SUPREME COURT SALAMANCA PLACE EXTERIOR VIEW • LEIGH WOOLLEY PHOTOGRAPH 2010

HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN

PREPARED BY PETER FREEMAN CONSERVATION ARCHITECTS + PLANNERS MORUYA • CANBERRA • HOBART

FINAL MAY 2012 • VOLUME 1 THE PLAN

‘An exemplary, enduring piece of public architecture that makes a poised contribution to the city of Hobart. The plaza between the two court buildings opens up a diagonal landscape link between St. David’s Park [above], and the adjacent Parliament Square and the Sullivans Cove waterfront. From Salamanca Place a slate base folds up like a piece of carved landscape and supports two sandstone-clad pavilions. This is a building that is indebted to classicism but carries the burden of a period of architecture much maligned for its material brutality. The use of materials here is super-direct and the detailing is studious.’1

1 The Australian Institute of Architecture's 2010 National Architecture Awards jury citation for the Supreme Court complex in Hobart.

HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PREFACE

CONTENTS1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The Brief 1:1 1.2 The Curtilage for this Plan 1:1 1.3 Authorship Limitations & Structure for this Plan 1:1 1.4 Acknowledgements 1:2

2.0 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW 2:1 Introduction 2:1 2.2 The Burial Ground and Cottage Green: 1804 to 1840s 2:1 2.3 The Burial Ground and the Salamanca Warehouses: 1840s to 1900 2:7 2.4 St David’s Park, Vacuum Oil Depot and Warehouses: 1900 to the 1970s 2:9 2.5 A Permanent Home for the Hobart Supreme Courts: 1975 to 2012 2:17 2.6 National Recognition for the Hobart Supreme Courts 2:34 2.7 Earlier Locations of the Hobart Supreme Courts 2:37

3.0 PHYSICAL OVERVIEW 3.1 Preamble 3:1 3.2 Townscape Context of the Hobart Supreme Court 3:1 3.3 Location and Entry 3:3 3.4 Function 3:4 3.5 Circulation 3:6 3.6 Architectural Form and Materials 3:7 3.7 The Precinct Landscape 3:11 3.8 The Hobart Supreme Court Interiors 3:14 3.5 Condition 3:16

4.0 ASSESSMENT & STATEMENT OF CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE 4.1 Previous Statements of Significance & Current Heritage Recognition 4:1 4.2 Comparative Significance 4:3 4.3 Assessment of Cultural Significance 4:6 4.4 Statement of Cultural Significance 4:8

5.0 CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT POLICY 5.1 Preamble 5:1 5.2 Cultural Significance 5:1 5.3 Moral Rights Requirements 5:7 5.4 The Functioning of the Supreme Courts 5:8 5.5 The Need for Intervention 5:10 5.6 Options for Intervention 5:11 5.7 A Nationally Significant Intervention 5:14

6.0 CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT POLICY STRATEGIES 6.1 Preamble 6:1 6.2 Conservation Management Policy Strategies 6:1

APPENDICES

REFER VOLUME 2: APPENDICES

1 The header photograph, which appears throughout this Plan is a 2010 Leigh Woolley photograph of the Court complex from Salamanca Place HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This Plan recommends the following conservation management policies for the Hobart Supreme Court precinct:

GUIDING CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT POLICY: RETENTION & CONSERVATION OF SIGNIFICANCE

The Hobart Supreme Court complex should be conserved, and the aim of conservation management should be to retain the cultural significance of the place. All conservation should be based on a respect for the existing fabric, use, associations and meanings. Conservation and adaptive reuse interventions require a cautious approach of changing as much as necessary but as little as possible.

POLICY 1: THE SITE AS A MARKER OF ABORIGINAL & EUROPEAN OCCUPATION

The recommended policy to rectify these absences would be to place interpretative markers, within the Precinct, to explain these associations. These markers [or panels] could be similar in style and form to those installations currently used with the Sullivans Cove area.

POLICY 2: A HOME FOR THE HOBART SUPREME COURT

The significance of the Courts precinct is now inseparable from its Salamanca Place address. The preferred conservation and redevelopment option will retain the Supreme Court presence on its current site.

POLICY 3: THE FORM OF THE SUPREME COURT BUILDINGS

The preferred conservation and redevelopment option will retain the Supreme Court morphology of existing low-rise building. If a physical intervention is made the new intervention must be a similarly low-rise building.

POLICY 4: THE AESTHETIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SUPREME COURT BUILDINGS

The preferred conservation and redevelopment option should retain the Supreme Court central [designed] path to the Park; however if that configuration became functionally impossible as part of satisfying the client’s functional and statutory obligations, the connection should be maintained along the northern [Park] boundary only. Should that option be pursued the Burra Charter Articles relating to new work within significant places must be followed.

POLICY 5: THE TOWNSCAPE OF THE SUPREME COURT PRECINCT

The preferred conservation and redevelopment option must retain the townscape, streetscape, and landscape integration of the Courts precinct within the Salamanca Place and St. David’s Park precinct.

POLICY 6: THE ASSOCIATIONAL VALUES OF THE SUPREME COURT PRECINCT

The proud tradition of historical display and interpretation should be pursued in any redevelopment of the Courts complex, preferably within the external and internal public areas within the Courts precinct.

POLICY 7: THE AIA ENDURING ARCHITECTURE AWARD

The Court’s tradition of display and interpretation should include the public display of the ‘Enduring Architecture’ award with an adjacent appropriate explanatory panel.

HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

POLICY 8: TASMANIAN HERITAGE REGISTER NOMINATION

In view of the cultural significance of the precinct, stated conservation management policies and strategies are to guide any interventions to the precinct, in order to ensure that the significant elements of the building [external and internal spaces and detail] are conserved, commensurate with the briefed requirements of any proposed intervention. The precinct should be re-nominated for entry to the THR once proposed interventions are agreed with the stakeholders.

POLICY 9: STATUTORY MORAL RIGHTS REQUIREMENTS

The Department of Justice and the Supreme Court [as client] will be required to follow the requirements of the AIA Practice Note AN 10.02.101 and the Copyright Amendment [Moral Rights] Act 2000. Continued liaison with the design architect [Peter Partridge] will hence be essential for the successful carriage of any proposed redevelopment / intervention within the precinct.

POLICY 10: THE FUNCTIONING OF THE SUPREME COURTS

Interventions and alterations to the existing Courts buildings and surrounds to correct or ameliorate current functional problems, must be undertaken with due cognisance for the cultural significance of the place and its fabric. The conservation ethic of a ‘cautious approach of changing as much as necessary but as little as possible’, must apply to any intervention.

POLICY 11: THE NEED FOR INTERVENTION

The bifurcated nature of the Supreme Courts complex, the current necessity for upgrading of the Courts functions and systems, the need to rationalise outdated modes of operation, and to properly use currently under utilised space, means that change to the Court complex is inevitable. The proper and efficient use of the existing facilities, and their augmentation where necessary, will result in a Supreme Courts complex fit for another forty years of use. A used building is a conserved building.

POLICY 12: OPTIONS FOR INTERVENTION: ‘CONNECT BUILDINGS’

If this option is pursued the following policies must be adhered to: the conservation ethic of a ‘cautious approach of changing as much as necessary but as little as possible’, must apply to any intervention; the Burra Charter requirements relating to new work within significant places must be followed; the new linkage building must be a recognisably modern intervention, must be no higher than the highest point of the Criminal Courts building, and must encroach as little as possible into the Salamanca Place forecourt of the complex; the designed form and detail and internal planning of both buildings, including the courts in the round should be retained as far as is feasible; the architectural palette of the original Court buildings in the link area may be changed only as much as is necessary and as little as possible; the slate paving and architectural forms of the Salamanca Place forecourt will inevitably be modified, however the palette of slate paving and cladding must be continued in any intervention; and any addition to the Courts at the St. David’s boundary must respect the heritage of the Park, and be modest in colour and form.

POLICY 13: OPTIONS FOR INTERVENTION ‘MAINTAIN SEPARATION‘

If this option is pursued the following policies must be adhered to: the conservation ethic of a ‘cautious approach of changing as much as necessary but as little as possible’, must apply to any intervention; the Burra Charter requirements relating to new work within significant places must be followed;;the designed form and detail and internal planning of both buildings,

HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

including the ‘courts in the round’ should be retained as far as is feasible; and the necessary modifications to the slate paving and architectural forms of the Salamanca Place forecourt and plaza should continue the palette of slate paving and cladding, and the angular architectural forms of the original design.

POLICY 14: OPTIONS FOR INTERVENTION: ‘A NEW SUPREME COURT SITE‘

The relocation of the Supreme Courts, and its vacating of the current site should only be undertaken as a ‘last resort’, and only if the continued conservation of this nationally significant precinct is guaranteed.

POLICY 15: OPTIONS FOR INTERVENTION: ‘DO NOTHING’

A ‘do-nothing’ for the Supreme Courts should only be undertaken as a ‘last resort’, and only if the continued conservation of this nationally significant precinct is guaranteed.

POLICY 16: ‘A NATIONALLY SIGNIFICANT INTERVENTION’

The selection, assessment and recommendation of consultant architects should be the task of a panel of experienced persons incorporating expertise in architecture, conservation architecture, judicial matters, and planning. The original design architect should have an involvement in monitoring of, and engagement in, the briefing and design process.

POLICY 17: REVIEW OF THIS PLAN

Undertake a review of this Plan at five-year intervals, or in the event that a specific adaptive reuse intervention is proposed for the place.

HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 THE BRIEF

In 2011, a draft Concept Outline for the redevelopment of the Hobart Supreme Court was prepared.1 Within the 2011 Outline, the deficiencies of the existing Court complex were outlined, and four ‘generic’ options were proposed for the remediating of those deficiencies. That outline concluded by proposing, within the following Strategic Assessment and Options Analysis stage of project development, the development of Supreme Court redevelopment designs to a point where there can be an assessment of the available options. The four options outlined in the 2011 Outline all had significant operational and community implications.2 In consequence it was recommended that, in order to assist and advise in evaluating the effect of each of the options on the cultural significance of the buildings, and to meet the requirements of the Tasmanian Heritage Council, a Conservation Management Plan [CMP] be prepared.3

It was thus proposed that the Stage 2 Redevelopment evaluation would comprise the following tasks, in sequential order: • Preparation of a Conservation Management Plan for the buildings and site to confirm guidelines for development and intervention [if required] to the buildings; • Consultation with the original architect (Peter Partridge) to be included during the CMP development above and during the Stakeholder Engagement process; • Development of the Functional Brief; • Development of sketch / concept plans for the options to be considered; and • Stakeholder Engagement process to consider and assess the options, in order to propose a preferred option.

In March 2012 a draft ‘Outline Functional Brief and Strategic Development of Options’ was prepared, which further enunciated the role of the CMP in the redevelopment evaluation process. This Plan thus acquits one of the Stage 2 Redevelopment evaluation tasks.

1.2 THIS CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN

A Conservation Management Plan [CMP] is the principal guiding document for the conservation and management of a heritage place or precinct. It is a tool that allows owners, managers and approval authorities make sound decisions about heritage places. A CMP identifies the heritage values, and significance, of a place; the conservation policies to be applied to protect that significance in the face of change; and a conservation strategy through which the policies will be put into action.

A CMP [and its attendant strategies] can be used protect the significance of the heritage place as the Plan will articulate the significance of a heritage place. In Australia it is widely accepted that best practice in cultural heritage conservation is guided by the Australia ICOMOS ‘Burra Charter’.4 The Burra Charter defines cultural significance as the aesthetic, historic, scientific, social or spiritual value a place has for past, present and future generations. This Plan accords with Articles of the Burra Charter.

1 ‘Hobart Supreme Court Redevelopment Investment Concept Outline’ prepared for the Tasmanian Department of Justice by Stephen Firth Architect, February 2011 2 To ensure that the evaluation of these options considers all the important criteria, it was proposed that there would be Stakeholder Engagement as part of the assessment. 3 Referred to as the Plan or CMP within this document. 4 ‘The Burra Charter: the Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance’ 1999 HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 1:1

FIGURES 1 & 2 • [above] The location of the Hobart Supreme Court complex • Source: Google map 2011 • [below] The curtilage for this Plan, showing the Hobart Supreme Court complex boundary [red outline], and the adjacent significant places including Salamanca Place, the Parliament House precinct, the ‘Parliament Square’ site, St. David’s Park, and Gladstone Street • Source: Google Earth website 2011 aerial photograph.

HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 1:2

The CMP [and its attendant strategies] can also be used to guide changes to a heritage place. The Plan will define the kinds of changes that can be made without compromising the heritage significance of the place. The policies and strategies within a CMP will guide the best way to make needed changes. The Plan can also be used to achieve statutory approvals. Heritage places protected on a statutory heritage register or a planning scheme [as is the Supreme Court precinct] will require a works permit before certain changes can be made.

1.3 THE CURTILAGE FOR THIS PLAN

The location of the Courts complex and the curtilage for this Plan are shown at Figures 1 and 2 above. The ambit of this Plan is not, however, confined to defined curtilage area. An attempt has been made within the Plan to understand the urban and townscape context of the Hobart Supreme Courts, hence the Plan analysis embraces the adjacent significant places, including St. David’s Park, Salamanca Place generally, the Parliament House precinct, and the ‘Parliament Square’ precinct.5

1.4 AUTHORSHIP NOMENCLATURE LIMITATIONS & STRUCTURE FOR THIS PLAN

This plan has been prepared by Peter Freeman of Peter Freeman Pty Ltd: Conservation Architects and Planners [PFCA+P]. The only limitation to the Plan has been the deliberate decision to provide only a limited physical documentation of the existing Court interiors, given that there has been minimal change to the interiors since 1975-1979. For the purposes of this Plan, the group of Supreme Court buildings and its related landscape is referred to as the Hobart Supreme Court Precinct.

Three terms have been used in describing the Supreme Court, its buildings and landscape: the Supreme Court Precinct is used when describing the entire site [buildings / streetscape / landscape]; the Supreme Court Complex is used when describing just the buildings and the immediate surrounds, and buildings; and the Hobart Supreme Courts is used when describing the institution.

The structure of this Plan is as follows: • An Executive Summary of the Plan’s policy and strategy statements prefaces the Plan proper; • An Historical Overview within which the history of the Courts site is discussed chronologically, and an overview of the previous locations of the Supreme Court [Section 2]; • A Physical Overview of the Hobart Supreme Court Precinct, with particular focus on the townscape values and character of the precinct and its surrounds [Section 3]; • An assessment and statement of cultural significance of the precinct, assessed against the statutory Tasmanian Heritage criteria [Section 4]; • A discussion of the issues relating to the intended Conservation Management Policy for the precinct, resulting in a series of Conservation Management Policy statements [Section 5]; and • Conservation Management Strategy and Implementation statements, which flow from the stated Conservation Management Policy, and which are intended to guide future conservation and adaptive reuse interventions for the precinct [Section 6].

The Plan is also supported by a number of appendices, which provide specific supplementary information related to the Plan content.

5 ‘Parliament Square’ is the commercial name given to the precinct of former Government offices, which flank the Parliament House precinct, and extend to the boundaries of Davey Street, Salamanca Place, and Murray Street. HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 1:3

1.5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The assistance of the following people and organisations is gratefully acknowledged: Stephen Firth of Stephen Firth Architects Hobart; Roy Cordiner of Roy Cordiner Consultants; Paul Johnston of Paul Johnston Architects Hobart; Peter Partridge, design architect of the Hobart Supreme Court complex; Leigh Woolley, architect and photographer, and Andrew Cox, Acting Manager, Hobart Supreme Courts.

HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 1:4

2.0 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

2:1 INTRODUCTION

This historical overview provides an understanding of the development and evolution of the site of the Supreme Court in Salamanca Place Hobart. It is essentially an outline history illustrated with historical plans and photographs, with overlays indicating the relative locations of structures that have been on the site over time. A subsequent overview provides an understanding of earlier Supreme Court locations in Hobart.1 This text is informed by an earlier chronology prepared by Lindy Scripps, historian, and titled ‘Supreme Court: 1 Salamanca Place, Hobart’.2

2:2 THE BURIAL GROUND AND COTTAGE GREEN: 1804 TO 1840s

British settlement on the western shore of the Derwent River dates from February 1804 following the rejection by Lieutenant Governor David Collins’ of the original site established at Risdon Cove in September 1803. The new camp was established along the shore of the cove and on both banks of the Hobart Rivulet. The barracks for the military rank and file and the convicts were located near the present Murray Street while Collins and the senior officers had their quarters overlooking the beach. Gradually huts replaced these tents and these huts were replaced in turn by more substantial cottages.

In April 1804 a burial ground was marked out on the site that is now occupied partly by St David’s Park and partly by the first stage of the current Supreme Court. The second stage of the current Supreme Court is located on the site of Cottage Green, the property selected in June 1804 by the settlement’s chaplain, the Reverend Robert Knopwood, for his residence and garden. Eighteen months later, Knopwood was granted 30 acres that extended from the settlement’s burial ground [now St Davids Park] to Mulgrave Battery in the east, and from the present Salamanca Place to Hampden Road. In the meantime Knopwood had built a house and established a garden on the property that he called Cottage Green.3 Later plans show that the house and outbuildings were located on a rise between the present Montpelier Retreat and Gladstone Street and close to a stream now piped under the Montpelier Retreat. In 1806, for example he was recorded as having five and a half acres of ground under wheat and two and a half acres of garden planted out.4 The following year he had only five acres of wheat planted and two acres of potatoes.5 His garden is thought to have been close to the cottage but the location of the more extensive area of cultivation is not known.

Knopwood’s finances seem always to have been in a precarious state, and as early as 1816 he tried to sell Cottage Green. The sale fell through, but his debts in 1824 were such that his friends ‘…suggested to him the advantage of selling his land in small allotments for the erection of Buildings along the Margin of Sullivans Cove.’ Subsequently, land to the east of what is now Montpelier Retreat was subdivided and several lots were sold. The remainder was sold, initially to Henry Jennings, but then to Lieutenant Governor Arthur in August 1829. The subdivision and sale coincided with the development of the new wharf on the southern shore

1 Section 2:7. 2 Ms Scripps proposed that her Historical Overview be followed by a further stage of research investigating broader historical issues including: the pre-1804 landscape and the pattern of Aboriginal occupation of the area; a brief exploration of the site’s significance in the evolution of the waterfront and city of Hobart; and a disturbance history indicating the relative impacts of successive stages of development and the possible archaeological potential of the site. 3 Mary Nicholls ed., The diary of the Reverend Robert Knopwood, 1803-1838; the first Chaplain of Van Diemen’s Land, Hobart, Tasmanian Historical Research Association, 1977, 25 June 1804; SC 185/10 grant to W. T. Parramore 4 HRA Series III Vol I, pp. 382-3 ‘Return of the Number of Acres’ [18 October 1806] 5 HRA Series III Vol. I pp. 500-501 ‘Return of the Quantity of Ground’ [14 July 1807] HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 2:1

FIGURES 1 & 2 • [above] Hobart Chart no. 11, c1820, showing the ‘Cottage Green’ property and cottage, and Davey Street, which [at that date] terminated at Murray Street • Source: DPIPWE archive • [below] Detail overlay from the Hobart county chart showing the locations of St David’s Burial Ground and Cottage Green [shaded], with the site of the present Supreme Court in pink • Source: Lindy Scripps History

HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 2:2

of Sullivans Cove, the new land owners ceding some of the land along the waterfront for the roadway now known as Salamanca Place.

FIGURE 3 • The ‘Land Commissioner’s’ map, 1826, showing the ‘Cottage Green’ property, and the ‘House’, later referred to as a ‘substantial weather-boarded cottage’ • Source: DPIPWE archive

Although ‘Cottage Green’ and its associated outbuildings were east of Gladstone Street, there appears to have been a cottage on the corner now occupied by the Supreme Court in the mid 1830s. It is possible that this is the ‘…substantial weather-boarded cottage, situated on a large plot of land known as the Timber Yard’ that was offered for let in June 1837.6 At this time Gladstone Street had not been constructed but served as an access to Cottage Green.7 The land was in a prime location and, judging by the sale prices attained, highly sought after. All but one block sold immediately, the purchases financed by Governor Arthur on seven year mortgages.

6 Hobart Town Courier 9 June 1837 p. 3 7 Refer Figures 6 and 7 below HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 2:3

FIGURES 4 & 5 • [above] John Lee Archer, Colonial Architect & Engineer: ‘Chart of Sullivans Cove and part of Hobart Town, Van Dieman’s [sic] Land, Shewing Intended Improvements’, 1828. Archer’s plan shows the proposed new wharf, warehouses, and new service road • [below] Detail of Archer’s 1828 plan showing ‘Cottage Green’ and the Hobart Burial Ground • Source: DPIPWE archive

The purchasers of the land in Salamanca Place offered for sale in 1838 were: no. 118 George Armitage, in October 18389; no. 12, William Knight, in August 184510; no. 13, William Carter in February 183911; nos. 14 and 15, Andrew Haig in January 183912.

8 The street numbers for this block have changed several times. The numbering scheme adopted for the purposes of this report was current in the late 19th and early 20th century. See Figure 8 and the Appendix for further clarification. 9 Con 3/2269 Arthur to Armitage 8 September 1846 10 Con 3/1194 Arthur to Knight 29 August 1845 11 Con 2/3342 Arthur to Carter 18 February 1839 12 Con 2/2270 Arthur to Haig 31 January 1839 HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 2:4

FIGURES 6 & 7 • [above] ‘Cottage Green’ in 1834, with an unidentified cottage on the corner of the present Gladstone Street • Source: Archives Office of Tasmania 30/4733, reproduced in Lindy Scripps ‘Historical Overview’ • [below] Allotments, formerly part of Cottage Green, offered for sale in November 1838. The allotments between the Burial Ground and George Street comprise the site of the present Supreme Court Stage 2 [red outline]. Note that Gladstone Street was then known as George Street • Source: ‘Hobart Town Courier’ 23 November 1838 page 3, reproduced in Lindy Scripps ‘Historical Overview’

HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 2:5

FIGURES 8 & 9 • [above] Hobart Chart 19 1840, showing 13 Salamanca Place [red outline] • George Frankland Map of Hobart Town [detail] c1838. Note that George / Gladstone Street is not shown, however the allotments for sale are delineated on the plan • Source: DPIPWE archive

HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 2:6

2:3 ST DAVID’S BURIAL GROUND AND THE SALAMANCA WAREHOUSES: 1840S TO 1900

By 1840 the first of the warehouses west of Gladstone Street had been built by William Carter at 13 Salamanca Place.12 No. 11 had been built by 1844 when it was converted into accommodation for the military to relieve overcrowding at the Barracks. By 1847, no. 12 had been built by William Knight. Generally, all the stores functioned as merchant stores and warehouses and by 1856 the frontage between St David’s Burial Ground and Gladstone Street was completely built up following the erection of two warehouses, probably by Henry Pearce, at 14 and 15 Salamanca Place. Pearce purchased No. 13 in 1867 and Nos. 11 and 12 in 1878, by which time he owned the whole frontage between the cemetery and Gladstone Street [refer Appendix for a summary of land ownership and occupancy of the buildings at 11-15 Salamanca Place].

FIGURES 10 & 11 • [above] By the late 1840s the warehouses at 11 and 12 Salamanca Place had been built by George Armitage and William Knight respectively [detail from Sprent Book p. 12] • [below] ‘From the Freemason’s Hotel, Hobart Town, 1856’. By 1856 the frontage between St David’s Burial Ground and Gladstone Street was completely built up following the erection of two warehouses by Henry Pearce at 14 and 15 Salamanca Place • Source: Sketch by an unknown artist, reproduced from Carolyn R. Stone and Pamela Tyson, Old Hobart Town and Environs 1802-1855, Lilydale, Vic., Pioneer design Studio, 1978, p. 59 • Source: Lindy Scripps ‘Historical Overview’

12 Refer Figure 8; detail from DPIWE Plan Hobart 19 HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 2:7

FIGURES 12 & 13 • [above] Salamanca Place, c1860. The five warehouses on the subject site and St David’s Park can be seen in the background • Source: TMAG collection Hobart • [below] Knopwood’s former house, ‘Cottage Green’ Hobart, photographic print, 1900 • Source: Archives Office of Tasmania, collection of photographs and glass plate negatives collected by E R Pretyman, 1880 - 1920 (NS1013) no. NS1013-1-1092

HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 2:8

Thus the 11 to 15 Salamanca Place ownerships and occupancies, derived from published rate assessment rolls, in the years 1847 to 1900, were as follows:13

11 Salamanca Place & 1 Gladstone Street: 1847: Stores, W. Knight/G. Rees & Geo Armitage, £56 and £100 1860: Stores, Wm. Knight & Geo. Armitage, £130 1870: Warehouse, John R Hopkins & Wm. Knight, £84 1880: Warehouse, W. & C. Crosby & Henry Pearce, £70 1890: Warehouse, Nicholas J. Brown & Henry Pearce, £70 1900: Warehouse [fruit stores], John W. Abbott & Henry Pearce, £70

12 Salamanca Place: 1847: Barrack, HM Govt., Wm. Knight, £100 1860: Store, Phillis Seal, Wm. Knight, £150 1870: Warehouse, Wm. Knight, £84 1880: Warehouse, W. & C. Crosby, Henry Pearce, £70 1890: Warehouse, W. G. Gibson, Henry Pearce, £70 1900: Warehouse, W. G. Gibson, Henry Pearce, £60

13 Salamanca Place: 1847: Store, Maning Bros, William Carter, £150 1860: Store, empty, William Carter, £90 1870: Warehouse, Lavington Roope, Henry Pearce, £50 1880: Warehouse, E. J. Freeman, Henry Pearce, £30 1890: Warehouse, H. E. Chapman, Henry Pearce, £50 1900: Warehouse, Burgess Bros, Henry Pearce, £50

14 Salamanca Place: 1860: Store, empty, Henry Pearce, £130 1870: Warehouse, Wm. Crosby, Henry Pearce, £140 1880: Warehouse, W & C Crosby, Henry Pearce, £140 1890: Warehouse, James R. Fryer, Henry Pearce, £140 1900: Warehouse, Wilson Williams, Henry Pearce, £80

15 Salamanca Place: 1860: Store, Henry Pearce, A. H. & A. Maning, £130 1870: Warehouse, empty, Henry Pearce, £105 1880: Warehouse, empty, Henry Pearce, £105 1890: Warehouse, Burgess Bros., Henry Pearce, £105 1900: Warehouse, Taylor Bros [jam factory], Henry Pearce, £60

During this period [1840s to 1900], there had also been developments at St David’s Burial Ground. The cemetery had been closed for burials in 1873, and in 1875 the Trustees of the Cathedral Board were granted title to the site in two parcels, one comprising 5 acres 1 rood 14 perches [about 2.25 hectares] and the other 2 roods 26 perches [about 0.25 hectares].

2.4 ST DAVID’S PARK, VACUUM OIL DEPOT & WAREHOUSES: 1900 TO THE 1970s

The properties at 11-15 Salamanca Place remained in Pearce’s ownership until his death in the early 1900s. By 1900 the use of the stores had changed slightly, reflecting a trend that was emerging on the wider Hobart waterfront. No. 11 Salamanca had become a fruit store while no. 15 Salamanca had become Taylor Bros. jam factory. Taylor’s was one of half a dozen jam factories on the Hobart waterfront at this time, the industry later dominated by Jones & Co. in Hunter Street. In 1912 the Tasmanian Cider Company set up its new factory at nos. 13 and 14 after moving from its original factory in Brisbane Street. The factory continued to operate until about 1970 when it was part of Port Huon Fruit Juices Pty Ltd, subsequently taken over by Tasmanian Breweries. The warehouses at the other end of the block, nos. 11-12 Salamanca Place, were demolished c1960 to make way for a new reinforced concrete building.

13 Set out in date / use / ownership / occupant / rates paid order HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 2:9

Meanwhile, the former St David’s Burial Ground site was becoming neglected and there was considerable debate about its future. The smaller block was used as a timber yard for a brief period around 1900, but in 1911 the site, together with some adjoining land from the larger block was leased by the Vacuum Oil Company as a fuel storage depot. During 1916 the controversy about the former cemetery site was revived and the Trustees stated that there had been no burials on the site then occupied by the Vacuum Oil Company. In 1919 the remainder of the larger block was transferred to the Hobart City Council and converted into a park under the supervision of the Supt. of Reserves, L G Lipscombe.

FIGURES 14 & 15 • [above] Overlay showing Gyngell’s wood yard adjacent the St David’s Cemetery, and the Salamanca warehouses between the yard and Gladstone Street c1908 • Source: Detail from Metropolitan Drainage Board Detail Sheet 31, AoT • View across Parliament Square to Nos. 11-14 Salamanca Place, 1910 • Source: Detail from Archives Office of Tasmania 30/1/201

HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 2:10

FIGURES 16 17 & 18 • [above] Detailed view across Parliament Square to nos. 11-14 Salamanca Place, 1910 • Source: Archives Office of Tasmania 30/1/201 • [below] St David’s Cemetery from Davey Street 1910 • Source: AoT 1PH30-1- 4719 • St David’s Park c1920 • Source: AoT PH30-1-8792

HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 2:11

The Vacuum Oil Company continued to renew its lease on the smaller allotment adjacent the Park until the 1960s, and was an ugly industrial neighbour to the now beautified St David’s Park. By the 1930s there were several buildings on the former on the frontage was a store for lubricating oils, a smaller store serving a similar purpose at the rear, a kerosene and petrol store, and a garage and tank filling shed, as well as office accommodation. In 1962 the Church Trustees to the Crown, at which time there was only six months left to run on the Company’s lease surrendered the site. Subsequently the buildings were utilised as a ministerial garage and Public Works depot.

FIGURES 19 & 20 • [above] Aerial view c1930 • Source: Detail from Archives Office of Tasmania NS892/68, with annotation by Lindy Scripps. PHP pers. comment: ‘I have a photograph which confirms that the large building fronting Salamanca with ridge parallel to street existed when we started design work, and was used by PWD. The building on corner of Gladstone Street was a terrible 1950s [or thereabouts] concrete block building, which did nothing for the area’ • [below] Overlay showing buildings in the study area 1930s-1973, derived from aerial photographs Hobart Atlas [1966 edition], and the proposed Supreme Courts Hobart Phase 1 Criminal Courts Site works plan C53-201-3 • Source: AoT Archdraw Card 21534, with annotation by Lindy Scripps

HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 2:12

FIGURES 21 22 & 23 • [above] Oblique aerial photograph of the Parliament House, the PH gardens and forecourt, and the subject site beyond, c1935. Note the warehouses and the Vacuum Oil depot • Source: TMAG collection • [below] St David’s Park looking towards the Derwent River and the Cove, 1940 • Source: AoT PH30-1-2239 • [below] One of a postcard series of St David’s Park, c1950. Note the maturing Park plantings and the Vacuum Oil depot beyond • Source: SLoT AUTAS001612541254

HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 2:13

FIGURES 24 & 25 • [above] Oblique aerial photograph of the subject site, and Parliament House beyond, c1950 • Source: AoT 30-3096 • [below] Salamanca Place in the winter of 1953. The five warehouses can be seen in the middle rear ground • Source: AoT 30-8696

Thus the 11 to 15 Salamanca Place ownerships and occupancies, derived from published rate assessment rolls, in the years 1910 to 1950, were as follows:13

11 Salamanca Place & 1 Gladstone St 1910: Warehouse [stables], Dehle Bennison & Co, empty, £35 1920: Warehouse, H. Jones & Co, Geo Adams Est., £35 1930: Store, Ferguson & Co., empty, £45

13 Set out in date / use / ownership / occupant / rates payable order HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 2:14

1940: Store, Ferguson & Co., empty, £45 1950: Store, Ferguson & Co., empty, £114

12 Salamanca Place Warehouse [Hop stores] 1910: E. J. Lucock, Dehle Bennison & Co., £54 1920: Warehouse, E. J. Lucock, Geo Adams Est., £63 1930: Store, empty, Davies Bros., £93 1940: Store, empty, Davies Bros., £93 1950: Store, empty, Davies Bros., £122

13 & 14 Salamanca Place Warehouse 1910: 13 Salamanca Place, empty, Henry Pearces Est., £50 1910: 14 Salamanca Place, Warehouse, Dickinson & Co. Wool & skin merchants, Henry Pearce’s Est., £80 1920: Warehouse, Tas. Cider Co, empty, £140 1930: Warehouse, Tas. Cider Co, empty, £150 1940: Store, South Tas. Co-Op Society, Tas. Cider Co., £167 1950: Store, South Tas. Co-Op Society, empty £229

15 Salamanca Place Warehouse [Produce store] 1910: Burgess Bros, empty, £80 1920: Burgess Bros, empty, £80 1930: Burgess Bros, empty, £90 1940: Store, Swansea & East Coast Motor Co., Burgess Bros, £104 1950: Store, Swansea & East Coast Motor Co., Burgess Bros, £105

16 & 18 Salamanca Place 1910: 16 Salamanca Place, Woodyard, land, office, Henry Gyngell, St David’s Cathedral Board, £40 1910: 18 Salamanca Place, Land, H. Young & Co, St David’s Cathedral Board, £13 1920: Offices & oil store, Vacuum Oil Co., St David’s Cathedral Board, £170 1930: Offices & oil store, Vacuum Oil Co., St David’s Cathedral Board, £170 1940: Offices & oil store, Vacuum Oil Co., St David’s Cathedral Board, £170 1950: Offices & oil store, Vacuum Oil Co., St David’s Cathedral Board, £452

St David’s Cemetery and then Park

FIGURE 26 • The site in 1965, by which time the former Vacuum Oil depot was in Government hands, and the warehouses at 11 and 12 Salamanca Place had been replaced by a reinforced concrete building at the corner of Gladstone Street • Source: DPIW air photo 1523-T442 Run 7 No. 185

HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 2:15

FIGURES 27 & 28 • [above] Hobart City Council plan, 1960, showing the oil depot and the adjacent Parliament and Government buildings on the north-eastern side of Salamanca Place • Source: TMAG collection • [below] The warehouses at 13-15 Salamanca Place scheduled for demolition as part of the Stage 2 Supreme Courts project, in 1977 • Source: Archives Office of Tasmania AE465/1/3633

HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 2:16

2.5 A PERMANENT HOME FOR THE HOBART SUPREME COURTS: 1965 TO 2012

2.5.1 OPTIONS FOR A NEW SUPREME COURTS SITE

In the mid 1960s the need for a single site for the Supreme Court, which would accommodate both the Civil and Criminal courts and the necessary ancillary functional areas, had resulted in the canvassing of options for a suitable site within Hobart. The required accommodation was 56,000 square feet, which could be satisfied by a building four stories high with a dimension of 170 feet in length and 80 feet in width.

By July 1965 four Hobart sites were being considered: the Macquarie Street site ‘…considered to be too small’;14 the Old University site15 ‘…considered to be adequate, but almost completely built up, and the buildings within the site would have to be demolished, and the site is too far from the city’; the Lyndhurst site ‘…area and access good, with access on three sides’; and the Campbell Street Old Gaol site, then the site of the Criminal Court ‘…considered to be too small’. As a result of this analysis, the Lyndhurst site was recommended.

FIGURE 29 • Attorney General Department handwritten memo July 28 1965 • Source: TAHO Hobart.

14 This site was occupied by the Valuation Department, the YWCA, and the Civic Club; refer Attorney General Department handwritten memo July 28 1965, TAHO. The Salamanca Place site was not being considered at this stage. 15 Located at the Glebe, east of the city. HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 2:17

In the event, the Lyndhurst site on Elizabeth Street in North Hobart was discarded, and attention turned to the suitability of the Campbell Street Old Gaol site, due to the availability of the Traffic Branch Department [then] located within the gaol site.16

FIGURES 30 31 & 32 • [above] ‘Lyndhurst’, Elizabeth Street North Hobart in 1995 • Source: Australian Heritage Database website • [below] Rough sketch of the site for the proposed Supreme Court building at the corner of Campbell and Melville Streets on the Old Jail site. Sketch attached to an Attorney General Department’s memo August 10 1965 • Source: TAHO Hobart • Detail from the Jarman Plan of Hobart 1858 showing the original extent of the Hobart Gaol • Source: Wikipedia Hobart entry.

By August 1965 it appeared that the Old Jail site in Campbell Street was the confirmed site. A Memorandum from the Secretary of the Attorney General’s Department advised that:17

‘…Advice has been received in relation to the Old Jail Site that the area occupied by the Police Traffic Branch will also be available for building purposes. This area has an approximate frontage of 60 feet on Campbell Street, and 153 feet on Bathurst Street, making the total area of the site approximately 328 feet by 153 feet. Taking into consideration the foregoing, it is considered that now that this site has road access on three sides, its area and road access make it a suitable site in size, and access, and it is the most conveniently situated site from the point of view of accessibility from the city, and it should be possible in a few years time to create a landscape of trees and lawns as a setting to the building. The only possible drawback to the site is the proximity of the proposed elevated freeway. In view of the removal of the two objections raised to this site [size and zoning], it is recommended that the Old Jail Site be used for the erection of the new Supreme Courts in preference to the Lyndhurst site.’

16 Refer Attorney General Department memo August 10 1965, TAHO. 17 M B Phillips, Secretary, Attorney Generals Department, Hobart Memorandum relating to the Proposed New Supreme Courts and Registry, August 1965. HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 2:18

Design work continued on the Supreme Courts project, even though a final site had not been finally agreed upon. Early in 1966 the Secretary of the Attorney General’s Department wrote to the Public Offices Committee to advise that:18

‘…Sketch plans have now been prepared for the new Supreme Court and Registry buildings. While it is likely that they will be built on the old Gaol site in Campbell Street, this has not been decided finally. In any event, it seems certain that the site chosen will be other than the existing location so that the courtroom and ancillary accommodation, including the Judges Chambers, will become vacant.’19

Thus a ‘generic’ building design had been created, which could fit any site. However, there was still no elected site! By September 1966 however, the site had been chosen. It was to be the Salamanca Place site adjacent St. David’s Park, and currently occupied by the Vacuum Oil depot.

2.5.2 THE SALAMANCA PLACE SITE: TOWER OPTIONS

The ‘tower’ option for the new Hobart Supreme Courts was sited on the earlier Vacuum Oil site, with the addition of the no. 15 Salamanca Place sandstone warehouse, which was already owned by the government. The ‘tower’ option, which housed both the Civil and Criminal courts and the related auxiliary spaces / functions, thus did not require a further expansion of the site, and hence no further demolitions of the Salamanca Place sandstone warehouses between the site and Gladstone Street.

FIGURE 33 • Site plan for the Supreme Courts building. This plan shows Preliminary Design Scheme no. 3 September 1966, designed by Kenneth ‘Ken’ Duncan of the Department of Public Works. The Chief Architect of the Department at that time was Sydney ‘Syd’ Tomlinson. The site boundaries incorporate the no. 15 Salamanca Place sandstone warehouse site • Source: TAHO Hobart.

18 March 4 1966. 19 Macquarie Street [Civil Court] and the former Gaol [Criminal Court]. HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 2:19

Entry to the proposed six-floor building was from Salamanca Place via stairs to a main entry facing St. David’s Park. The building comprised a generous floor plan surmounted by an elegant tower of five floors. The site was defined by both the Vacuum Oil depot site and no. 15 Salamanca Pace boundaries, and the other warehouses north of Gladstone Street were shown as being retained.

FIGURES 34 & 35 • [above] Ground plan for the Supreme Courts building, Preliminary Design Scheme no. 3 September 1966, designed by Kenneth C. Duncan of the Department of Public Works • [below] Elevation of the proposed Supreme Courts building looking from St. David’s Park • Source: TAHO Hobart.

HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 2:20

FIGURES 36 & 37 • [above] Elevation of the proposed Supreme Courts building, Preliminary Design Scheme no. 3. The blank wall of Criminal Court faced Salamanca Place, and an under croft on the Gladstone Street provided covered parking areas • [below] Revised site plan for the Supreme Courts building. This plan shows Preliminary Design Scheme no. 3, designed by Kenneth C. Duncan of the Department of Public Works, July 1969 • Source: TAHO Hobart.

However it was not until three years later, in 1969, that the project was revisited. The personnel involved were as before. The design architect was Kenneth Duncan and the Chief Architect of the Department was Syd Tomlinson. This new scheme was similar to the earlier scheme in plan and general form, however this later scheme provided for an eventual increase in height of the ‘upper’ tower from five floors to eleven floors.

HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 2:21

FIGURES 38 & 39 • [above] Ground plan for the Supreme Courts building, September 1969 • [below] Sectional Elevation of the Supreme Courts building, September 1969. This drawing shows the potential increase in building height • Source: TAHO Hobart.

HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 2:22

One year later, in December 1970, the new Supreme Courts scheme was finally made public. But the design had been modified still further. The new scheme dispensed with the elegant tower proposal of the 1966 and 1969 schemes, and instead proposed a ‘slab’ form located within the former Vacuum Oil site boundaries. The ‘Mercury’ proclaimed, in a lead article on December 1 1970, under the banner headlines ‘Court will cost $4.5m’, and ‘Building will Have to Go’:

‘…Tasmanian marble, granite and slate would be used in the construction of the proposed $4.5m Supreme Court in Salamanca Place. The court site is adjacent S. David’s Park. Detailed plans for the proposed building were presented to the Parliamentary Committee on Public Works yesterday by the Chief Architect [Mr. S T Tomlinson], and the Project Architect [Mr. K C Duncan].’

‘…An old stone building on Salamanca Place will have to be demolished for the proposed new Supreme Court building. Mr. Tomlinson said that the building to be demolished was not on the National Trust’s priority list. He said it was not of great value aesthetically because it had been altered from time to time, and that the National Trust’s priority for Salamanca Place started from the eastern end of Montpelier Street. Mr. Tomlinson said that every effort was being made to have the building blend with others in Salamanca Place.’19

FIGURE 40 • Members of the Parliamentary Committee on Public Works inspecting the model of the proposed Supreme Courts building December 1970 • Source: ‘Mercury’ December 1 1970.

The Supreme Court proposal received the approval of the Parliamentary Committee on Public Works, thus the financial and planning hurdles to the scheme had been cleared. But there had been no environmental assessment of the scheme,20 and the previously intended use of white marble had been dispensed with. The new exterior panels were now to be faced with exposed white aggregate. In the event this new scheme did not proceed because the government was facing financial stringencies!

19 It is assumed that the stone building to be demolished was the warehouse at no. 15 Salamanca Place, directly to the SE of the proposed site. 20 Particularly with respect to the potential contaminants from the former Vacuum Oil Depot site. HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 2:23

In September 1971, under the headline ‘New Court Building: Plans are Deferred’, the ‘Mercury’ reported that21 ‘…the Government has pigeon-holed the new Salamanca Place Supreme Court building and has decided to postpone the project until Tasmania pulls itself out of the present financial doldrums. The project is to be deferred’.

Clearly, the economic conditions were not conducive to the commencement of the project, and the major expenditure that would necessarily be entailed. It is also clear that the lack of environmental and heritage stringency in the earlier proposals had made the Government uneasy about the project. Planning started again early in 1972, but this time based on a low profile scheme, to be constructed in two stages. The first stage was to be the urgently required new Criminal Courts. Kenneth Duncan, and English émigré architect was replaced as the project architect by Peter Partridge, another English émigré architect.

2.5.3 THE SALAMANCA PLACE: THE PARTRIDGE OPTION

In 1972 the site of the former Vacuum Oil depot and the warehouses at 11-15 Salamanca Place was confirmed as the site for the new Supreme Court complex. The new plans provided for the construction of a low-profile building faced with sandstone ‘…to ensure that the complex blended with the locality’.22 The Courts complex was to be completed in two stages, the first being the criminal courts [built between 1973 and 1975] on the site of the former Vacuum Oil depot, and the second stage was to be more controversial as it involved the demolition of the five historic warehouses in Salamanca Place, between Gladstone Street and St David’s Park.

FIGURE 41 • Hobart plan [detail] c1976, showing the completed Stage 1 Criminal Court building site [red outline] • Source: HCC archive.

Thus the Partridge design options were based on the premise that the remaining sandstone warehouses up to Gladstone Street were to be demolished. This expanded site thus allowed a low-rise home for the Supreme Courts, more in keeping with the scale of adjacent Salamanca Place historic buildings. A third stage was also proposed early on, and this stage was to house the government Law Offices building. This third stage was however frustrated by the failure of the government to acquire the Johnson and Wells building, which was the first building fronting Gladstone Street, and part of the intended third stage site. In September 1972, the Hobart ‘Mercury’ reported on the proposed three-stage project, and illustrated a model of the proposal:23

21 The ‘Mercury’ September 9 1971. 22 Mercury 1 December 1972 p. 13 23 Mercury 1972 HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 2:24

‘…The long low lines of the new Supreme Court building blend in with the fine buildings of Salamanca Place and Parliament House. Costing $1.2 million, the courts will also become part of St. David's park, with lawns, gardens and walkways flowing naturally between the two. A feature of the building is the use of Tasmanian materials, with sandstone facing, and interior panelling of Tasmanian timber. The steps and facing for the lower level is of South Australian slate.’

‘To the left of the [first stage] Criminal Court is the second stage of the project, which will cost an estimated $2.5 million. The second stage will incorporate the civil courts, the Supreme Court registry and the judge’s chambers. The final stage, the law offices, will house offices for land titles, Registrar General, Attorney General, Solicitor General, Court of Requests, and Licensing Court. The building will also be faced with Tasmanian sandstone to harmonise with the court buildings.

At the completion of the first stage of the new Supreme Court complex, the architect for the entire project, Peter Hugh Partridge, provided a ‘statement of intent’ relating to the completed first stage and proposed second stage work:24

‘…The Criminal Court Building in Salamanca Place, Hobart, is the first phase of a development which will ultimately house all of the Supreme Courts' accommodation. Phase One [this building] was advertised for tender in April, 1973 and was completed Stanley Burbury. The building has two floors of accommodation; the lower level containing the prison area, i.e. Holding Cells, interview rooms, prison officers' rooms, together with plant rooms and staff car park. At this level there is also a link corridor, which will connect the Judges' area in this building with the Judges' Chambers and Library in Phase Two.’

‘The upper level consists of two courtrooms each with jury rooms. An entrance foyer with reception and Sheriff's Office gives direct access to the Jury and Witness waiting areas, police duty room, press room, the two Courts, public toilet facilities, etc. Beyond the public area is the ‘business section’ containing a Crown Law suite, Counsel robing rooms, probation officers' office, interview rooms and facilities for transcribing typists. Beyond again is the Judges' area containing chambers for two judges and accommodation for their associates and attendants.’

‘The basic requirement of much of the accommodation is privacy. This has greatly influenced the design and type of construction employed; largely through the use of heavy load bearing walls. Good quality finishes and detailing have been used throughout including prominent use of many ‘traditional’ materials: Tasmanian sandstone and South Australian slate to the external walls and foyer; copper for the courtroom roofs; extensive use of lead for flashings; Tasmanian timbers including Oak, Blackwood and Myrtle for joinery, and panelling with Huon Pine and Celery Top in the Courtroom ceilings and light fittings.’

‘A sculpture to the right of the entrance doors is of bronze and represents the Scales of Justice; the work of Stephen Walker. Two sculptures of the Tasmanian Coat of Arms worked in Huon Pine are above the bench in each Court, the work of Peter Taylor

‘An attempt has been made to create a building, which is both human in scale, and yet at the same time gives the judiciary the prestige, which it deserves. The development has been designed so as not to impose upon St. David's Park. It is

24 Peter Partridge, ‘Criminal Court Building’, 1976, provided by PHP HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 2:25

intended that the Park should be extended through the site and that people should pass through the development rather than be limited to the adjacent streets. Architecture is not so much about building as about people and their response to building. Hopefully this building and development is ‘architecture’.

FIGURES 42 & 43 • [above] Model of the proposed Supreme Courts [Stages 1 and 2], with the Criminal Court [first stage] to the right, 1972 • [below] Site Plan of the proposed Supreme Courts Stage 1 showing the new Criminal Court and entrance directly from Salamanca Place, Design Architect Peter Partridge. Note the warehouse at no.15 Salamanca Place, which was used by the contractors Hansen & Yuncken as their site offices during the Stage 1 building contract • Source: TAHO Hobart.

HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 2:26

FIGURES 44 & 45 • [above] Upper plan of the Criminal Court [first stage] 1972; note the embankment to the eastern boundary and the no. 15 Salamanca Place warehouse at left • [below] Elevations of the Criminal Court [first stage] 1972 • Source: TAHO Hobart.

HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 2:27

The architectural team for the Stage 1 and 2 projects were Peter Partridge [design architect and team leader], with John Akerman, Stephen Firth, Stephen Last [project architects].25 Construction of the Criminal Courts commenced in mid 1973, and the ‘Mercury’ reported on the new works:26

‘..Construction of the new Supreme Court building in Salamanca Place will commence almost immediately, and the contract has been awarded to Hansen and Yuncken Pty. Ltd. Meanwhile arrangements for the acquisition of property for the second stage of the Supreme Court building were proceeding’.

By July 1973, the Stage 2 [Civil Courts stage] had been finalised, and were presented to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works:27

‘….The new building at the corner of Salamanca Place and Gladstone Street will comprise the Civil Courts, Judge’s chambers, and Registry. The site for the total development is 1.8 acres and has a frontage of 380 feet to Salamanca Place and 175 feet to Gladstone Street. Negotiations are under way for purchase of sections of the site that are not, at present owned by the State.’

Sandstone for the new building was being quarried at New Norfolk, and the ‘Mercury’ reported on the quarrying works.28

FIGURE 46 • Quarrying sandstone at New Norfolk. Source: ‘Mercury’, January 15 1974.

By late 1974, planning was well advanced for the third stage of the Law precinct proposals. This stage was the completion of the Law Courts office in Battery Point. Four cottages on Harrington Street [Sandy Bay Road] were to be acquired in order to consolidate the Government property required for the precinct, however the cottages were to be conserved and retained by the Government:29

25 Personal comment PHP 2012. 26 ‘New Supreme Court Start’, in the ‘Mercury’, May 17 1973. 27 ‘Stage 2 Court Plans’, in the ‘Mercury’, July 7 1973. 28 ‘Hillside Hammered: Stone fro New Law Offices’, in the ‘Mercury’, January 15 1974. 29 ‘Four Cottages to be Saved’, in the ‘Mercury’, January 30 1974. HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 2:28

‘….The Government wants them [the cottages] principally for the land behind them, which is needed for the proposed Law Offices in Gladstone Street. The building will house the departments for Lands and Titles, Deeds, Registrar General, Attorney General, Solicitor General, Parliamentary Counsel, Court of Requests, Licensing Court, and the proposed Small Claims Court’.

FIGURES 47 & 48 • above] The model of the entire courts-law office complex, 1975 • Source: Hobart ‘Mercury’ • [below] Site Plan for the proposed courts-law office complex, July 1975. The dotted Johnson and Wells boundary can be seen at right. Failure to acquire or purchase the J&W site meant that the proposed courts-law office would not proceed • Source: TAHO Hobart.

The proposed third and final stage, the proposed development along Gladstone Street, was not proceeded with, and the government sold this proposed site for the final stage, and the site was developed for apartment, retail and office uses.

In March 1975 the Criminal Court the Governor of Tasmania, Sir Stanley Burbury, opened building.30 Meanwhile, planning was continuing of the Civil Court and Registry stages of the Salamanca Place complex. Contemporary photographs taken by staff of the Public Works Department, and held in the Tasmanian Archives and Heritage Office show a simple sandstone building on a slate under croft, in the bare and [then] un-landscaped surrounds of Salamanca Place.

30 ‘First Stage of the New Law Courts Opened’, in the ‘Mercury’, March 15 1975. HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 2:29

FIGURES 49 & 50 • [above and below] The completed Criminal Court building, c1976. The new Stage 2 works can just be seen at left in the lower photograph • Source: Tasmanian Archives and Heritage Office.

The second stage, on which work began in 1977, was more controversial as it involved the demolition of the five historic warehouses in Salamanca Place, between Gladstone Street and St David’s Park. In response to public concern about the two warehouses formerly at 14 and 15 Salamanca Place, the stones from these buildings were numbered as the buildings were dismantled, and were placed into storage pending a future use for them.31 Phase 2 of the complex, the Civil Courts and Registry, opened in 1980. The construction of the second stage of the Courts complex involved the demolition of the five warehouses between the Criminal Courts and Gladstone Street. These proposed demolitions evoked community concern and outrage. The Tasmanian Conservation Trust wrote to the Department of the Environment in February 1977:32

‘…Tasmanian Conservation Trust is very concerned about the demolition of these warehouses for the extension of the Supreme Court. When the first stage was planned, the Conservation Trust discussed the position of these warehouses with the Public Works Department. We were assured that all the warehouses would be unharmed, and that only the old brick building would be demolished.’

31 Mercury 15 June 1977 p. 9 and ‘Hobart Supreme Courts Phase II Civil Courts and Registry; Survey as existing… Stone marking plans’ Archives Office of Tasmania Archdraw Cards 21549 and 21550. 32 Tasmanian Conservation Trust to the Department of the Environment, February 30 1977. HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 2:30

FIGURES 51 52 & 53 • [above] Hobart plan [detail] c1987, showing the completed Supreme Court buildings [red outline], first and second stages • Source: HCC archive • [below] The Civil Court and Registry plans • Source: TAHO.

HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 2:31

However, Stage 2 planning works proceeded, notwithstanding community opposition, and by 1977, work on the demolition of the five warehouses commenced.

FIGURES 54 TO 58 • [above and below] Demolition of the five warehouses on the intended Civil Courts site. Note the partial removal of the roofing iron and roof structure. Contemporary photographs taken by staff of the Public Works Department, and held in the Tasmanian Archives and Heritage Office • Source: TAHO.

HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 2:32

FIGURES 59 & 60 • [above] Demolition on the intended Civil Courts site, note the four ‘Government] cottages on Harrington Street [Sandy Bay Road], and in successive order northwards, the PWD car parking structure, ‘the ‘Retlas’ foundry works, and the Johnson & Wells factory. J&W refused to sell to the government, thus prohibiting the Stage 3 Law Offices project • Source: TAHO • The completed Civil Courts, contemporary photograph taken by staff of the Public Works Department, and held in the Tasmanian Archives and Heritage Office • Source: TAHO.

HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 2:33

FIGURES 61 62 63 & 64 • [above] The completed Civil Courts, and one of the jury rooms [12 chairs] • [below] The completed Civil Courts, and the jury assembly room in the Criminal Court building • Source: TAHO, contemporary photograph taken by staff of the Public Works Department, and held in the Tasmanian Archives and Heritage Office.

2.6 NATIONAL RECOGNITION FOR THE HOBART SUPREME COURTS: 2010

In 2010 the Supreme Court complex, Hobart, by the Tasmanian Department of Public Works [architect Peter Partridge] won the 25 Year Award for Enduring Architecture at the Australian Institute of Architecture's National Architecture Awards. The jury citation stated:33

‘…This building is an exemplary, enduring piece of public architecture that makes a poised contribution to the city of Hobart. The plaza between the two court buildings opens up a diagonal landscape link between St. David’s Park [above], and the adjacent Parliament Square and the Sullivans Cove waterfront. From Salamanca Place a slate base folds up like a piece of carved landscape and supports two sandstone-clad pavilions. This is a building that is indebted to classicism but carries the burden of a period of architecture much maligned for its material brutality. The use of materials here is super-direct and the detailing is studious.

33 AIA National Awards 2010 HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 2:34

‘Inside, the complex is judicially innovative through the planning of four courts in the round. The interior carries the gravity of the building’s function but is human in its detail and scale. The complex is in remarkably original order because of the skill with which it was designed. Here is a reminder that investment in public architecture has a lasting effect on the city.’

FIGURES 65 & 66 • [above and below] Exterior and interior views of the Supreme Court complex, Hobart, submitted to the 25 Year Award for Enduring Architecture at the Australian Institute of Architecture's National Architecture Awards, 2010 • Source: Leigh Woolley [Hobart] photography

The Supreme Court complex is now an integral part of the Salamanca Place streetscape, and an integral component of the place’s cultural significance. The 2010 Award submission description of the complex acknowledged these significances:

‘…The Supreme Court Complex in Salamanca Place was designed to consolidate court operations into one complex. Constructed in two stages, it is expressed as two individual buildings positioned upon a common podium. The modest scale of the complex, with floating sandstone upper level and recessed slate plinth, sits comfortably within the context of the historic Salamanca Place precinct and Parliament House opposite. The informal entry to the complex from the plaza that separates the two buildings, affords the buildings a quiet dignity and human scale, a scale often lacking in public buildings of this nature. A sense of informality is fostered both by the landscape setting and the connections to the adjoining St. David’s Park.

HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 2:35

The subtlety of the angled plaza walls, gently directing visitors to the front doors is masterful yet understated.’

‘The building is also unusual in its adoption of 4 circular ‘courts in the round’ which reinforce the human scale, despite the large area of the courts. The external detailing has been carefully crafted to shed water without staining the sandstone cladding, while the slate clad podium provides a robust finish at street level, its dark grey colour enhancing the role of secondary plinth holding the Courts aloft. The Supreme Court projects the primary qualities of a major public building; an august presence, stoic, serious, secure, solid and timeless, without the frequent bombastic display of power, subjugating the individual through scale. The Supreme Court is an enduring and impressive exercise in civic restraint, retaining the respect for the institution without over-institutionalizing the building.’

FIGURES 67 & 68 • [above and below] Oblique aerial photographs of the Supreme Court complex, within its urban setting, 2011 • Source: NearMap website

HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 2:36

2.7 THE EARLIER SUPREME COURTS: 1819 TO 197533

In order to understand the place of the Supreme Courts within the Tasmanian and Hobart context, and to understand the form and placement of the Supreme Court complex at Salamanca Place, it is necessary to chronologically trace the locations of the Court from a private Hobart residence in the early 19Cth to its current Salamanca Place location, and to follow the trail of important people associated with the Courts over time. In that way, we can understand the significance and context of the Salamanca Place complex.

In common with the Supreme Courts of the other States of Australia, the Supreme Court of Tasmania is one of the three constituent organs of the Government of this State and, save for certain Federal matters, it is a court of plenary jurisdiction. The Court's jurisdiction and powers are primarily derived from the original Imperial Statutes and Charters which created it and which invested it with the same civil, equitable, criminal and ecclesiastical jurisdiction as that which was possessed by the Royal Courts of Justice at Westminster.

2.7.1 THE ITINERANT SUPREME COURTS IN HOBART 1824

Prior to 1819, all serious criminal and civil cases were sent to Sydney for trial. Prior to 1819, there was, in Hobart, a Judge Advocate, labelled as a Deputy, who advised the colony’s Lieutenant Governor, and heard cases. The first move to establish a higher court in the colony came in 1818, when it was announced that Mr. Barron Field, a Judge of the New South Wales Judiciary, would make a circuit to Van Diemen’s Land [VDL]. Field was born in London on October 23 1786, and is thought, to have been educated at Christ's Hospital. In May 1816 Field was appointed to replace Jeffery Hart Bent as judge of the Supreme Court of Civil Judicature in New South Wales, on the nomination of John Wylde, the Judge-Advocate, and with his newly-wedded wife Jane, reached Sydney next February in the female convict ship ‘Lord Melville’. Governor Lachlan Macquarie was at first '…very much prejudiced in his favour by his mild, modest, and conciliating manners', and was 'persuaded that he [would] prove a great acquisition and blessing to this Colony'. 34

FIGURE 69 • Judge Barron Field c1820, portrait by Richard Read • Source: SLoNSW ML133.

33 The following text has been informed by an address given at the 21st Australian Legal Conference in 1981 by the Honourable Mr. Justice G. S. M. Green Chief Justice of Tasmania, entitled ‘The Tasmanian Supreme Court: A Short Historical Note’; and by Basil Rait of Hobart ‘The Buildings of the Supreme Court of Tasmania: 1819 to 1980’, first part only located; sourced from the Supreme Court Legal Library. 34 Currey, C. H., 'Field, Barron (1786–1846)', Australian Dictionary of Biography, National Centre of Biography, Australian National University

HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 2:37

The announcement of the holding of a session of the Supreme Court of NSW in VDL appeared in the ‘Sydney Gazette’ of August 15 1818, ‘…that his Honour the Judge of the Supreme Court was to visit VDL during the long vacation in December 1818 and January 1819; for the purpose of trying cases.’ Further announcements followed on October 31 and November 14 of that year.

The Hobart Town Gazette of January 2 1819 announced the arrival of Barron and Jane Field, and the ship’s commander, Philip Parker King: ‘…SHIP NEWS This morning arrived from Port Jackson, His Majesty's cutter ‘Mermaid’, PHILIP PARKER KING, Esq, R.N. Commander, having on board the Honorable the Judge of the Supreme Court, Barron Field, Esq. and Lady.’

FIGURES 70 & 71 • [above] ‘Hobart Town Gazette’ January 2 1819, and [below] Sketch 85 from Philip Parker King’s sketchbook showing ‘His Majestys Cutter Mermaid Lt. P P King’,1817 • Source: SLoNSW ML no. a3464058h

On January 18 1819, the first Court proceedings began, probably in the residence of a local Executor and landowner, Thomas Peters. We know this from Basil Rait’s history [refer footnote below], and an item in the ‘Hobart Town Gazette’ of Saturday June 19 on the Government accounts, which included and amount for ‘…Mr. Thomas Peters, for Rent of a House occupied by Supreme Court five Weeks, 10 guineas.’ It is known that the Court was specially fitted up for this first session, but we do not know if special furniture was brought to Hobart from Sydney for this first session of the Supreme Court.

HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 2:38

The Court resumed on Monday January 25 1819, and only one case was heard. The Court then adjourned until Saturday January 30, and arrangements were made for the Court to sit throughout the following week. The Court finally adjourned on Saturday February 6, and the ‘Mermaid’ sailed with Judge Field and his party on Sunday February 7. Thus we have the five weeks Court tenancy in Peter’s house advertised in the ‘Gazette’.

With the completion of this first sitting, moves were made to provide a more permanent Supreme Court within Hobart, and by 1823 a new building at the corner of Murray and Macquarie Streets was commenced, and ready for the first session in May 1824.

2.7.2 THE SUPREME COURT AT MURRAY & MACQUARIE STREETS: 1824 TO 1860

The Supreme Court of Tasmania was opened on Monday May 10 1824, which makes it the oldest Supreme Court in Australia. On that day the Court's first Chief Justice, John Lewes Pedder, swore in the Registrar and the Attorney General. Mr. J T Gellibrand, and admitted three practitioners to the Court. On Monday the following fortnight, he commenced hearing criminal trials. From the beginning, the Court has been an itinerant court and Sir John Pedder often made the four-day trek to Launceston in order to hold the first sittings there within a few months of his appointment.

FIGURES 72 & 73 • [above] J W Beattie [1859-1930] slide copy of an earlier painting, showing the Supreme Court c1830 • Source: SLV no. H92.350/1135 • [below] Plan of the Court House in June 1830 • Source: AOT PWD 266/578

HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 2:39

FIGURE 74 • ‘The Court House at Hobart’, lithograph from Henry Melville’s ‘Hobart Town Almanac’, 1834. Note the picket fence to the street frontage and the sentry box • Source: ‘Hobart Town Almanac’ vol.3, no. 13 SLoNSW ML no. 058/H

Thus the Court's first sittings took place in the building’s hastily finished interior. The building still stands, in somewhat altered form, on the southeast corner of Murray Street and Macquarie Street, opposite St. David's Cathedral. We do not know who was the architect for this building, and for the neighbouring government office building further along Murray Street, and it is likely to have been an architectural amateur, given the relative lack of sophistication in the design and detailing. It was not David Lambe, recently arrived from England, who was only appointed to the position of civil engineer and colonial architect in mid 1824, at a time when the new building must have been virtually completed.

The Supreme Court was opened with much rejoicing that Van Diemen's Land finally had a court with full civil and criminal jurisdiction. Two days after the opening, later Colonel [Sir] George Arthur landed to replace Colonel William Sorell as lieutenant governor of the Colony. In 1825 an Order in Council granted Van Diemen's Land an independent government and thus extended Pedder's authority by abolishing the right of appeal from his decisions to the governor of New South Wales.35 Pedder was appointed a member of both the Executive and Legislative Councils.36

The new building was, however, mean and depressing. James Backhouse Walker [1841-1899], the Tasmanian solicitor, humanitarian and historian, described the building ‘… as having been utilised for civil and criminal cases, for public meetings, and even for religious services.’ Walker described it as ‘…a gloomy building of a dingy and dirty brown stone, with long arched windows, fitted with small panes of glass. The corner, nearest Government House, was shaped into an odd circular turret.’37

The first Criminal Courts were held in this building, and between 1826 and 1842, Sir John Pedder38 sentenced 302 persons to be hung, generally within the Hobart Gaol grounds immediately opposite the Court building, and in full public view. Pedder sentenced 18 persons to be hung in one day, for crimes other than murder. There was no waiting for the sentence to be carried out, and no appeal process. Colonial justice was swift and harsh.

35 Assisted in the hearing thereof by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New South Wales 36 Howell, P. A., 'Pedder, Sir John Lewes (1793–1859)', Australian Dictionary of Biography, National Centre of Biography, Australian National University 37 This turret, an architectural feature on Macquarie Street, housed a small water closet 38 Knighted in 1838 HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 2:40

By 1830 the Court building was reported to be in a state of disrepair, and the Hobart builder Adam Cumming was asked to undertake repairs. That same year the new civil engineer and colonial architect John Lee Archer drew up plans for improvements, which included plans for buttressing the walls, and for a new Classical portico entrance to the Court building.

FIGURES 75 & 76 • [left] ‘View to Sullivans Cove, with the Court House and the Police and Convict Offices in the foreground’, C Abbott photographer, 1857. Note the Archer porticos to both buildings • Source: AOT no. AUTAS001126252535 • [right] The Archer portico to the Police and Convict Offices [now Treasury], similar to the Supreme Court portico, 1970 • Source: E Graeme Robertson photograph in ‘Early Buildings of Southern Tasmania’, vol. 1

2.7.3 THE SUPREME CIVIL COURT AT FRANKLIN SQUARE: 1860 TO 1975

In 1860 the Supreme Civil Court moved a short distance east along Macquarie Street within the enlarged Government Offices, and commenced hearing civil cases in the building. This new Court location overlooked Franklin Square. At about the same time, the old Trinity Church adjoining the Hobart Gaol in Campbell Street was converted into the Supreme Criminal Court.

In this next stage of evolution, the Supreme Court was moved to the corner of Macquarie Street and Franklin Square and housed in a classical building with semi-basement and two storeys designed by the then colonial architect William Porden Kay [designed 1858-1860]. The next stage, maintaining the architectural style of Kay's building along Franklin Square, was probably planned by W. W. Eldridge, Government architect, and built between 1884 and 1887. It accommodates Government offices. Kay's building at the corner of Macquarie Street and Franklin Square was late given a third storey.39

This was to be the home of the Supreme Court for over a hundred years. This new Court consisted of a basement, with the Court proper set well above ground level, and reached by stairs at the Macquarie Street entrance. An upper level gallery of rooms was placed around the double height Court interior, lit by a splendid lantern light placed centrally over the Court itself.

39 E Graeme Robertson in ‘Early Buildings of Southern Tasmania’, 1970, page 111 HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 2:41

FIGURES 77 & 78 • [above] First floor plan and Franklin Square elevation of the new Supreme Court, c1860 • Source: AOT PWD 266/619 • [below] Block plan of the Government Offices and the Supreme Court, c1862 • Source: AOT PWD 266/614

Within a couple of years, the Court had grown into the areas adjacent to the Court, and this growth continued over the next 100 years.

HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 2:42

FIGURES 79 & 80 • [above] Elevation of the Supreme Court building, architect William Porden Kay, c1860 • [below] Woodcut of the W P Kay building at left, with the original Court House in the foreground, now with a portico / loggia and being used as a Post Office • Source: E Graeme Robertson in ‘Early Buildings of Southern Tasmania’, 1970

In the next stage, the Supreme Court was carried to the corner of Macquarie Street and Franklin Square by a classical building with semi-basement and two storeys designed by William Porden Kay. The next stage, maintaining the architectural style of Kay's building along Franklin Square, was probably planned by W. W. Eldridge, Government architect, and built between 1884 and 1887. This new building accommodated Government offices, and is now occupied by Treasury.

HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 2:43

FIGURES 81 & 82 • [above] First floor plan of the Public Offices and Supreme Court and the new building facing Franklin Square 1883 • Source: AOT PWD 266/633 • [below] Anson Brothers photograph, c1878 of the ‘Supreme Court and Post Office etc.’ • SLoT William Crowther collection AUTA no. 001136156577

HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 2:44

FIGURES 83 & 84 • [above and below] Basement and Ground floors of the Supreme Court showing ‘office allocations’ 1916 • Source: AOT PWD 18/645/1&2

In 1980, with the completion of the second stage of the new Salamanca Place complex, the Supreme Court vacated the Government Offices on Franklin Square. By the time of its relocation it had doubled in size within the Office complex.

HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 2:45

FIGURES 85 & 86 • [above] Ground floor plan 1975, with Supreme Court areas shaded • Source: Department of Construction plan 54.04.00/02 • [below] Supreme Criminal Court Hobart 1920, Wiggins etching • Source: SLoT AUTAS001131822025 ALMFA

2.7.4 THE SUPREME CRIMINAL COURT AT BRISBANE & CAMPBELL STREETS

In 1859 tenders were invited by the Director of Public Works for the additions and alterations required in ‘the erection of courts and offices’ at the Campbell Street Penitentiary to accommodate the Criminal section of the Supreme Court. These major alterations involved the conversion of the Trinity Chapel northern and eastern wings into two courtrooms. The Criminal Courts continued to operate at Campbell Street until 1975, when the court was relocated to the Salamanca Place complex [stage one].

HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 2:46

2.6.5 THE SUPREME COURT IN HOBART

Thus, the Court has occupied three principal sites within Hobart, and the history of these sites, is integrally bound up with the history of the city, administration of civil and criminal justice, and the larger historical themes of the Colony and State.

FIGURE 87 • The three locations of the Hobart Supreme Court • Source: Hobart Supreme Court ND but c2009

In 1980 the Court completed its move into the new buildings in Salamanca Place in which it is now housed. Because of their modest profile and the use of natural materials in their construction, these buildings, although of modern design, harmonise remarkably well with their historic surroundings. A particular feature of the courtrooms is that they have a nearly circular rather than the traditional rectangular shape. The Governor of Tasmania and former Chief Justice, Sir Stanley Burbury, was mainly responsible for the design of these court buildings and they are permanent monuments to his creativity. A prototype of the 'court in the round' may be seen in the Supreme Court building in Burnie. The Launceston court, which is currently being renovated, is of more traditional design.

The Court presently consists of the Chief Justice, five Puisne Judges and one Master. As the Court is not divided into different divisions and as there is no court of intermediate jurisdiction in Tasmania such as a county court or a district court, the diversity of the work, which each member of the Court must undertake is considerable, including as it does, the conducting of civil and criminal trials of all degrees of seriousness, hearing a wide range of miscellaneous matters and sitting as members of the Court of Criminal Appeal and the Full Court.

HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 2:47

3.0 PHYSICAL OVERVIEW

3.1 PREAMBLE

This physical overview has been provided in order to give an understanding of the context, conformation and architectural character of the Supreme Court complex.1

3.2 TOWNSCAPE CONTEXT

The stated design intent of the architect of the building complex was to: 2

‘…create a building, which is both human in scale, and yet at the same time gives the judiciary the prestige which it deserves. Thus the development has been designed so as not to impose upon St. David's Park. It is intended that the Park should be extended through the site and that people should pass through the development rather than be limited to the adjacent streets.’

The townscape context of the complex has not greatly changed since the completion of both stages of the complex in 1980. The only major change has been the loss of the ‘active frontages’ to Salamanca Place opposite. The Government Print Authority building has been vacated, as has the former PABX building. The Department of Treasury and Finance intends to develop these sites [and others within this block] in a ‘corporate’ development known as ‘Parliament Square’. However, the loss of these neighbouring ‘active frontages’ has not had a critical impact on the townscape and context of the Supreme Court complex.

FIGURE 1 • The Supreme Court complex [red outline] within its urban context, north is to the top of the image. The Parliament House and gardens are due north, with the ‘Parliament Square’ area to the NW. St. David’s Park adjoins the complex on the western and southern frontages, with the Salamanca apartments and Gladstone Street to the south. Further east along Salamanca Place are converted C19th warehouses, similar to those demolished to make way for Stage 2 of the Court complex • Source: Google Earth 2011

1 This overview has been prepared jointly by PFCA+P and Paul Johnston of Paul Johnston Architects, Hobart. The architectural analysis has been prepared by Paul Johnston. 2 Peter Partridge DPW Architect statement, 1975 HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 3:1

FIGURES 2 & 3 • [above] The Hobart Supreme Court complex within its urban setting 2011. St. David’s Park is in the foreground, with Parliament House and ‘Parliament Square’ at left. Beyond the complex are the Parliament House gardens and Sullivans Cove • Source: NearMap website • [below] The complex from the Parliament House roof • Source: SF 2011 photograph

FIGURES 4 5 & 6 • [above] The entry to the complex from Salamanca Place, from the Parliament House roof • [below] The entry to the complex; looking west and SW from Salamanca Place • Source: SF 2011 photographs

HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 3:2

3,3 LOCATION AND ENTRY

FIGURES 7 & 8 • [above] The entry steps off Salamanca Place leading to the courtyard between the Criminal Court to the right and the Civil Court to the left, with the trees of St. David’s Park in the background • Oblique view of the entry steps off Salamanca Place • Source: PJ and PF 2012 photographs.

The townscape context of the complex is settled and mature, and the planting established as part of the complex has integrated with the street plantings along Salamanca Place and St. David’s Park. The design intent enunciated by Peter Partridge in 1977 was always to keep the complex low and unobtrusive:

‘…an attempt has been made to create a building, which is both human in scale, and yet at the same time gives the judiciary the prestige, which it deserves. The development has been designed so as not to impose upon St. David's Park.

The Supreme Courts are located at the city and elevated end of Salamanca Place in Hobart, and extend to Gladstone Street forming the corner with Salamanca Place. Immediately adjacent across Salamanca Place is located the precinct of Parliament Buildings to the north east that currently comprise the entire city block. The building on its north west and south west elevations form an immediate boundary with St. Davids Park. The courts address Salamanca Place as its principal frontage however its integration with St. Davids Park indicate that it is a building within the Park. This intimate relationship is further enhanced by plantings to the perimeter of the building and pathways to encourage the public to walk between and around the buildings. Many Hobart legal firms have chambers a short distance from the Courts and staff walk across the Park to the Courts.

The building is principally viewed from vistas up and down Salamanca Place and on approach along Gladstone Street. However the building is also viewed through the established plantings of the public park. The building’s roofscape is viewed from the tall buildings within the Parliamentary precinct, and from the taller builing along Davey and Macquarie Streets.

HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 3:3

Constructed in two stages, the Supreme Court building are comprised of two buildings linked with an under ground corridor. The building complex is divided into criminal and civil courts by the public entry courtyard, which also provides a thoroughfare to the Park. The building extends over two levels with the lower level of the building under natural ground along Salamanca Place while at Gladstone Street the lower level is fully revealed above natural ground level. Consequently the building reads as a complex of two distinct buildings.

Because of the location of the complex on the edge of the Park, and the incorporation of landscaped courtyards and pathways, the buildings also read as ‘pavilions’ within the park.3

FIGURES 9 & 10 • The entry path from Salamanca Place providing access to the Courts and to St. David’s Park • Source: SF + PF 2012 photographs

The visitor to the complex is led from Salamanca Place up the angled slate entrance steps to the slate paved entrance landing. From there the visitor may choose to go [at grade] to the main entrance and the Civil Court building, or up steps or ramp to the Criminal Court building, or down a grassy path incline to St. David’s Park. Thus the main entrance steps offer three main destinations, which are only really evident once the upper landing is reached.

3.4 FUNCTION

Generally, the upper level contains the courts and judge’s chambers, whilst the lower level generally provides service areas. The Criminal Court [1973]) with public access courtyard and

3 Refer ground plans of the Criminal and Civil courts at Section 2 above, pages 2:27 and 2:31. HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 3:4

foyer. This building comprises two largely identical courtrooms to the internal portion of the plan and general use rooms, for office, waiting and meeting to the perimeter. On the lower floor and largely below natural ground is the vehicle entry courtyard with separate entry for staff and accused under guard. The prison holding-cells and interview rooms are also at this level. Stairs connect the twp principal levels with separate access stairs from the holding cells. Plant rooms are located at this level.

The second building, the Civil Courts and Registry [1979] contains courtrooms of various sizes accessible from the main foyer and adjacent registry offices. The judge’s’ chambers are located to the Gladstone Street end of the building around a central Judge’s library. The lower level comprises a car park and adjacent plant room and at street level the law library is now located where the registry and probate offices were originally positioned, utilising direct level access for the public from Salamanca Place. Vehicle entry is provided to the lower level of each building and alternative staff entry and exit doors are provided adjacent stairwells that connect each level and gain access to the roof. The basement of the Criminal Court is accessed via a vehicle bay with two roller doors and a secured pedestrian door. One vehicle door provides access to the secure area of the holding cells while the other provides access to a staff car park.

Two enclosed stairwells on the perimeter of the building access the upper floor. One stair serves the judge’s area by connecting the linking corridor with the judge’s rooms, while the other connects the staff car park with the more general office and meeting areas fronting Salamanca Place. Both have lobbies with adjacent exit doors discharging into the garden for the judge’s stair and the general stair discharging into Salamanca Place. Both are used for an alternative access for staff and judge’s. An internal stair located between the courts, provides secure access for accused from the holding cells to the court rooms.

FIGURES 11 & 12 • [left] The Salamanca Place entry to the Law Library defined by an aluminium framed glazing wall recessed into the building perimeter. This entry was always ‘the entry’ and provided for people with disabilities, it was much more than just the ‘entry to the Law Library’ • [right] The exit door adjacent stair well linking levels. The semi circular expression of circulation breaks the horizontal lines of the sandstone wall • Source: PJ 2012 photographs.

The upper level of the Civil Court building has access for judge’s to a small private and secure garden running along the south-west boundary. Another exit door is provided to this space from the registry office. On the lower level exit doors are provided from stair well foyers. One stair linking the judge’s chambers with the linking corridor has restricted access and discharges into Gladstone Street, whilst the other door to Salamanca Place serves the law library and allows general access. A lift service is provided from this foyer to the court foyer above. A vehicle entry bay with roller access door is provided off Gladstone Street.

HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 3:5

FIGURES 13 & 14 • [above] The Civil Courts building of the complex to Gladstone Street. Note the service entrance to the basement car park and the path [at left] to the gate entry to the Judge’s courtyard [below] The service entrance to the Salamanca basement car park and police parking viewed from Salamanca Place. The covered area was always intended to be the turning space for the prison van, to allow the van to drive in and then back into secure enclosed off-loading bay behind roller shutter to off-load prisoners • Source: PF 2012 photographs.

3.5 CIRCULATION

Public access is largely restricted to the entry foyers and courts to both buildings. In the Civil Court, access to the lower level law Library is facilitated via a foyer stair or lift. Both lobbies have secure reception counters with the Criminal Court scanning of visitors on entry. With courtrooms located central to the floors of both buildings, and the judge’s library adjacent the civil courts, access corridors are located between these spaces and the smaller rooms, generally offices, located on the perimeter. These circulating corridors are not continuous to either building so that security is maintained at one point except for access through the courts. Within the Criminal Court building, as one moves around the building in an anti clockwise direction, so access becomes restricted to staff and then to judges.

Circulation on the lower levels extends directly from stair lobbies with public access available in the Civil Court and restricted access in the Criminal Court. The most distinctive circulation provision is the long under ground corridor that connects the judge’s chambers in the Civil Court building to the judge’s area behind the Criminal Courts.

HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 3:6

3.6 ARCHITECTURAL FORM & MATERIALS

The building complex is generally rectangular in its plan with its length extending up Salamanca Place from Gladstone Street. The Criminal Court plan has a small extended articulation giving definition to the entry foyer, while the Civil Court has the Registry Office articulated as a distinct rectangular plan intersecting with the main floor plan.

While these are apparently two distinctly separate buildings the two court buildings share the same materials, form and architectural detailing. The building palette is primarily of concrete structural construction with some masonry walling and precast columns supporting columns and ring beams which in turn support the roof slabs. Stone is used as a dressing to the concrete structure.

The upper floor is clad in sandstone and projected over the recessed lower level clad in slate that is inclined to the vertical plane. This serves as a plinth to the main level. The recessed plinth to the Criminal Court is minor, elevating the sandstone above the park ground surface while the recessed plinth to the Civil Court serves as the lower level ‘base’ to the building, visible at street level.

The division in materials and articulation of the façade emphasises the pavilion nature of the design, which makes a distinction between the building and landscape. The building as it sits within the park, is elevated as if floating above the plane of the ground. The inclined slate clad lower level, as the building rises out of the ground, provides a plinth for the main structure which is clad in sandstone and houses the principal functions of courts and chambers.

FIGURE 15 • The angular slate wall acts as a plinth to the sandstone pavilion and extends to form the landscaped courtyard • Source: PJ 2012 photograph.

The use of slate for the courtyard paving reinforces this hierarchy of materials where the slate is of the ground, as if it were a ‘geological outcrop’, with the sandstone above ground as the ‘pavilion’. This structuring of materials also asserts a classical position of the isolated object is set within the landscape as a symbol of order and the court is read as ‘temple’.

HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 3:7

This classical paradigm aligns with the earlier precedents in court design throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, where imposing classical ordering provided the symbolic presence of the institution of law and order.

The external walls, clad in sandstone facing, are set out according to a horizontal banding comprising a parapet, fenestration and base bands with the head and sill providing continuous horizontal lines throughout the complex. This architectural ‘grammar’ is further emphasised by the horizontality of the parapet and base bands set proud of, and contrasting with, the fenestration band of vertical panels and openings. The sill is continuous with a built in gutter to take water shed from the parapet band, which is inclined inwards to the vertical wall face.

This articulation of the façade is also expressed by the coursing of the sandstone where the sandstone of the fenestration band are without perpends, and is broken only by window openings or recesses in the sandstone panels. The result is an irregular pattern composed of regular sized window openings and panels. The set out of the slate walls is vertically coursed with irregular horizontal perpends. Openings in the wall on the lower level fronting Salamanca Place are vertical windows within the vertical coursing of the slate.

FIGURES 16 & 17 • [above & below] Perimeter walling is classically proportioned with strong horizontal banding and vertical openings randomly arranged.• Source: PJ 2012 photographs.

HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 3:8

The structuring of the façade is indicative of a classical ordering where proportion is carefully articulated. This repeated form to all elevations is a major contributor to the success of the design and contributes significantly to its harmonious relationship to the historical context where classical proportions predominate.

FIGURES 18 & 19 • Wall details showing the inclined planes of the parapet and plinth and expressed sill and head • Source: TAHO PWD 266 53.201/5 • Wall finishes showing the setout of coursing for sandstone and slate • Source: PJ 2012 photograph.

The roof form is generally flat with a trafficable membrane protected by concrete tiles however a pyramidal roof of seamed copper sheet is located over each of the main court rooms. Each pyramidal roof has a strip of clear roofing that provides light to the wells in each court.

HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 3:9

The roof is edged with a parapet wall to the entire perimeter of both buildings and is only interrupted by the semi circular vertical articulation of the perimeter stairwells and the recessed entries. The roofs are important expressions of the function of the building. Whilst they provide some natural light [which was demanded within the brief for security purposes], and a raised ceiling height, the extent and detailing of the pyramid structures is primarily evidenced externally.

FIGURES 20 21 & 22 • [above] Detail section through the civil court showing the extent of boundary walling, sub- surface engineering and depth of footings. Note the change in floor and ceiling levels between the court rooms and general rooms • Source: TAHO PWD 266 53.201/5 • [below] Pyramid roof showing seamed copper sheeting, and Criminal Court viewed from St. David’s Park showing the pyramid roof projecting above the parapet • Source: PJ 2012 photographs.

Windows are framed in bronze anodised aluminium and within external walls are set within the coursing of the stone cladding. The skylights to the pyramid walls are also framed within the seamed ribs of the copper roofs. The entry walls, both to the courts and other exits, are framed in aluminium. All windows are fixed providing security at ground level and reliance on mechanical ventilation. HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 3:10

The court entries are recessed under a projecting parapet of precast concrete without the embellishment of stone cladding and accordingly provide a discernable distinction as an entry. The entry doors are centrally located within the aluminium framed window wall.

3.7 THE PRECINCT LANDSCAPE

The building provides landscaped areas to all of its frontages, and is distinctive due to the angular geometry of the landscaping and site works in contrast to the orthogonal geometry of the buildings. The landscaped courtyard is both a thoroughfare to the park and a public entry to the courts and integrates the buildings into the park.

Walkways link paths of the park with the courtyard and the perimeter of the Criminal Court where walls contain headstones relocated from the Park. The surface of the courtyard undulates with the low point a central planting bed and singular tree and broken seat frame. Trees randomly follow the path to the park. The courtyard is paved in slate and incorporates the entry stairs and ramp.

The planting beds are located on Salamanca place in front of the Law Library in between car parking spaces. Raised beds of in situ concrete have built in seats and contain established trees. Trees are located within the grass verge between the criminal court building and Salamanca Place, and placed in slate beds extending from the building.

FIGURES 23 & 24 • [above] View from courtyard towards the headstone walls of St. David’s Park• [below] Pathways to the northwestern elevation showing the headstone wall garden with large tree. Note the connecting path from the exit door • Source: PJ 2012 photographs.

HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 3:11

The Gladstone Street frontage has a small and elevated garden on the upper side of the vehicle entry bay. Retained by a slate-clad wall, the garden is a grassed verge with a single tree and is backed by planting beds constructed in brickwork. This wall forms the boundary with the adjacent property and extends the full length of the frontage until it adjoins the park. The brick wall incorporates planting beds of varying height and contains established plants of varying height and density. The space between the wall and the building is accessed from the judge’s chamber and registry and is intended for casual use and relaxation. Steel security gates enclose both ends.

FIGURES 25 & 26 • [above] The central entry courtyard from the roof of the criminal Court showing planting bed and tree and undulating slate pavement with angular stair walls • [below] Landscape plan detail showing the angular geometry of the planting beds • Source: TAHO PWD 266 53.201/5.

The designed intent was to ensure that the relationship between the complex and St. David’s Park was permeable relaxed and self-evident. The design intent enunciated by Peter Partridge in 1975 was that ‘…the Park should be extended through the site and that people should pass through the development rather than be limited to the adjacent streets.’

HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 3:12

FIGURES 27 28 & 29 • [above] The walk to St. David’s Park from the upper entrance paved area, and [below] the St David’s Park road access to the NW side of the complex, and the Judge’s courtyard • Source: SF + PF 2011 photographs

The original design intent was that the Courts complex would continue along Gladstone Street with a third Law Office stage, however when that intent was not pursued, the Judge’s Courtyard was thus created as a landscaped space between the Court complex and the commercial development along Gladstone Street. The Hobart Supreme Court complex, thus mediates between private and public spaces and activities, and mediates between the needs for security within and beyond the Court complex, and the design intent of providing a permeable connection to Salamanca Place and to St. David’s Park. The creation of the Courts in its ‘two-building’ configuration, is very much a product of the building’s genesis [the Stage 2 site did not become available until Stage 1 was built]; with the consequent advantages [access to the Park], and disadvantages [bifurcated entries and lack of a single and secure entrance.

FIGURE 30 • Detail of the ‘sculpted’ wall to the Judge’s Court • Source: TAHO PWD 266 53.201/5. HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 3:13

3.8 THE SUPREME COURT INTERIORS

Generally the interior spaces of the Supreme Court buildings follow a similar hierarchy to that evident in the exterior. The use of materials and detailing is consistent throughout the complex however special treatment is given to the courtrooms and the foyers.

FIGURE 31 • Criminal Court no. 1, with built in seating oriented towards the Judge’s dais. Note the ceiling lighting and timber panelling. This photograph also evidences the only symmetry in the building, in the front to back axis of the courtroom ceilings • Source: PJ 2012 photograph.

The courtrooms are irregular octagonal shaped that support the ‘in the round’ court activity. Generally built in furniture, for general public and the elevated position of the judge and court officials, is seated on the perimeter of each court where the floor falls or steps towards the centre of the room. Freestanding furniture is arranged on the flat centre of each court. All furniture is designed specifically for each court except for seating where it is not built in the joinery.

Lined in vertical board timber set out in random lengths, all furniture is constructed in timber including the detailed timber clock face. The ceiling is formed with a suspended timber screen with skylight wells projecting into the room. No other lighting is apparent however artificial lighting is used within the light wells to meet the required levels of illumination. All the main courts are totally enclosed and reflect the specific requirements for security and acoustic privacy.

The entry foyers to each court are similar however the security requirements of the Criminal Court has resulted in a semi enclosed reception area and security scanning threshold. In the Civil Court the registry reception has been enclosed to provide a secure threshold to the office area.

Walls lining the entry to the court rooms are lined in slate and other walls are lined in a fabric paper. Timber doors and frames are combined with timber details such as telephone recesses and counter fronts. The ceilings are lined in solid horizontal timber screens that in some places project as bulkheads. Lighting is contained within and suspended from the ceiling screen. Some lighting tilted to illuminate specific wall surfaces.

Ceilings to general rooms are lined in an acoustic panel with recessed lighting that is placed randomly throughout spaces. Hallways are illuminated by recessed downlighting. Carpet of the same pattern is used throughout both buildings.

HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 3:14

Carparking and plant areas are exposed with concrete finishes and the underground corridor has a textured white concrete masonry walls and vinyl floor. The corridor is square in section.

There is a consistency of detailing throughout both buildings and examination of construction drawings reveal substantial detailing of the interior where timber coat hooks, clocks, signage, notice boards and slate coffee tables with built in ash trays where all designed by the architectural team.

FIGURES 31 TO 36 • [above] The Civil Court foyer showing the slate walls lining to the court rooms • [below] Jury Room showing the fabric lining to the external walls, and the timber panelling to the internal walls. Note the random arrangement of ceiling lighting, pursuing the design theme of ‘ randomness’ in order to minimise feelings of authority, particularly in public areas. This randomness extends even to the thickness and spacing of ceiling timbers in corridor areas • Source: PJ 2012 photograph.

HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 3:15

3.9 CONDITION

Both the interior and exterior appear on visual inspection to be in good order with original finishes well maintained. This extends to those areas of high maintenance including kitchens and bathrooms. The only evidence of deterioration relates to the wall drains, which are lined in a lead/bitumen membrane. The drains have areas of wear and some sandstone cladding requires re-pointing. The lead over-flashings to the sandstone copings are curremtly neing restored and relaced as required.

FIGURES 37 & 38 • [above & below] Carved stones to commemorate the opening of the Criminal Courts [1975], and the Civil Courts and Registry [1980] • Source: PJ 2012 photographs.

HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 3:16

4.0 ASSESSMENT & STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE

4.1 PREVIOUS STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE & HERITAGE RECOGNITION

4.4.1 TASMANIAN HERITAGE REGISTER

The Tasmanian Heritage Council has recently nominated the Supreme Court complex to the Tasmanian Heritage Register. This nomination has not, as yet, been determined. The nomination details are as follows:

Name: Hobart Supreme Court1 THR ID Number: 10047 Status: Nomination received Municipality: formerly Sullivans Cove Waterfront Authority, now HCC Tier: State Date Listed: Not applicable Location Addresses: 1 Salamanca Place, Hobart 7000, Tasmania Property reference [nine allotments]: 224304/1; 45/9251; 45/9251; 38/3446; 42/3649 ; 38/3446; 42/3649; 45/9251; and 45/9251 Title ID: 5672199 all allotments

Setting: The Supreme Court buildings are located on Salamanca Place on the edge of St David's Park, providing balance to Parliament House, which is opposite. The Court is an important element in the urban streetscape

Description: The Supreme Court buildings are a group of two Late Twentieth Century ‘Brutalist’ pavilions. The buildings are clad in sandstone and slate, with copper roofs. This provides balance to Parliament House, which is opposite. The roof also adds sculptural qualities to the building, with the dark, ribbed copper sheeting meeting in low‑pitched hipped forms. The buildings are characterised by their strong, boldly composed shapes. The skyline is punctuated by semi‑cylindrical elements containing the services with diagonal elements contrasting with the horizontal and vertical lines. Horizontal and vertical emphasis is provided by lengthy, aggressively expressed parapets, which contrast sharply with the narrow slit windows. A flight of slate stairs leads up from Salamanca Place, opening onto a plaza linking the two buildings

History: Supreme Court was designed by Peter Partridge who was 'perhaps the most significant' of the ‘architect migrants’ from Britain. The Supreme Court located as a pavilion concept within a green park setting. This work employed traditional stone, copper and lead externally. The AIA Tasmanian Chapter states that '…the court strives to combine the modernist concept of alien object floating in the landscape, with a contextual regard to the neighbouring buildings and the street'

Constructed: 1975 and 1980 Statement of Significance [non‑statutory summary]: No statement is provided for places listed prior to 2007

1 NOTE: This data sheet is intended to provide sufficient information and justification for listing the place on the Tasmanian Heritage Register. Under the legislation, only one of the criteria needs to be met. The data sheet is not intended to be a comprehensive inventory of the heritage values of the place, and there may be other heritage values of interest to the Heritage Council not currently acknowledged HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 4:1

Assessment of Significance: The Heritage Council may enter a place in the Heritage Register if it meets one or more of the following criteria from the Historic Cultural Heritage Act 1995:

A] IT IS IMPORTANT IN DEMONSTRATING THE EVOLUTION OR PATTERN OF TASMANIA'S HISTORY The Supreme Court complex has historic cultural heritage significance as a place that has featured importantly and influenced the development of law and order in Hobart and Tasmania

B] IT DEMONSTRATES RARE, UNCOMMON OR ENDANGERED ASPECTS OF TASMANIA'S HERITAGE C] IT HAS POTENTIAL TO YIELD INFORMATION THAT WILL CONTRIBUTE TO AN UNDERSTANDING OF TASMANIA'S HISTORY Criteria not met

D] IT IS IMPORTANT AS A REPRESENTATIVE IN DEMONSTRATING THE CHARACTERISTICS OF A BROADER CLASS OF CULTURAL PLACES The Supreme Court complex is of historic cultural heritage significance for its ability to demonstrate the principal characteristics of Late Twentieth‑Century ‘Brutalist’ public buildings. These characteristics are found in the external form, construction methods and the detailing both externally and internally

E] IT IS IMPORTANT IN DEMONSTRATING A HIGH DEGREE OF CREATIVE OR TECHNICAL ACHIEVEMENT The Supreme Court complex is of historic heritage significance because it has the ability to demonstrate a high level of creative and technical achievement

F] IT HAS STRONG OR SPECIAL MEANING FOR ANY GROUP OR COMMUNITY BECAUSE OF SOCIAL, CULTURAL OR SPIRITUAL ASSOCIATIONS The Supreme Court complex is of historic heritage significance because its townscape associations are regarded as important to the community's sense of place.

G] IT HAS A SPECIAL ASSOCIATION WITH THE LIFE OR WORK OF A PERSON, A GROUP OR AN ORGANISATION THAT WAS IMPORTANT IN TASMANIA'S HISTORY Criterion not met

4.4.2 HOBART CITY COUNCIL

The Hobart Supreme Court precinct falls within the provisions of the ‘Sullivans Cove Planning Scheme 1997’, administered by the Hobart City Council. The Court precinct is located within the northern sector of Precinct 2 Sullivans Cove ‘Mixed Use’.2 The ‘Supreme Law Courts’ are defined as a ‘Place of Cultural Heritage’ within the Scheme [place no. 81], however no statement of significance is provided. The Planning Scheme objectives A, B and C specifically apply to the Hobart Supreme Court precinct.

Objective A: ‘Respect the cultural heritage and character’ specifically states that ‘…all use and development within the activity area must demonstrably contribute to and enhance the cultural heritage, built form and spatial characteristics of the activity area.’

Objective B: ‘To conserve and enhance the amenity, character and cultural heritage values of the Cove’s public spaces’ specifically states that ‘… use and development of public spaces shall only be permitted where they do not detract from the space’s amenity or heritage value.’3

2 Refer separate planning report by Ireneinc. This Precinct is described within the Planning Scheme as being Hobart’s major tourist destination, which has a ‘readily identifiable image’ 3 The Planning Scheme does not define public spaces in this context, and in its normal meaning would be taken to mean roads, parks or any space clearly identified for public use HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 4:2

Objective C: ‘To encourage use and development which generate pedestrian movement through the activity area’ specifically states that ‘…activities which generate pedestrian traffic are to be encouraged… All use and development shall facilitate pedestrian access, circulation, amenity and safety within the Cove.’

FIGURES 1 & 2 • [above] Sullivans Cove Planning Scheme 1997, Section2. The Supreme Court complex is outlined in red • Source: SCPC Hobart City Council website • [below] Façade of the Launceston Supreme Court • Source: Wikipedia website

4.2 COMPARATIVE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE HOBART SUPREME COURT

To arrive at an understanding of the comparative significance of the Hobart Supreme Court, it is useful to assess the recognised significance of other similar places.

4.2.1 OTHER SUPREME COURTS

The Launceston Supreme Court is primarily a district registry and chambers, and does not have the status of the Hobart Supreme Court. The Launceston Supreme Court is not entered on the Tasmanian Heritage Register.

HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 4:3

The ACT Supreme Court in Canberra, was commissioned by the National Capital Development Commission and was designed by the Melbourne architects Yuncken Freeman. The Court was built in the 1960s, and is entered on the Register of the National Estate [now a non-statutory archive], and on the AIA ACT Chapter Register of Significant C20th Architecture. Like the Supreme Court is facing accommodation problems, and a comprehensive internal redevelopment is being proposed for the Court building.

FIGURES 3 & 4 • [above] The ACT Supreme Court and the Law Precinct Canberra 1996 • Source: ACT Supreme Court CMP 1996 PFCA+P • [below] Henty House Launceston Civic Square 2011. Henty House is the large building to the south of the Square • Source: Google Earth website

4.2.1 OTHER BUILDINGS OF SIMILAR PROVENANCE

The PWD architect Peter Partridge also designed Henty House in Launceston within the Civic Square. Here Partridge also became involved after public rejection of a high-rise multi storey proposal. As is the case with the Hobart Supreme Court, Henty House is based on a rigorous, almost didactic, architectural discipline. Henty House is entered on the Tasmanian Heritage Register, however that entry is now the subject of a RMPAT hearing.4

4 Refer also Appendix E below for a discussion of the architecture of the Tasmanian PWD in the 1970s, and the relative significance of Henty House in that ouevre HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 4:4

A building complex contemporary with the Hobart Supreme Court was a residential college for the Anglican Church, Christ College designed by the émigré architect Dirk Bolt. Christ College was built on the hills overlooking the Sandy bay campus of the University of Tasmania. Four buildings were arranged to form an internal courtyard linking dormitory, dining, warden and library wings. Constructed with off form concrete and concrete masonry, with unpainted Huon Pine windows and copper roof plumbing, the building had limited applied finishes and was intended to age with a patina.

The building was ‘...the most explicit statement of Bolt’s attitude towards the function and aesthetic of architecture.’5 Christ College is widely acclaimed as ‘one of Tasmania’s best post war 20th Century buildings’, and was selected as one of the top forty three Australian buildings by the Australian Institute of Architects to determine a selection of Australian buildings for nomination to the International Union of Architects. Both Dirk Bolt and Peter Partridge would have known of the other’s architectural work

FIGURES 5 & 6 • [above & below] Christ College Hobart, Jonathon Wherrett photographs 2011 • Source: photographs commissioned by the magazine Architectural Review Australia

5 Professor Jennifer Taylor, 1981 HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 4:5

4.3 ASSESSMENT OF CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE6

A] IT IS IMPORTANT IN DEMONSTRATING THE EVOLUTION OR PATTERN OF TASMANIA'S HISTORY

The Court site probably has strong associations with the Indigenous pre-history and contact history of the Hobart settlement.

The Court site has strong associations with the residence of Rev. Knopwood at ‘Cottage Green’, with the early Hobart cemetery and with the genesis of St. David’s Park. These associations are manifested in the ‘headstone’ walls, which flank the Court at its boundary with the Park, and in the various memorials in the Park itself.

The location of both the Civil and Criminal Courts of the Hobart Supreme Court at Salamanca Place is itself historically significant, as this was the first occasion, in a Colonial and State history of nearly 200 years that the two courts were located jointly.

The building of a modern building within the ‘new wharf’ area of Salamanca Place in the 1970s was itself significant, as this was a rare ‘modern’ intervention in the warehouse precinct of Hobart required the removal of five C19th warehouses, much loved by the people of Hobart.

The genesis of the Hobart Supreme Court site at Salamanca Place is itself historically significant, as the two-stage development was made necessary by public pressure to retain the five warehouses. The low-rise morphology of the Court buildings is also significant, as the original government intention was to build a high rise Court complex on this site.

The placement of the Court of the highest state judiciary adjacent other ‘government’ institutions [which comprised Parliament House and all the attendant State Government offices including the Government offices at 10 Murray Street] consolidated the ‘government precinct’ in this area of Hobart.

B] IT DEMONSTRATES RARE, UNCOMMON OR ENDANGERED ASPECTS OF TASMANIA'S HERITAGE

This criterion is not met.

C] IT HAS POTENTIAL TO YIELD INFORMATION THAT WILL CONTRIBUTE TO AN UNDERSTANDING OF TASMANIA'S HISTORY

This criterion may not be met, but an understanding of the archaeological resource of the site has not been pursued to date.

D] IT IS IMPORTANT AS A REPRESENTATIVE IN DEMONSTRATING THE CHARACTERISTICS OF A BROADER CLASS OF CULTURAL PLACES

The buildings of the Hobart Supreme Court at Salamanca Place are architecturally significant as the work of a talented architect, working at a time of enlightened Government sponsored procurement of public buildings.

The Hobart Supreme Court buildings are seminal buildings in the pantheon of public building in Hobart over two centuries. The architectural significance of the complex has recently been recognised nationally.

6 The Heritage Council may enter a place in the Tasmanian Heritage Register if it meets one or more of these criteria from the Historic Cultural Heritage Act 1995 HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 4:6

E] IT IS IMPORTANT IN DEMONSTRATING A HIGH DEGREE OF CREATIVE OR TECHNICAL ACHIEVEMENT

The real creative achievement of the Supreme Court building relates to the insistence on an integrated architectural form, which is modestly placed on its site, which complements the historic cultural landscape of St. David’s Park and the Parliament House gardens, and architecturally compliments the Parliament House complex. The complex has also achieved a rare integration with the townscape of Salamanca Place, in paving materials, in landscape plantings, and in the careful detailing of the ‘public’ approach from the street domain to the domain of the Supreme Court.

F] IT HAS STRONG OR SPECIAL MEANING FOR ANY GROUP OR COMMUNITY BECAUSE OF SOCIAL, CULTURAL OR SPIRITUAL ASSOCIATIONS

The Supreme Court is the highest State court in Tasmania, and thus the Court complex has special meaning within the judicial system of the State.

G] IT HAS A SPECIAL ASSOCIATION WITH THE LIFE OR WORK OF A PERSON, A GROUP OR AN ORGANISATION THAT WAS IMPORTANT IN TASMANIA'S HISTORY

The Supreme Court site has been central to pre-history and history of the settlement of Hobart, and has recently become central to the judicial system within Tasmania. In terms of historical site connections, there are, for instance, associations with Rev. Knopwood at ‘Cottage Green’, and with Alderman William Carter, the first mayor of Hobart, and the owner of one of the warehouses, later demolished for the Court development. In terms of historical Court connections, there are, for instance, connections with the first Supreme Court judges, Judge Barron Field;7 with the Court's first Chief Justice, John Lewes Pedder; and with the great jurist after whom the Supreme Court library is named, Andrew Inglis Clarke.8

FIGURES 7 & 8 • [left] William Carter, ‘Members of the Parliaments of Tasmania’ portrait no. 79, J W Beattie • Source: Allport Library and Museum of Fine Arts no. AUTAS001125647719 • [right] Andrew Inglis Clark, ‘Members of the Parliaments of Tasmania’, portrait no. 180, J W Beattie photograph • Source: Allport Library and Museum of Fine Arts no. AUTAS001125880724

In recent years, the work of Chief Justice Sir Stanley Burbury in mentoring the new Supreme Court at Salamanca Place is important. In terms of architectural connections, the work of the architect Peter Partridge and the Tasmanian PWD are clearly of significance.

7 Refer Section 2, page 2.22, for portrait of Barron Field 8 Clark was appointed to the Tasmanian Supreme Court in 1898. In 1903 he was tentatively offered a seat on the High Court but the Australian parliament cut the number of judges from five to three. HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 4:7

4.4 STATEMENT OF CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE

The Court site has associations with the Indigenous pre-history and contact history of the Hobart settlement; and strong associations with the early European settlement of Hobart. These [European] associations are manifested in the ‘headstone’ walls, which flank the Court at its boundary with the Park, and in the various memorials in the Park itself.

The location of both the Civil and Criminal Courts of the Hobart Supreme Court in one location at Salamanca Place is historically significant, as this was the first occasion, in a Colonial and State judicial history of nearly 200 years that the two courts were located jointly. The placement of the Court of the highest state judiciary adjacent other ‘government’ institutions consolidated the ‘government precinct’ within this area of Hobart.

The genesis of the Hobart Supreme Court site at Salamanca Place is itself historically and socially significant, as the two-stage bifurcated development was made necessary by public pressure to retain five remnant Salamanca Place warehouses on the designated Courts site. The low-rise physical form of the Court buildings is also significant, as the original government intention was to build a high rise Court complex on this site.

The Hobart Supreme Court Precinct has aesthetic significance as the work of a talented architect, working at a time of enlightened Government sponsored procurement of public buildings. The architectural/aesthetic/townscape significance of the complex has recently been recognised nationally.

The Precinct buildings are modestly placed on the Salamanca Place site and complement the historic cultural landscape of St. David’s Park, the Parliament House gardens, and the Parliament House itself. The Precinct has achieved a rare integration with the townscape of Salamanca Place, in paving materials, in landscape plantings, and in the careful detailing of the ‘public’ approach from the street domain to the domain of the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court is the highest court in Tasmania, and thus the Court complex has special meaning within the judicial system of the State, and has been central to the contact history and European history of the settlement of Hobart.

The associational significance of the precinct relates to the first Supreme Court judges, Judge Barron Field; the Court's first Chief Justice, John Lewes Pedder; and with the great jurist after whom the Supreme Court library is named, Andrew Inglis Clarke. The recent work of Chief Justice Sir Stanley Burbury in mentoring the new Supreme Court at Salamanca Place is important is also of significance. In terms of architectural connections, the work of the architect Peter Partridge and the Tasmanian PWD are clearly of significance.

HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 4:8

5.0 CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT POLICY

5.1 PREAMBLE

This Section provides a discussion of conservation management policy issues, which in turn results in specific conservation management policies for. The structure of this Section is that each conservation management policy issue is discussed in turn, and a stated conservation management policy follows that discussion as follows:1 • The cultural significance of the place and the policy implications of that significance; • The moral rights issues with respect to Supreme Court stakeholders and to the design architect, Peter Partridge; and • The statutory and client requirements for the Precinct, which may impact on the recognised heritage significance of the precinct.

5.2 CONSERVATION POLICY: THE CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PRECINCT

5.2.1 THE STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE PRECINCT

DISCUSSION: A GUIDING CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT POLICY

The Statement of Significance developed within this Plan is set out at Section 4 above. This Statement identifies the important significance values of the place. The cultural significance of the Hobart Supreme Court complex has been confirmed by its listing, by the Australian Institute of Architects in 2010, as nationally significant Enduring Architecture. The Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter Articles 2 and 3 relating to the conservation of significance state [in part]:

‘Article 2. Significance: Places of cultural significance should be conserved, and the aim of conservation is to retain the cultural significance of a place. Conservation is an integral part of good management of places of cultural significance.’ ‘Article 3. Cautious approach; Conservation is based on a respect for the existing fabric, use, associations and meanings. It requires a cautious approach of changing as much as necessary but as little as possible. Changes to a place should not distort the physical or other evidence it provides, nor be based on conjecture.’

GUIDING CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT POLICY: RETENTION & CONSERVATION OF SIGNIFICANCE

The Hobart Supreme Court complex should be conserved, and the aim of conservation management should be to retain the cultural significance of the place.2 All conservation should be based on a respect for the existing fabric, use, associations and meanings. Conservation and adaptive reuse interventions require a cautious approach of changing as much as necessary but as little as possible.3

DISCUSSION: THE SITE AS A MARKER OF ABORIGINAL & EUROPEAN OCCUPATION4

The Courts site has always been closely linked to the original St. David’s [Hobart] Burial Ground, and the subsequent St. David’s Park. The NW boundary of the precinct adjoins the

1 The Conservation Policies are numbered and titled. 2 Conservation is an integral part of good management of places of cultural significance. 3 Changes to a place should not distort the physical or other evidence it provides, nor be based on conjecture. 4 Statement of Significance: ‘…The Court site has associations with the Indigenous pre-history and contact history of the Hobart settlement; and strong associations with the early European settlement of Hobart. These [European] associations are manifested in the ‘headstone’ walls, which flank the Court at its boundary with the Park, and in the various memorials within the Park itself.’ HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 5:1

Park, and the NW access road adjacent the Courts is actually within Parkland. Historically, the Courts site was originally excised from the Burial Ground, and later the Park, refer Figure 1.

FIGURE 1 • Jarman's ‘Map of Hobart Town’, 1858 [detail], showing the original extent of St. David’s Cemetery [later Park] • Source: Wikipedia Hobart website

FIGURES 2 3 & 4 • [above] ‘The graves of the officers of ‘L'Astrolabe’ and ‘La Zelee Catholic Cemetery Hobarton’, sketch by Mary Morton Allport [1806-1895], c1840 • Source: SLoT no. 85AUTAS001124060773 • [below] The headstone walls facing the western boundary of the Courts • Source: PF 2011 photograph • [below] The warehouses at 13-15 Salamanca Place shortly before their demolition in 1977. Note the first stage of the Supreme Court complex at the rear • Source: Archives Office of Tasmania AE465/1/3633

The Courts site is also significant as the site of the most northern Salamanca Place warehouses, which were demolished to make way for the second stage of the Courts complex. This historical event is socially significant in view of the public opposition to the demolition of the warehouses.

HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 5:2

The headstone walls effectively interpret the St. David’s Burial Ground associations with the Court precinct, and the intimate relationship of the Park to the Courts is an enduring historical and cultural relationship. However there is no ‘marking’ of the precinct as a place of Aboriginal pre-history and contact history; nor is there a recognition of the warehousing past of the place.

POLICY 1: THE SITE AS A MARKER OF ABORIGINAL & EUROPEAN OCCUPATION5

The recommended policy to rectify these absences would be to place interpretative markers, within the Precinct, to explain these associations. These markers [or panels] could be similar in style and form to those installations currently used with the Sullivans Cove area.

DISCUSSION: A HOME FOR THE SUPREME COURTS6

The Civil and Criminal Supreme Courts have led a peripatetic life, and only since 1980 have the two courts been co-located. The ‘new’ site of the Courts at Salamanca Place was perfectly located, with its proximity to Parliament and the Government Offices; to the legal chambers of Macquarie, Murray and Davey Streets, and to the Department of Justice. Given its nearly forty-year occupancy of the Salamanca Place site, the Court precinct is now inseparable from its address, and the significance of the Place is now equated with the significance of the Courts precinct.

FIGURE 5 • The Criminal Courts come to Salamanca Place, 1976. Note the Parliament House, the Government Printer, and the State Offices • Source: HCC archive.

5 Conservation Policy no. 1 6 Statement of Significance: ‘…The location of both the Civil and Criminal Courts of the Hobart Supreme Court in one location at Salamanca Place is historically significant, as this was the first occasion, in a Colonial and State judicial history of nearly 200 years that the two courts were located jointly. The placement of the Court of the highest state judiciary adjacent other ‘government’ institutions consolidated the ‘government precinct’ within this area of Hobart.’ HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 5:3

POLICY 2: A HOME FOR THE HOBART SUPREME COURT7

The significance of the Courts precinct is now inseparable from its Salamanca Place address. The preferred conservation and redevelopment option will retain the Supreme Court presence on its current site.

DISCUSSION: THE FORM OF THE SUPREME COURT BUILDINGS8

The bifurcated form of the Court complex came about because the southern site [for the Civil Courts] could not be acquired due to public resistance to the demolition of the five remnant warehouses on that site. The architect, Peter Partridge, described in 1976 the philosophy of the design statement intent: ‘…An attempt has been made to create a building, which is both human in scale, and yet at the same time gives the judiciary the prestige which it deserves. The development has been designed so as not to impose upon St. David's Park. It is intended that the Park should be extended through the site and that people should pass through the development rather than be limited to the adjacent streets.’ The resultant building is modest and unassuming.

FIGURES 6 & 7 • [above] The daunting and intimidating facade of the Civil Court at Franklin Square 1964, J Crowther photograph • Source: NAA Canberra no. 30835596 • [below] The modest and unassuming Courts precinct, 2011 • Source: PF 2011 photograph

7 Conservation Policy no. 2 8 Statement of Significance: ‘…The genesis of the Hobart Supreme Court site at Salamanca Place is itself historically and socially significant, as the two-stage bifurcated development was made necessary by public pressure to retain five remnant Salamanca Place warehouses on the designated Courts site. The low-rise physical form of the Court buildings is also significant, as the original government intention was to build a high rise Court complex on this site.’ HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 5:4

POLICY 3: THE FORM OF THE SUPREME COURT BUILDINGS 9

The preferred conservation and redevelopment option will retain the Supreme Court morphology of existing low-rise building. If a physical intervention is made10 the new intervention must be a similarly low-rise building.

DISCUSSION: THE AESTHETIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SUPREME COURT BUILDINGS11

The Supreme Court buildings are regarded as being of national significance. The design architect established design principles, which were pursued in the design and procurement of the buildings. The primary design intent was to relate to St. David’s Park:12 ‘…The first design principle was to let the Park flow through the site. This, along with careful close attention to entrances and to detail, was essential in retaining a human scale; allowing the use of landscaping to soften the perception, maximise the informality, minimise the institutional character of the complex, and yet still allow the individual buildings to retain a classicism traditionally associated with courts.’

As described above, the bifurcated nature of the Courts planning came about largely as a historical accident, but the space between the separated buildings was given form and function by opening this space to the Park. Most access from the Park through to Salamanca Place is now via the Park access road and footpath to the NW of the Courts boundary

FIGURES 8 & 9 • [left] Detail From ‘Classic Hobart Parks’ 2011, showing the path through the Supreme Courts from St. David’s Park • Source: HCC website • [right] Aerial photograph showing the integration of the Courts Precinct into the Salamanca Place townscape • Source: NearMap website 2011.

POLICY 4: THE AESTHETIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SUPREME COURT BUILDINGS13

The preferred conservation / adaptive reuse / redevelopment option should retain the Supreme Court central [designed] path to the Park; however if that configuration became functionally impossible as part of satisfying the client’s functional and statutory obligations, the connection should be maintained along the northern [Park] boundary only.14 Should that option be pursued the Burra Charter Articles relating to new work within significant places must be followed.15

9 Conservation Policy no. 3 10 For example the ‘Connect Buildings’ option 11 Statement of Significance: ‘…The Hobart Supreme Court Precinct has aesthetic significance as the work of a talented architect, working at a time of enlightened Government sponsored procurement of public buildings. The architectural/aesthetic/townscape significance of the complex has recently been recognised nationally.’ 12 Peter Partridge 2010, talk to the AIA Tasmanian chapter; refer also Appendix B below. 13 Conservation Policy no. 4 14 This will be a policy that must be discussed with the HCC, given Council’s management of St. David’s Park. 15 ARTICLE 22: NEW WORK: Article 22.1: New work such as additions to the place may be acceptable where it does not distort or obscure the cultural significance of the place, or detract from its interpretation and appreciation. HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 5:5

DISCUSSION: THE TOWNSCAPE OF THE SUPREME COURT PRECINCT16

The ‘northern’ end of Salamanca Place offers an ‘area of repose’ due to the presence of the calm and dignified Courts precinct, the vacant street frontages of the ‘Parliament Square’ area, and the Gardens. The ‘townscape’ integration of the Courts precinct within Salamanca Place was one of the design objectives of the architect.

POLICY 5: THE TOWNSCAPE OF THE SUPREME COURT PRECINCT 17

The preferred conservation / adaptive reuse / redevelopment option must retain the townscape, streetscape, and landscape integration of the Courts precinct within the Salamanca Place and St. David’s Park precinct.

DISCUSSION: THE ASSOCIATIONAL VALUES OF THE SUPREME COURT PRECINCT18

The history and associations of the Hobart Supreme Court is currently proudly celebrated within the corridors of the Civil Court building by means of framed photographs, and legal ephemera. This history is also celebrated within the Judge’s Library and the Law Library though the highly valuable collections of antiquarian legal volumes.

POLICY 6: THE ASSOCIATIONAL VALUES OF THE SUPREME COURT PRECINCT 19

The proud tradition of historical display and interpretation should be pursued in any redevelopment of the Courts complex, preferably within the external and internal public areas within the Courts precinct.

DISCUSSION: THE AIA ENDURING ARCHITECTURE AWARD20

The awarding of the AIA’s national ‘Enduring Architecture’ award has been a great achievement for the building’s architects, clients, and the people of Hobart. The Jury’s 2010 citation is laudatory in its praises of the building complex:

‘…This building is an exemplary, enduring piece of public architecture that makes a poised contribution to the city of Hobart. The plaza between the two court buildings opens up a diagonal landscape link between St David’s Park above, the adjacent Parliament Square and the Sullivans Cove waterfront. From Salamanca Place a slate base folds up like a piece of carved landscape and supports two sandstone-clad pavilions. This is a building that is indebted to classicism but carries the burden of a period of architecture much maligned for its material brutality. The use of materials here is super-direct and the detailing studious.’

Article 22.2: New work should be readily identifiable as such. NB: New work may be sympathetic if its siting, bulk, form, scale, character, colour, texture and material are similar to the existing fabric, but imitation should be avoided. 16 Statement of Significance: ‘…The Precinct buildings are modestly placed on the Salamanca Place site and complement the historic cultural landscape of St. David’s Park, the Parliament House gardens, and the Parliament House itself. The Precinct has achieved a rare integration with the townscape of Salamanca Place, in paving materials, in landscape plantings, and in the careful detailing of the ‘public’ approach from the street domain to the domain of the Supreme Court.’ 17 Conservation Policy no. 5 18 Statement of Significance: ‘…The Supreme Court is the highest court in Tasmania, and thus the Court complex has special meaning within the judicial system of the State, and has been central to the contact history and European history of the settlement of Hobart. The associational significance of the precinct relates to the first Supreme Court judges, Judge Barron Field; the Court's first Chief Justice, John Lewes Pedder; and with the great jurist after whom the Supreme Court library is named, Andrew Inglis Clarke. The recent work of Chief Justice Sir Stanley Burbury in mentoring the new Supreme Court at Salamanca Place is important is also of significance. 19 Conservation Policy no. 6 20 Statement of Significance: ‘…In terms of architectural connections, the work of the architect Peter Partridge and the Tasmanian PWD are clearly of significance.’ HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 5:6

‘Inside, the complex is judicially innovative through the planning of four courts in the round. The interior carries the gravity of the building’s function but is human in its detail and scale. The complex is in remarkably original order because of the skill with which it was designed. Here is a reminder that investment in public architecture has a lasting effect on the city.’

The citation identifies the key elements of the Courts buildings, which must be conserved: the slate base and sandstone pavilions; the direct and simple detailing; the ‘in the round’ planning intent of the Courtrooms; the human scale of the interiors; and the wise investment of public monies in creating an enduring architecture.

POLICY 7: THE AIA ENDURING ARCHITECTURE AWARD 21

The Court’s tradition of display and interpretation should include the public display of the ‘Enduring Architecture’ award with an adjacent appropriate explanatory panel.

DISCUSSION: TASMANIAN HERITAGE REGISTER NOMINATION

The Supreme Court precinct has been nominated for listing on the Tasmanian Heritage Register [THR].22 Although the nomination is not currently being processed, if the complex were considered to be under threat through inappropriate development, the listing process would be brought forward and it is anticipated that the precinct would be entered on the THR. Given that the Supreme Court precinct has received one of the Australian Institute of Architect’s heritage awards, it is appropriate that this nomination proceed. The precinct is also being considered for entry to the AIA Tasmania Chapter Register of Significant Twentieth Century Architecture [RSTCA].

POLICY 8: TASMANIAN HERITAGE REGISTER NOMINATION 23

In view of the cultural significance of the precinct, stated conservation management policies and strategies are to guide any interventions to the precinct, in order to ensure that the significant elements of the building [external and internal spaces and detail] are conserved, commensurate with the briefed requirements of any proposed intervention. 24 The precinct should be re-nominated for entry to the THR once proposed interventions are agreed with the stakeholders.

5.3 CONSERVATION POLICY: MORAL RIGHTS REQUIREMENTS

DISCUSSION: STATUTORY MORAL RIGHTS REQUIREMENTS

The Australian Institute of Architects [AIA] Practice Services Division has issued ‘AN 10.02.101 Copyright: Moral rights’ [July 2001] as preliminary advice on the moral rights parameters of the projects involving culturally significant buildings and artworks. The Copyright Amendment [Moral Rights] Act 2000 allows for the moral rights of attribution and the moral rights of integrity.

21 Conservation Policy no. 7 22 Refer citation at Section 4 above 23 Conservation Policy no. 8 24 The Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter defined processes of conservation include: Maintenance: which means the continuous protective care of the fabric and setting of a place, and is to be distinguished from repair. Repair involves restoration or reconstruction; Preservation: which means maintaining the fabric of a place in its existing state and retarding deterioration; Restoration: which means returning the existing fabric of a place to a known earlier state by removing accretions or by reassembling existing components without the introduction of new material; Reconstruction: which means returning a place to a known earlier state and is distinguished from restoration by the introduction of new material into the fabric; and Adaptation: which means modifying a place to suit the existing use or a proposed use. HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 5:7

As well as explaining these rights, the AIA Practice Note AN 10.02.101 primarily identifies some crucial issues and actions for architects / clients involved in such projects: ‘…Clients may seek to obtain a waiver of the moral rights associated with work created on their behalf. A waiver may address only integrity so that the owner can alter or renovate the property in the future without restriction, but it may also address attribution so that they are not required to acknowledge the architect if the project is published in magazines or advertising material; ‘…The owner of a property who is contemplating renovations or alterations is required to notify the original architect of their intentions and give the original architect the opportunity to ‘record’ the building before the alterations take place. A total of six weeks is provided for the notification and the time for the architect to make the record. The Act also allows the original architect the right to consult with the owner regarding proposed changes or demolition; ‘…Where an architect is engaged to alter an existing building not of their design, the architect should draw the client’s attention to the requirements of the Act with regard to notifying the original architect. ‘…As the rights belong to the individual, not the practice, employment contracts will need to deal with the waiver of moral rights for work created by a staff member, while employed by the practice.’

POLICY 9: STATUTORY MORAL RIGHTS REQUIREMENTS 19

The Department of Justice and the Supreme Court [as client] will be required to follow the requirements of the AIA Practice Note AN 10.02.101 and the Copyright Amendment [Moral Rights] Act 2000. Continued liaison with the design architect [Peter Partridge] will hence be essential for the successful carriage of any proposed redevelopment / intervention within the precinct.

5.4 CONSERVATION POLICY: THE FUNCTIONING OF THE SUPREME COURTS

DISCUSSION: FORM AND FUNCTION20

The existing Court buildings are inflexible, with concrete slab and load-bearing wall construction. In addition the internal walls are almost exclusively sand filled [for acoustic reasons]. Peter Partridge described the reasons for this construction approach:21

‘The fourth design principle was to accommodate two fundamental functional requirements of quiet and privacy. Apart from the courtrooms and the judges' library most spaces do not require large spans, so most walls are load bearing. The walls were built from 200mm thick hollow concrete blocks filled with dry sand to reduce sound transmission. Many walls are lined with timber panelling and where necessary panelling was given sound absorbent qualities.’

The Court facilities are housed in two essentially separate buildings. However, the Court is required to operate as a single entity, hence the functionality and its current form compromises security of the Courts.

19 Conservation Policy no. 9 20 These issues with current facilities have been identified from the recent [2011] Supreme Courts Stakeholder Workshop, and within previous reports on the functions of the Courts, as having an effect on the successful operation of the Court Complex. This text is extracted [in edited form] from the 2012 draft ‘Outline Functional Brief and Strategic Development of Options’ prepared for the Department of Justice by Stephen Firth Architect. 21 Peter Partridge, AIA Tasmanian Chapter 2010 HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 5:8

The Supreme Courts staff is housed in the two buildings, causing inefficiencies and duplications due to this separation. The Courtrooms are designed ‘in the round’ with no ready potential for increases in room size or reconfiguration of courtroom shape. The Courtrooms are relatively inflexible, with facilities for only twelve Jurors [within the Criminal Courts], and very limited capacity for multi-defendants and their Legal Counsel; and the separation of the Criminal and Civil Court buildings requires duplication of facilities in both buildings and the continuous movement of material between them. The inappropriate separation of available spaces [Civil Registry, Probate, Sheriff’s Office and Criminal Registry area, including jury support and legal] has lead to increased administrative overheads with the duplication of services and the inability to appropriately ‘multi-skill’ the Court staff, however this may be a purely administrative failing.

DISCUSSION: CURRENT SUPREME COURT FACILITIES22

There are insufficient numbers of Courts to cope with current demand, there is no multi- purpose Court facility; and there is a lack of pre-trial conference facilities. The Courtrooms have major functional issues in the location of the internal functions, line-of-sight issues, flexibility of use for differing trials, adequacy of space for separate functions within the Court, and incorporation of current technology and adaptability for future technological changes. With the changes to the manner in which the Courts have operate over the thirty years, a number of facilities are now required that currently are not provided, including additional Interview rooms and Mediation rooms, specific Judge’s and Staff amenities, Judges Withdrawal rooms and Conference rooms.

In Civil Law cases many parties are often involved, multiple defendants, multiple counsel, and multiple expert witnesses who may appear together. All these parties require larger facilities [e.g. witness boxes with greater capacity] and improved communication technologies. An increase in accommodation is required for the Crown Prosecutor and Legal accommodation, and for the Jury Assembly and Jury Rooms. Finally, the Probate Registry does not provide appropriate work or training facilities.

DISCUSSION: SECURITY23

Security is deficient by any standard of modern court construction due to the inherent design of the buildings. There are multiple entrances to the buildings, fragmented operations, and no control zones to ensure that jurors, accused persons, counsel, witnesses and the general public are appropriately separated. There is no perimeter security to Court complex; and the separation of the Civil and Criminal Court buildings has an impact on the manner in which security can be provided. Reception functions are duplicated across the buildings which can, in turn, create security risks.

DISCUSSION: AMENITIES & ACCESS TO THE COURTS24

Toilet facilities serving the Judges’ Chambers; Staff and Public all require improvement. There is no staff amenities room, and staff sometimes eat their lunch at their desks, creating potential Occupational Health and Safety [OH&S] issues. There is inadequate physical access to many areas of the buildings [e.g. external entrances, doorways, lifts, toilets, and components within the Courtrooms which are separated by level changes]. Facilities do not meet current disability access standards as measured against the Disability Discrimination Act [DDA].

22 This text is extracted [in edited form] from the 2012 draft ‘Outline Functional Brief and Strategic Development of Options’ prepared for the Department of Justice by Stephen Firth Architect. 23 This text is extracted [in edited form] from the 2012 draft ‘Outline Functional Brief and Strategic Development of Options’ prepared for the Department of Justice by Stephen Firth Architect. 24 This text is extracted [in edited form] from the 2012 draft ‘Outline Functional Brief and Strategic Development of Options’ prepared for the Department of Justice by Stephen Firth Architect. HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 5:9

The Courts complex will be required to accord with [as far as is feasible], the Disability Discrimination Act 1992. The Disability Standards25 also set performance requirements and provide references to technical specifications to ensure dignified access to, and use of, buildings for people with a disability. These standards clarify the general non-discrimination provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 in relation to the design, construction, and management of buildings.

DISCUSSION: ENGINEERING & COMMUNICATION SERVICES26

The engineering services installations within the Supreme Court buildings are typically in excess of 30 years old. Some upgrade and modifications have occurred over the buildings’ life-span however major system infrastructure is generally original and has generally exceeded its economic and operational life.

A ‘band aid’ approach to technology and servicing currently prevails. Essential technology is not built into the overall fabric of the buildings, which necessitates awkward and disruptive courtroom actions [such as having to wheel in a camera for video conferencing], and provision of viewing screens as there are no inbuilt screens. A comprehensive integration of services is required.27 There is currently limited capacity to offer video link evidence-giving for vulnerable witnesses or to set up a child friendly environment for child witnesses; and there is a lack of capacity to broadcast court proceedings to an audience in other parts of the court facility [e.g. to public not to be accommodated within the Court or for groups of students].

POLICY 10: THE FUNCTIONING OF THE SUPREME COURTS 28

Interventions and alterations to the existing Courts buildings and surrounds to correct or ameliorate current functional problems, must be undertaken with due cognisance for the cultural significance of the place and its fabric. The conservation ethic of a ‘cautious approach of changing as much as necessary but as little as possible’, must apply to any intervention.

5.5 CONSERVATION POLICY: THE NEED FOR INTERVENTION

DISCUSSION: THE NEED FOR CHANGE29

There is a need for change to the Supreme Courts precinct in order to enhance the public experience of justice; to support contemporary approaches to justice [e.g. use of mediation, pre-trial conferencing, vulnerable witness evidence including via video-link]; to improve efficiency;30 to improve physical accessibility to meet current access standards and improve functional/operational access to ensure that justice can be available for all; to improve

25 Access to Premises [Buildings] Standards 2010, 26 This text is extracted [in edited form] from the 2012 draft ‘Outline Functional Brief and Strategic Development of Options’ prepared for the Department of Justice by Stephen Firth Architect. 27 Computer use to all courtrooms will become a necessity in the future operations of the Courts. 28 Conservation Policy no. 10. The Burra Charter ARTICLE 3: CAUTIOUS APPROACH Article 3.1: Conservation is based on a respect for the existing fabric, use, associations and meanings. It requires a cautious approach of changing as much as necessary but as little as possible. Article 3.2 Changes to a place should not distort the physical or other evidence it provides, nor be based on conjecture. 29 This text is extracted [in edited form] from the 2012 draft ‘Outline Functional Brief and Strategic Development of Options’ prepared for the Department of Justice by Stephen Firth Architect. Peter Partridge has made comment [2012] that ‘…In formulating any brief and developing schedules of spaces the inflexible nature of the existing structure needs to be given due cognisance, there is little point in briefing spaces with increased areas over those that exist where the impact and cost of such interventions would be high and the alternatives of continuing to operate within slightly more modest areas remains feasible.’ 30 The Supreme Court is committed to court excellence by reducing the number of pending matters before the Court to reduce the total elapsed time for a matter to pass through the Criminal and Civil Justice systems. HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 5:10

OH&S provisions and staff amenity generally, to improve the Court environment through upgraded acoustics and engineering services; and to improve security by managed security through use of zoning and controlled public access.

DISCUSSION: OPPORTUNITIES FOR CHANGE31

There is the potential to amalgamate the Criminal and Civil Registries and some Court facilities could be used for both Criminal and Civil work if they could be redeveloped to allow multi-use. There are opportunities to have shared reception, and shared foyer space and to improve security provision. There is an opportunity to rationalise the Judges’ Chambers accommodation if all the Court facilities were to be located in one [conjoined] building.32 Current technology could be built into the building, and more opportunities could be made for increasing Court participation, by broadcasts to remote locations.

The Court functions that are of ‘occasional use’ could be located close by, but not necessarily within the Supreme Court building.33 Functions such as transcribing, ceremonial events,34 library services, vulnerable witness evidence-giving, mediations,35 and some car parking could be provided nearby but not on-site.36

POLICY 11: THE NEED FOR INTERVENTION 37

The bifurcated nature of the Supreme Courts complex, the current necessity for upgrading of the Courts functions and systems, the need to rationalise outdated modes of operation, and to properly use currently under utilised space, means that change to the Court complex is inevitable. The proper and efficient use of the existing facilities, and their augmentation where necessary, will result in a Supreme Courts complex fit for another forty years of use. A used building is a conserved building.

5.6 CONSERVATION POLICY: OPTIONS FOR INTERVENTION

The four agreed options for intervention have been set out in a separate document, and are summarised in Appendix A below.38 The conservation management policy issues associated with each of these four options are discussed below.

DISCUSSION: OPTIONS FOR INTERVENTION: ‘CONNECT BUILDINGS’39

The intention of this option is to provide the required additional Courtroom accommodation and to resolve issues of zoning and security. This option proposes that a new infill building be constructed between the two existing court buildings, linking them on both levels, thus increasing effectiveness and efficiency in the management of the buildings, and providing a

31 This text is extracted [in edited form] from the 2012 draft ‘Outline Functional Brief and Strategic Development of Options’ prepared for the Department of Justice by Stephen Firth Architect. Peter Partridge has made comment [2012] that ‘…There is a real opportunity for moving forward, to take into account the future developments in communications and digital technology, particularly the emergence of nano technology and of a generation of practitioners and Judges who will have been raised from preschool age with computers at their fingertips. A key person in the briefing for any redevelopment should be a first class electronic and media specialist.’ 32 There would thus be no need to duplicate two Judges’ Chambers, one Associates’ office and one Attendants’ office, and these areas and facilities could be replaced with one ‘hot desk’ shared office for use by the Judges in short breaks during trials. 33 For example the general Court law library does not necessarily have to be collocated with the Courts. 34 The ceremonial events would ideally be held in a larger court in the redeveloped Supreme Court complex, or within a precinct of the Court as long as the site had the appropriate ‘status and look’ for such important events. 35 Those involved in mediations see them as important to have conducted on-site but there was a comment about the potential to hold them elsewhere. 36 Some facilities may not even need to be provided nearby, such as transcription services. 37 Conservation Policy no. 11. 38 Stephen Firth Architect ‘Hobart Supreme Court Redevelopment: Investment Concept Outline’, 2011 39 A diagrammatic representation of the ‘connect buildings’ option is provided at Appendix A below. HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 5:11

centralised entry and security control and providing improved disabled access to all facilities.40

Clearly this option will result in radical change to the existing public entry to the Courts off Salamanca Place, the linking of two previously unconnected buildings, and the removal of the St. David’s Park link through the Court precinct to Salamanca Place. This intervention will be major, and will change the ‘public face’ of the precinct.

POLICY 12: OPTIONS FOR INTERVENTION: ‘CONNECT BUILDINGS’41

If this option is pursued the following policies must be adhered to: • The conservation ethic of a ‘cautious approach of changing as much as necessary but as little as possible’, must apply to any intervention; 42 • The Burra Charter requirements relating to new work within significant places must be followed 43 • The new linkage building must be a recognisably modern intervention, must be no higher than the highest point of the Criminal Courts building, and must encroach as little as possible into the Salamanca Place forecourt of the complex; • The designed form and detail and internal planning of both buildings, including the courts in the round should be retained as far as is feasible;44 • The architectural palette of the original Court buildings in the link area may be changed only as much as is necessary and as little as possible; • The slate paving and architectural forms of the Salamanca Place forecourt will inevitably be modified, however the palette of slate paving and cladding must be continued in any intervention; and • Any addition to the Courts at the St. David’s boundary must respect the heritage of the Park, and be modest in colour and form.

DISCUSSION: OPTIONS FOR INTERVENTION: ‘MAINTAIN SEPARATION45

The intention of this option is to maintain the existing external fabric, the existing form of the buildings and existing pattern of pedestrian circulation. In restricting any development to within the property boundary there is limited opportunity to provide for additional Court accommodation. It is therefore necessary to reconfigure the existing main Civil Court Room so that it can be used for both Civil and Criminal trials. This will require a secure connection between the custody cells housed in the lower level of the Criminal Courts, and the [now] multi-purpose Court. This connection will need to be at the lower level to enable the existing pedestrian movement between the buildings to continue in its current manner.46 Clearly this option will result in some change to the existing public entry to the Courts off Salamanca Place, but to major change internally, in order to achieve the required [briefed]

40 The total accommodation is in the order of 6,500 sq. metres. 41 Conservation Policy no. 12. 42 The Burra Charter ARTICLE 3: CAUTIOUS APPROACH Article 3.1: Conservation is based on a respect for the existing fabric, use, associations and meanings. It requires a cautious approach of changing as much as necessary but as little as possible. Article 3.2 Changes to a place should not distort the physical or other evidence it provides, nor be based on conjecture. 43 The Burra Charter ARTICLE 22: NEW WORK Article 22.1: New work such as additions to the place may be acceptable where it does not distort or obscure the cultural significance of the place, or detract from its interpretation and appreciation. Article 22.2: New work should be readily identifiable as such. NB: New work may be sympathetic if its siting, bulk, form, scale, character, colour, texture and material are similar to the existing fabric, but imitation should be avoided. 44 This plan configuration could be achieved by connecting the two existing buildings by the construction of a new multi-use courtroom. Utilising that plan configuration, it would be feasible to maintain the existing fabric of one or both of the Criminal Court Rooms, and the minor Civil Court Room. The major Civil Court Room and possibly one Criminal Court Room would be modified as required. 45 A diagrammatic representation of the ‘maintain separation’ option is provided at Appendix A below. 46 Stephen Firth Architect ‘Hobart Supreme Court Redevelopment: Investment Concept Outline’, 2011. HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 5:12

accommodation. This intervention will involve major interventions internally, but will not radically change the ‘public face’ of the precinct, apart from modifications and insertions to the entrance plaza.47

POLICY 13: OPTIONS FOR INTERVENTION ‘MAINTAIN SEPARATION‘48

If this option is pursued the following policies must be adhered to: • The conservation ethic of a ‘cautious approach of changing as much as necessary but as little as possible’, must apply to any intervention; • The Burra Charter requirements relating to new work within significant places must be followed;; • The designed form and detail and internal planning of both buildings, including the ‘courts in the round’ should be retained as far as is feasible;49 and • The necessary modifications to the slate paving and architectural forms of the Salamanca Place forecourt and plaza should continue the palette of slate paving and cladding, and the angular architectural forms of the original design.50

DISCUSSION: OPTIONS FOR INTERVENTION: ‘A NEW SUPREME COURT SITE51

The implications of the Supreme Court’s functions relocating to a new site are that the heritage values and significance of the existing building complex in Salamanca Place would be compromised. The buildings are in Government ownership and the Government has a responsibility under the Tasmanian Heritage Act to protect the heritage values of the building. The presence of the Courts in this location is one of the significant values of the place. Only since 1980 have the two Supreme Courts been co-located. The ‘new’ site of the Courts at Salamanca Place is perfectly located, with its proximity to Parliament and the Government Offices; to the legal chambers of Macquarie, Murray and Davey Streets, and to the Department of Justice. Given its nearly forty-year occupancy of the Salamanca Place site, the Court precinct is now inseparable from its address, and the significance of the Place is now equated with the significance of the Courts precinct. It would be difficult [and probably impossible] to find a new site, which had these relationships.

POLICY 14: OPTIONS FOR INTERVENTION: ‘A NEW SUPREME COURT SITE‘52

The relocation of the Supreme Courts, and its vacating of the current site should only be undertaken as a ‘last resort’, and only if the continued conservation of this nationally significant precinct is guaranteed.

DISCUSSION: OPTIONS FOR INTERVENTION: ‘DO NOTHING’

This option pre-supposes that the Supreme Courts complex will continue without changes to the building fabric or basic configuration. The buildings will become less energy efficient and cost more to operate. With no alteration, the functional and security problems will continue and the buildings will not accord with the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act. Even if the decision is made to do nothing to the complex, in order for the buildings to

47 This option will require the insertion of an ‘external’ lift fro the Salamanca Place level to the Civil Courts plaza level of the complex; and the reconstruction of the upper Plaza level to achieve adequate disability access to both Court areas. 48 Conservation Policy no. 13. 49 This plan configuration could be achieved by modifying the major Civil Court Room as a multi-use Courtroom, and at least one Criminal Courtroom. There may be a need to modify both the Criminal Courtrooms. The modification of the minor Civil Courtroom is not feasible as it descends a number of levels from the floor level. 50 Peter Partridge has made comment [2012] that ‘…The relativity of the slate paving levels should be retained so that the pavilions can still ‘float’ over the slate base.’ 51 Refer also page 5:3 above ‘A Home for the Supreme Courts’. 52 Conservation Policy no. 14. HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 5:13

continue to operate an upgrade of the engineering, communication, and IT services will still be required. 53 Additionally, the status of the Supreme Courts in Tasmania, compared with the Courts of other States and Territories, will falter if active management and conservation is not pursued more positively.

POLICY 15: OPTIONS FOR INTERVENTION: ‘DO NOTHING’54

A ‘do-nothing’ for the Supreme Courts should only be undertaken as a ‘last resort’, and only if the continued conservation of this nationally significant precinct is guaranteed.

5.7 CONSERVATION POLICY: PROCURING A NATIONALLY SIGNIFICANT INTERVENTION

DISCUSSION: ‘A NATIONALLY SIGNIFICANT INTERVENTION’

The Supreme Court complex and precinct has received a national architectural and heritage award for its excellence, and achievements. Any intervention [within the first two options] must be of national calibre. In order to provide a ‘national status’ architectural resolution for the project, it is recommended that the consultant architects are selected through a process that includes the presentation of concept designs. It is further proposed that the selection, assessment, and recommendation be the task of a panel of experienced persons incorporating expertise in architecture, conservation architecture, judicial matters, and planning.55

POLICY 16: ‘A NATIONALLY SIGNIFICANT INTERVENTION’56

The selection, assessment and recommendation of consultant architects should be the task of a panel of experienced persons incorporating expertise in architecture, conservation architecture, judicial matters, and planning. The original design architect should have an involvement in monitoring of, and engagement in, the briefing and design process.

5.7 CONSERVATION POLICY: REVIEW OF THIS PLAN

DISCUSSION: REVIEW OF THIS PLAN

The Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter guidelines state that ‘…Statements of significance and conservation policy should be kept up to date by regular review and revision as necessary. The conservation management plan may deal with other matters related to the management of the place.’

POLICY 17: REVIEW OF THIS PLAN57

Undertake a review of this Plan at five-year intervals, or in the event that a specific adaptive reuse intervention is proposed for the place.

53 Stephen Firth Architect ‘Hobart Supreme Court Redevelopment: Investment Concept Outline’, 2011. The buildings are nearly forty years old, and the building fabric is showing evidence of degradation, requiring an increasing maintenance budget to address such areas as stone and slate restoration, floor finishes, and service areas such as toilets and staff facilities which will require replacement. 54 Conservation Policy no. 15. 55 Peter Partridge has made comment [2012] that ‘…The current situation and skills required are not very different from those that produced the existing building. The existing buildings are ‘…architecturally significant as the work of a talented architect’. The original design architect [PHP] has assisted in the critiquing of this Plan, and there is a good case for allowing Peter Partridge a greater involvement in finalising the brief; an area of expertise in which he has considerable experience, and involvement in progressing the proposals through to concept design. This arrangement would also satisfy the statutory moral rights requirements. 56 Conservation Policy no. 16. 57 Conservation Policy no. 17. HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 5:14

6.0 CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT POLICY STRATEGIES

6.1 PREAMBLE

This Section provides a discussion of appropriate strategies for the stated conservation management policies.1 The structure of this Section is that each conservation management policy is a stated, followed by a discussion and statement of appropriate policy strategies and implementation.

6.2 CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT POLICY STRATEGIES

6.2.1 THE STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE PRECINCT

STRATEGIES FOR THE GUIDING CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT POLICY2

Conservation strategies will be directed to the retention of the place’s significance, to the satisfying of the functional requirements of a modern Supreme Courts complex, and to the adoption of a ‘cautious approach’, with respect to conservation, management, and intervention.

STRATEGIES FOR MARKING THE ABORIGINAL & EUROPEAN OCCUPATIONS OF THE SITE3

Conservation strategy will be to enter into dialogue with the Hobart City Council with respect to an integrated approach to placing interpretative markers within the Precinct, in order to explain the historical associations and significances of the place.

STRATEGIES FOR A CONTINUING HOME FOR THE HOBART SUPREME COURT4

Conservation strategy will be directed to maintaining the Courts complex at the Salamanca Place address. This strategy will include dialogue with the Hobart City Council with respect to minimising the parking requirements for any new development within the precinct, and to the integration of pedestrian networks between the precinct and the adjacent streets and Park.

STRATEGIES FOR THE FORM OF THE SUPREME COURT BUILDINGS5

Conservation strategy will be directed to maintaining the ‘low-rise’ tradition of the Supreme Courts complex. The ‘low-rise’ configuration of the precinct buildings is, in itself, one of the significances in the evolution and development of a Supreme Court ‘home’ on this site, and must be retained.

STRATEGIES FOR THE AESTHETIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SUPREME COURT BUILDINGS6

1 Refer Section 5 above. 2 Guiding Policy: The Hobart Supreme Court complex should be conserved, and the aim of conservation management should be to retain the cultural significance of the place. All conservation should be based on a respect for the existing fabric, use, associations and meanings. Conservation and adaptive reuse interventions require a cautious approach of changing as much as necessary but as little as possible. 3 Policy 1: Rectify the historical absences by placing interpretative markers within the Precinct, to explain the historical associations of the place. These markers [or panels] could be similar in style and form to those installations currently used with the Sullivans Cove area. 4 Policy 2: The significance of the Courts precinct is now inseparable from its Salamanca Place address. The preferred conservation / adaptive reuse / redevelopment option will retain the Supreme Court presence on its current site. 5 Policy 3: The preferred conservation / adaptive reuse / redevelopment option will retain the Supreme Court morphology of existing low-rise building. If a physical intervention is made the new intervention must be a similarly low-rise building. 6 Policy 4: The preferred conservation / adaptive reuse / redevelopment option should retain the Supreme Court central [designed] path to the Park; however if that configuration became functionally unjustifiable as part of satisfying the client’s functional and statutory obligations, the connection should be maintained along the NW Court boundary only. Should that option be pursued within a ‘connect buildings’ approach, the Burra Charter Articles relating to new work within significant places must be followed. HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 6:1

Conservation strategy will be to enter into dialogue with the Hobart City Council to ensure that the traditional relationships with St. David’s Park and Salamanca Place are retained and augmented. Strategy should also include entering into dialogue with the Tasmanian Department of Finance and Treasury to ensure that any development on the ‘Parliament Square’ site is appropriately scaled, and is a ‘good neighbour’ to the Supreme Courts precinct.

STRATEGIES FOR THE TOWNSCAPE OF THE SUPREME COURT PRECINCT7

Refer to the strategies for the aesthetic significance of the Supreme Court buildings [above].

STRATEGIES FOR THE ASSOCIATIONAL VALUES OF THE SUPREME COURT PRECINCT8

Conservation strategy will be directed to augmenting the extant admirable historical display within the Courts public areas such that the visiting public and Court clients can gain an understanding of the associational significance of the precinct, and particularly the previous locations, within Hobart, of the Supreme Court buildings.

STRATEGIES FOR THE NATIONAL ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PRECINCT9

Conservation strategy will be to enter into dialogue with the Hobart City Council to ensure that the traditional relationships with St. David’s Park and Salamanca Place are retained and augmented.

STRATEGIES FOR THE TASMANIAN HERITAGE REGISTER NOMINATION & ENTRY10

Conservation strategy will be to enter into dialogue with the Tasmanian Heritage Council in order to re-nominate the precinct for entry to the Tasmanian Heritage Register once proposed interventions are agreed with the stakeholders. A new citation for the precinct should be prepared, which recognises the national architecture significance of the place, and the recommendations of this plan. The Hobart City Council, and the Tasmanian Heritage Council should endorse this Plan.

6.2.2 THE MORAL RIGHTS REQUIREMENTS

STRATEGIES FOR THE STATUTORY MORAL RIGHTS REQUIREMENTS11

Conservation strategy will be to continue in dialogue with the original architect, Peter Partridge, and encourage participation by the original architect in a consultant consortium for the Supreme Court’s redevelopment.

6.2.3 THE FUNCTIONING OF THE COURT COMPLEX

STRATEGIES FOR THE OPTIMUM FUNCTIONING OF THE SUPREME COURTS12

7 Policy 5: The preferred conservation / adaptive reuse / redevelopment option must retain the townscape / streetscape / landscape integration of the Courts precinct within the Salamanca Place / St. David’s Park precinct. 8 Policy 6: The proud tradition of historical display and interpretation should be pursued in any redevelopment of the Courts complex, preferably within an area, which is also available to the public, and to clients of the Courts. 9 Policy 7: The Court’s tradition of display and interpretation should include the public display of the ‘Enduring Architecture’ award with an adjacent appropriate explanatory panel. 10 Policy 8: In view of the cultural significance of the precinct, stated conservation management policies and strategies are to guide any interventions to the precinct, in order to ensure that the significant elements of the building [siting / landscape / external and internal spaces and detail] are conserved, commensurate with the briefed requirements of any proposed intervention. The precinct should be re-nominated for entry to the THR once proposed interventions are agreed with the stakeholders. 11 Policy 9: The Department of Justice and the Supreme Court [as client] will be required to follow the requirements of the AIA Practice Note AN 10.02.101 and the Copyright Amendment [Moral Rights] Act 2000. Continued liaison with the design architect [Peter Partridge] will hence be essential for the successful carriage of any proposed redevelopment / intervention within the precinct. HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 6:2

Conservation strategy will be to adopt a cautious approach to any intervention into the building’s exteriors and interiors, and to the precinct landscape. Any intervention must make use of modern communications and recording technology, and thus minimise, where feasible, the necessities for physical interventions in the precinct fabric.

6.2.4 THE NEED FOR CHANGE

STRATEGIES FOR THE NEED FOR INTERVENTION13

Conservation strategy will be to accept that there is a functional need for change, in that the bifurcated nature of the Supreme Courts complex, the current necessity for upgrading of the Courts functions and systems, the need to rationalise outdated modes of operation, and to properly use currently under utilised space, means that change to the Court complex is inevitable. Conservation strategies will be directed to lateral solutions such as the reuse and augmented prominence of the Salamanca Place ‘lower’ entrance, and the relocation of the secure ‘police’ entry off Salamanca Place, in order to achieve a more generous ‘public’ entrance to the court complex at the lower and upper levels.

STRATEGIES FOR A NATIONALLY SIGNIFICANT INTERVENTION14

Conservation strategy will be directed to engaging the precinct’s stakeholders in a dialogue about the best options for intervention. This process has already commenced with a series of stakeholder meetings and workshops to consider redevelopment options, and background documents, such as this Plan.

6.2.5 REVIEW OF THIS PLAN

STRATEGIES FOR REVIEW OF THIS PLAN15

Undertake a review of this Plan at five-year intervals, or in the event that a specific adaptive reuse intervention is proposed for the place.

12 Policy 10: Interventions and alterations to the existing Courts buildings and surrounds to correct or ameliorate current functional problems, must be undertaken with due cognisance for the cultural significance of the place and its fabric. The conservation ethic of a ‘cautious approach of changing as much as necessary but as little as possible’, must apply to any intervention. 13 Policy 11: The bifurcated nature of the Supreme Courts complex, the current necessity for upgrading of the Courts functions and systems, the need to rationalise outdated modes of operation, and to properly use currently under utilised space, means that change to the Court complex is inevitable. The proper and efficient use of the existing facilities, and their augmentation where necessary, will result in a Supreme Courts complex fit for another forty years of use. A used building is a conserved building. 14 Policy 16: The selection, assessment and recommendation of consultant architects should be the task of a panel of experienced persons incorporating expertise in architecture, conservation architecture, judicial matters, and planning. The original design architect should have an involvement in monitoring of, and engagement in, the briefing and design process. 15 Policy 17: Undertake a review of this Plan at five-year intervals, or in the event that a specific adaptive reuse intervention is proposed for the place. HOBART SUPREME COURT CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 • PAGE 6:3