Thank
you for the opportunity to comment on the above draft. We expected that the consent
conditions B33, that the plan be prepared in consultation with groups like ours
before it was submitted to the Department of Planning and Environment, would
have meant we had this opportunity earlier.
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