Submissions can be made on line until 24 November 2022 on the Department of Planning and Environment’s website: https://www.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/node/30303866. While we have provided direct links to documents below they can also be found at this weblink.
Since this guide was prepared REDWatch has also posted a REDWatch Update on the LES Exhibition issues as well as the City of Sydney Submission on Large Erecting Shop Rezoning Proposal
The LES sits in South Eveleigh to the West of the recently redeveloped Locomotive Workshops. The space between these two buildings is the proposed location for a connecting Bridge to Carriageworks that would save a 20minutes walk between the two sites. If you argued for a connecting bridge for the paintshop precinct you should also argue in this exhibition for that same bridge. Latter we will also deal with the relevant contributions plan and the money the NSW Government has already collected towards the bridge.
Like the Paint Shop and Clothing Store Precincts in North Eveleigh, the LES is owned by Transport Asset Holding Entity NSW (TAHE) and managed by Transport Heritage NSW (TfNSW). In 2015 when Mirvac purchased the Australian Technology Park it obtained rights to negotiate for the LES should it become available for redevelopment. After an unsolicited proposal in October 2018, Mirvac entered into a Cooperation deal with TfNSW on behalf of TAHE to start the planning for the site redevelopment.
Under the Redfern Waterloo Authority (RWA) the LES was to be pulled down and replaced with a 12 storey building but opposition from residents and heritage rail groups saw the building saved. One of the last acts of the RWA was to restore the height controls to existing height and to reinstate a zoning of ‘Special Purpose Zone – Infrastructure’ with a site-specific clause (clause 23A, Appendix 3, Precincts SEPP) that also allows development with consent for the purposes of ‘information and education facilities’ and ‘rail infrastructure facilities’. At this time the site was operated by heritage rail operator 3801 Ltd.
The current rezoning seeks to change the zoning for the land to ‘Business Zone – Business Park’ under the Precincts - Eastern Harbour City SEPP to allow for a mix of commercial and retail development, the same zoning as the surrounding South Eveleigh park.
The Height remains the existing height but with flexibility for minor protrusions of up to 1 metre for roof plant, machinery and cooling towers subject to consent authority approval.
The big change is in the floor space that will be allowed within the building. The proposal takes a high open production building and in effect puts 3 floors of offices into the building. The internal floor footprint of the LES is approx. 6,000 sqm and the rezoning proposes 15,000 sqm equating to a Floor Space ration of 2.5:1. The Explanation of Intended Effects lists those items not included in floor space calculations such as loading docs, lift wells, cooling towers etc. The quantity of floor space requested will have the effect of removing much of the scale of the original building when inside.
The site is on the State Heritage Register, Is listed on the heritage buildings for the precinct. The exhibition documents include heritage studies and an interpretation plan. The Overarching Eveleigh Workshops Conservation Management Plan (CMP) gives the LES a high heritage value. The Overarching CMP describes the Large Erecting Shop (1898-1906) as:
Rectangular building, approximately 185 metres in length (running east-west) and 36 metres in width, formed as two parallel bays with gable roofs. It has brick masonry load-bearing walls laid in English bond with double semi-circular arched windows in corbelled and polychrome brickwork. Internally, cast-iron columns support steel roof trusses clad with corrugated metal sheets and clear alsynite panels and overhead cranes run the length of both bays.
Like the Paint Shop Precinct there is here a playoff between Heritage Significance and redevelopment floor space. Council has indicated that they thing the floor space is excessive and is concerned the introduction of two internal floors will take away from the scale and characteristics of the large space linked to its historic use and the low ceilings will result in poor amenity.
It was not clear to REDWatch what was changed in the Additional Uses map (Fig 6 of the Intended Effects). Following our raising concerns with DPE a new Aditional Uses map has been removed from the Explanation of intended effect amended 10 November 2022.
The RWA planning controls for the ATP / South Eveleigh Site of set a maximum parking level cap of 1600 spaces. As this cap has not been reached the rezoning proposes 20 car parking spaces be provided at street level alongside the LES.
The RWA also set up separate Contribution plans for Affordable Housing and local infrastructure delivery separate from the Council plans. These contribution plans have now been transferred to the Minister for Planning and Homes. Government has been sitting on contributions from these funds and has not spent them for affordable housing or local infrastructure.
One of the items government said they were collecting funds for was a bridge across the railway line linking North and South Eveleigh. In fact when the NSW Government sold the ATP to Mirvac they also pocketed the funds that the ATP had promised to this bridge. In short the NSW Government has been promising this connection since 2005 and collecting funds for it but then saying it won’t deliver the bridge.
As with the original RWA plan the current rezoning proposal proposes to leave the NSW Government as the Consent Authority for the redevelopment rather than allow it to be handled by Council.
Council has released its City of Sydney Submission on Large Erecting Shop Rezoning Proposal. Following are a summary of some concerns raised by Council which have been made available to REDWatch:
Early on there was a move to change the name for the exhibition from the Heritage Register name of the Large Erecting Shop to the South Eveleigh Train Workshop. This is still the name on the Priority Growth Areas and Precinct page of the DPE site however it does not link to the exhibition documents. You can see the information on this page at https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/Plans-for-your-area/Priority-Growth-Areas-and-Precincts/South-Eveleigh-Train-Workshop.
The exhibition documents and the portal to make a submission is at https://www.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/node/30303866.
The main documents are the Explanation of intended effect amended 10 November 2022 and the Large Erecting Shop planning report of which all the other reports below are appendices:
Mirvac have also lodged a request for Secretaries Environmental Assessment Requirements (SEARS) for a State Significant Development Application (SSDA) which gives further information on what they plan for the site. The SEARs setting out the requirements for the LES SSDA were issued on 18 November 2022.
The SSDA site is - https://www.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/major-projects/projects/south-eveleigh-large-erecting-shop
The request of SEARS that give an overview of what is planned for the SSDA is at https://majorprojects.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/prweb/PRRestService/mp/01/getContent?AttachRef=PDA-49541706%2120221020T024028.022%20GMT
You can find more of the history about the earlier battles around the LES on the REDWatch website under The Large Erecting Shop (LES).
REDWatch Updated 18/11/2022
]]>
Until a few years ago the Large was where heritage railway operator 3801 Ltd stored its rolling stock operated tours from and many railway heritage volunteers worked, along with some other heritage operators. It was saved for a while as a heritage operational base, but subsequently heritage operations were moved elsewhere.
You can get a good idea of the building from this proposal in 2012 from Friends of Eveleigh for its use as a Sydney-based heritage and tourism centre - Friends of Eveleigh - Concept Plan for the Large Erecting Shop. You can find out more about the LES on the REDWatch website section on The Large Erecting Shop.
On 30 November 2018 Transport for NSW announced a new Heritage transport centre at Chullora. The media release and factsheet, made specific reference to the Large Erecting Shop (LES) at Eveleigh as being "adapted for new uses". The Australian Technology Park sale to Mirvac contained a provision which allows Mirvac first right of refusal of the LES if it’s not required by Transport for NSW. Now that TfNSW no longer have a use for the building, the Mirvac South Eveleigh information sessions are about what Mirvac wants to do with the LES.
One of the last things the Redfern Waterloo Authority (RWA) did, at REDWatch’s persistent urging, was to remove the 12 storey high-rise controls that the RWA had placed over the LES for a residential building. This push was helped at the time by 3801 Ltd commissioning an independent report that showed the building was sound and not about to fall down as the RWA claimed. The current controls are for the existing height and we note the 2018 TfNSW media release states: “the Government is committed to the preservation of important buildings including the Large Erecting Shop and Broadmeadow Roundhouse which will be adapted for new uses.”
]]>We did not consider the earlier consultation and the lack of opportunity to comment on the draft prior to submission met the B33 requirements. We welcome this current opportunity as well as the opportunity to see the revised draft prior to submission.
Missing Material
We note that neither Annexure A (Locomotive Workshop: Heritage Interpretation Plan Stage 2 for SSD 8517 and SSD 8449, prepared by Sissons, Buchans, Curio, dated April 2019) nor Annexure B (Consultations Outcomes Report by Ethos Urban) were supplied with the report and request a copy of each as they seem integral to the Stage 2 Heritage Interpretation Plan (HIP2). [These have now been supplied].
We also note the HIP2 references on Page 50 to AHMS 2015a, Opportunities for Interpretation in the Central to Eveleigh Corridor, prepared for UrbanGrowth, which is not a publically available report. WE would like to see a copy of this report.
HIP2 - Section 170 Register interaction
The HIP2 does not address the providence of the items on the Section 170 register nor indicate where particular items might be located. REDWatch would like to see further detail on the locations and on what equipment will be held in the storage location in Bay 15. Our concern is that items, which should be exhibited on the floor, may be confined to storage.
There is a potential conflict between maximising the commercial floor space and ensuring that the Section 170 items are displayed in an appropriate manner. It is not possible from the material provided to ascertain if all machinery in the collection, which has providence, will be displayed on the floor. In our view this is a key issue that needs to be assessed as part of the HIP2 and, if it is not possible to provide this, an undertaking should be provided that all equipment from the site will be displayed.
In this regard we note that Heritage Overlay graphics in the presentation document do not highlight the Bay 15 storage making it difficult to detect and that all heritage collections in Bays 5-15 are shown only as 16.1 “Machinery Display”. The diagram on page 114 is one of the few that shows the heritage storage area.
We note that the respective conditions on the two DA under B47 and B39 state: “The placement, storage and interpretation of all items housed within the Locomotive Workshops is required to be finalised as part of the Stage 2 Heritage Interpretation Plan”.
While we appreciate that work on establishing the providence of section 170 items is still a work in progress, we are seeking undertakings that only items which do not have providence will be stored in the storage area and that all other items will be in accessible locations.
Such an approach would be consistent with the draft MCPC which recommends:
“1. Opportunities for community access to the collection are integral to its management
2. The interpretation and functional organisation of the collection in the context of the site and whole Eveleigh Railway Workshops Precinct be encouraged.”
The Traverser
We note that the only mention of the Traverser sits is on a list of exceptional and high significance in Bays 5-15. Given its importance to understanding how the site worked, we would have expected to find details of how it will be treated either in the HIP2 or in the amended HIP1. This issue needs to be addressed in the HIP2 or the HIP1 amendment.
Exceptional Equipment
It is not clear how items of exceptional significance will be handled. For example the Tangye Bros 18” Hydraulic Ram Press is said to be the only such item still in existence. It is a missing item from the Eastman Museum but little is known about how it was used at Eveleigh.
Bays 5-15 Heritage Access
REDWatch is concerned with the very limited access that will be available to Bays 5 – 15 which is described as being “during future open days, such as during Heritage Week, special Eveleigh celebrations, Sydney Open and other coordinated public events.”
If South Eveleigh is to encourage heritage tours and visits, Bays 5-15 will see much of the machinery collection and bays’ interpretation outside the reach of those with an interest in heritage. This is particularly so for those who might be inbound tourists who cannot wait for the next locally advertised open day.
REDWatch would like to see an alternative approach considered. This might allow for the possibility of organised tours to access this space and for academic and research access on more occassions. We would like this option made available rather than excluded by the HIP2. One way of doing this might be to have the Bay 5-15 leasees nominate a heritage access contact who can deal with access enquiries and arrangements. If there was interest for guided tours then visits could occur in a controlled manner, at a time, which minimises business disruption, and in a way that ensures business security.
Filling in the Bays 5-15 interpretive hole
Much is made of the ability for people to have a heritage experience. But with limited access to Bays 5-15 there will need to be extra interpretive work to make available the stories, processes and history of Bays 5-15 for the other 350+ days of the year.
Good ideas like putting what happened in a bay and when along the carpet line, do not work if you cannot walk down the spine of the building read that history. With Bays 5-15 usually off limits perhaps, this treatment should happen outdoors as well.
The HIP2 needs to address the issues related to the lack of access to Bays 5-15. For example, there might need to be a range of virtual tours through this part of the site or virtual tours of the machinery collection that is not accessible.
The issues associated with lack of heritage access to these Bays needs to be addressed in the HIP2.
Services Buildings need more than “public art”
Red Square and the Wall of Workers cards need to be more than just a way to hide the services buildings. There needs to be more thought given to how these spaces can at least give people a greater understanding of the union issues. Inlays of issues discussed at Red Square might be one way of better using the area around the building. Can a small space be carved out of the Services Building for some interpretation? Or can an external kiosk be added to allow people to access further information? As it stands, the treatment seems tokenistic.
Heritage exhibition space and Archival repository
We note that the heritage exhibition space has shrunk from earlier proposals and have some concerns as to how this space might now function. In particular, we have concerns about the archival repository, which gets mentioned twice in the HIP2 but with no details about how it will operate. The reduced exhibition space into which it is to fit raises further concerns about what is proposed.
REDWatch has long supported the need for an archival repository, but this currently has no substance in the HIP and could easily disappear. We want to see some details and commitments to an archival repository in the HIP2.
Heritage Governance
As discussed during the HIP2 meeting, REDWatch is concerned about what happens to all the information and material collected as part of the heritage interpretation and activities at South Eveleigh. For REDWatch there are two related issues:
a) The Eveleigh Railway Workshop CMP needs to be progressed to deal with heritage issues across the entire former railway site. The stories of the workshops will be wider than just those at the Loco, and there needs to be a mechanism to share material relevant a particular site across the entire site with a seamless approach to heritage interpretation.
b) Material collected needs to be in, and remain in, the public domain and not become the property of government authorities that might disappear (e.g. earlier SHFA materials or UGDC’s Eveleigh Stories). Individuals who have material are likely to want it to be publically accessible and for it not to become the private property of Mirvac which might get lost if a future owner of the site does not share Mirvac’s heritage commitments.
REDWatch notes that the HIP2 is glowing in its praise of Eveleigh Stories but that the discussion at the heritage stakeholders meeting raised concerns about this project and resource.
The CMP does not address the issue of Heritage Governance, other than that it will get licences for anything it uses which needs a licence.
Hybrid Retail / Exhibit Zone in Bay 1
REDWatch continues to have concerns about the possibility of non-heritage retail in Bay 1 and the hybrid label, while a step in the right direction, still leaves open the possibility that this could become a conventional retail space in a heritage area. Mirvac should rule out a non-heritage related use for this space.
Workers’ Wall
REDWatch supports a physical workers’ wall, which contains the names of known workers with the opportunity in the future to add those missed. The physical wall should be supported by a workers’ database onto which descendants and historians should be encourage to provide or link further material about the person. The initial database could be could be produced by arrangement with Lucy Taksa and her database or with the ARHS database. The projection on the northern face of Loco should proceed as an attractor, but it should not take the place of a physical workers’ wall.
Constraints
We note the constraints referred to on page 69 and wish to submit that:
The obligation to display of the heritage fixed and movable heritage equipment is a constraint on how much space can be used as commercial floor space and that this needs to have equal weight in considerations about operational requirements. Further, we submit that in purchasing the site Mirvac was fully aware of the obligations for heritage interpretation and associated ongoing maintenance and that these are covered in the Heritage Covenant. Mirvac hence needs to be very careful in how it argues the listed constraints. We also note the requirement for a budget for curation in addition to the need for budgeting for the establishment of heritage interpretation and its associated ongoing maintenance. One of REDWatch’s main fears is the possibility of it being ‘build and forget’.
Heritage equipment recommissioning
We note that Transport Heritage NSW is currently negotiating to potentially reuse 2 -3 machines as part of its new program at Chullora. REDWatch would support this initiative if the equipment were put into active use. If this is not the case, the equipment should be retained and displayed on the floor at ATP. If the equipment is recommissioned, an interpretive display of the machinery in use should be placed in the location the equipment used to occupy at Eveleigh with the process and relevant interpretive information that would ha ve been located with the equipment if it had been retained.
Missing Interpretive material
With the possibility that some heritage items on the S170 register may not have providence in Loco there is also the possibility that some items under the control of others may have providence at Loco. Mirvac should be open to the possibility of improving the collection if opportunities arise. There was suspicion that some items may have ‘walked’ from Loco to the Large Erecting Shop and this possibility should be explored with Heritage Rail and 3801 Ltd.
A Loco for Loco
The missing piece in the Loco story is actually having a locomotive that was actually made there. I appreciate that there is resistance from Mirvac to this, but REDWatch is of the view that the display of an actual Eveleigh-made locomotive would be both a major draw card and help to explain how everything on site came together. While not dependant on a trade, the possibility of a mutual lease of heritage machinery and a loco could be considered.
Proofing?
Finally, we note that the HIP2 refers to Julian Bickersford as the experienced movable heritage consultant but I cannot find anyone of that name on an in internet search – should this be Julian Bickersteth. I cannot recall this person attending any heritage meetings with interested community and heritage parties and this should be considered.
Conclusion
There was a range of other issues raised during the heritage stakeholder meeting that we have not raised here, as we would expect these to already taken into consideration for the revision of the draft HIP2.
Thank you for the opportunity to review the HIP2 and to comment upon it.
Yours Faithfully
Geoffrey Turnbull
REDWatch Co-Spokesperson
]]>This is the year that we expected community engagement about the redevelopment of Waterloo and UrbanGrowth’s Central to Eveleigh Urban Transformation Studies to go to cabinet. Neither happened!
REDWatch continued to hold its monthly forums on issues pertinent to our area and while we certainly had an eye on what was useful for us to do in Waterloo we covered a broad range of issues aimed to create understanding and discussion about what was happening across Redfern, Eveleigh Darlington and Waterloo (REDW).
Unlike earlier moves on public housing where REDWatch organised mass meetings and media events (such as in 2004) or were involved in setting up Groundswell to undertake capacity building and to monitor master planning (2011), this time things have been very different. The Waterloo Public Housing Action Group (WPHAG) were being vocal, Groundswell agencies were being funded by LAHC to provide capacity building and LAHC were talking to groups and agencies about how they should engage with tenants about the redevelopment.
In that context, REDWatch has sought to be involved in the conversations, in influencing the processes and in documenting what is happening on our website. Our questions to LAHC led to Communities Plus formally responding to a REDWatch meeting and Sydney City Council talking about its input into the study requirements as examples. With others working in spaces REDWatch earlier occupied we have importantly been able to look for the gaps where some pressure might be useful such as in affordable housing.
One of the major areas that we have worked on and seen significant movement in the last year is around human services. Redevelopment focuses on the built environment and fails to address many of the problems for public housing – as Ross Smith used to say I have not met an anti-social building yet. What was still missing in the discussion was the area of human services. It was the focus of the RWPP and RWA interventions but while they made plans, they made little appreciable change in the way human services operated at the grass roots.
Over the last couple of months our pressure and persistence, working with Inner Sydney Voice and Counterpoint, has been rewarded with LAHC deciding to develop a human services plan to sit alongside the master plan. We have made it clear that this plan needs to deal with the existing issues facing people with complex needs currently in public housing so they will have wrap around human services support in the much higher densities proposed. We have made it plain that it is the systemic issues that need to be looked at and not just the human services problems associated with the redevelopment, as important as they are.
What is different this time is that we have been also actively engaged with Sydney Local Area Health around the health component of human service support. This has seen SLHD hold a Waterloo Health Forum in late September 2017, create a senior health linker role for Waterloo and bring a health lens to the master planning studies and process. All this has been done in discussion with REDWatch, ISV and Counterpoint.
These are major achievements by themselves but if we can manage to gain a robust human services approach to Waterloo and hopefully other public tenants out of the process, we will have again helped make a difference in our community. What influence we might have in the master planning remains to be seen but we will certainly be pushing for outcomes that work for local communities around Waterloo and not just government.
The Australian Technology Park continued to take up a lot of time this year with REDWatch sitting on the monthly Community Liaison Group looking at the CBA and associated developments on the site as well as sitting on the ATP Advisory Panel with major organisations around Eveleigh such as CarriageWorks, Sydney University, UrbanGrowth, LAHC etc. These meetings along with participation in heritage meetings have provided a basis for discussion with people about the wicked problems of Redfern Station as well as the direction of the ATP and its heritage. At UrbanGrowth’s request REDWatch made a submission about the need for an Eveleigh wide heritage mechanism to be considered by site landowners and the Heritage Council.
Of growing concern at the end of the year was to learn that the ATP sale also gave Mirvac the inside running to buy the Large Erecting Shop should Transport NSW decide to divest. The lock out of 3801 Ltd and the failure of Transport Heritage NSW to deliver on the LES as a heritage train operational base makes this a worrying possibility. This is particularly so given REDWatch’s concerns about Mirvac’s proposals for the heritage bays in the ATP Locomotive Workshop.
This year has been the first without Brian Dunnett, an ex-Eveleigh worker who was instrumental in pushing the ATP, CarriageWorks and REDWatch on Heritage issues. Thankfully, others have stepped more actively into that void and the 1917 strike commemorations, which Brian pushed, look like they have rekindled interest by the ALP and the unions. Long time REDWatch members Wendy and Guido bailed from the ATP Blacksmiths during this time, but the future of the site looks safe in the hands of a younger cohort of blacksmiths.
REDWatch has maintained a watching brief on Sydney University developments with REDWatch secretary Jenni Sams and co-spokesperson Geoff Turnbull normally attending university briefing’s about developments. Jenni along with co-spokesperson Alice Anderson have been active around issues to do with North Eveleigh and a development in Wilson Street.
This year has seen a much more active social media presence and Alexander Turnbull has helped REDWatch reach out to new people by the postering our events throughout the area when he has been able. We have continued to be involved in activities with other groups like the 2016 forum for Lord Mayor candidates and on broader networks such as events put on by the Better Planning Network which a number of REDWatch members have attended. We have also participated in briefings and consultations with the department of Planning and Environment and with the Greater Sydney Commission.
REDWatch is totally self-funded by donations of people’s money and time. While many people have ideas about what others should do there are fewer people who are prepared to give of their time to make things happen. These are the people REDWatch really values as they make what the group does happen. It was just before the last AGM that we got the tragic news of the death of Ross Smith. Ross has been sorely missed in this community over the last year and especially so in REDWatch. Given REDWatch’s origins in the ALP and the Greens, it was pleasing that Damien Minton has stepped in to continue the ALP relationship with REDWatch. In the last year, REDWatch has spoken at meetings organised by both the ALP and the Greens as well as at a number of other community events and training sessions.
As we head into the Waterloo consultation and with North Eveleigh and the Redfern block near PCYC being declared State Significant Projects it looks like there will be plenty for REDWatch to do in the coming year.
Finally, I would like to thank all those on the Co-ord group for their hard work over the last year. Some have been forced out of the area by rising rents and others have made their contribution and are stepping back. All your contributions are what has made REDWatch what it was this year and we thank you.
Geoff Turnbull on behalf of the REDWatch Co-ord Group
REDWatch Meeting Activities since July 2016:
July 7 2016 – no meeting Federal Candidates forum
August 4 2016 - General discussion
20 August - Lord Mayor Candidates forum
September 1 2016 - Local Government matters
October 6 2016 - LAHC Presents on Waterloo and Communities Plus
November 3 2016 – Who is Greater Sydney Commission and what has it got to do with us?
December 1 2016 - How are affordable housing models working overseas?
February 2 2017 - What’s Cooking? Open Mic
March 2 2017 - Health Impacts and redevelopment – what do we need to know?
April 6 2017 - And if the Government won't listen?
May 4 2017 - The Path Less Travelled - A Round Table on Commuter Affairs
June 1 2017 – Density done well: Council on SSP requirements for Waterloo
July 6 2017 - Public Housing - What is it? Where are we? How did we get here? and Where are we going?
August 3 2017 – Eveleigh Heritage Forum
September 7 2017 – Human Services Forum
]]>Background
In November 2008 REDWatch wrote to then Minister for Redfern-Waterloo, Kristina Keneally, calling for the establishment of a Heritage and Tourism Committee for the Eveleigh Railyards. REDWatch did so on behalf of a large number of heritage groups that had come together as part of a campaign to keep the Blacksmiths functioning at the ATP and to protect Eveleigh Heritage (see attachment).
The Redfern Waterloo Authority (RWA) had a number of Ministerial Advisory Committees composing relevant government and non-government bodies along with community representatives. The request was to establish such a mechanism to look at heritage issues across the former Eveleigh Railyards.
In late 2009, Kristina Keneally, by then Premier and well as Minister for Redfern Waterloo, requested the RWA to establish a Redfern Waterloo Heritage Taskforce (RWHT). This taskforce had a much wider scope than we had originally requested, covering heritage across the broader RWA area including Aboriginal and public housing heritage as well as Eveleigh railway heritage. It did however include a representative from Tourism NSW as originally proposed.
Among the problems with the structure were that none of the heritage groups that called for the establishment of the Heritage and Tourism Committee were involved in the new RWHT; REDWatch, the Redfern Waterloo Chamber of Commerce and City of Sydney being the only organisations represented from the initial group requesting the committee be established.
The RWHT held its first meeting on 9 December 2009 and had to report by March 2011, so existed for only a short time. With delays in finding suitable Aboriginal representatives and an independent heritage expert, the committee had little time to do its work with all members present. The approach proposed by the RWA was a call for projects that would be supported by the committee and where possible some resources from the RWA or ATP.
The Eveleigh Railyard precinct was dealt with by establishing an Eveleigh Steering Committee (ESC). ESC meetings were open to all interested people and while Guido Gouverneur from Wrought Artworks was unanimously elected as the spokesperson for the ESC, that position was not included on the RWHT. At the request of the ESC, the RWA CEO and RWHT Chair, Mr Roy Wakelin King chaired the ESC meetings.
It is important to understand that the RWHT and the ESC happened at a time when there was still considerable tension between the ATP and some of the people, who had a long term heritage interest in the site, over the handling of heritage on the site. The original letter to Ms Keneally had come from the Save the Blacksmith campaign the year earlier. The RWHT and ESC occurred at a time when heritage was moving from being seen as a liability, to being seen as an asset, and there was not a great deal of trust. This was on both sides. On one side the ATP put up projects without them being discussed through the committee and on the other side projects like LES War Memorial Project and Professor Lucy Taksa’s Book and Website Project not eventuating because of failures to agree on a basis to work together.
The major work to come through the RWHT was the Eveleigh Railway Workshops Interpretation Plan. The proposal for this plan was strongly supported by the RWHT; however the RWHT had been wound up by the time a draft was ready. RWHT members were given an opportunity to make submissions but not the opportunity to discuss with the RWHT areas where there were concerns.
In spite of its short comings, the RWHT showed that there was benefit in bringing together such a taskforce. One of the RWHT’s final recommendations was “To this end, this report recommends that a government and community based body be established to ensure that this collaboration continues into the future. There will be key issues of governance and access to funding to be resolved in the establishment of such a forum, however it is considered important that such a body be established for the foreseeable future to help maintain and continue the good work undertaken by the RWHT.”
With the winding of the RWA into the SMDA, the community aspects of the RWA were lost and all the Advisory committees ceased to function. The key issues of governance and access to funding have been given as the reasons for not setting up a new body.
In August 2013, at REDWatch’s urging, the City of Sydney Lord Mayor wrote to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure requesting a community and government planning and heritage taskforce be convened to provide input into planning and heritage matters for the Eveleigh Railway Workshops.
Council also resolved that “in the event that a government heritage taskforce is not established within a reasonable time, the City will work with the Australian Technology Park, Carriageworks and UrbanGrowth and other members of the previous Taskforce, with a view to bringing the parties together to explore how a co-operative effort could strengthen heritage interpretation and promotion across the former Eveleigh Railway Workshops site for the benefit of all parties”.
REDWatch has continued to push at any opportunity with stakeholders the need for a heritage mechanism for Eveleigh.
Where to now?
We understand from the PAC approval for the Mirvac CBA development that there is an intention for a CMP that covers the entire Eveleigh site, which is being worked on by UrbanGrowth. While having not seen the detail of the proposal we welcome the move to have a mechanism that governs new, as well as existing, buildings and public space within the Eveleigh precinct.
While we do not have the detail of what is currently proposed REDWatch welcomes the opportunity to make some input to UrbanGrowth over how a new heritage mechanism might operate.
In REDWatch’s view, the sale of the ATP and its breakup of ownership along with the imminent work on North Eveleigh make it imperative that a heritage mechanism be put in place before the site fragments further.
Where site owners recognise their heritage as an asset we are hopeful that they will also see there is increased value for their site if their site is seen as a part of the precinct wide heritage offering rather than just an isolated offering. We have used this argument in the past to encourage heritage events to be co-ordinated across the Eveleigh site so that publicity can be maximised resulting in a larger turnout and an improved heritage offering.
We are encouraged by Mirvac, Carriageworks and UrbanGrowth working together around the 1917 Great Strike centenary to see how they can co-ordinate their activities and promote a wider co-operative heritage event. There are regular opportunities such as History Week, which could be used to leverage publicity out into widely promoted heritage events that could be looked at going forward. Regular heritage tours could be promoted to inbound tour operators and be part of Sydney’s tourism offering. This current cooperation can also be important for establishing a longer-term mechanism.
We were also encouraged by Mirvac’s preparedness to have their recent work on rebranding the ATP as the Eveleigh Workshops used across the former Railway workshop site. All this indicates to us that now is a good time to progress the Eveleigh heritage discussion.
Heritage has not always been seen as an asset at Eveleigh and as land prices escalate and market tastes change, a more negative approach to heritage may again re-emerge. We hence agree that there should be some heritage mechanism that applies across the entire Eveleigh site which recognises that all the developments are within an important heritage precinct and that there are ongoing obligations arising from being within such a heritage precinct.
It seems to us that the CMP will need to deal both with bodies that hold heritage buildings and assets, as well as new buildings that will be within the precinct. We assume this is the case given that the CBA building approval references the proposed UrbanGrowth CMP.
There is clearly a need for new buildings to be sympathetic to the former railway precinct and to interpret the history of the site within the new development. The question post construction is what role these buildings play in the ongoing development and promotion of heritage. Do, for example, the owners / strata bodies pay a levy towards heritage activities or do they just benefit from proximity to them with the costs being born by those that hold heritage assets?
While we think that it is possible to run a model based solely on the heritage asset holders, we think this might also limit what is delivered across the site. It is likely that we would see organisations funding heritage activities that primarily benefit their sites and potentially not funding broader activities needed to promote / interpret the entire precinct.
A couple of examples might be useful here.
What happens to Eveleigh Stories when UrbanGrowth moves away? Does it stop development of new stories and ways of connecting those stories to people, or will there be a mechanism for the stories to continue as part of say a digital or self-guided tour of the former railway precinct. To be preserved it could be handed over to someone; to continue development it will need resources from somewhere. If those resources are just from heritage building holders, it is possible that the stories will only be about people from their buildings or sites, and not the broader railyard heritage.
Eveleigh Stories are just one part of the rich social history that exists about the Eveleigh Workshops. It has long been suggested that there should be an official repository for such material on the site; maybe a place where visitors and family members can look up records of friends or family who worked on the site. This was part of the aim of liberating worker records held by Lucy Taska. But there will a cost associated with an official repository / welcome centre – if we really want to add this meat to the Eveleigh Workshops bone then it will need funding. Even if it is not done on site there should be an official repository nominated so there is a place where all the material can be collected.
Some levy arrangement on new developments, as well as on holders of heritage assets, would provide a basis for the development of heritage and tourism collateral that would add to the existing heritage offering which holders already have an obligation to maintain and make available to the public. The development of new heritage offering is also likely to be seen by non-heritage building owners as adding something new to the total area’s heritage offering rather than simply supporting the heritage building and asset owners.
There is also the possibility of some cost recovery through sale of items to tourists could be used to offset some of the recurrent costs. Such merchandising was used by Eveleigh Works at their launch earlier this year. It has not been a feature of earlier heritage events at Eveleigh.
We would not suggest a funded project approach like that undertaken by the RWHT. We would favour an approach that looks at developing the heritage offering, its interpretation and presentation and creating a tourism offering across the former Eveleigh site. An Eveleigh heritage committee itself could seek grant opportunities from the Heritage or Tourism funds to help develop particular projects or heritage offerings.
If the heritage co-ordination mechanism is of a purely co-operative nature then possibly only those that see a benefit from co-operation and can fund it will be at the table. They would cover their own costs and conceivably contribute to joint costs. Hopefully these would be the bodies that own / manage heritage buildings and their immediate public domain and / or heritage collections.
There are however, other stakeholders that need to be considered or have something to bring to the table in this discussions that may not be there in a purely cooperative venture. The Heritage Office and Tourism NSW would be two government bodies which might miss out, as well as a range of specialists and interest groups.
For this reason it would be much better if it was possible at the start to set up a mechanism that provided representation from the broader community as well as heritage custodians.
From REDWatch’s perspective a wider mechanism that has stakeholder representation sends a clear message that an Eveleigh Heritage committee is about Eveleigh more broadly and not just about the asset custodians.
We recognise that there are many different potential stakeholders and would suggest a representative mechanism being selected from an EOI process across different categories of stakeholders.
For example, we could say that in addition to heritage operators and state bodies, that the committee would have two representatives each from groups such as heritage operators, surrounding community organisations, heritage groups and retired workers, and heritage specialists. That would provide eight additional stakeholder members. Under split rotation with say terms of 2 or 4 years there could be turnover of half these representatives every 1 or 2 years in a way that retained corporate memory and stable governance. The EOIs and committee appointments could be made by the ongoing committee.
This is just one possible model, but we put it on the table as a suggestion.
Below I have mapped out some of the parties which currently, or in the past, have had an interest in participating.
Heritage site Owners / Operators / Under Licence - Mirvac, Carriageworks, UrbanGrowth C2E, Transport Heritage NSW (LES), RailCorp (North Eveleigh & South Eveleigh operational), City Rail (Redfern Station) City of Sydney (Proposed to manage some open space in the precinct – ideally represented by History people rather than heritage planners)
State Bodies - Heritage Office, Tourism NSW
Heritage Operators - Eveleigh Works, 3801 Ltd, Historic Electric Traction (HET), LES tour operators such as Lachlan Valley
Surrounding Community Organisations - South Sydney Business Chamber, REDWatch, ARAG, City West Housing, strata bodies of surrounding buildings such as Water Tower apartments, etc.
Heritage Groups and old Workers - ARHS, The National Trust, Retired RTBU, ATP Tour Guides
Academics and Heritage Experts - Don Godden, Dave McBeth, Lucy Taksa, Juliet Suich, Peter Phillips (ICOMOS)
Aboriginal Representation – on the broader RWHT, Dillon Kombumerri, Senior Architect Indigenous Design with NSW Government Architect’s Office and David Beaumont from the City of Sydney provided Aboriginal input. It is not clear where Aboriginal interest in Eveleigh Railway Heritage might come from.
Another model would be to have a committee of the heritage asset holders and a broader advisory committee of specialists. It is REDWatch’s view that as the Eveleigh Railway Heritage is a community asset as well as an asset of its custodians that the final mechanism should involve real input from heritage specialists and stakeholders in addition to heritage asset holders.
It should be emphasised that we are making these suggestions within a vacuum, as we are not aware of what conversations may have taken place between UrbanGrowth and the Heritage Office about possible mechanisms.
REDWatch however has had an ongoing interest in having an Eveleigh Railway Workshop heritage mechanism in place and we are prepared to be involved in discussions with all stakeholders to help determine a viable mechanism to deliver on this.
We look forward to the opportunity to discuss these comments and for further involvement in this important discussion.
Yours Faithfully
Geoffrey TurnbullREDWatch Co-Spokesperson
c/- PO Box 1567
Strawberry Hills NSW 2012
Ph Wk: (02) 9318 0824
email: mail@redwatch.org.au
References:
Letter to Kristina Keneally 2008
RWHT Final Report: www.redwatch.org.au/RWA/heritage/rwht/110222rwa/download
]]>The current standoff stems from THNSW, which leases the LES from Transport for NSW (TfNSW), requiring 3801 Ltd to vacate the LES site fully so it can undertake work at the site. After completion, 3801 Ltd could then re-apply to become a possible user of the LES as one of the users of the proposed multi-user heritage rail-operating base. THNSW is not currently prepared to consider transferring 3801 Ltd to a new lease without its relocating. 3801 Ltd has proposed that the work required in the LES for the new facility could be done in a staged way around them as a continuing occupant.
Unlike other heritage groups 3801 Ltd has no other location to retreat to as the LES has been its home for the last 30 years and TfNSW has not been able to provide it with an alternative base within the Sydney Metropolitan area, which is necessary for it to remain operational.
3801 Ltd currently occupy much more than two ‘roads’ and it initially said more than two roads were needed to run its current operational activity. To shrink to two operational ‘roads’, as it is prepared to do, the company will need to find a home elsewhere for over twenty truckloads of equipment, spares and non-running rolling stock.
The cost of moving anything out of the LES is not just dependent on finding a suitable location. It is also dependent on 3801 Ltd getting its tours going again to have an income to cover the cost of the reorganisation. Over the last 18 months uncertainty has already seen scheduled trips unable to be run, bookings refunded and all staff retrenched. 3801 Ltd is currently operating totally on volunteers with access to the LES only under THNSW supervision.
The 2013 Rail Heritage Review – All Aboard! promised a “fresh start and a co-operative approach to Rail Heritage in NSW”. 3801 Ltd argues the “fresh start and co-operative approach” has not been evident in 3801 Ltd’s recent dealing with THNSW and TfNSW. The company has been frustrated about its inability to resolve the situation with THNSW and has raised its concerns with the head of TfNSW.
One of the problems for the heritage rail sector is that there is little under-cover storage for valuable assets, with many around the state, including at Thirlmere, sitting in the open. On top of this TfNSW has operational pressures for stabling and maintenance facilities close to the city. This has already forced UrbanGrowth’s plans at North Eveleigh onto the back foot and even the compulsory acquisition of a small portion of the now Mirvac-owned ATP site is being contemplated.
There is concern in heritage circles that Sydney Metro will affect the XPT service centre near Sydenham and result in pressure for the LES to be used by TfNSW for the XPTs rather than heritage uses. Fuelling this concern is a decision within TfNSW, to identify a potential alternative operating site to the LES for heritage assets and services in the metro area.
In the current bout with TfNSW, 3801 Ltd has gone “softly, softly” in the hope that not making the public noise that was made in 2006 might lead to a more co-operative outcome. Therefore, it has been difficult to get details about what has been happening over the last couple of years. Information is only now surfacing when the future of the company is in the balance.
Back in 2006, then Shadow Transport Minister Gladys Berejiklian became involved in trying to stop the removal of the 3801 locomotive. Her media release at the time said, "the volunteers and steam enthusiasts who make up 3801 Limited have done a wonderful job of running and maintaining the 3801 locomotive for the last 20 years, they should be allowed to continue their good work.”
As Premier, it is time for her to intervene to ensure that 3801 Ltd has a place in her Government’s “co-operative approach to Rail Heritage in NSW”.
This report has been compiled by Geoffrey Turnbull for REDWatch based on documents and conversations with a number of people. Please address any enquiries regarding this to mail@redwatch.org.au
]]>Shadow Minister for Transport Gladys Berejiklian today demanded the lemma-Costa Labor Government extend the operating lease for the 3801 steam locomotive to give voters a chance to save this historic piece of living history.
"The lemma-Costa Labor Government wants to sell-off 3801's inner-city home to developers and take the locomotive away from the largely volunteer organisation that has successfully run operations for the last 20 years," Ms Berejiklian said.
"3801 will be making its final journey from Eveleigh today because their operating lease expires and the lemma-Costa Government will not renew it," she said.
"The NSW Liberal/Nationals believes the current lease should be renewed so the historic 3801 steam locomotive can continue operating.
"This is a popular heritage tourist attraction that should be enjoyed by future generations.
The lemma-Costa Government's decision to redevelop 3801's Eveleigh base for high-rise buildings, the failure to renew the locomotive's lease (expires on November 26), and the refusal to stop plans for the disposal of its heritage carriages will see the service driven off the rails.
A NSW Liberal/Nationals Government would ensure RailCorp renews the existing lease and was prevented from disposing of any of the rolling stock.
"Every effort must be made to preserve this important piece of rail heritage as an operating train," Ms Berejiklian said.
"We firmly believe the 3801's home, the Large Erecting Shop at Eveleigh, should be maintained for heritage railway operations.
"The heritage significance of the facility, built in the 1880's, is recognised by the National Trust. It's a scandal that the Minister for Planning, who is also responsible for the Heritage Office, is allowing its demolition.
"The volunteers and steam enthusiasts who make up 3801 Limited have done a wonderful job of running and maintaining the 3801 locomotive for the last 20 years, they should be allowed to continue their good work.
"It would be a tragedy for the 3801 to end up sitting idle in a museum after proving itself to be such a popular and nostalgic living tourist attraction.
"The Government should extend the lease until the state election in March to allow the people of NSW to have a say in the future of their rail heritage," Ms Berejiklian said.
Gladys Berejiklian MP
Shadow Minister for Transport
Shadow Minister for Waterways
Assistant Shadow Minister for Citizenship
MEDIA RELEASE - 26 November 2006
]]>
Join from 10am to enjoy a day of tours and activities:
One of the key events on the day will be the launch of Eveleigh Stories. This website and self-guided tour celebrates the heritage of the Eveleigh area.
This opportunity to see Sydney's industrial history up close kicks off from Innovation Plaza and takes you through the Locomotive Workshop and Engine Workshop (now the National Innovation Centre).
The ATP Open Day will coincide with The Finders Keepers Markets held in the ATP Exhibition Hall.
Register for a tour:
By registering for a tour you could win the opportunity to ring the Timekeeper's bell. Please register via heritage@atp.com.au.
How to get here:
From Redfern Station, exit via Platform 10 and walk straight ahead to ATP. Entrances to the public car park will be open from Henderson Road and Garden Street however parking is limited. We encourage you to use public transport.
For more information, contact heritage@atp.com.au or 02 9209 4220
]]>“We used buckets to wash. Workers would heat up a piece of steel and dunk it in the water to warm it up. We had just three minutes to clean ourselves.”
Richard Butcher worked as a Blacksmith at Eveleigh Railyards in the 1950s, now the site of Australian Technology Park (ATP). Mr Butcher will be sharing his stories of a bygone era at the ATP Heritage Community Days on 16 and 17 May as part of the National Trust Heritage Festival.
“Blacksmithing was a challenge - it was very hot and there was no refrigerated water on site or showers. We would be able to stand up a pair of overalls like suits of armour because of the coal and oil.”
Mr Butcher worked on site for six years and will be sharing more fascinating stories about ATP’s industrial past at the ATP Heritage Community Days.
“ATP recognises its rich past,” he says. “There were 4,900 people that worked here so my role as a tour guide for this event will capture the activities and the history that once was. The park still is a hub of activity and workers in a modern day setting and it is fantastic that the park continues to celebrate its industrial history.
“My grandfather and father both worked for the railways and I really enjoyed my time working here so I am looking forward to inviting the community to share this experience of what the Park used to be like.”
Richard will be joined by other passionate volunteers and is inviting families to the free ATP Heritage Community Days on Friday, 16 and Saturday, 17 May 2014. Tours will run from the Locomotive Workshop at 10am, 12pm and 2pm.
There will be real Blacksmith demonstrations by Wrought Artworks and train displays courtesy of ATP tenant 3801 Ltd where everyone will be welcomed aboard to explore restored historical train carriages and engines. Devonshire tea will be served in the buffet with a backdrop of 1920s train memorabilia and décor.
“The Eveleigh Rail Yards was one of the largest of its kind and produced some of the finest steam locomotives in the world. This space represents a unique part of Sydney and Australia’s industrial heritage and it is fantastic that the public can access it,” added Mr Butcher.
The Locomotive Workshop at ATP has been kept predominately in its original state and is easily accessible to the community being a short walk from Redfern Station.
For more information visit
Australian Technology Park is home to a range of businesses leading the way in innovation, science, technology and media. The onsite ATP Conference Centre also attracts world class events in a unique heritage setting.
MoiraSaunders | Communications Manager | P +61 2 9209 4162 | F +61 2 9209 4222 | W: www.atp.com.au
Australian Technlogy Park Sydney Limited | Suite 3220, Locomotive Workshop, 2 Locomotive Street, Eveleigh NSW 2015
]]>“We used buckets to wash. Workers would heat up a piece of steel and dunk it in the water to warm it up. We had just three minutes to clean ourselves.”
Richard Butcher worked as a Blacksmith at Eveleigh Railyards in the 1950s, now the site of Australian Technology Park (ATP). Mr Butcher will be sharing his stories of a bygone era at the ATP Heritage Community Days on 16 and 17 May as part of the National Trust Heritage Festival.
“Blacksmithing was a challenge - it was very hot and there was no refrigerated water on site or showers. We would be able to stand up a pair of overalls like suits of armour because of the coal and oil.”
Mr Butcher worked on site for six years and will be sharing more fascinating stories about ATP’s industrial past at the ATP Heritage Community Days.
“ATP recognises its rich past,” he says. “There were 4,900 people that worked here so my role as a tour guide for this event will capture the activities and the history that once was. The park still is a hub of activity and workers in a modern day setting and it is fantastic that the park continues to celebrate its industrial history.
“My grandfather and father both worked for the railways and I really enjoyed my time working here so I am looking forward to inviting the community to share this experience of what the Park used to be like.”
Richard will be joined by other passionate volunteers and is inviting families to the free ATP Heritage Community Days on Friday, 16 and Saturday, 17 May 2014. Tours will run from the Locomotive Workshop at 10am, 12pm and 2pm.
There will be real Blacksmith demonstrations by Wrought Artworks and train displays courtesy of ATP tenant 3801 Ltd where everyone will be welcomed aboard to explore restored historical train carriages and engines. Devonshire tea will be served in the buffet with a backdrop of 1920s train memorabilia and décor.
“The Eveleigh Rail Yards was one of the largest of its kind and produced some of the finest steam locomotives in the world. This space represents a unique part of Sydney and Australia’s industrial heritage and it is fantastic that the public can access it,” added Mr Butcher.
The Locomotive Workshop at ATP has been kept predominately in its original state and is easily accessible to the community being a short walk from Redfern Station.
For more information visit
Australian Technology Park is home to a range of businesses leading the way in innovation, science, technology and media. The onsite ATP Conference Centre also attracts world class events in a unique heritage setting.
MoiraSaunders | Communications Manager | P +61 2 9209 4162 | F +61 2 9209 4222 | W: www.atp.com.au
Australian Technlogy Park Sydney Limited | Suite 3220, Locomotive Workshop, 2 Locomotive Street, Eveleigh NSW 2015
]]>REDWatch would also like to acknowledge the hard work of Juliet Suich in servicing the Redfern Waterloo Heritage Taskforce and Eveleigh Steering Committee and in helping bring together the RWA and many of the people with heritage concerns.
Submissions have been made by some key REDWatch members who have a special interest in heritage such as Guido Gouverneur and Bruce Lay and these submissions are supported. It is not my intention to duplicate these submissions although some issues raised in their submissions may be touched upon also in the course of this submission.
While the Draft Interpretation Plan deals with that which can be done to better interpret heritage across the entire site it does so primarily by way of what can be achieved by way of developer contributions and by the various site operators as part of their maintenance and other obligations. A Plan across the whole site is a welcome advance in providing an underlying interpretation of the site, but in my view it is only an initial step.
The Plan does not address what mechanisms need to exist to ensure the Plan is delivered and that there is ongoing management and development of the heritage and tourism potential across the broad ERW site. My main concern is that unless the Implementation Strategy addresses this central issue it is likely to fail or at least not deliver the potential that could be achieved if there is an implementing and co-ordinating body.
Some discussion has been had at the RWHT and ESC about how to continue the existing Task Force process and consideration of specific co-ordinating mechanisms used in other places that may be directly applicable to the implementation of the Plan and its ongoing work needs to take place.
There are in my view a number of issues that need to be considered:
There needs to be ongoing oversight of the ERW
The discussion about the future of the RWHT and ESC will hopefully deliver a mechanism. There needs to be a group with a specific ERW focus but which has some of the membership of the existing RWHT.
The RWA resourced and facilitated the RWHT and ESC mechanisms. With the winding up of the RWA there will no longer be an appropriate government body which has responsibility across the entire ERW site. One option would be for the new Heritage Office to take over the facilitation role from the RWA. Council could also possibly take on this role. In the absence of either of these two options another mechanism will need to be developed to service a co-ordinating Taskforce and the ongoing administration of the ERW wide heritage functions.
The focus of the current RWHT is broader than ERW and it also only involves two of the site’s three current owner / managers. A future oversight body needs to include all landowner / managers within the ERW – currently ATP, Railcorp and CarriageWorks. Any mechanism needs to involve all parties responsible for decisions about parts of the site. I am of the view that heritage operators on the ERW site should also be represented on a future committee even though they are not currently involved in the current wider RWHT. Representation from relevant state bodies is also important.
There is an ERW wide delivery and development role
Some of the elements indicated in the Strategy require a whole of site mechanism. In particular:
Other areas that would need to be site wide that are not mentioned include:
This whole of site mechanism is the missing element from the Plan as it currently stands. As noted above the Plan makes reference to a number of site wide aspects, but not to how they might be organised or delivered. This is probably because they have resource and co-ordination issues which are not yet resolved.
The original letter from Heritage Groups and REDWatch to Minister Keneally set out a number of areas where “Organisations … would be prepared to work with an inter-departmental committee to develop the heritage and heritage tourism potential of the Eveleigh site.
The committee could deal with / advise on a range of heritage issues including:
The Eveleigh Heritage Interpretation Strategy, the first item on the list in the letter to the Minister, has now been delivered. The remainder of the list remains outstanding.
There needs to be a way to pay for the ERW
If there is to be a heritage function across the entire site then it has to be paid for somehow. This could come from site managers being levied to cover the cost of the ERW wide co-ordination, it could come from government support through the Heritage Office or it could come from the co-ordination mechanism having an income stream from merchandise, technical advice and/or the tourism activity generated.
The call to set up what became the RWHT also saw a need for the development of a Heritage Tourism Strategy for Eveleigh and for the establishment of business plans to enable heritage activities to operate in the long term with minimum requirement for government funding. This approach should be explored for the ERW coordinating mechanism.
This aspect of the request to the Minister did not flow through into the RWHT Terms of Reference but I remain of the view that the development of product to attract people to the site to deliver a heritage experience is an important development role for the new site-wide mechanism. This does not mean the co-ordinating body should itself run tours or provide product, but rather that it has a role in encouraging the development of heritage tourism on the site and needs to receive some return from such activity to cover some of its costs in the long term.
One area missing from the Interpretation Strategy is the important role that the internet can play in both the dissemination of information about the site and also the internet as a mechanism for collecting ERW stories and information. An ERW online presence needs to part of an ongoing cross site mechanism and should not be left solely to individual site managers.
Accessing Information about ERW – The following items could be included:
Collecting ERW Information – Opportunities for the public to provide information which would otherwise be unavailable to the public could include:
REDWatch encourages the RWA to continue to negotiate with Lucy Taksa to open up community access to the information and memorabilia she has obtained through earlier projects working on the site and her academic work. This includes the database of workers and the virtual fly through of the ERW.
The employment of an education consultant may be a worthwhile investment to advise how visits to the site and material on the web could be used to teach aspects of the NSW curriculum as it would likely generate repeat visits. They could also develop site and subject specific material tailored to different age groups, subjects and topics that could be available on the website and for site visits.
The proximity of the NCIE, which is promoting use of its residential facilities to school groups, has possibilities for school visits from areas other than just the metropolitan area.
The use of a website also gives access to the material in remote schools that are unable to visit the site.
The proposal for an annual Heritage event at ATP in conjunction with a Railway Film Festival is welcomed. This event should not just be an ATP event it should be an ERW event, perhaps part of a Heritage week at the ERW. CarriageWorks should be consulted about how it can also be involved. Is there a possibility for a railway themed production / Open Day or similar that they can offer to their patrons that might introduce them to a wider experience of the ERW site?
If displays are to be set up for a day or weekend it may make sense that these be set up in the week before and targeted also at ATP workers and the pedestrian traffic through the site. Similarly during this time the exhibitions could be used to encourage school visits with invitations provided not only locally, but also to appropriate professional teaching bodies – such as Design and Technology, history and geography.
For such a heritage event it would be beneficial to also have tours of the Large, Paintshop and Heritage Equipment in the Railcorp operating area as well as blacksmithing demonstrations. Tours of these sites have previously run in conjunction with North Eveleigh and South Eveleigh events and been very well received.
It would be also useful if a way could be found for Redfern Station to be linked into such a heritage festival or Heritage week so commuters get a taste of what is on offer. Maybe some of the Train to Treasure boards could be used at the station.
Key heritage calendar dates should also be explored as possibilities for heritage activities. In particular Heritage Week in April and History Week in September provide opportunities for events at Eveleigh to be promoted widely to people with an interest in heritage places and activities. This approach would be consistent with the Heritage Demonstrations and Events referred to in the report. As mentioned earlier however an ongoing co-ordinating mechanism is required to implement such events.
The ERW Interpretation Strategy makes no reference to the collection in Bay 10 and this collection is not on the proposed heritage site route. The ATP needs to give thought to how this machinery collection can be included in the Heritage Trail and how machinery situated around other bays can best be incorporated into the Heritage Trail.
While I appreciate that the equipment in these areas are already signed, many of these items are of great importance and can tell stories about the site and its processes that should be incorporated into the Heritage Trail. Some people may visit just to see some of this equipment.
Key machinery that can no longer be stored in Bays 1 & 2 North and some of that stored in shipping containers could be added to the collection in Bay 10 unless an alternative interpretive use can be found.
Where possible, I would like to see some of the machinery that historically may have been used in the general vicinity of a new building, exhibited in the foyer of the new building. With the removal of the original buildings the placement within the foyer of a new building of equipment, that needs to be retained, can help link the new building to the site’s original function and remind people of the work that used to be under taken on the part of the site they now occupy.
As an example in close proximity to the Fan of Tracks I would like to see a carriage displayed that was actually made at Eveleigh. The North Eveleigh Interpretation states that carriages manufactured at Eveleigh are not suitable for outdoor exhibition but an appropriate interpretation would be to include a carriage on a line within a building, maybe as part of the interpretation of the fan of tracks.
Apart from the ERW Access Tunnel and the Gasometer, other important heritage items on RailCorp controlled sites have not been identified. As the Interpretation Plan is to cover the next 20 years these items should be identified. This serves two purposes. Firstly it potentially makes possible guided tours to some of these important sites during heritage / open days. Secondly it identifies key heritage assets which should be preserved should the South Eveleigh area cease to be required for operational rail uses. Of particular note here is the Turntable and the Air Compressor House but there are likely to be other items of heritage value also within this area also.
The Large has been under the stewardship of 3801 Ltd and has operated under separate management to the Railcorp operational area. If this situation continues then working with whoever has responsibility for admission into the LES will be necessary to gain access to this important site.
Development of a common safety protocol to allow access for tours to the LES and the Railcorp area would assist open days and avoid the delays experienced on previous tours.
One area covered in the RWHT Terms of Reference that has not received attention is heritage skills training. This hopefully will be possible when the future management structure, occupancy and function of the LES is clarified.
Being able to view into the LES is welcomed as making this area more publically accessible. However in the long term having the LES engaged in active heritage work, training in heritage skills and blending this with that the opportunity for public access will give the best long term heritage results.
Using 3801 Ltd to run a shuttle between Central and Eveleigh would be a good adjunct to an Eveleigh heritage event.
Redfern Station and its key heritage items should be included as a separate zone in the Plan and it should also have a signage cluster. There is more at Redfern station of heritage interest than the ticket office recognised under BEP1 heritage map. The state’s oldest public convenience is one item that was mentioned by the Minister when the RWA was established.
The Station is important, not only because it is part of the ERW precinct, but also because it could provide a bit of a sampler within the station of what lies beyond in the broader ERW. It could help travellers pass the time and better understand the station, its history and its environs.
The station should be an important the starting point for the Heritage Trail. It would be a good location for some artefact displays, heritage information posters and building showcases. These could happen within the station possibly on platform 1 and possibly on the inside walls of the ticket office near Lawson Street.
Maybe the state’s oldest public convenience could be seen through a Perspex door. The role of station gardens, information about the dives and the Eveleigh workers who passed through the station could be highlighted; even a reference to how vibrations from the large hammer in the Bay 1 could be felt on Redfern Station.
There would need to be some work done with RailCorp to obtain approval for such interpretive signage and exhibition boxes, but given the importance of the station as the gateway to the site, both in the past and the present such interpretation could help link the rail travelling public to the EWT and encourage people to visit the surrounding area. The successful display of heritage material at Museum and Central stations indicates that such an initiative should be achievable.
The station could be another good place for a map that shows an overlay of the former rail yards and what currently exists.
While I appreciate the concept of Interpretive Zones outlined in the report it seems to me that they may be better defined in terms of the reports signage clusters. The main change in this regard would be that the Large is incorporated into the Locomotive Interpretive Zone rather than into a current use zone of Railway Corridor Zone. As mentioned above Redfern Railway Station should be a discrete zone / signage cluster.
One of my concerns about the signage clusters is that they are not all at key entry points to the site. It seems to me that there is also a need for signage at each entrance which at least point to the heritage zones and signage clusters.
In the absence of a walkway across the railway lines, the top of Cornwallis St (near entrance to the station via Platform 10 and the entrance to the ATP), is currently the best place to view the majority of the site. The bridge when it is constructed will provide another vantage point for the whole site but I doubt it will be suitable for a signage cluster.
A signage cluster and information booth could be located at this entrance into the ATP. This entrance to the ATP portion of the site is used not only by workers and residents, but also by visitors to Media City. An overview would be much better placed here where it is possible to see the majority of ERW on both sides of the line. Signage at this entrance to the site needs to bring people to the Heritage Trail and provide an overview / interpretation of what they see around them from this vantage point.
The only better vantage point for the entire site is likely to be from the top of one of the new buildings on North Eveleigh and a viewing platform for this purpose should be considered in future planning on this site.
There should be some information available at other entrances such as at the Henderson Road pedestrian entrance and possibly at the car park and not just at Signage Clusters 1 & 2. These signs may be different from the signage clusters but something is needed to alert people that they are entering a heritage site and whet people’s appetite. As there is no heritage remaining on the Henderson Road end there should be signage which explains to people what used to exist there. What was the building shown on the map along Henderson Road?
Consideration could also be given to imbedded signs along the pathways that mark / remember the Olivers, Tinsmiths and Pattern Shops which the path in part now passes over. Some signage needs to direct interested people from the main access path towards the LES end of the site and alert them that more information is available at a signage cluster located near buildings at that end of the site. Consideration should be given to at least part of Signage Cluster 1 being replicated near the main walking path.
The ERW Strategy notes that there is conservation work that needs to be undertaken at the Scientific Services Building and the Communications Equipment Workshop. This work should be undertaken as soon as possible and not left until after the site is sold.
I note that the Transport NSW submission on BEP2 notes that the North Eveleigh site would be needed until 2017 if the City Relief line was to proceed. This raises the prospect that conservation work needed on heritage buildings at North Eveleigh may be still a long way off if this is left to be handled by a new site owner. Given this Government needs to look carefully at how the necessary heritage work can be carried out before the sale of this site rather than left to be all handled post sale.
Both the Scientific Services Building and the Communications Equipment Workshop are intended for community use under the Concept Plan so for these buildings the issue seems one of cash flow and timing rather than what is going to happen to the site.
The Interpretation Plan proposes a room in the Scientific Services Building be left in situ. If this is to happen it seems like this building could also be a suitable base for a potential ERW Place Manager and the Archive and Research Centre. The balance area could potentially also be made available for community uses in the near future rather than left until the entire site is sold to be made available for community use.
A different issue arises in relation to the Chief Mechanical Engineers Building. Here there is concern about the extent of deterioration that will take place if conservation work is not carried out for a further 6 – 10 years. There needs to be an assessment of the impact of this delay on the CME building.
Before the RWA winds up these heritage sites need to be reviewed to see if support for work on these sites can be achieved independent of their being linked to the sale of the wider site. If it is decided that such a move is desirable then the RWA will need to propose a mechanism to government to undertake this work.
Given the prominent position of the Chief Mechanical Engineers Building on Wilson Street this building should be provided with interpretive signage as a matter of priority. Other buildings around CarriageWorks and Eveleigh Markets should also receive interpretive signage as early as possible rather than await sale so these areas can be interpreted for current visitors.
The ERW Draft Interpretation Plan & Implementation Strategy is generally welcomed and supported by REDWatch. Much remains to be done to both deliver the Plan’s implementation and to realise the tourism and educational potential that the Eveleigh site can contribute.
The Plan indicates some of the depth of the potential on the site. The challenge for the site managers and the heritage community is to find ways of unlocking the site’s stories and making them available, not only in the interpretation outlined, but in the active heritage uses and the visitor experiences that makes the site and its history come alive for a new generation of people.
REDWatch looks forward to continuing to working with Government, Heritage and other stakeholders to develop the site’s heritage and tourism potential.
Geoffrey Turnbull
REDWatch Spokesperson
Member Redfern Waterloo Heritage Taskforce
15 April 2011
]]>| Photographs: | None |
|---|---|
| List: | National Heritage List |
| Class: | Historic |
| Legal Status: | Nominated place |
| Place ID: | 106189 |
| Place File No: | 1/12/033/0026 |
| Nominator's Summary Statement of Significance: |
|---|
| This place is important as it contains Australia's largest
railway workshop which in part is still functioning after 120 years of
continuous use. It is the place that produced Australia's first steam
locomotive. The Eveleigh Railway Yards are some of the finest historic railway engineering workshops in the world and Eveleigh contains one of the most complete late 19th century and early 20th century forge installations, collection of cranes and power systems, in particular the hydraulic system. The place is of international significance and is one of Australia's finest industrial heritage items. The value of the place is increased by the fact that it is comprised of assemblages, collections and operational systems rather than individual items. Conversely, the significance has been reduced by its closure, relocation of some machinery and its disassociation from the operating rail network. (State Projects 1995: 109) This place is the oldest and longest continuous operating railway workshops in Australia. The place is still functioning as workshops servicing steam and diesel railway locomotives and rollingstock. It is part of the greater Eveleigh Workshop site but unlike all the other buildings it still retains its rail workshop context and skills. Eveleigh?s original design and placement near Sydney formed part of its economic viability allowing easy access to the main rail hub (Sydney Station) and to the rest of the state. This close access to Sydney is still vital today in the economic viability of preserving and running of heritage trains. The impact of the work carried out at the Large Erecting Shop is enjoyed locally, regionally and nationally by the operation of the only steam locomotives to haul trains to every mainland state in Australia. The Eveleigh Railway Workshops are some of the finest historic railway engineering workshops in the world and Eveleigh contains one of the most complete late 19th century and early 20th century forge installations, collection of cranes and power systems, in particular the hydraulic system. The place is of international significance and is one of Australia's finest industrial heritage items. The value of the place is increased by the fact that it is comprised of assemblages, collections and operational systems rather than individual items still in use. Conversely, the significance will be reduced by its closure or adaptive reuse, relocation of rolling stock, machinery and its disassociation from the operating rail network. Not only will the Large Erecting Workshop cultural significance be reduced but also the significance of the greater Eveleigh Railway Workshops will be reduced. The workshop is significant nationally for being: - In continuous operation as a rail servicing workshop 128 years still in its original format - Designed by Whitton (trained by John Fowler of the Forth over the Firth Bridge fame) and George Cowdery (trained by Isambard Kingdom Brunel) bringing cutting edge industrial revolution technology to Australia - The building and others making up the Eveleigh group are iconic in design and proportion - the political birth place of 1 Governor General of Australia, 1 Prime Ministers and 25 parliamentarians and the inaugural Secretary of the Nurses Association - the home of steam locomotive operations in NSW including the iconic 38 Class locomotives with carriages (presently includes the Powerhouse Museum?s 3830, the last 38 class locomotive built at Eveleigh) - Governor-General Lord Hopetoun?s carriage built and stored on site - A centre of skills and expertise in maintenance/operation of heritage trains directly passed on from retired railway employees - One of group of large industrial buildings that form an extended corridor on the main rail access into Sydney - There was a significant World War 1 and World War II presence at the Eveleigh Railway Workshops and workers employed at Eveleigh were free from conscription if they chose. When Australia entered World War I many railway employees enlisted in the armed services. Others were subsequently involved in fitting out trains for the transport of injured soldiers or in armaments (often referred to as munitions) manufacture. All in all, the Eveleigh and Randwick tramway workshops produced 14 330 18-pounder shell bodies, 8 000 copper bands and 15 sets of gauges for 18-pounder shells. During World War II the Eveleigh workshops were used even more extensively. In May 1940 production of 18-pounder shells began, although in January 1941 the plant was converted for the production of 25-pounder shells. In November 1942 female workers were introduced into the annexe to overcome the shortage of male labour and additional facilities were installed specifically for them. The Large Erecting Shop was used for fitting, assembling and testing numerous large machines. During early 1942 the assembly of tanks was also conducted at Eveleigh before moving to the completed tank assembly shop at Chullora. - The place where the Great National Strike commenced in 1917 - A significant place Aboriginal people of Redfern as one of the few place that offered employment, training and employment transfers from regional NSW to the city. - Collection of original machinery including overhead cranes and machinery from all phases of its history up until 2011 - It is significant as a representative example of Victorian era heavy engineering technology that is still in situ and operational. - It houses a significant collection of locomotives and rolling stock. - It contains a significant collection of railway moveable heritage relevant to the state and nation - It is significant as the largest mid Victorian Railway Workshop in Australia and became a place known for its technological innovation. - It is significant as place for Aboriginal people as a place that enabled them to gain training and employment - It is politically important as the place where the 1917 Great Strike was started. - the political birth place of 1 Governor General of Australia, 1 Prime Ministers and 25 parliamentarians, Federal Court Judge and the inaugural Secretary of the Nurses Association - It is significant as the only workshop from this period that has had continual use so retains the skills and links enabling heritage trains to be restored, serviced, stored and run from 1.5 kms from the CBD making these operations - It is significant historically to the development of the state and moving people and cargo to and from rural areas. - The railways from an early period employed Aboriginal people and Eveleigh's location near to Redfern became the single major employer until the mid 1980's, it also enabled Aboriginal people to transfer between country towns to the city reinforcing the rural and city connection between many families. |
| Official Values: Not Available |
| Description: |
|
The condition of the place is excellent but some of the
major items have been seriously threatened by the owner since the last
nomination (Large Erecting Shop only)was lodged in
2006 and are presently in peril, further significant items have been removed in
an attempt to diminish the significance of the place as defined by the NSW
Heritage Act and the EPBC Act. The RWA
is also dividing the land for long term leases without any known heritage
safeguards in place. |
| History: |
|
This site has a large and
ever expanding history with CMP’s developed for most
buildings. 1871 Planning for a large modern workshops complex at Redfern began. 1875 The site at Eveleigh was selected. 1880 Settlement for land was reached - 64.5 acres resumed from the estate of the late John Chisolm for c. £100,000. 1882 Clearing of land commenced. Because of the sandy nature of the soil, much work went into the design and construction of the workshop foundations. 1884 The contract for the construction of Bays 1-4 was let to George Fishburn for a cost of £40,725 and work was commenced shortly after. 1885 Work underway and purchase of machinery commenced. The foundations for Bays 5-15 were completed, enabling the contract for the construction of these bays to be let to John Ahern at a price of £80,837. 1886 Construction of the workshops continued. 1887 Workshops 1-4 were officially opened. These contained the ‘dirty trades’ of foundry work, boilermaking and blacksmithing. They were originally separated from Bays 5-15 by a space equivalent in width to one of the bays. Annexes were built on the southern and western sides. 1887 (late) Workshops 5-15 were completed and opened 1892 Union negotiations led to the workshops being closed on Saturdays 1896 Lightening rods fitted to 120 foot high chimney for Boiler House behind Bay 2/3. An extension of 200 feet added to the western end of the Large Erecting Shed (west of the Loco Shop) completed 1896. 1899 Large Erecting Shop added to the site, to the west of the Loco Shop, enabling many of the engine repair functions to be removed from the main building. Work commenced on converting Bays 12 and 13 for an Interlocking Shop. This work began in November with the removal of the brick wall between Bays 11 and 12 and the installation of iron columns and crane girders. A compressed-air plant was installed in an annexe to Bays 3 and 4. New foundry erected adjacent to large Erecting shop allowing Boiler Shop to expand into Bay 4. Compressed air plant installed in Boiler Shop (Bays 3-4) and air mains installed. 1949- Last Steam Locomotive in NSW built and assembled in this workshop and is still housed in this building and operated and maintained by the Powerhouse Museum 1988 Majority of rail workshops closed 1988 Large Erecting Shop retained for 3801 ltd 2006 All heritage protection removed by the Redfern Waterloo Authority Act 2008 Powerhouse Museum Evicted from site 2011 Friends of Eveleigh continue to fight for this site |
| Condition and Integrity: |
|
The condition of the buildings are good, the contents which
make up a significant part of the place are being systematically removed by the
owner, which further undermines any attempt to retain the place, the skills,
the jobs and the volunteers. |
| Location: |
|
About 50ha, Henderson Road, Eveleigh. The
precinct contains all current and former railway land at Eveleigh, including
Eveleigh Railway Workshops, Eveleigh Carriage Workshops, Alexandria Goods
Yards, Macdonaldtown Carriage Sheds, Redfern Station and Main Western Line. |
| Bibliography: |
|
The Great Eveleigh Railway Workshops, Richard K Butcher,
2004 A Heritage Study of the Eveleigh Railway Workshops Vol 1. Godden, Mackay and Associates, 1986 Conservation Policy Scwager Brooks, 1994 Relics Policy Godden, 1988 South Sydney Heritage Study Tropman & Tropman, 1995 Master Plan And Urban Development Plan Eveleigh Precinct Planning Study A & A, 1994 Eveleigh Precinct Social Impact Study Lester Firth & Ass., 1992 New Locomotive Workshop CMP Government Architects Office 1995 Eveleigh Carriage Workshops CMP Government Architects Office 1995 Railways Relics & Romance The Eveleigh Railway Workshops – photographs by David Moore 1995 Colonial Engineer Building of Australia’s Railways – John Whitton 1819-1898 – Robert Lee Primary sources "History Of Eveleigh Workshops" Correspondence From Works Managers Office, Eveleigh To Assistant Chief Mechanical Engineer, Redfern, 14.04.55, Railway Archives. "Eveleigh Locomotive Workshops" Undated, Unsigned & Incomplete Report Approx 1921, Held By Railway Archives. "Visit Of Inspection - Eveleigh Workshops, 11 October 1922" By Institution Of Engineers, Sydney Division. Information Pamphlet, Railway Archives. "The NSW Railway Workshops At Eveleigh - A State Enterprise" In The Illustrated Sydney News, Pp 11-13, 18 July 1891. "The Australian As Engineer - Splendid Work At Eveleigh Workshops" Hyde, Hamilton In Sea, Land And Air, Pp 176-179, 1 June 1922. "The Locomotive Shops At Eveleigh" In The NSW Railway Budget Vol 8, Pp 239-240, 21 July 1900. "The Carriage And Wagon Shops At Eveleigh" In The NSW Railway And Tramway Magazine, Pp 37 1917. "Coal Goes From Eveleigh" In Eveleigh News, Magazine Of The Eveleigh Workshops Central Shop Committee, No 377, 24 July 1968. "Foundry Operations At Locomotive Workshops, Eveleigh" Report To The State Rail Authority Of NSW By D Lynons, A Fisher; August 1985. "The Railway Stores Branch And Its Work" In The NSW Railway Budget Vol 7, Pp 186-187, 18 May 1899. Machines and Ghosts: Politics, Industrial Heritage and the History of Working Life at the Eveleigh Workshops; L Taksa, November 2003. |
Report Produced: Tue Apr 5 18:56:29 2011 Source: Greater Eveleigh Railway Precinct Henderson Rd
Redfern Waterloo Heritage Taskforce (RWHT) – Terms of Reference
Redfern Waterloo Heritage Taskforce (RWHT) Call for Projects
ATP Conservation Management Plan (CMP) Input
ATP S170 Heritage Register Overview Report & Moveable Heritage at ATP
As I reported in the last Heritage Update, the Minister for Redfern Waterloo has established a Redfern Waterloo Heritage Taskforce that will cover a range of heritage concerns including Railway Heritage at Eveleigh. The Terms of Reference of the new Taskforce have been released and you can read them in full on the REDWatch website Redfern Waterloo Heritage Task Force (RWHT) Terms of Reference.
The main scope of the Term of Reference is:
At the first meeting of the Taskforce it was decided to include a non-government heritage specialist on the Taskforce. Following discussions between Friends of Eveleigh, Wrought Artworks and 3801 Ltd, it has been decided to nominate ATP blacksmith Guido Gouverneur for the position.
The RWA is currently also looking for two Aboriginal representatives for the RWHT. The Expression of Interest for the Aboriginal positions can be found at Expression of Interest - Indigenous seat on Heritage Taskforce.
The Redfern Waterloo Heritage Task Force has called for Expressions of Interest in Heritage Projects for 2010. To include a wide range of people and areas the RWHT has adopted a project and working party approach to try and achieve a broad and comprehensive treatment of the area’s diverse heritage.
This provides the opportunity for those concerned about Eveleigh Railway Heritage to propose projects which identify opportunities for the active conservation, interpretation and, where appropriate, the adaptive reuse of the heritage of the Redfern Waterloo area. The RWHT advertisement says:
If you have an interest in history and heritage matters and would like to contribute to the conservation of our heritage, you are invited, as an individual or as a working party, to nominate a Heritage Project.
Individuals who wish to participate but do not wish to nominate a distinct Heritage Project should contact the Heritage Project Manager (details below) who will seek to match interests and skills with proposed Heritage Projects.
Heritage Projects will be assessed and approved by the Taskforce prior to their commencement.
To be considered by the taskforce all Heritage Project nominations must address the selection criteria available at www.redfernwaterloo.nsw.gov.au (under community - heritage).
For further information contact Juliet Suich at the Redfern Waterloo Authority on 9202 9100 or by email at juliet.suich@rwa.nsw.gov.au
Nominations close Thursday 25 February at 5 pm.
The full text and selection criteria can be found on REDWatch at Redfern Waterloo Heritage Taskforce - Call for 2010 Heritage Projects.
I have put together an draft overview of what some possible projects might look like to help people think about what they might like to propose or be involved in - you can see it at RWHT Project possibilities - for discussion.
The RWHT and the projects it picks in 2010 provide our best chance for progress on heritage issues across the former Eveleigh Railyards – so I encourage you to think how this opportunity might be best used, and how you and your friends might be able to make the best of this opportunity for Eveleigh Heritage.
Godden Mackay Logan (GML) held a public information session / consultation on 7th December 2009 as part of the revision of the Conservation Management Plan (CMP) for the ATP site. GML is looking for feedback from people with an interest in the ATP site to inform its preparation of the new CMP. The new CMP will then be exhibited. They are especially interested in why people consider ATP to be significant and what tangible and intangible components of the site are important. The Australian Technology Park - Conservation Management Plan - Consultation Feedback Form (PDF 302Kb) provides details of the areas on which GML is specifically seeking input. The current 1996 CMP can be found at the bottom of www.atp.com.au/heritage-and-history.
Wendie & Guido have made available their comments to GML. You can see their comments under ATP - CMP Consultation Feedback from Wrought Artworks and this might give you some other ideas of what needs to be considered in the revised ATP CMP.
Just before Christmas the ATP placed its S170 Register on its website at www.atp.com.au/atp-policies - it was previously could only be obtained from the Heritage Office if someone was aware of its existence. The ATP have also updated the S170 Overview report in December to correct some mistakes and update some information since it was prepared in 2008 and this now is also on the ATP website.
The ATP also issued a Heritage Public Statement (PDF 12KB) before Christmas 2009 putting on record the ATP’s commitment to Heritage. Those interested in the ATP site should keep an eye out for the expression of interest process mentioned in the last paragraph of the statement which said:
The ATPPML Board has also recognised the need to engage with the many committed people who have worked and been part of the ATP heritage at the railway yards over many years. To this end ATPPML will shortly be seeking expressions of interest from the heritage community to establish an ATP volunteer group to be part of the team directly engaged with the preservation and promotion of the heritage at the Park.
]]>