Point Cook – Last Chance for Public Comments on the Heritage Management Plan 30 April

hello Oscar,

thats great, I hope you lodged a HMP comments form in as well? and theres still value in circulating it to association members etc and encouraging them to lodge late comments into Monday/Tuesday, as its not a tender process and late comments shouldnt be rejected within a few days of the closing date.

regards

Mark Pilkington

Mark, I wrote to Egg Head last week…

bump,

although the comment closing date was 30th of April (extended from 30th of March) I am sure emails recieved across the weekend would be accepted.

hopefully the attachment is accessible, it is a pre-loaded comments form, which can be completed with name/address etc and emailed to the address listed on the form.

regards

Mark Pilkington

done mine this morning.
point cook is incredibly important to aviation history in Australia,it really angers me the way the bureaucrats have wasted what could be a great site.

Bloody politicians. They’d flatten the place and sell it off to property developers the first opportunity they get.

That was the intended outcome from 1998 through to 2001, we locked in the operating airfield in 2001, locked in retention in government ownership in 2004, and protection as a National Heritage site in 2007, now we need to lock in what and how it is protected as a National Heritage site, ie how defence use it, and what buildings are protected from demolishment and neglect.

please take the opportunity to submit a comment, no comments will be interpreted as “no-one cares”!

regards

Mark Pilkington

Bloody politicians. They’d flatten the place and sell it off to property developers the first opportunity they get.

.
bounce

COMMENTS ON POINT COOK HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CURRENT SITUATION

Point Cook is being retained in Defence hands and is intended to be re-populated by the RAAF as a working Heritage Base, however it currently remains largely empty, with more than 60 percent of the buildings vacant with little or no maintenance undertaken on the buildings for many years, well before the 1990’s in some cases, with most lacking adequate roof guttering, downpipes or drainage, resulting in damage to weatherboard cladding, internal timber frames and the base of structures. Defence are “demolishing” heritage buildings by neglect while others face intended removal due to the lack of intended Defence use.

It is understood Defence plans for spending on the site is now deferred to 2015/16 or beyond, and largely limited to inground services upgrades of Electricity, Water, Sewerage and drainage, meaning that many of the heritage buildings have not had adequate maintenance for over 20 years or more since the wind down to closure commenced in 1992.

Appendix E highlights the poor condition of many of the historic buildings and that many of the timber/weatherboard structures have no paint /sealant protection, the guttering/downpipes have failed and permit water to enter the internal ceiling and wall structures and metal roof cladding on many other structures is leaking and overdue for replacement.

It is likely some of these heritage buildings will not survive a further 5 or 6 years of further neglect, and will be assessed as to far gone by then and demolished due to cost or safety issues.

There is an URGENT need for DEHWA to step in and take control of the management of the site and provide immediate heritage funding as undertaken at similar National Heritage sites such as Point Nepean and the Sydney Harbour Trust sites.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON THE HERITAGE PLAN

The document has been developed by external consultants ERA Australia, and is quite well done, unfortunately a number of historic buildings on site are at risk due to the low importance ascribed them in this plan, and the consideration of “demolishment” as a “Heritage Management” Strategy, including buildings from WW1 and in the most important heritage precinct of the base – ie the Southern Tarmac

Section 2.5 Future Use

This section discusses the Future Use considerations including re-activation of RAAF Williams Point Cook as a “Working Heritage Base” yet there is no reference at all to the “Underlying Planning Principles” issued as policy by the Parl. Sec for Defence Peter Lindsay in September 2007 and in particular the following:

The future use and management of RAAF Base Point Cook (including the location of Defence functions and activities) is to be cognisant of, and facilitate, public access and use. • Future Defence use of the Base is to have regard to the location of the Point Cook State School and Pre-school. • RAAF Bases Laverton and RAAF Base Point Cook are to be retained in the longer term.• Funding will need to be sourced to undertake the necessary upgrade works to site facilities, to provide for the ongoing maintenance requirements.

The current Defence plans to close off public access and use of the most important heritage precinct on the base, the Southern Tarmac for “operational purposes” , is not consistent with facilitating public access.

The HCMP correctly identifies on page 6 in clauses 2.3.1 Maintenance that “The primary risk to the Heritage Values at Point Cook is through disuse, leading to lack of maintenance, and repairs, consequently resulting in deterioration of building fabric, Unused buildings quickly deteriorate…. results in buildings that are unsafe for use, unfit for purpose, and unattractive as restoration projects, often resulting in demolition as the most viable solution.”

The report notes that 60% of the base is currently un-occupied, and if those buildings remain empty and not required for Defence purposes they will not be maintained, and suffer eventual demolition, the current “blue base” strategy of Defence removes all civilian aviation to the north of the base, and removes any ability for non-Defence use of the heritage buildings, other than the pre-school and State school.

Under 2.3.2 Compatible Use the HMP identifies that “there is a potential for a number of different uses for various precincts on the base, at that the location and types of fences … must be considered carefully to maintain consistency to the original planning concept.”

Under 2.3.4 Security, the HCMP identifies that increased security is being required across Defence bases and that the current museum access may be limited in the future due to heightened security restrictions.

Defence already has a very secure base at Laverton, with no need to support public access for civil aviation or museum visitations, and there is a need to re-think the intention to relocate significant “operational” and security sensitive resources from that secure base to Point Cook, and still be able to ensure significant public access. This issue is more important given the foiled terrorist attacks on Holsworthy Army base.

Section 2.3.4 and 3.1.2 in regards to Security proposes to manage Point Cook in accordance with the latest Defence security requirements, and it is therefore clear that the “operational” activities being proposed for Point Cook are NOT consistant with the “underlying planning principles” and that those principles are not being used as the basis of Defence planning.

Section 3.1.5 proposes a policy of seeking compatible uses for Point Cook buildings and precincts, and the 2003 Point Cook steering committee investigated such options, however the current Defence precinct designs servrely limits civilian use to most of the vacant buildings including all of the Southern Tarmac, and therefore threatens buildings that Defence cannot use (such as building 90 the 1922 Motor Transport Garage or building 108 the Seaplane Jetty) with remaining vacant and being neglected and eventually demolished to avoid Defence spending on buildings it is not using.

Section 3.2.1 Deals with the Southern Tarmac, the most important and historically significant part of the base, with the earliest aviation buildings in Australia, from the pre-WW1 hangars of 1914, the WW1 Hangars of 1917, the interwar buildings from 1919 and the 1920’s, it predates all other aviation related buildings in the Nation both civil or military.

Yet the importance of that precinct is not reflected in its value as a whole, unlike the “heritage Precinct” planned around the married quarters.

While some buildings are listed as Exceptional and high, the group is unclassified at all, yet clearly worthy of being “Exceptional” as a group. In addition the overall intactness of the Southern Tarmac precinct and the future of a number of individual buildings is at great risk due to neglect of buildings due to the lack of Defence use, and the lack of access for Civilian use.

In addition there are current plans by Defence to build new buildings in this precinct, demolish buildings from the WW2 and post war period, and an apparent attempt to try and recreate the precinct back to its 1930’s layout by moving building 210, the historic 1914 Aeroplane Hangar onto the site of the Bellmans when they are demolished. However it is clear that is a “third” and inappropriate site, not a return to the “original” site, and any move will destroy more of the heritage of building 210 and its existing building fabric that any re-siting will “reinstate”.

The HMP must ensure the historically sensitive Southern Tarmac site is managed as a collective precinct, and not naively modified to create a “quasy” 1930’s streetscape at the cost of interwar, WW2 and post war buildings that are just as important to the overall Southern Tarmac story.

The HMP must also ensure that no new construction is undertaken on the heritage sensitive Southern Tarmac site, the heritage values should not be damaged by “Operational” issues that may only be a transient and infrequent use of the precinct in any case.

Defence is seeking to close off the public access to the most significant historic part of the base, the Southern Tarmac. This is assumed “to set it aside to support military flying operations when required, particularly as a contingency to support national security requirements. Such operations would be accommodated as required.”

Yet such operations are very few and far between, but is resulting in many historic buildings on the Southern Tarmac being considered “not fit for purpose, and not required for Defence use” but also not available for civilian use.

In 2008 a wind storm blew off the roof cladding, and caused the western wall of the 1922 Motor Transport Garage (building 90) to fall over, the building is currently left without any protection to its exposed internal structure, and faces uncertainty as to Defences intentions to repair or demolish, yet it is listed as being of “High Significance on page 27 of the CMP.

A letter from the office of Parliamentary Secretary Dr Mike Kelly in November 2009 advised that “a base redevelopment project is currently proposed for delivery in 2013-15, which will address a number of underlying maintenance priorities … however not all buildings will be restored and no commitment can be made to building P90.”

It’s clear that in its current exposed condition building 90 will not be in a fit state to restore in another 3 to 5 years when such funding might become available.

Worse, this Defence reply contrasts with a letter of July 2009 from the Department of Environment, Heritage, Water and the Arts, who administer the National Heritage List and EPBC Act, who advised that “The National Heritage management principles and commonwealth Heritage management principles oblige Defence to protect and conserve heritage values, including ensuring the damage to Building 90 is not being exacerbated by neglecting protection from the elements. The compliance area of DEWHA will be making contact with Defence in respect to this issue.”

Point Cook is the only National Heritage Site remaining in the Defence control and it seems clear Defence does not have the focus or resources to maintain it.

The Draft HMP on page 27 lists the 4 Bellman Hangars on the Southern Tarmac (Buildings 211-214) as being of Moderate significance, and had previously proposed on page 26 that existing buildings of Exceptional, High or Moderate significance should be retained in their present location, yet in this instance specifically recommends demolition as being appropriate?

Of those 4 Bellman Hangars on the Southern Tarmac, 2 are rare examples of the original samples sent out from the UK, (all others in Australia and at Point Cook are locally made examples), but have been slated for demolition . While their uniqueness is well known and even referenced in a public display within the RAAF Museum, it is not recognised at all in the CMP and the buildings are therefore considered of moderate significance and “demolition considered appropriate” as per page 27.

Yet with some refurbishment they would be very suitable for use by civilian aviation, (or support of the infrequent Operational Defence use of the base) as they had previously been used for many years. In fact in 2006 4 long term tenants of the Bellman Hangars were evicted (on claims of the Hangars were unsafe and requiring demolishment – contrary to independent engineering advice), and since that time the Hangars have remained unused and vacant, deteriorating further. This has resulted in Defence foregoing the @$50,000 annual income previously generated, which over this last 4 years could have generated @$200k to fund recladding of the roof’s, and reinstatement of the stormwater guttering and down pipes to avoid ongoing water damage to the building structure.

Clearly the two rare UK built examples would be considered “High” significance not only to Point Cook but nationally across Australia..

An important heritage issue is the WW1 seaplane jetty on the Southern Tarmac, recognised in this report as being of Exceptional significance, and recommending investment of funding to preserve it for use by “relevant user groups” (page 26) , yet Defence has done no preventative maintenance on the jetty for years, and its highly unlikely that without regular public access requirements to the jetty that Defence will provide any funding at all to maintain it as there is no “Defence” use for the jetty.

As explained above, two of the Southern Tarmac WW2 Bellmans are known to be rare examples of the original samples sent out from the UK, (all others in Australia and at Point Cook are locally made examples). this is not recognised at all in the CMP and the buildings are therefore considered of moderate significance and “demolition considered appropriate” as per page 27.
There is need of further work on the HMP treatment of the Southern Tarmac to ensure protection of both the WW1 and later buildings regardless of intended use by Defence.

The Report does not appear to recognise the value of the intactness and “collective group” of buildings on the Southern Tarmac as being the most important part of the base? contrasting table E.14 “Significance of Southern Tarmac Assets” which only lists the 25 various “Aviation” buildings in individual categories from intrusive (1), low (3), Moderate (9), High (7) and Exceptional (4), where as the WW1 and interwar group of 13 married quarters (houses) listed in Table E.16 “Significance of Staff Residences Precinct Assets” are all individually listed as “High” (13) and notated that the it is considered that collectively, the group is of an “Exceptional level of value”??

Point Cook is Australia’s most important AVIATION heritage site, the values that place it on the Commonwealth and National Heritage List is its links to Australias Aviation History, it is therefore beyond belief that the Heritage Management Plan and assessment is that the most “Exceptional” precinct of buildings existing at Point Cook is 13 uniform wooden houses not dunlike those found on early Army or Navy bases un-related to Aviation activities?

Section 3.3.5, Building 72 Former Barracks Store and Office.

This building is currently incorrectly assessed as being of “high” heritage significance and is recorded as originally being sited on the Southern Tarmac, and being relocated twice and having previously been the Barracks Store and Office. However the HMP totally ignores the true significance of this building as the original Flight Office and Casualty building of 1917 from the Southern Tarmac where it was sited adjacent to the Aeroplane Workshops building 95. This building was the WW1 equivalent of the Flight Operations Building or in fact the “Control Tower, with the necessary function of casualty treatment of injured trainees being an equally important role of those early days of flight training, as such it is clearly of Exceptional heritage significance and requires futher review by the HMP.

The Historic Buildings under threat or requiring further review include:

Building 95 – Aeroplane Workshops – 1914 – Southern Tarmac (This building is incorrectly recorded as “Seaplane Hangar” – that label only relates to the rear half of the building built in 1916 in conjunction with the Seaplane Jetty)
This building has a significant heritage value in its front wall cladding consisting of a dent associated with the 1915 crash of a Bristol Boxkite by trainee White, as such the cladding should be seperately noted for management and protection, no specific comment is made in regards to that feature or its future protection?

Building 210 – 1914 Aeroplane Hangar – 1914 – Southern Tarmac
Defence has an un-released strategy (RAAF Base Williams Redevelopment Analysis Report – May 2008) to relocate this building to its “original site” if the 4 Southern Tarmac Bellmans are demolished, yet that is a physical impossibility as the large Seaplane Hangar 101 was expanded over the original site of building 210, being the cause of its relocation to its current site. Any attempt to move it “back” will be destroying history of its current location for the last 70 years, be unable to locate back on its original site to “recreate history” and likely result in much of the existing fabric of the building being destroyed in any such move.
The Heritage Management Plan does not address those existing Defence plans despite the apparant overlapping of their development?
Building 108 Seaplane Jetty – 1916 – Southern Tarmac
Despite being assessed as “Exceptional” there is no intended Defence use of this asset and under their own stated policies, buildings not utilised will not be maintained. Current Defence Heritage base strategy locks the Seaplane Jetty deep inside an intended Defence Operational area, precluding access by the General Public for heritage/tourism, recreational fishing, boating or ferry arrival/departure, or even seaplane joyflights – it is clear Defence itself will have no operational use of the Jetty and therefore this asset will need specific DEWHA funding to protect it from the risks of demolishment by Neglect.

Building 72 Former Barracks Store and Office “School Precinct.
This building is assessed as being of “high” heritage significance and of relatively poor condition, (page 69) and commented “Costs to return the building to an acceptable standard may be prohibitive given the small size of the building” This building was the WW1 equivalent of the Flight Operations Building or in fact the “Control Tower, with the necessary function of casualty treatment of injured trainees being an equally important role of those early days of flight training, as such it is clearly of Exceptional heritage significance and requires futher review by the HMP and urgent and priority funding to be protected.

Building 90 – Motor Transport Garage – 1922 – Southern Tarmac
Despite being assessed as “High Significance” this building has suffered roof damage and has been left without roof cladding since mid 2008, resulting in ongoing exposure to the elements causing deterioration to internal timber frames and structure. –
The Heritage Management Plan does not address the buildings current state or the urgent need for repairs, and those repairs should made a priority in section 3.2.1.

Buildings 211-213 Bellman Hangars C1940 – Southern Tarmac
Two of these Bellmans are known to be rare examples of the original samples sent out from the UK, (all others in Australia and at Point Cook are locally made examples). this is not recognised at all in the HMP and the buildings are therefore considered of moderate significance and “demolition considered appropriate” as per page 27. clearly the rare UK built examples would be considered “High” significance not only to Point Cook but across Australia..

It is therefore clear many of the historic buildings on the base, and particularly on the Southern Tarmac will be left unutilised, and therefore targeted by Defence for demolition, this is the recommended policy of the RAAF Heritage Advisory Council report of 2006, and a theme maintained through into the HMP.

The current Defence layout and implementation of the “working heritage base” is creating great risk to the ongoing preservation of the historic buildings on site, there needs to be a re-think of the Master Plan for the Heritage Base in light of the National Heritage Listing and in compliance with the Government’s direction in its underlying planning principles of 2007 for “the future use and management of RAAF Base Point Cook (including the location of Defence functions and activities) is to be cognisant of, and facilitate, public access and use.”

There is an URGENT need for DEHWA to step in and take control of the management of the site and provide immediate heritage funding as undertaken at similar National Heritage sites such as Point Nepean and the Sydney Harbour Trust sites.

In 2000 the Federal Government set up the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust with funding of $90M to manage, preserve and develop public access and usage of 6 former Defence sites at Middle Head, Georges Heights, North Head, Woolwich and Cockatoo Island.

A more direct comparison is the creation in 2004 of the Point Nepean Community Trust with funding of $48M to manage, preserve and develop public access and usage of the former Defence Point Nepean site, inclusive of $31M to restore and develop the Quarantine Station / Norris Barracks buildings.

While the “Working Base” model is intended to retain an ongoing Defence relationship with the site, a worthwhile objective, it has effectively left the site and important buildings in limbo for the last 6 years, awaiting future funding that may never come, or be too late.

In the 6 years since being placed on the CHL in 2004, and subsequent replacement of the Trust outcome at Point Cook the only significant heritage building maintenance undertaken at Point Cook was to replace the asbestos roof on the 1914 Aeroplane Workshops (building 95), and 1927 Seaplane Hangar (building 101), many others are suffering leaking roof’s, leaking or non-existent guttering and down pipes, flaking or missing paint, resulting in the timber frames and weatherboard structures rotting rapidly.

A revised Master Plan layout of precincts and entry methods focused on public access, together with a re-visit of a Community Trust model under a lease from Defence, to manage the public areas, and maintenance and civilian use of surplus heritage buildings could access similar heritage funding to that gained for Point Nepean, and provide a stable and continuous management model for this important National Aviation Heritage site.

The Historic buildings of Point Cook cannot afford to await another 3 or 4 years for Defence to allocate some funding for maintenance, or for the buildings to collapse to neglect, action is required in this Centenary of Australian Aviation, to ensure Point Cook’s heritage buildings will survive for the site’s own centenary in 2014.