably still intact in the ological rubble. zone powder 5.07 c1897 extant extant low outside magazine 2 archae ological zone wagons/rail for 5.08 some extant some extant medium general quarry quarry 5.09 gone by No visible remains. Site now high general blacksmith/ 1903 an overgrown depression fitters shop ground. day stables 5.10 gone by No visible remains medium general 1903 timekeeper's 5.11 gone by No visible remains medium general office 1903 weighbridge 5.12 gone by No visible remains high general 1903 underground 5.13 no on NPWS plan. No other medium general structure (poss information evidence. Not sighted drain) unknown 5.14 on NPWS plan. No other medium general structure (pos evidence. Not sighted drain)
TRIAL BAY GAOL PAUL DAVIES PTY LTD CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL TOURISM PLAN APRIL 2004
116 Kerr name Kerr no. Davies date of date of description archaeol- archaol no. construct demol/disposal ogical -ogical potential zone small 5.15 Extant No visible remains low general breakwater near 1915-17 site of boat shed boat ramp 5.16 NPWS na bitumen parking 5.17 NPWS na wooden steps 5.18 NPWS na main road 5.19 on line of extant low general 2nd old road unknown 5.20 gone by low outside weatherboard 1903 arch shed in quarry zone Little Bay and dam overshot 6.01, extant extant medium outside dam/pipeline 7.02 study area police paddock 6.02 gone by low outside 1903 study area Parkes St bridge 6.03 na outside Arakoon study area brick pit 6.04 gone by Not sighted medium outside 1903 study area historic walks prison boundary 7.01 N/A na patrolled in 1889 pipeline 7.02, partially Not sighted medium general 6.01 extant track to powder 7.03 extant na magazines track to German 4.28, extant na monument/ 7.04 Little Bay
Impact of Ongoing Changes Each phase of use of the gaol has resulted in changes and additions to parts of the fabric, setting and place. The changes have had varying impacts on the archaeological record. In assessing the archaeological potential of the place it is important that the changes are evaluated and known or likely impacts are recognised. The major changes associated with each phase of use are outlined below. Table 4.4.6 Major Site Changes
Phase Changes Effect on archaeological resources
Establishment and use of gaol Construction of buildings within and Creation of gaol-related features and 1880 - 1900 around the gaol deposits Modifications to landforms for Changes to the landscape removed buildings and site works some early elements as the Construction of breakwater and construction proceeded creation of quarry
TRIAL BAY GAOL PAUL DAVIES PTY LTD CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL TOURISM PLAN APRIL 2004
117 Phase Changes Effect on archaeological resources
Closure 1903 - 1904 Prison closure. Houses and other Some modifications to gaol-related buildings outside the gaol walls were features and deposits sold and removed. Establishment of Internment Construction of internment buildings Creation of internment-related features Camp 1915 within and around the gaol and deposits Probable negative impacts on some gaol-related resources. Closure of Internment Camp All prison outbuildings sold. Modifications to gaol and internment- 1918 related features and deposits. Sale of gaol’s internal Stripping of interiors of internal Probable negative impacts on some materials, fittings and fixtures buildings and removal of site gaol and internment-related resources. 1922 features. Abandonment and informal Probable further removal of Probable further negative impacts on recreational use 1922 - 1965 structural fabric. Used for informal some gaol and internment-related camping and parking. resources. Establishment of Trial Bay Creation of more formal camping Probable positive and negative Reserve Trust 1965 area, changes to roads and drains, impacts on some gaol and internment- clearance of vegetation, related resources. establishment of barbeque sites, (Filling of tanks may have protected filling of underground tanks etc archaeological resources.) NPWS More changes to camping area and Probable further positive and negative interior of gaol. impacts on some gaol and internment- related resources.
Archaeological Potential The historical archaeological potential of the study area is considered to be variable. Some parts of the site (mainly within and around the gaol) have high potential while further out the potential diminishes (except for sites of former individual buildings or features).
Given that the longest use of the site (which has also been the most recent, ie camping and recreational) is a relatively low impact use except where infrastructure has been constructed (roads, paths, amenities etc), it is probable that there is a high degree of preservation of below ground archaeological deposits and features. Because of the hilly nature of the site and the convenience of reusing existing terraces or benches however, the archaeological evidence in such locations may have been compromised.
It is known that some below-ground features are intact eg the large subterranean rainwater tanks. It is likely that other such features (privies, wells, drains and sumps) will also have survived. The cemetery, while its precise location is unknown, is also likely to contain intact burials as there are no records of any exhumations having taken place.
Structural remains are likely to include stone and masonry building and wall foundations, drains, edgings, floors, yard and work surfaces, roads and tracks. Some structures such as fences or timber buildings built on stumps, may only have left ‘negative interfaces’ ie post holes or impressions from removed fabric.
Archaeological deposits are likely to include residues in cesspits and privies, the fill in the water tanks, miscellaneous subterranean rubbish deposits, underfloor occupation deposits and residual materials from construction and demolition of buildings.
TRIAL BAY GAOL PAUL DAVIES PTY LTD CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL TOURISM PLAN APRIL 2004
118 Archaeological Zoning Plan Because of the likelihood of significant historical archaeological deposits and features surviving at different parts of the TBG, an archaeological zoning plan has been prepared (see figure 4.4.6). This identifies areas of high, medium and low archaeological potential. Where below-ground disturbance is required within the TBG, archaeological input to the process of minimising impact is required, in accordance with the plan. Figures 4.4.7, 8 and 9 provide more details of the individual sites and site numbers that are generally represented in figure 4.4.6
Actions must be taken to ensure that this resource is conserved and/or investigated as appropriate prior to any disturbance. NPWS should seek to minimise the need for disturbance of areas assessed to have high and medium levels of potential. Where disturbance is unavoidable, prior archaeological assessment will be required. An exemption to the policy of non-disturbance may be made in the case of re-excavating existing service lines for maintenance purposes.
Table 4.4.7 Archaeological potential, site locations and required management actions
Grading of Site Type/Location Management action potential
High • Entire area within walled part of • Archaeological assessment of all ground disturbing gaol. activities is required prior to undertaking works. • Specified individual sites and areas • If possible, impacts on archaeological resources in the within archaeological zone. zone should be avoided. • If impacts cannot be avoided, test excavations to establish significance and mitigative measures ranging from monitoring to full scale salvage excavations should be undertaken. This will require an excavation permit under S. 140 of the Heritage Act. Appropriate actions will be determined by the level of assessed significance. Medium • Specified individual sites and areas • Archaeological monitoring of all ground disturbing within archaeological zone. activities is required. • Two sites outside archaeological • This will require an excavation permit under S.140 of the zone (5.06 - demolished powder Heritage Act. magazine 1 and 4.26 - six inch • If the monitoring archaeologist notes the uncovering of sewer) significant archaeological deposits, work should cease and options for conserving the deposits or salvaging them should be discussed. Appropriate actions will then be determined by the level of assessed significance. Low • Remainder of area within the • Archaeological monitoring of ground disturbing activities archaeological zone. is generally not required. • If historical relics or archaeological deposits are discovered during ground disturbing activities then work is to cease and the NPWS archaeologist notified. • An excavation permit under S.140 of the Heritage Act may be required. • Options for conserving the deposits or salvaging them should then be discussed. Appropriate actions will then be determined by the level of assessed significance. Nil • All of the area outside the • No actions required. archaeological zone. • This area is exempt from permit requirements under S.140 of the Heritage Act if the CMP is endorsed by the Heritage Council.
TRIAL BAY GAOL PAUL DAVIES PTY LTD CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL TOURISM PLAN APRIL 2004
119 Figure 4.4.6 Archaeological Zoning Plan. The plan is overlaid on the current site plan with vegetation and features mapped from previous plans and aerial photographs Austral Archaeology 2004
TRIAL BAY GAOL PAUL DAVIES PTY LTD CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL TOURISM PLAN APRIL 2004
120 Figure 4.4.7 Sites and features from 1877-1889 represented on Zoning Plan. This plan is based on historical plans overlaid on the present site plan. Austral Archaeology 2003
TRIAL BAY GAOL PAUL DAVIES PTY LTD CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL TOURISM PLAN APRIL 2004
121 Figure 4.4.8 Sites and features from 1890-1903 represented on Zoning Plan. This plan is based on historical plans overlaid on the present site plan. Austral Archaeology 2003
TRIAL BAY GAOL PAUL DAVIES PTY LTD CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL TOURISM PLAN APRIL 2004
122 Figure 4.4.9 Sites and features from 1915-1922 represented on Zoning Plan. This plan is based on historical plans overlaid on the present site plan. Austral Archaeology 2003
TRIAL BAY GAOL PAUL DAVIES PTY LTD CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL TOURISM PLAN APRIL 2004
123 4.4.9 Cultural landscapes
Managing Cultural Landscapes Cultural landscapes are landscapes that have been modified by human activity, for active recreation (e.g. sports fields), passive recreation (eg picnic areas, formal parks and gardens), for aesthetic values (eg formal gardens) or as multiple use sites (eg campsites and rest areas, areas zoned public open space). While some cultural landscapes may be entirely human-derived, the Trial Bay Gaol site consists of landscapes based on natural features that have been substantially altered in areas for practical or aesthetic ends.
Broadly, programs for managing cultural landscapes should: • develop, implement and document appropriate maintenance programs to ensure the retention of culturally significant landscapes at the Trial Bay Gaol site • manage areas of significant vegetation and plantings, with maintenance programs designed to current best-practice levels • develop and implement procedures manuals for the different landscape elements on the site • maintain accurate records (including photography) of repairs, maintenance and redesigning of any landscape elements, particularly those of historical and cultural significance • develop and implement monitoring programs which accurately reflect and assess any changes to significant landscapes. Such monitoring programs will contribute to the review process. In developing landscape conservation and management programs for the site, the cultural significance of the gaol should be borne in mind at all times, …the combination of a building and its landscape setting is of greater significance than either alone…. (p.478, Hitchmough, 1994).
With respect to the Trial Bay Gaol site, the cultural landscapes may be divided into two distinct areas, each with their own particular characteristics: modified topography on which the gaol is built, the breakwater and the various outbuildings surrounding it; and managed and semi-natural areas, such as the cemetery on Monument Hill, tree plantings and the disused quarries along the eastern boundary of the site.
A summary of the natural landscape features of the site and their contribution to the significance of the site is presented in Table 3.4.2 in Section 3.4. These natural features include a variety of native vegetation types, habitats, geology and plantings.
Gaol precinct Given its prominent position and the dominant character of the gaol within an almost entirely managed landscape, it is not appropriate to significantly increase either the height or density of plantings in the gaol precinct. However, it is possible to retain the essentially stark nature of this area, while considering minor additional plantings around the forecourt and road entrance to the gaol precinct. Such plantings may:
TRIAL BAY GAOL PAUL DAVIES PTY LTD CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL TOURISM PLAN APRIL 2004
124 • help to define the edges of roads and paths: currently, vehicles are driving over the edges of paved roads onto open grassed areas, creating potholes, areas of bare soil (consequently creating dust-bowls in the dry season, and muddy areas when wet) and a generally unkempt appearance to the entrance to the gaol • soften some areas of harsh landscapes, where this does not dilute or detract from the bleak nature of the gaol precinct. Some regenerating native vegetation occurs on the slopes to the north and north-west of the gaol (immediately below the outer walls). This area requires careful management: while removal of stands of woody weeds (particularly Lantana) is a desirable outcome, any removal program should be undertaken gradually, and should proceed at a pace commensurate with that of natural regeneration of native species in any gaps created by the removal of the Lantana. To remove all the Lantana in this area within a short period would probably create undesirable outcomes.
If the culturally-derived nature of the landscape surrounding the gaol is to be enhanced, consideration should be given to the retention of vegetation on steep, easily eroded soils and topography.
A program for the replacement of the various avenue plantings which surround the gaol site, particularly the Norfolk Island Pines Araucaria heterophylla, will need to be implemented as they reach maturity.
Managed and Semi-natural Areas These areas include the cemetery and its immediate surrounds on Monument Hill, the campground and the foreshore sites along the eastern boundary of the study area. Monument Hill The cemetery and its surrounds on Monument Hill require a weed management program. Currently, weeds such as Paddy’s Lucerne Sida rhombifolia, Cobbler’s Pegs Bidens pilosa, Fleabanes Conyza spp. and Paspalum Paspalum dilatatum occur within the cemetery, and along the edges of nearby vegetation. These weed species will spread, with several species able to quickly colonise areas of bare ground or disturbed vegetation.
Additionally, a management program which prescribes sensitive pruning of trees and taller shrubs is required. Currently, trees and taller shrub species are being lopped, poorly-pruned or vegetation is being trampled on, possibly in an attempt to acess the views available from the observation site at the top of Monument Hill.
Temporary fencing is also required along sections of the walking track to facilitate bush regeneration, weed eradication and to prevent further soil erosion. Camping Ground and Open Space Areas The campgrounds, camp sites, BBQ sites and open space areas are not sufficiently managed leading to a number of problems. (See Appendix C). Management programs for the camping areas need to ensure that the current open nature of these areas is retained for practical and aesthetic reasons.
Management of the open space areas requires:
TRIAL BAY GAOL PAUL DAVIES PTY LTD CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL TOURISM PLAN APRIL 2004
125 • fencing off native vegetation so that natural and assisted regeneration can proceed. Fencing should be designed and located so as to be sympathetic to fauna movement. • prevention of unregulated pedestrian access (via fencing, dense plantings etc. See also section 4.4.11) • provision of adequate, appropriately located paths that correspond to pedestrian ‘desire’ lines for access to and from campgrounds to beach and vice versa (see also section 4.4.11) • weed eradication and control programs, particularly for invasive or other environmental weed species • prevention of further soil erosion (e.g. mechanical, plantings) • removal of weeds from the artificially-derived wetlands along the central creekline and implementing new planting and maintenance regimes, bearing in mind that one of these wetland systems is adjacent to camping sites and therefore needs to be aesthetically pleasing. Management of the campgrounds (particularly those adjoining Front Beach) requires: • fencing off native vegetation where it adjoins artificial landscapes so that natural and assisted regeneration can proceed • planting of a suitable suite of native species along edges and defined beds to help create defined areas and help soften hard landscape areas • prevention of unregulated pedestrian access (via fencing, dense plantings etc.) • design and install suitable pathways and access points (See also section 4.4.11) • weed eradication and control programs, particularly for invasive or other environmental weed species • redesign of vehicle access and parking, particularly where current usage is creating bare soil in and around campgrounds and other heavily-used sites, and restrict vehicle access where current usage is compacting soil and damaging root zones of planted trees (e.g Norfolk Island Pines in beachfront campsites) (See also section 4.4.12) • conservation and management of significant avenues and row plantings of trees (e.g. Norfolk Island Pines, Horsetail She-oak) • replacement of significant plantings when they become senescent or show signs of severe stress, preferably with identical species to retain key landscape elements. • the removal of limited areas of vegetation where pedestrian, and particularly vehicular access is currently restricted. This is particularly important along the entrance road to the gaol site where there are no formal pedestrian pathways and vehicles and pedestrians currently use the same road, and where vegetation often obscures drivers’ sightlines (See also section 4.4.11, 4.4.12). • the use of preventative pruning practices for trees on the site, instead of unregulated lopping of trees. • the removal of limited areas of vegetation where significant views and vistas are adversely affected. • the re-establishment of historic road and footpath alignments, and marking of the locations of remnant historic buildings (see also section 4.4.3). Some vegetation may need to be removed to achieve this; note that any vegetation earmarked for removal should be thoroughly assessed for its conservation value, and for its potential as habitat for endemic but particularly threatened species.
TRIAL BAY GAOL PAUL DAVIES PTY LTD CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL TOURISM PLAN APRIL 2004
126 Managing Cultural and Natural Landscape Interface One of the difficult aspects of managing Trial Bay is the potential conflict between natural and modified landscapes each of which has considerable value. This will be manifested in the treatment of edges between the various areas, the extent to which modifications will favour one set of values over another, the requirements of potentially competing user groups and the resources available to manage the site. Site Management To protect the cultural and natural landscape setting and context it is necessary to manage the site to protect its values and allow a reasonable level of access and enjoyment for visitors. This section looks at the management issues relate to site uses.
It is neither practicable nor desirable to completely restrict human access to areas of natural vegetation on the site, but it is necessary to restrict access to pathways and access points within these areas.
In order for their functions as ecosystems, wildlife refuges, habitats and corridors for fauna and flora species to continue, unimpeded access to areas of natural vegetation should not be allowed. Unrestricted human access is creating adverse effects, including erosion (particularly along creek banks, and where soils are easily eroded), spread of weeds (along tracks, roads, and informal tracks) and removal of vegetation (often for facilitating views, or access to previously inaccessible areas).
Natural vegetation can serve as barriers and buffers between sites with differing (and occasionally incompatible) uses. Natural vegetation also functions as a natural filter for ground and surface water systems, and as a barrier against undesirable natural conditions such as erosion and acid sulphate soils.
To retain and enhance these functions, the following actions are required: • education of visitors to prevent further damage due to ignorance • various means of encouragement and guidance, including the use of appropriate signs, the design and placement of access ways (with appropriate signage), and the use of dense plantings or plantings of prickly species (where appropriate) to reduce the likelihood that visitors would want to create short-cuts through vegetation • the use of prohibition (where the above measures have failed or are inadequate) to prevent further new pathways; methods might include fencing or the creation of dense buffer plantings. Integrity of Landscape Management and planning decisions would be more easily facilitated if the site’s natural values (vegetation, habitats, native species) are categorised according to some key criteria. These criteria should take into account not only whether the vegetation type, habitats or species within it are regarded as ‘threatened’ or otherwise of conservation significance, but should also consider the size and connectivity of the vegetation being classified.
For example, areas considered to constitute important habitat should include actual or potential habitat for threatened species or populations, but should also be of a sufficient size and/or linked to other vegetation types, such that the system’s health and viability remains. In these areas of important habitat, opportunities for human disturbance would ideally be
TRIAL BAY GAOL PAUL DAVIES PTY LTD CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL TOURISM PLAN APRIL 2004
127 completely removed. However, in the case of the Trial Bay Gaol site, it may be deemed appropriate to allow limited, low-impact usage of high-value habitat areas, providing that any such usage is properly managed in accordance with strict guidelines. Areas of natural vegetation that might be deemed high-value areas would include the heath and low woodland on Monument Hill, and the swamp forest complex (along with the dune woodland and forest along Front Beach), as all of these areas currently appear relatively undisturbed and less frequently visited, and all are connected to further extensive stands of vegetation in Hat Head NP and Arakoon SCA.
Other areas of natural vegetation that are not habitat for threatened species, of a sufficiently large size nor adequately connected to other habitat to be considered high-value (ie areas of medium or low conservation value) also require management guidelines, including the need to manage access, restrict the spread of weeds and preventing further general degradation. Areas which might be classified as low-value include the narrow strip of vegetation along the seaward side of the camping areas (extending from Front Beach to Laggers Point), and the vegetation along rocky foreshores on the easternmost coastal fringe (from Laggers Point to the quarries). Given that both of these are high-traffic areas, the primary adverse impacts of continued and increased usage would include further degradation of the remaining natural vegetation, erosion and spread of weed species.
It would be desirable to plan in the future for vegetated links or corridors between areas of native vegetation on the site. While these planned corridors may not require such stringent management guidelines as apply to high-value areas, and would be designed to enhance the aesthetic values of the site, issues such as pedestrian access need to be considered. Areas on the site in this category are the central creek and drainage line, the forest on lower the slopes and the swamp forest complex on the south-west of the site. Areas of Conflict Between Natural and Cultural Values The following table summarises the issues on the site related to potential conflicts between natural and other cultural values.
Table 4.4.8 Summary of areas where significant conflict occurs
Site/area Natural values Cultural values and current Recommendations usage
Creekline and Natural vegetation along Camping areas currently at or • Reduce weed infestation drainage creekline creates habitat for near maximum capacity for and encourage natural channel in fauna, provides natural significant periods, therefore regeneration, centre of backdrop to camping areas, extra space required. camping area functions as natural filter for • Widen creekline and water quality, enhances Unregulated pedestrian create a low-traffic ‘buffer’ natural beauty of the site and access to areas of natural area between camping breaks up otherwise vegetation is creating network areas and vegetation. monotonous expanses of of footpaths, with consequent • Fence off native vegetation grass. trampling and removal of vegetation, erosion, soil to encourage natural compaction and spread of regeneration. weed species. • Create defined footpaths to discourage informal pedestrian access.
Vegetation Vegetation along beach front Camping areas currently at • Fence off natural between (to west of Laggers Point) or near maximum capacity vegetation from pedestrian camping area necessary for stabilisation of for significant periods, access to encourage and beach highly erodable soils. therefore extra space natural regeneration, to front required. prevent further erosion and
TRIAL BAY GAOL PAUL DAVIES PTY LTD CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL TOURISM PLAN APRIL 2004
128 Site/area Natural values Cultural values and current Recommendations usage Unregulated pedestrian stop spread of weed access to areas of natural species. Vegetation also provides vegetation is creating natural backdrop to camping • Create properly defined network of footpaths, with footpaths to discourage areas, enhances natural consequent trampling and beauty of the site and informal pedestrian removal of vegetation, access. provides shelter for campsites significant erosion and from strong winds, shade spread of weed species. from sun. Degraded vegetation, erosion and poorly-defined pedestrian access on banks above beach creates low aesthetic value, and degrades natural beauty of site.
Vegetation on Vegetation along headlands Vehicle access for boat ramp • Fence off natural headlands and and rocky foreshores (to east and recreational users of site vegetation from pedestrian rocky and south of Laggers Point) (eg fishing) is currently poorly access and vehicles to foreshores necessary for stabilisation of managed, with unrestricted encourage natural highly erodable soils. pedestrian access and regeneration, to prevent poorly-defined vehicle access further erosion and stop Vegetation also provides and parking. spread of weed species. natural backdrop to gaol and picnic areas, enhances Soils eroding where • Create properly defined natural beauty of the site and vegetation is being trampled footpaths and carparking provides shelter for fauna, or removed, weeds to discourage informal shade from sun for day spreading. access visitors and recreational users. Degraded vegetation, erosion . and poorly-defined pedestrian access on banks above beach creates low aesthetic value, and degrades natural beauty of site.
Other natural Wide range of vegetation Increased site usage and • Discourage informal areas types and habitats, often with requirements for access, pedestrian access. easy access for visitors. often leading to informal pedestrian access, creating • Address pedestrian access Range of fauna habitats. loss of vegetation, erosion, along main access roads . Creates natural backdrop to weed spread etc; conflict gaol site, sense of local between vehicles and identity of site, along with pedestrians particularly along other less tangible values main access roads. (clean water, air etc).
Horticultural Horticultural tree plantings Excessive foot traffic and • Regulate vehicle parking vegetation and create strong sense of local permitted parking of vehicles and access arrangements camping areas identity, give shelter from over tree root systems causing to discourage driving of sunlight, limited use to fauna. soil compaction, erosion and vehicles over grassed decreased tree health and areas. Areas of mown turf and grass lifespan. Heavily used areas create accessible camping (vehicle and pedestrian) • Create more formal sites, easy pedestrian access creating large areas of bare footpaths and manage to and safe play area for soil with little chance of prevent creation of areas children. groundcover re-establishing. of bare soil (also prevents Less regularly maintained erosion, dust bowl effects areas harbour weeds. in dry weather).
TRIAL BAY GAOL PAUL DAVIES PTY LTD CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL TOURISM PLAN APRIL 2004
129 Fire Management of Flora and Fauna Communities Detailed analysis of fire management is beyond the scope of this plan, however it is noted that the site is susceptible to fire and a management system is required to reduce potential threats and impacts.
Prescribed ecological burns in the area should be carried out over a range of seasons, with a range of inter-fire periods and should be of varying intensities, as appropriate for the vegetation under consideration. Fire should not be administered at intervals less than 3-4 years, and fire shadows and refuges are an important part of fire ecology and should be considered in any fire management program.
Burn regimes should note: • No fires should occur within rainforest or littoral rainforest communities. • Fires within saltmarsh vegetation, wetlands and 'swamp forest' communities should be carefully planned. • It is essential to protect forest and tall forest vegetation types ('wet sclerophyll forests') from too-frequent fires and intense fires which burn the canopy. • Within woodland and open forest vegetation loss of some species may occur if fires occur twice or more within 5 years, or if there are no fire events within 30 years. • Within heathlands and scrub/shrublands, fires occurring more than once within 8 years, or no fires within 30 years may cause the decline or local extinction of some species. • Any program for ecological burns or hazard reduction burns should create a mosaic pattern, so that various parts of any area of these vegetation types are burnt at different times. • Beach dune systems are also sensitive to damage from fire. • Areas of any vegetation type which are burnt too frequently often exhibit an understorey and groundcover layer of reduced diversity, with an abundance of species which are adapted to rapid regeneration after fires. Kempsey Bushfire Management Committee has prepared a Bushfire Risk Management Plan and the Kempsey District Bush Fire Management Plan Operations. The plan identifies the level of bush fire risk to socio-economic, environmental and cultural assets across the Kempsey Local Government Area and establishes strategies to be implemented to manage those bush fire risks in relation to bush fire hazard, the vulnerability of assets to fire, the safety of the community and firefighters, and the protection of the land, environment and biodiversity from fire. It describes the coastal zone to be at greatest risk in relation to environmental and ecological issues. Plans for the Trial Bay and Arakoon SCA sites should complement the provisions of the Kempsey District Bush Fire Management Plan Operations.
The Bushfire Hazard Map (Kempsey BFRMP) indicates the presence of a low to medium level hazard throughout Trial Bay and Arakoon State Conservation Area, with small pockets of high hazard extending southwards to Hat Head National Park.
The Kempsey Bushfire Risk Management Plan identifies tourism throughout much of the coastal zone, often associated with National Parks. The plan identifies Hat Head National Park and the Arakoon State Conservation Area (SCA) as important tourism destinations for
TRIAL BAY GAOL PAUL DAVIES PTY LTD CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL TOURISM PLAN APRIL 2004
130 short visit coastal recreational activities, with the Arakoon SCA and Trial Bay Gaol noted as a major tourism destination for longer stay coastal camping.
Table 4.4.9 describes the various options available to manage and minimise bushfire risk as detailed by the Kempsey Bushfire Risk Management Plan. As no single option is likely to provide sufficient protection from bushfires, a range of options needs to be implemented to reduce the bushfire risk to a manageable level.
Table 4.4.9 Bush Fire Risk Management Options
Risk Management Option Application at Trial Bay Goal and Arakoon SCA
Avoid the Risk By deciding not to proceed with the activity likely to generate the bush fire risk. This option is relevant to future land use and development decisions. Examples of risk avoidance strategies include prohibiting certain types of development in bush fire prone areas, and requiring adequate fire protection zones to be established between developments and the bush fire hazard.
Reduce the Programs to reduce the level of fuel available to Reserve Fire Management Plans Hazard burn in a bush fire. and Plans of Management, needs to exclude mesic vegetation types (i.e. Examples of hazard reduction strategies include small pockets of Littoral Rainforest) hazard reduction burning, slashing or ploughing of from prescribed fire management fire breaks, or manual clearing of bush fire hazards. strategies.
Reduce Ignitions Programs to reduce the number of deliberate and Community education, education of accidental man made ignitions. tourists visiting Trial Bay. Examples of ignition reduction strategies include total fire bans, arson investigation programs, and issuing of permits to burn during the bush fire danger season.
Reduce Programs to increase the resilience of community Implement Incident Management Vulnerability and environmental/ecological assets to bush fires. Procedures Examples of vulnerability reduction strategies include community education programs, and building restrictions in bush fire prone areas.
Residual Risk Bush fire risk management strategies are designed The preparation of an Emergency to reduce the level of risk but will not eliminate the Evacuation Plan and Fire risk entirely. Some level of residual risk may remain, Management Plan aids in reducing which will be managed with fire response strategies the risks such as fire suppression operations, early fire detection, and evacuation.
4.4.10 Management of Artefacts and Records
In October 2002 NSW NPWS endorsed a movable heritage policy for the 'acquisition, management and disposal of moveable heritage on, or connected with NPWS reserve lands.' This plan endorses the use of the Movable Heritage Principles produced by the NSW Heritage Office.
TRIAL BAY GAOL PAUL DAVIES PTY LTD CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL TOURISM PLAN APRIL 2004
131 These policies form the basis for the management of any movable heritage associated with Trial Bay Gaol. In essence they identify circumstances in which DEC may acquire movable heritage items, especially Aboriginal heritage items; and the documentation of movable heritage items, vis cataloguing and researching.
Policy 7 deals with the significance assessment of movable heritage items and collections. It should be noted that DCITA and the Heritage Collections Council have published both a manual and a training package to guide this process. It is one of the recommendations of this CMP that any NPWS officer dealing with items of movable heritage familiarise themselves with both documents to understand the parameters and process for assessing significance. Management of Archival Records The NPWS at Trial Bay Gaol holds extensive records relating to the site. Currently these are not fully catalogued even though a number of indexes are held as part of the archive. Consequently the records are difficult to access and/or search.
Many of the historic photographs are copies of those in the ownership of various bodies such as the Mitchell Library and the Macleay River Historical Society, while others are clearly originals. There appears to be no accurate record of the sources for much of this material and where copyright resides.
All material should be separated into original and copied material and catalogued, and copyright established where possible with a note to that effect on the catalogue record. If it is not possible to establish clear copyright ownership, this should be noted in the catalogue to ensure that future users are aware of the issue. Originals should be copied, preferably digitally, and stored in a conservation safe and secure environment. Initially the documents should be stored all together at NPWS Trial Bay Gaol office. Management of Artefacts The Gaol also contains an extensive collection of artefacts that derive directly from the site and its various periods of occupation and from broader collection of objects from the district that are not directly connected with the site. A number of the artefacts are in poor condition, particularly those stored in the open and some are beyond recovery. Most of the artefacts, while secure from direct public access, are not adequately displayed with regard to their conservation requirements. The collection of artefacts from the internment period in particular are of high interest and significance.
The policies in Section 6.0 establish ways to protect these elements.
4.4.11 Pedestrian Access and Movement
This section looks at pedestrian movement patterns around the site and sets out preferred future directions for pedestrian access and movement.
The current operation of the site provides for almost all visitors to drive to the site and park. Campers park adjacent to their campsite and move around the site by foot. Day visitors either arrive at the gaol, park and visit that site and drive to the breakwater area, or go directly to the beach or ocean front and park in the general parking areas close to their
TRIAL BAY GAOL PAUL DAVIES PTY LTD CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL TOURISM PLAN APRIL 2004
132 activity. They then walk the shortest distance possible to the beach, to fish or to picnic facilities.
Day visitors may also walk around the site once they have arrived and found a parking spot. They may walk to the ocean front using the steps from the gaol entry to the east or they may walk to the track to Monument Hill and undertake a walk to the top and back, or a round trip of longer duration including Little Beach. Day visitors may also walk to the beach through the camping area and may walk to the restaurant. However, most day visitors were observed driving between destinations within the site.
Apart from day visitors to the gaol there is relatively little movement around the site.
There are several distinct pedestrian access features but mostly the roads and road verges are used for pedestrian access. The specific features are the two footbridges over the swamp/creek area in the main camping area, the steps to the east from the ridge near the gaol entry, the steps to the west from the gaol entry, the tracks on Monument Hill and the access paths to the beach.
The problems associated with current pedestrian access to and around the site are: • walking access into the site is either by the main access road or along the service track (unformed); however the road edge is unsafe and the service track is not signed or suitable for regular use. • much of the access around the site is adjacent to busy access roads; this presents safety problems as traffic speeds can be high despite speed limits. • pedestrian access to the gaol is poor with vehicles often parked across and adjacent to the entry. • the two stairs from the gaol to east and west are in poor condition and do not satisfy BCA or OH and S requirements. • the Monument Hill track does not connect to the gaol or camping area with a formed path. • the access road along the ocean front does not provide for pedestrian movement as the road is narrow and fenced on one side. • beach access points are not at access points preferred by pedestrians. • there is no signing of routes, clear directions on how to move around the site, or what to see from various locations and vantage points. There is also no provision for bicycle access to and around the site. It was noted that the local Council are providing (in sections) an access path from South West Rocks that will serve bicycles and pedestrians. While it has a considerable distance to extend to the gaol site, in time it would be desirable to connect the gaol to Arakoon and South West Rocks with a walking/bicycle track that could extend into and around the site.
It is also desirable to establish walking routes within the site that provide a round walk. These could be linked to the Monument Hill tracks, to the gaol, to the restaurant or kiosk and to carpark locations. The track could also link to the main entry track to the site.
Refer to Section 6.2.10 Pedestrian Access and Movement for policies and recommended actions to provide for a walking track network across and around the site, and refer to Figure 4.4.10 below.
TRIAL BAY GAOL PAUL DAVIES PTY LTD CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL TOURISM PLAN APRIL 2004
133 Figure 4.4.10 Site plan indicating preferred locations for walking routes and tracks. Tracks with potential to be sealed are indicated with a heavy line and other tracks with a heavy dotted line. Note that this plan is indicative and that a detailed resolution of paths is required. Paul Davies 2003
4.4.12 Vehicular Access and Movement
Most visitors arrive by car. There is one access road to the site and it is heavily trafficked even at low visitation periods. The road is a gazetted road subject to state road rules and speed limits. Within the site a network of roads, some historical and others of more recent date intersect the site providing a complex road arrangement without clear direction or movement patterns. The main road terminates at the gaol gate. The camping area and beachfront road fork from the entry road and traverse the camping area to reach the beach. The road forks several times providing access to the restaurant and the picnic area and parking is provided (unmarked) at the main beach entry. The road also extends to the end of the breakwater (not visible from the road) where there is further parking, and through the
TRIAL BAY GAOL PAUL DAVIES PTY LTD CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL TOURISM PLAN APRIL 2004
134 quarry to the ocean front. The road terminates in a rubbish dump and materials storage area.
The current pattern of movement onto the site is confusing, creates a heavy traffic and parking demand at the gaol entry and requires a number of vehicle movements for the average site visitor.
There is a need to separate vehicular and pedestrian movement on access roads (camping area roads can serve both activities with safety); to restrict cars from key areas and from landscaping generally, to provide adequate, well signed parking for the various site activities; to direct vehicles to their destination; and to improve the safety for pedestrians and drivers by providing clearer sight lines and crossing points with high visibility.
Currently core camping areas are separated from access roads which improves their amenity and safety, but during peak occupation camping occurs along several access roads.
Figure 4.4.11 Site Plan showing existing and proposed roads and carparking areas. Carparks are designated by letters that are discussed in Table 4.4.10 Paul Davies 2003
The site requires the following to improve vehicular access and management: • provide a vehicle free area directly in front of the gaol and place vehicles and parking away from the entry gate axis. Car numbers are to be determined by the available area, with additional remote parking available.
TRIAL BAY GAOL PAUL DAVIES PTY LTD CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL TOURISM PLAN APRIL 2004
135 • consider a remote parking area near the NPWS office with bicycle hire or regular on site transport at peak visitation periods. • alter the road system to provide direct access for campers to the camping office below the gaol wall (proposed location) with adjacent parking. • fence and screen plant camping areas to minimise the visual impact of vehicles in particular. • restrict vehicle access under tree canopies to prevent root damage. • define parking areas adjacent to the beach (carpark A); adjacent to the breakwater (carpark B); at the entry (carpark C); along the ocean front (carpark D); adjacent to the restaurant (carpark E); at the proposed camping office (carpark F); and adjacent to the main amenities building (carpark G). Mark spaces appropriately to the setting and surface. • provide parking and facilities for large vans at location H along the oceanfront. • relocate the oceanfront road to provide adjacent footpath and bikepath. • provide edge restrictions to prevent vehicles accessing day visit areas and picnic tables. • provide clear signs to direct traffic on arrival at the site. Signs should be located (with site map) at the entry to the site and at a lay-by before arrival at the gaol building (location I – not shown on figure 4.4.11). • limit traffic speeds on the site by signs and by speed reduction devices. Use of depressions angled across the road are visually preferable to speed bumps. • remove all parking from known archaeological sites. Where parking is to be provided on such sites such as at locations C and F, undertake appropriate site testing prior to constructing the surface. • prevent vehicular access to the service track from the southern end of the camping area. • clear vegetation on corners (such as the corner adjacent to carpark E) to provide improved site lines for turning traffic.
Table 4.4.10 Schedule of Carparks
Parking Suitable Comment Area Materials
A Gravel Currently parking in this area extends over a large grassed area and foundations and is defined by a series of timber poles on the ground. The intent is to define the parking, establish a smaller footprint away from the visible building foundations with clear access and low screen planting to separate it from the adjacent day visitor area.
There may be some loss of spaces from the current arrangement, however the current parking use is hard to analyse as cars park randomly in the area.
B Asphalt Extend the existing road surface to include several bays of parking and kerbside parking in areas presently used for that purpose. The areas designated are now degraded and cars can approach the rock edge. Access will be limited to defined, edged parking.
C Asphalt This location is over the sites of former buildings which currently has a degraded asphalt and earth surface with several remnant slabs and site features visible. The redesigned carpark should not impact on archaeological features and if required should be built up over the existing ground level with defined edging and barriers to delineate the pedestrian entry.
TRIAL BAY GAOL PAUL DAVIES PTY LTD CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL TOURISM PLAN APRIL 2004
136 Parking Suitable Comment Area Materials
The pedestrian area should retain the form of a road entry to reflect its historical hard surface and service form. Related to this could be the recovery of the former tank area to the side of the road.
Provide for bus drop off and movement, but not parking in this area.
D Asphalt Currently parking is unformed and car access is available around picnic shelters, around the rocks, in the end of the quarry and on grassed areas. The recommendation is to define parking to marked and formed areas around the perimeter of the road restricting access onto grassed areas and close to the water edge. Barriers will be required to prevent random access.
Parking at the southern end of the quarry should be restricted with service access only.
E Asphalt This area occupies land that formed part of the governor’s house garden and has more recently been cut out of regenerated bush. The area accommodates a large number of cars but has an adverse visual impact on the site. The area should be formally laid out with signing and should be separated from the camping area by screen planting. This area could form the major overflow parking area.
F Asphalt This is a small parking area for arrivals immediately adjacent to the proposed camping office. The site is over former building locations and the formation will require the retention of these features.
G Asphalt This area is currently used as a carpark and turning area. It is recommended that the area be made larger with a higher capacity for parking. This would be subject to a detailed design.
H Gravel/ Parking could be provided in this location for overnight stay of vans and larger asphalt vehicles that do not easily fit into the main camping area. The number of sites will be determined by the design details of the area.
4.4.13 Vistas and Views
A feature of the Trial Bay site is the range of views available both from and to the site, and the internal vistas and views. The external views are those that allow the site to be seen as a landmark from a distance, such as views from South West Rocks where the form of the gaol can be clearly seen across the bay with the distinctive Norfolk Island Pines punctuating the skyline. Views from the site are those from the breakwater across the bay, from the lookout tower of the gaol with its panoramic views to the north, east, west and views across the site, and the views across the site particularly from Monument Hill where the gaol forms the foreground to the expansive view to the north across Trial Bay.
Internal views are those views 'within the boundaries of the site'. Broadly, the Trial Bay Gaol site encompasses internal views with two distinct characters: natural or semi-natural landscapes; and modified or designed landscapes.
Refer to Section 6.2.12 Vistas and Views for the policies and actions guiding the management of these elements of the natural and cultural heritage.
TRIAL BAY GAOL PAUL DAVIES PTY LTD CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL TOURISM PLAN APRIL 2004
137 Natural and Semi-natural Landscapes Significant views of the natural landscapes of the site are available from several locations, including: • Points at higher elevations on the site, for example those available from the top of Monument Hill, and at several locations along the track leading up from the gaol area. The views from Monument Hill and the track are extensive, and encompass large areas of natural vegetation, the gaol and the camping grounds, and out over the Pacific Ocean. However the development of upper canopy species is in some places obscuring some views: for example, the interpretation sign at the bottom of the Monument Hill track points out several features of archaeological interest, views of which are now obscured by vegetation. • Front Beach: views along Front Beach are generally of natural vegetation, with views of the camping grounds and the gaol precinct. Closer views of the camping grounds and visitor area from the eastern end of Front Beach are generally less pleasing, due to the current poor management of the vegetation along the edges of the camp grounds, informal pedestrian access and weed infestations. Views to the gaol itself from the beach are partly obscured by the plantings of Norfolk Island pines. The patches of lantana growing on the slopes below the western and north-western faces of the gaol are readily visible. • Swamp forest and areas of forest on lower slopes: due to the nature of the topography, and the contiguity of vegetation within these areas, opportunities for panoramic or long- distance views are not generally available. However, these qualities allow for a different experience of the natural features of the vegetation on the site, and may allow visitors occasional glimpses of native fauna. Modified Landscapes Currently, views and glimpses of the gaol are available from almost all parts of the camping grounds and areas of open space surrounding the gaol precinct, such that the gaol effectively dominates most of the views within these parts of the site. Similarly it is possible to look out over large parts of the camping grounds and open space areas from the top of the headland on which the gaol is sited, and particularly from the viewing platform within the gaol itself, such as:
• to the north and west from the camp grounds across Trial Bay
• to the east, the views from Laggers Point over the breakwater across Trial Bay and along the coast to the north
In planning and designing any additions or alterations to the horticulturally-derived vegetation in these areas, it is important to retain these views of, and from, the gaol.
Note also that current usage by vehicles and pedestrians is creating problems of weed infestation, trampling of vegetation and spread of weed species. Careful design and appropriate site and species selection should be used to address the problems of erosion and weeds, while simultaneously enhancing views and retaining the identity and integrity of the natural values of the site.
TRIAL BAY GAOL PAUL DAVIES PTY LTD CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL TOURISM PLAN APRIL 2004
138