final report - home - townsville city council · carried out a -topdesk audit of these listings and...

May 2011

FINAL REPORT

Townsville City Council

Cultural Heritage

Study

Prepared for:


.äi..ip^.t*.xNg"srf

DOCUMENT CONTROL SHEET

Details

Gonsultant Brannock & Associates

Address GPO BOX 552 BRISBANE QLD 4OOO

Phone 07 3229 5322

Facsimile 07 3229 5488

e-mail brannock@bran nock.com.au

Document DescriotionTitle Cultural Heritage Study for Townsville City Council New Planning Scheme

(Final Report)

Document Code TownsCG-CultHER Final Reoort v5

Glient Townsville Citv Council

CIient Contact Ted Brandi

Document StatusDraft lssue 20 Mav 2011

Final lssue 31 Mav 2011

Aooroved for lssue: Siqnature ,. Date

Authorisation Scott Richards, SeniorTown Planner/Historian

1l - ç -2,ctlReview John Brannock, Director -411Õ____-/ 3 /- ; -;2¿//

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................... 1

1.1 What this study achieves ........................................................................................................ 1

2.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 6

2.1 The Townsville City Council ................................................................................................... 6

2.2 This Cultural Heritage Study................................................................................................... 6

2.3 Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 8

2.4 This report ............................................................................................................................... 9

2.5 Relationships with other studies ........................................................................................... 10

2.6 The study team ..................................................................................................................... 10

2.7 Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................ 10

3.0 LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................... 12

3.1 Relevant legislation .............................................................................................................. 12

3.2 Regional planning ................................................................................................................. 22

3.3 The Queensland Heritage Register ...................................................................................... 24

3.4 Previous heritage studies ..................................................................................................... 28

3.5 The Burra Charter ................................................................................................................. 33

3.6 Current planning scheme provisions .................................................................................... 34

3.7 The Community Plan ............................................................................................................ 38

4.0 THE MAIN ISSUES ..................................................................................................... 39

4.1 The prevailing legislation – effects ....................................................................................... 39

4.2 The existing heritage registers ............................................................................................. 40

4.3 Existing heritage provisions .................................................................................................. 43

5.0 OPTIONS AND RECOMMENDATONS ....................................................................... 45

5.1 The prevailing legislation – solutions .................................................................................... 45

5.2 The new heritage register ..................................................................................................... 48

5.3 Character identification ......................................................................................................... 66

5.4 Residential character areas and possible conflicts .............................................................. 78

6.0 STRATEGY AND POLICY .......................................................................................... 83

6.1 The Queensland Planning Provisions .................................................................................. 83

6.2 Strategic framework .............................................................................................................. 84

6.3 QPP overlays ........................................................................................................................ 88

6.4 Zones and precincts ............................................................................................................. 90

6.5 Planning scheme codes ....................................................................................................... 93

6.6 Levels of assessment ........................................................................................................... 98

6.7 Local area plans ................................................................................................................. 103

6.8 Other relevant information .................................................................................................. 105

6.9 Financial incentives ............................................................................................................ 115

7.0 THE NEXT STEPS .................................................................................................... 117

7.1 The desk-top audit .............................................................................................................. 117

7.2 Heritage or character? ........................................................................................................ 117

7.3 Additional places ................................................................................................................ 118

7.4 Additional studies ............................................................................................................... 119

8.0 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION .......................................................................... 120

8.1 Council and government consultation ................................................................................ 120

8.2 Consultant discussion ......................................................................................................... 120

8.3 Issues that arose through these discussions ..................................................................... 121

APPENDIXES

Appendix A Proposed heritage places database (audited results) Appendix B Additional non-indigenous heritage places

Appendix C Summary of stakeholder discussions

Appendix D Mapping of heritage places

May 2011 Townsville City Council Cultural Heritage Study – Final Report Townsville City Council

1

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A Cultural Heritage Study has been prepared for the Townsville City Council as one of the component

reports in the preparation of its new planning scheme.

This Final Report of the Study encapsulates the analysis, findings and investigations carried out for this

project since its commission in September 2010, and the discussion, content, and information

disseminated to Council over this period.

1.1 What this study achieves

The Cultural Heritage Study has identified a number of issues with respect to cultural heritage and

residential character in the Townsville City Council local government area, provides options for the

consideration of Council to resolve these issues, and makes a series of recommendations to guide

Council in the preparation of its new planning scheme, with respect to cultural heritage places and

residential character values in the local government area.

To do this, the Cultural Heritage Study has:

examined the prevailing state legislation that is relevant to cultural heritage

matters and to the preparation of the new planning scheme;

reviewed and appraised existing heritage studies held by Council for the former

Townsville and Thuringowa local government areas;

reviewed and appraised the existing heritage listings and the existing heritage

codes and provisions in the Thuringowa and Townsville planning schemes;

carried out a desk-top audit of these listings and provided a reduced list of

possible heritage places for the consideration of Council for entry on a local

heritage register;

made some assessments and provided advice on the existing character

precinct study and analysis carried out to date by the Townsville City Council;

made recommendations on the content of the local heritage register;

provided advice on the processes for the treatment of Aboriginal cultural

heritage;

provided recommendations on overlays, levels of assessment, proposed

heritage criteria and the content of heritage impact statements for the new

planning scheme;

investigated and researched additional sites for consideration for identification

in a local heritage register in the new planning scheme.


2

The various issues identified, options raised and recommendations made in this Final Report are

summarised below.

1.1.1 Issues, options, recommendations

1. Recent amendments to the Queensland Heritage Act 1992 require local governments in

Queensland to keep registers of places of cultural heritage significance in their areas. Some

local governments are exempt from these requirements, such as the former Townsville City

Council local government area, while the former Thuringowa City Council is not. This anomaly

needs to be resolved in conjunction with the Department of Local Government and Planning

(DLGP), and the Department of Environment and Resource Management (DERM). The

exemption of the whole Townsville City Council LGA would be the best outcome for the

preparation of the new planning scheme.

2. Currently there are approximately 1,300 heritage places listed in the existing Townsville and

Thuringowa City Council planning schemes. These existing listings should not be ‘carried over’

into the local heritage register for the new planning scheme. Most of these places are not

considered to be of cultural heritage significance, and they create an exaggerated picture of the

extent of heritage resources in Townsville. Many of these listed places may be more

appropriately assessed as places of potential residential character value. A reduced list of

heritage places is proposed and provided for consideration of Council for inclusion in a local

heritage register. It is recommended as well that Council carry out its own audit of these

existing listings.

3. A small number of additional heritage places have been identified and researched and

information on these is provided for the consideration of Council. These additional places are

included in the local heritage register recommended in this project.

4. The local heritage register for the new planning scheme for the Townsville City Council local

government area can contain heritage sites (buildings, places, etc), archaeological sites (of

European cultural significance), and State heritage places. The local heritage register should

not contain places assessed to be of character value only.

5. The local heritage register should not contain Aboriginal cultural heritage places. Separate

acknowledgment and treatment processes may be considered appropriate for Aboriginal

cultural heritage.

6. It is recommended that the places in the Townsville City Council local government area

recognised for their cultural heritage significance be identified in the new planning scheme as a


3

Cultural Heritage overlay, consistent with the standard suite of overlays in the Queensland

Planning Provisions (QPP).

7. It is recommended that a separate Neighbourhood Character overlay, broadly consistent with

the standard suite of overlays in the QPP, be created in the new planning scheme for those

areas that contain residential and non-residential buildings considered to be of character value

to the Townsville City Council local government area. These designated character overlay

areas may contain those areas identified in the Draft Character Precincts Survey, as well as

other parts of the city. Different methods in which to consider and identify character areas are

suggested in this report. Places of character value do not need to be individually listed or

entered in a character register for the planning scheme; these places are used to populate the

Neighbourhood Character overlay, which is a spatial representation of a visual quality or

characteristic that is dependent on proximity to other similar places.

8. To create a character precinct, grouping or area, character houses would need to exist in

groups or ‘clusters’ of at least three houses together in the same street sharing side

boundaries. But this is a base requirement only. It is not enough to simply locate all areas of

groups of three character houses and identify these as character precincts. The residential

character worth notifying and protecting needs to be the dominant residential character or

appearance of a particular area, and, importantly, the area or precinct would need to have a

residential character that is considered valuable to the community, to allow planning scheme

controls to be put in place over demolition/relocation of these houses, alterations to these

houses, and the style and form of new development in these areas.

9. A Cultural Heritage Code should be prepared for the new planning scheme and will apply to the

assessment of development of heritage places identified by the heritage overlay provisions. All

aspects of development on local heritage places in the new planning scheme for the Townsville

City Council local government area will be at least code assessable. It is recommended that

demolition or removal of heritage places (but not building work generally or material change of

use) be made impact assessable development in the new planning scheme. The development

of places adjoining or contiguous to (but not adjacent as this term is normally defined) a local

heritage place could be made assessable development by the planning scheme, and be

assessed against the provisions of the Cultural Heritage Code for impacts on heritage values

(predominantly views to the identified heritage place).

10. A separate Neighbourhood Character Code should be prepared for the new planning scheme

and will apply to the assessment of some aspects of development on sites included in

Neighbourhood Character overlay areas. Certain aspects of development (building work

including demolition/removal of houses, new building work to existing houses, and new

development in character areas) in the Character Overlay areas should be code assessable

development and be assessed against the provisions of this code. It is considered that


4

demolition or removal of character buildings may be made impact assessable development in

specific parts of the city, to reflect the more consistent and higher quality residential character

values of the building stock of those areas. The Code should also contain planning provisions

that regulate the design and construction of new buildings in these designated character areas.

11. The Townsville City Council should consider the creation of a Character Residential Zone (as

defined by the QPP) in parts of the inner suburbs of Townsville that have strong traditional

character values.

12. The Residential Land Use Study (RLUS), which has been carried out for the preparation of the

new planning scheme, recommends increasing residential densities in some inner suburbs.

This study has been reviewed and analysed with respect to residential character areas and the

possible impact on these, and made some broad recommendations on relative sensitivities to

increased densities.

13. The new planning scheme for the Townsville City Council local government area should include

a planning scheme policy for heritage, to provide supporting information for cultural heritage

issues. This should include heritage criteria for existing and new listings, the requirements for

the preparation of heritage impact statements to accompany development applications, as well

as general advice on heritage matters and information for the general public. Heritage Impact

Statements will be mandatory requirements to accompany development applications lodged

over places in the local heritage register.

1.1.2 Summary

The entire Townsville City Council local government area needs to be made exempt from the

requirements of Part 11 of the Queensland Heritage Act 1992.

The existing heritage listings in the Townsville and Thuringowa City Council planning schemes should

not be continued into the local heritage register to be created for the new planning scheme. The

register should only contain places assessed to be of cultural heritage significance. A reduced number

of heritage listings is proposed as the recommended heritage register for this project.

A Heritage Overlay and associated Overlay Code should be created for the new planning scheme. The

Code will be used to regulate development of heritage places and assess development applications

lodged over heritage places. The mapping prepared for the Draft Character Precincts Survey can be

used as a basis for the designation of these overlay areas.


5

A Neighbourhood Character Overlay and associated Overlay Code should be created for the new

planning scheme. The Code will be used to regulate development and assess development

applications for the demolition/removal of character buildings in these overlay areas.

A Character Residential Zone could be designated within parts of the inner suburbs of Townsville that

have strong traditional character values.

A heritage planning scheme policy for the new planning scheme should include heritage criteria to

encompass the proposed entry of heritage places in the local heritage register, and should provide

information on the preparation of Heritage Impact Statements, which will be mandatory requirements to

accompany development applications lodged over places in the local heritage register.


6

2.0 INTRODUCTION

2.1 The Townsville City Council

In March 2008 the then Townsville City Council was amalgamated with the adjoining Thuringowa City

Council as part of the local government amalgamations that took place across Queensland at that time.

This amalgamation however concluded a process that had gone on for some years in the greater

Townsville regional area, a process that was a factor in the history of this region - the definition and

redefinition of local government boundaries.

The existing planning schemes for the Townsville City Council and the Thuringowa City Council area

remain in force and guide development and the use of land in the new Townsville City Council local

government area.

The Townsville City Council has resolved to prepare a new planning scheme for the new local

government area, to standardise the land use assessment provisions across the city and provide clarity

and consistency in these matters for the Townsville community.

As an element in this planning scheme preparation, the Townsville City Council will prepare a Strategic

Directions Report, which will outline the key policy directions for the new planning scheme and form the

basis of the Strategic Framework section of the planning scheme. Council has identified a range of

land use and development assessment issues within the city that are important for Council to have a

comprehensive understanding and that will form the strategic “backbone” of the new planning scheme.

Council has commissioned a series of planning studies that will direct and inform the Strategic

Directions Report, to investigate core matters and policy directions for the planning scheme, which are

based on the seven themes defined in the Strategic Framework in Part 3 of the QPP for their respective

study outcomes.

2.2 This Cultural Heritage Study

As part of this planning scheme process, the Townsville City Council has commissioned a series of

major policy studies to provide policy direction for the new planning scheme. These studies will

articulate and influence the preparation of Council's Strategic Directions Report, and the Strategic

Framework section of the new planning scheme.

This Cultural Heritage Study is one of 14 studies being carried out at the present time for the Townsville

City Council as part of the preparation of a new planning scheme for the amalgamated Townsville City


7

Council, to be compliant with the provisions concerning planning scheme preparation in the Sustainable

Planning Act 2009.

This Final Paper represents the culmination of the analysis and investigations carried out to date over

the duration of this project for the new Townsville City Council planning scheme.

This current document therefore is to be read and understood as a single study, and as a single piece

of work in itself.

By its nature this report builds on existing work done by others, and may direct further work to be done

by others.

It is emphasised that any opinions expressed are those of the current consultants and should not be

indicated to others. Equally, any errors or omissions in the present work are the responsibility of

Brannock & Associates, as consultants for this project, and not any previous consultants or their work.

2.2.1 Purpose

Cultural heritage is fundamental to the history, present and future, and the sense of place of any

community.

The word “heritage” is taken from the same Medieval Latin roots as “inherit” – heritage is essentially

what communities inherit from the past. While traditionally this was in many instances physical property

such as heirlooms, the family house, or the contents of a person’s estate that parents passed on to their

children, heritage can also mean an intellectual, spiritual or a more tangible legacy in the form of the

environments in which we live.

Heritage is a strong component of identity, a strong component of history, and a strong component of

tradition. Heritage helps us understand who we are, where we have been, where we are going.

However an appreciation of heritage should not be understood as an attempt to “live in the past”. An

appreciation and understanding of heritage should be seen as an acknowledgment that the past lives in

the present, and that the past can play a role in determining the future.

In its land use planning and development assessment roles and responsibilities, local governments are

strategically and effectively positioned to assist in the identification, promotion and conservation of

heritage places in local communities.

This has been recognised in planning and heritage legislation in Queensland.


8

The Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SPA) recognises heritage and character issues as core matters to

be addressed in the preparation of planning schemes.

2.3 Methodology

The Cultural Heritage Study and the various papers prepared over the last eight months over the

duration of the project have concluded a cultural heritage and residential character appraisal of the

Townsville City Council local government area.

The Issues Paper reviewed the relevant state government legislation for heritage issues for the

Townsville City Council local government area, and the existing provisions in the Townsville and

Thuringowa planning schemes for these matters.

The heritage and character identification methodologies and approaches of other local governments in

Queensland were sketched out as a comparison to Townsville, as well as the planning scheme

provisions for those areas, to suggest some ideas for consideration.

The existing heritage studies held by Council were reviewed and analysed for their approaches,

methodologies and content.

Discussions with targeted stakeholders have highlighted particular local issues in the city area, have

given an understanding of these issues on the ground, and uncovered a number of otherwise hidden

elements in the heritage and character issues of Townsville City Council.

Discussions with Council staff gave an understanding of the current state of development assessment

with respect to heritage and character issues in Townsville City Council local government area, and

informed the preparation of the Issues Paper and this Final Report.

The Options Paper provided a series of options for the consideration of the Townsville City Council, to

resolve the various issues that were raised in the Issues Paper with respect to cultural heritage and

character issues in the local government area.

These options were prepared in recognition of the existing approaches for cultural heritage and building

character identification in Queensland, which have been developed by state and local governments

over many years and were analysed and appraised in the Issues Paper for this project. The options

were developed in response to local issues with respect to heritage and character matters in the

Townsville City Council local government area that have been researched and developed over the

course of the project.


9

These issues raised, options proposed and recommendations made are included in this Final Report for

the Cultural Heritage Study.

Some assessments of the other consultants’ studies being prepared as part of the wider planning

scheme project, mainly the Residential Land Use Study, the Open Space and Recreation Study, and

the Scenic Amenity Study, were made and have informed the generation and development of the

options presented.

This Final Report consolidates the information and analysis presented to Council so far into a single

volume. The results of this desk-top audit of places and the identification of new places are included in

this Final Report, together with the mapping of these places.

2.4 This report

This report is the Final Paper for the Cultural Heritage Study, and is the last of four reports that have

been prepared for this project since its inception in September 2010.

A Project Management Plan was prepared on the commission of the study in September 2010.

An Issues Paper was prepared in December 2010 that described the main issues that arose with

respect to heritage and character matters in the Townsville City Council local government area at that

stage of the project. The Issues Paper was based on an examination and review of the existing

planning scheme material, the relevant legislation and what this may mean to the preparation of the

new planning scheme, the current best practice for cultural heritage and character matters in

Queensland and a range of other issues that arose during the stakeholder discussions and meetings for

the project.

An Options Paper was prepared in February/March 2011 that provided a series of options and

recommendations for the consideration of Council in terms of suggested planning scheme mechanisms

and provisions, consistent with the QPP, for the new planning scheme to address with regard to

heritage and character issues, options and outcomes.

This Final Report presents as an amalgam of the previous reports and summarises the main issues and

options for cultural heritage in the Townsville City Council local government area, and suggests a way

forward for these in the new planning scheme.

The Final Report also provides the results of the assessment or desk-top audit of the existing 1,300

listings in the Townsville Local Heritage Database (LHD) and the Thuringowa heritage listings in

Schedule 5 of the Thuringowa planning scheme. The Final Report also includes some information

about newly identified places of cultural heritage significance in the Townsville City Council local


10

government area, in a similar format to that developed by the Townsville City Council in its LHD. These

places are for the consideration of Council in its formulation of a local heritage register for its new

planning scheme.

2.5 Relationships with other studies

The brief and the reporting for this study overall required the various consultants preparing these

planning scheme studies to liaise with one another in order to gauge potential conflicts in the findings

and recommendations made across the various disciplines of each of the consultants.

For this Cultural Heritage Study, the other study that is most relevant in terms of assessing potential

conflicts or issues with the recommendations is the Residential Land Use Study (RLUS), which has

been prepared by Urbis.

Some discussion and analysis of the findings of this RLUS with relevance to the Cultural Heritage Study

are included in this Final Report.

2.6 The study team

This report has been prepared by Brannock & Associates, planning and environment consultants, as

consultant to the Townsville City Council.

The report has been written by Scott Richards, historian, town planner and heritage consultant, and

John Brannock, director of Brannock & Associates, and reviewed by John Brannock.

2.7 Acknowledgments

Any consultant carrying out a town planning scheme project of any description follows on from past

work done by others.

This is particularly acute for cultural heritage issues, where the loss of heritage values through the

demolition, removal or unsympathetic redevelopment of special places has a fundamental impact on

the stock of surviving places, the investigations that can be carried out at any given time, and the

resultant worth of any given heritage study carried out as a result.

With regard to heritage matters, the city of Townsville is fortunate to have been the focus of a dedicated

and committed local branch of the National Trust of Queensland, the community group that has been

identifying and promoting cultural heritage issues since the 1960s, before there was any heritage


11

legislation at a local, state or Commonwealth level. The tireless efforts of Dr Dorothy Gibson-Wilde, as

a member of the National Trust of Queensland, and as an advocate for Townsville’s heritage for many

years, are particularly noted in this regard.

The Heritage Working Group (HWG) of the Townsville City Council is a voluntary group comprised of

members of the local Townsville community with a specialist interest in or knowledge of cultural

heritage. The HWG meets regularly to discuss heritage issues in Townsville and provides advice to

Council officers concerning heritage matters. The assistance of the HWG in the preparation and

conduct of this Cultural Heritage Study is warmly appreciated.

2.7.1 The Townsville City Council

The Townsville City Council is fortunate to have on its staff the Heritage and Urban Planning Unit, a

specialist unit within Council’s Planning and Development Section, which deals with cultural heritage

and residential character matters.

The following staff of the Townsville City Council has greatly assisted the carriage of this project and

the preparation of this Cultural Heritage Study:

Jo Prego, Co-ordinator, Heritage and Urban Planning Unit;

Ted Brandi, Heritage Research Officer, Heritage and Urban Planning Unit;

John Edgar; Heritage Research Officer, Heritage and Urban Planning Unit

Dr Judith Jensen, Co-ordinator, Lifelong Learning, Townsville City Library.

Their combined efforts in assisting this study and the preparation of this report are appreciated.


12

3.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter examines the literature and available information resources relevant to the Townsville City

Council local government area and the preparation of this Cultural Heritage Study.

3.1 Relevant legislation

Over the last 30 or 40 years the identification and conservation of cultural heritage and the character of

the built environment have evolved from being peripheral to many and beyond the reach of legislation

or statutory protection, to a more central and focal point of government legislation, land use planning

initiatives and planning schemes.

This section examines the main pieces of state government legislation that are relevant to this Cultural

Heritage Study.

3.1.1 The Queensland Heritage Act

The Queensland Heritage Act 1992 (QHA) is an Act to provide for the conservation of Queensland’s

cultural heritage.

The QHA gives legislative effect to the Queensland Heritage Register, and the identification of the

various places (State heritage places, archaeological places and protected areas) that comprise this

register. Most places entered in this register are State heritage places, and these are identified and

conserved under the Queensland Heritage Act 1992.

Since its inception the QHA has been concerned only with places of cultural heritage significance to the

state of Queensland. Places that were only significant at a local level, or at least places that were not

considered to be of significance to the state of Queensland, were not entered in the Queensland

Heritage Register. These are termed ‘State heritage places’.

However amendments to the QHA in 2008 have added a local dimension to the Act’s provisions and

impose certain requirements on most local governments in Queensland.

Part 1 Section 2 of the QHA sets out the Object of the QHA, which is as follows:

1. The object of this Act is to provide for the conservation of Queensland’s cultural heritage

for the benefit of the community and future generations.

2. The object is to be primarily achieved by—


13

a) establishing the Queensland Heritage Council; and

b) keeping the Queensland heritage register; and

c) keeping local heritage registers; and

d) regulating, in conjunction with other legislation, development affecting the

cultural heritage significance of registered places; and

e) providing for heritage agreements to encourage appropriate management of

registered places; and

f) providing for appropriate enforcement powers to help protect Queensland’s

cultural heritage.

The keeping of local heritage registers, which is pertinent to local governments, is dealt with in Part 11

of the QHA.

The QHA was amended in March 2008 to introduce among other things a new Part to the Act, Part 11 -

Provisions about places of cultural heritage significance in local government areas, which

concerns places of cultural heritage significance in local government areas in Queensland.

The term “cultural heritage significance” is not separately defined in this section of the QHA, with

respect to local government areas or local heritage values. The definition for the term within the QHA

generally is taken as the applicable definition for both local heritage places and State heritage places.

Cultural heritage significance is defined in the dictionary of the QHA as follows:

cultural heritage significance, of a place or feature of a place, means its aesthetic,

architectural, historical, scientific, social, or other significance, to the present generation or

past or future generations.

A brief summary of these Part 11 provisions concerning local governments and local heritage registers

is given here.

The Part 11 amendments were introduced in 2008 to create a process for the keeping local heritage

registers by local governments, to ensure that all local governments in Queensland have a workable

system in place for the identification and protection of local heritage places. In making these

amendments the Queensland government was recognised that some local governments had already

dealt with cultural heritage issues and had identified places in their local government areas in their

planning schemes, with relevant heritage codes or some form of heritage provisions, but that many

local governments had inadequate provisions or no provisions for the identification and protection of

heritage places in their schemes. The Part 11 amendments were framed to assist those local

governments that did not have protection for cultural heritage places in their planning schemes, by

providing a simple process for the keeping local heritage registers in local government areas. These

local heritage places to be identified by the Part 11 amendments would not be entered in the


14

Queensland Heritage Register – these registers would reside at a local level, and normally within the

local government’s planning scheme or recognised by the planning scheme.

The Part 11 of the QHA includes sections 112-124 inclusive. These sections and the provisions

contained within them detail the administrative requirements, processes and responsibilities for a local

government to enter places in its local heritage register and thereby allow for their future protection and

conservation. Some of these are analysed below.

The Part 11 amendments recognised the efforts to date of some local governments in identifying and

protecting heritage places in their planning schemes. Section 112 of Part 11 of the QHA deals with this

and states that Part 11 does not apply to some local governments that are prescribed under a

regulation. The applicable regulation (the Queensland Heritage Regulation 2003) excludes the former

Townsville City Council local government area (as it was in March 2008 before the amalgamation) from

the Part 11 amendments. Local governments could be prescribed under this section such that the Part

11 amendments do not apply to this local government if in the opinion of the Chief Executive of the

DERM the local government had sufficiently identified places of cultural heritage significance, and had

satisfactorily provided for their conservation in the planning scheme. The Chief Executive of the DERM

was satisfied that the former Townsville City Council had sufficiently identified places of cultural

heritage significance and had satisfactorily provided for their conservation in the Townsville City Plan.

Therefore none of the Part 11 provisions which are analysed in this section of the report apply to the

former Townsville City Council local government area.

These provisions do apply to the former Thuringowa City Council local government area.

With the amalgamation of the two councils, some administrative and procedural issues were identified

that are relevant to the amalgamated Townsville City Council in dealing with this administrative

requirement, its potential effect on the new planning scheme, the heritage register and places in the

register, and the relevant planning scheme provisions.

This issue and the options available have been examined in some depth for this Cultural Heritage

Study.

Section 113 of Part 11 requires the Townsville City Council to keep a local heritage register of places of

cultural heritage significance in its area (that is the former Thuringowa City Council local government

area) and make this register available for inspection free of charge to members of the public in a form

considered appropriate.

Section 114 guides the content of the local heritage register and the places that are listed or identified

in the local heritage register. The local heritage register of places of local heritage significance is to

contain enough information that identifies the place, its site location and boundaries. This can be


15

achieved by recording the name, address and lot description of the place and including this information

within the local heritage register. A statement of cultural heritage significance for the place is to be

included as part of this information. The statement of cultural heritage significance is the summary

information as to the reasons why the place is considered significant, and the reasons why it should be

protected. The statement should be prepared with regard to the definition of cultural heritage

significance in the QHA noted earlier in this section (its aesthetic, architectural, historical, scientific,

social, or other significance, to the present generation or past or future generations).

The practice of preparing statements of significance for heritage-listed properties is well established,

and is normally done in conjunction with a brief history and physical description of the place in the form

of a heritage “citation” or heritage “entry”. In many respects it should be an absolute requirement of a

heritage register and of places identified in a heritage register. This encapsulates the cultural

significance of the place, why it is considered important and why it should be protected.

Section 115 of Part 11 of the QHA allows the Chief Executive of the DERM to recommend to a local

government that a place be entered in that local government’s local heritage register. This can be done

by the Chief Executive acting in isolation of the local government, and is made by the Chief Executive

giving a notice to the local government with regard to such a matter. However if the Chief Executive

makes such a recommendation to a local government, and gives such notice as required, the Chief

Executive is required to include all the information required (information to identify the location and

boundaries of the place, a statement about the cultural heritage significance of the place and the

necessary information to support the place).

The Chief Executive cannot simply recommend to a local government that a place should be entered in

its local heritage register, and then decline to supply the local government with the requisite information.

This would place the burden on demonstrating the cultural heritage significance of the place, and

carrying out the required research on that place, on the local government itself.

In the event that the Chief Executive makes a recommendation under section 115 of the QHA, then

section 116 (2) states that the local government must propose to enter that place in its local heritage

register. There is no discretion on the part of the local government to choose whether to act on the

recommendation of the Chief Executive – it must carry out the necessary steps and processes to

propose entry of the place in its local heritage register under this section.

This does not however mean that the ultimate entry of the place, recommended for entry in the local

heritage register by the Chief Executive, must occur. This is explained further in the discussion under

section 119.

Section 116 (1) of Part 11 of the QHA allows a local government, on its own initiative, to propose to

enter a place in its local heritage register provided that:


16

the place is in the local government's area; and

the local government reasonably considers the place is a place of cultural

heritage significance for its area.

Section 116 (2) of the QHA requires that a local government must propose to enter a place in its local

heritage register if the Chief Executive recommends that the local government enter it in its register

under Section 115. Section 116 (3) of the Act allows a local government, on its own initiative, to

propose to remove a place in its local heritage register.

It is worth noting that any such decision by the local government to enter a site in the local heritage

register or not, or to remove a site from the local heritage register or not, is not capable of appeal to the

Planning and Environment Court, by the general public who have nominated places to the local

heritage register, by property owners who have made representations to Council that their site be

removed from the local heritage register, or indeed any other party.

Section 117 sets out the administrative procedures required to be followed by a local government in

proposing to enter places in, or remove places from, its local heritage register. This encompasses the

giving of formal notice of such a proposal to the owner and the general public. The notice of proposal

has to include certain information that identifies the place, and articulates its cultural heritage

significance.

Section 117 of the Act does not extend to those heritage listings already within the Townsville planning

scheme for the former Townsville City Council area. These listings have already been made, and

therefore the Chief Executive has considered that they are sufficient for the purposes of a local

government having to identify heritage resources in its area.

It is emphasised that the existing heritage listings in the former Townsville City Council local

government area remain unaffected by the provisions of Part 11 of the Act.

Section 121 of the Act allows for a specific IDAS Code for heritage for development assessment on

local heritage places for places entered in a local heritage register under Part 11. This Code is located

in the Queensland Heritage Regulation 2003.

It is pointed out that specific codes or other provisions for heritage within planning schemes are not

made redundant by the introduction of the IDAS Code for heritage in the Queensland Heritage

Regulation 2003. But this IDAS Code only applies to those places identified and entered in local

heritage registers under Part 11 of the QHA. It cannot be used for the heritage listings in the former

Townsville City Council local government area – any relevant provisions of the planning scheme itself

will remain the relevant provisions for assessing such local heritage places in the former Townsville City

Council local government area. A new planning scheme will need heritage provisions for those places,


17

as the IDAS Code for heritage cannot be applied to the former Townsville City Council local

government area.

Section 123 of the Act essentially allows for (but does not require) a planning scheme of a local

government to apply, adopt or incorporate the local heritage register in its planning scheme.

Section 124 concerns compensation and applies where a place is entered on a local government's local

heritage register.

For the compensation provisions under the IPA, and now under the SPA, the inclusion of a place in a

local heritage register is taken to be a change to the planning scheme and as such, triggers the

compensation provisions under the SPA as detailed in section 124. Rights to compensation will arise

where a place has been included in a local heritage register, and where the compensation provisions

under the SPA are met.

Among other things, in order to trigger the compensation provisions, a development application seeking

the applicability of a superseded planning scheme to the carrying out of assessable development must

be made within one year from when the inclusion of the site in the heritage register took effect (see

section 95(2) of the SPA).

3.1.2 The Integrated Planning Act 1997

The Integrated Planning Act 1997 (IPA) was Queensland government legislation, and was the

legislation that formerly covered planning matters in Queensland.

It was superseded by the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SPA) in 2009.

The existing planning schemes in the Townsville City Council area were prepared as IPA planning

schemes, while development assessment in the local government area is carried out in accordance

with the IDAS (Integrated Development Assessment System) process, a key feature of the IPA, and

now of the SPA.

Section 2.1.3 A of IPA concerns the core matters for planning schemes, which include the following:

land use and development;

infrastructure;

valuable features.

Valuable features include the following:


18

areas contributing significantly to amenity (such as areas of high scenic value,

physical features that form significant visual backdrops or that frame or define

places or localities, and attractive built environments);

areas or places of cultural heritage significance (such as areas or places of

indigenous cultural significance, or aesthetic, architectural, historical, scientific,

social or technological significance, to the present generation or past or future

generations);

The first of these can include areas of residential character, although the range of items included as

valuable features is so broad as to mean many things.

The second of these includes places of cultural heritage significance – both the Townsville and

Thuringowa City Councils had identified places of cultural heritage significance in their planning

schemes.

3.1.3 The Sustainable Planning Act 2009

The Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SPA) is Queensland government legislation and came into effect

on 18 December 2009 and as noted above replaced the IPA.

The evolution from IPA to SPA is quite gradual and the changes from the old to new planning legislation

are not that great or onerous. The SPA seeks to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the

planning and development approval processes, make planning schemes across Queensland more

consistent with one another.

The IDAS system remains in place with some timeframes reduced to improve these processes further.

The concepts of exempt, self-assessable and assessable development remain, as do code and impact

assessable development. A new level of assessment – compliance assessment – has been

introduced, while the concept of prohibited development has been revived.

The changes to heritage and character issues and outcomes in terms of the preparation of planning

schemes with the replacement of the IPA by the SPA are not great.

Like the IPA, the SPA describes the coordination and integration of the core matters dealt with by the

planning scheme as one of the key elements of a planning scheme.

Again, like the IPA, the core matters for the preparation of a planning scheme are:

a) land use and development;

b) infrastructure;


19

c) valuable features.

The definition of valuable features is broadly the same, as follows:

valuable features includes each of the following, whether terrestrial or aquatic—

(a) resources or areas that are of ecological significance, including, for example, habitats,

wildlife corridors, buffer zones, places supporting biological diversity or resilience, and

features contributing to the quality of air, water (including catchments or recharge areas)

and soil;

(b) areas contributing significantly to amenity, including, for example, areas of high scenic

value, physical features that form significant visual backdrops or that frame or define

places or localities, and attractive built environments;

(c) areas or places of cultural heritage significance, including, for example, areas or places

of indigenous cultural significance, or aesthetic, architectural, historical, scientific, social

or technological significance, to the present generation or past or future generations;

(d) resources or areas of economic value, including, for example, extractive deposits, fishery

resources, forestry resources, water resources, sources of renewable and non-

renewable energy and good quality agricultural land.

Therefore heritage and character are valuable features and core matters to be addressed in the

preparation of a planning scheme.

The new planning scheme for the Townsville City Council needs to address heritage and character

matters, and make adequate provision for their identification and protection.

3.1.4 Queensland Planning Provisions

Section 54 of the SPA allows for the Queensland government Minister for Local Government and

Planning to make standard planning scheme provisions for the whole of Queensland (the Queensland

Planning Provisions - QPP), for the purpose of standardising planning schemes across the state.

The purpose of the QPP is to:

provide a clear and consistent framework for planning schemes in Queensland;

assist the implementation of state, regional and local policies affecting land use

and development;

assist in the integration of state, regional, local and community expectations for

planning scheme areas.


20

Cultural heritage and character issues are acknowledged in the QPP as important elements to be

addressed in planning schemes.

There are overlay provisions concerning heritage and character for the consideration of local

governments when preparing new planning schemes for their areas.

The QPP and the possible application of these provisions in the new planning scheme for the

Townsville City Council are discussed at more length in following chapters of this report.

3.1.5 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003)

The Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 is Queensland government legislation and has operated

since 2004.

The main purpose of the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 is to provide:

…effective recognition, protection and conservation of Aboriginal cultural heritage.

The Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 includes five fundamental principles that support its purpose.

These are as follows:

a) the recognition, protection and conservation of Aboriginal cultural heritage should be

based on respect for Aboriginal knowledge, culture and traditional practices;

b) Aboriginal people should be recognised as the primary guardians, keepers and

knowledge holders of Aboriginal cultural heritage;

c) it is important to respect, preserve and maintain knowledge, innovations and practices

of Aboriginal communities and to promote understanding of Aboriginal cultural heritage;

d) activities involved in recognition, protection and conservation of Aboriginal cultural

heritage are important because they allow Aboriginal people to reaffirm their obligations

to ‘law and country’;

e) there is a need to establish timely and efficient processes for the management of

activities that may harm Aboriginal cultural heritage.

Among other things the Act seeks to achieve its purpose by providing for the following:

establishing a database and a register for recording Aboriginal cultural heritage

(added emphasis);

ensuring Aboriginal people are involved in processes for managing the

recognition, protection and conservation of Aboriginal cultural heritage;


21

Aboriginal cultural heritage is not the same as native title. Native title can be recognised on Crown land

where an established Aboriginal connection or claim on areas of land can be proven or demonstrated to

be unbroken by the intrusion of European settlement. Places of Aboriginal cultural heritage exist on

places regardless of tenure.

Aboriginal cultural heritage is defined in the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 as anything that is:

a) a significant Aboriginal area in Queensland; or

b) a significant Aboriginal object; or

c) evidence, of archaeological or historic significance, of Aboriginal occupation of an area

of Queensland.

Places of Aboriginal cultural heritage significance can include an area or object that is of particular

significance to Aboriginal people because of Aboriginal traditions, and/or the history (which can include

contemporary history) of the Aboriginal party for the area.

Unlike places recognised for European cultural values, which can be researched and identified by a

third party (or a consultant) unrelated to the particular place, Aboriginal people themselves and their

views on a place are the key elements in firstly assessing whether a place is culturally significant, and

then managing any activity likely to affect this significance.

However unlike the Queensland Heritage Register (for places of European heritage value) the database

created under the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 is not available to the general public.

Information in the database can be made available to Aboriginal parties if this is sought by them, and

where it is relevant to them.

Information from the database can be made available as part of cultural heritage duty of care purposes.

For example, a landowner or user can seek information from the database if carrying out a relevant

activity. It is understood that such information will be disseminated if the person seeking such

information has a particular need to be aware of the information for satisfying the cultural heritage duty

of care.

As noted above an Aboriginal cultural heritage register is also established under the Aboriginal Cultural

Heritage Act 2003. The purpose of establishing the register is to gather information contained in

cultural heritage studies for particular areas, information about whether particular areas have been the

subject of cultural heritage management plans, and information about Aboriginal cultural heritage

bodies, and any other information necessary to help the consideration of Aboriginal cultural heritage.

The register is established to operate as a research and planning tool to help people in their

consideration of the Aboriginal cultural heritage values of particular objects and areas. In contrast to

the database created under the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003, the register is to be generally


22

accessible by the community (in accordance with the provisions of section 51 of the Aboriginal Cultural

Heritage Act 2003).

This register is intended to be a depository for information for consideration for land use and land use

planning initiatives, including local government planning schemes and regional planning strategies, in

accordance with section 47(2)(a) of the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003.

The Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 allows for the registration of Aboriginal cultural heritage

bodies or corporations for different areas of Queensland. Such bodies or corporations have to be

registered by the Minister, and will only be registered if the Minister is satisfied that the corporation is an

appropriate body to identify Aboriginal parties for the area, and has the capacity to identify Aboriginal

parties for the area. The function of an Aboriginal cultural heritage body or corporation for an area is to

identify, for the benefit of any person or group who needs to know information under the Aboriginal

Cultural Heritage Act 2003, the Aboriginal parties for the area or for a particular part of the area.

A map prepared and available on the DERM website showing the extent of registered cultural heritage

bodies in Queensland as at 16 March 2011, shows that there is no body or corporation registered within

Townsville.1

3.2 Regional planning

Unlike other areas of Queensland, there is no North Queensland Regional Plan. While advice from

officers of the Department of Local Government and Planning (DLGP) indicates that there are no

current plans for a regional plan for North Queensland, it is highly likely that one will be prepared for the

region in the life of the new planning scheme for the Townsville City Council.

The SPA indicates that planning schemes are to be reviewed every 10 years. Given the new planning

scheme for the Townsville City Council is probably some 12-18 months away from gazettal (at least),

the planning scheme should have a shelf life well into the 2020s, by which time it would be expected a

regional plan will have been prepared by the DLGP for North Queensland.

This is important in terms of consideration of the Strategic Framework of the new planning scheme for

the Townsville City Council; which is discussed in a later chapter of this report.

Other regional plans have been prepared in parts of Queensland. In those plans cultural heritage and

urban character matters are examined and discussed as some of the fundamental regional policies to

guide planning and development assessment in those areas. Some of these are briefly examined

below, as it is highly probable a North Queensland regional plan would include similar provisions.

1 http://www.derm.qld.gov.au/cultural_heritage/pdf/chbodiesmap.pdf

http://www.derm.qld.gov.au/cultural_heritage/pdf/chbodiesmap.pdf�


23

The South East Queensland Regional Plan (the SEQRP) was released in 2005, and was updated in

2009.

The SEQRP examines Cultural Heritage matters under the wider umbrella of issues of Cultural

heritage, arts and cultural development. The SEQRP contains the following cultural heritage principle:

Identify, protect and manage the region’s unique cultural heritage, including historic places,

landscapes of significance and traditional Aboriginal culturally significant places, and support

the arts and cultural development through the planning and provision of cultural infrastructure

and spaces.

The SEQRP seeks to identify and protect state and local heritage places, and ensure that development

in or adjacent to those places does not compromise their cultural heritage significance.

The SEQRP recommends that the key historical themes relevant to the region, as identified in the

Queensland Cultural Heritage Places Context Study, be used by local governments when undertaking

local heritage surveys of its area.

With respect to character, the SEQRP contains a regional policy of Urban Character and Design, and

recommends that design and site development reflect the subtropical climate of the SEQ region and

reinforce local character values. A policy in support of this principle is that new development and

redevelopment in established urban areas reinforces the strengths and individual character of the urban

area in which the development occurs.

The Far North Queensland Regional Plan (FNQRP) was released in 2008, and is structured in a similar

way to the SEQRP. It identifies cultural heritage as an important regional policy, and identifies an

objective and land use policies with respect to cultural heritage. The cultural heritage objective is to:

Identify, protect and manage the region’s unique cultural heritage, including

historic places and landscapes of significance to the community.

Allied strategies with respect to the cultural heritage regional policy in the FNQ region are as follows:

Where the knowledge is available, and it is culturally appropriate, places of

significance are added to the Aboriginal cultural heritage register;

Local governments are encouraged to identify local heritage places of cultural

heritage significance through a heritage survey utilising key historical themes

for Far North Queensland…


24

The “key historical themes” noted above are contained in the Queensland Cultural Heritage Context

Study, which was prepared by historian Thom Blake in 2005. This study is examined in more detail in

this chapter.

The FNQRP also examines issues of residential character identification and conservation as an

important regional policy.

It is readily acknowledged that these statutory regional plans have no effect in the Townsville region or

require the Townsville City Council to do anything.

However, as noted above, it is highly likely that similar statements and policy directions concerning

heritage and character values and issues would be included in a North Queensland Regional Plan

whenever it is prepared. The references to the key historical themes of the Queensland Cultural

Heritage Context Study in these regional plans are also pertinent to any consideration of the heritage

resources of the Townsville region.

3.3 The Queensland Heritage Register

The Queensland Heritage Register (QHR) is the register of heritage places that covers the state of

Queensland, and is established under the provisions of the Queensland Heritage Act 1992 (the QHA).

The register contains places of cultural significance to the whole state of Queensland.

The QHR includes the following three types of heritage places:

a) State heritage places;

b) archaeological places;

c) protected areas.

Most heritage listings (buildings, structures, parks, etc) are defined as “State heritage places”. There

are very few archaeological places and protected areas included in the QHR.

There are more than 1,500 State heritage places entered in the QHR, which are considered to be of

cultural heritage significance to the state of Queensland.

The entry of a place in the QHR acknowledges the cultural heritage significance of the place, and

accords the place statutory protection under the QHA.

It is pointed out that the QHR is concerned only with cultural heritage places; these are places

considered to be of cultural heritage significance. The term “cultural heritage significance” is defined in

the QHA as follows:


25

...cultural heritage significance, of a place or feature of a place, means its aesthetic,

architectural, historical, scientific, social, or other significance, to the present generation or

past or future generations.

The QHA further articulates this definition of cultural heritage significance into eight separate criteria of

cultural significance, which are detailed in Section 35(1) of the Act. A place may be entered in the

Queensland heritage register as a State heritage place if it satisfies one or more of these eight criteria

of significance.

The QHA and the QHR does not concern itself with places considered to be of ‘character’ value only.

3.3.1 QHR places in Townsville

There are 86 sites entered in the QHR in the Townsville City Council local government area as State

Heritage Places. These range from the major public buildings in the central business district including

the former Townsville Post Office and the former Townsville Customs House, grand residential

buildings in the inner suburbs such as Rosebank in Mysterton, Selhurst on Melton Hill, and Wolverton in

West End, a series of commercial buildings in the central city including the former Burns Philp Building

and the former Queensland National and Australian Joint Stock Banks, and hotels such as the former

Queens Hotel, the West End Hotel and the Great Northern Hotel among others.

There is one Archaeological Place in the Townsville City Council local government area entered in the

Queensland Heritage Register (the Range Hotel, Burial Ground and Camping Reserve, at Hervey

Range).

There are no Protected Areas in the Townsville City Council local government area entered in the

Queensland Heritage Register.

The list of State heritage places in the Townsville area in the QHR demonstrates the bias or predilection

of listings from the days of the National Trust register (the Queensland Heritage Register was first

compiled from the existing listings of the National Trust of Queensland).

It is emphasised that there are thresholds in assessments of cultural significance, whether explicit or

implicit, of places entered in heritage registers. The Queensland Heritage Register is composed of

places that are important to the state of Queensland. Places that are only important to the region of

north Queensland, or the city of Townsville, or a part of the city of Townsville, would not be entered in

the Queensland Heritage Register. This is one of the many reasons for the Part 11 amendments to the

QHA. The explanatory notes to the bill to amend the QHA recognised that the QHA only dealt with


26

places of cultural heritage significance to the State as a whole, and made no provision for places that

are significant only to a local community or area.

3.3.2 DERM reported places

The Cultural Heritage Branch of the Department of Environment and Resource Management (the

former EPA) holds an internal database or schedule of what is termed "reported places" across many

parts of Queensland.

This list or schedule has no statutory authority and the places contained within it are not protected

under the QHA or indeed any other statutory instrument. The reported places are little more than a

database of places that have been identified as part of the DERM's general activities in researching and

identifying places of cultural heritage significance.

For the Townsville City Council area (post-amalgamation), the DERM reported places database

contains approximately 500 places in the local government area.

It would appear that a large proportion of these places have been derived from the 9 volume Townsville

Urban Conservation Study carried out in 1993, as many of the reported places in this database appear

in the Townsville City Council Local Heritage Database. It is likely that this study was given to the

Cultural Heritage Branch of the DERM years ago and its contents used to populate this reported place

database.

3.3.3 The State-wide Survey

Officers of the DERM Cultural Heritage Branch are currently preparing a State-wide Survey of Heritage

Places project, a survey of the whole of the state of Queensland to research and investigate of places

of cultural heritage significance for future inclusion in the QHR.

The survey is being done on a regional basis in order to manage the project. The regions of Mackay

and Cairns have been completed, while the region of Wide Bay-Burnett is being undertaken currently.

The next regions proposed to be surveyed are the Gold Coast and the Darling Downs.

Discussions with the relevant officers of DERM working on the State-wide Survey that were done as

part of this Cultural Heritage Study have indicated that there are no current plans for the State-wide

Survey team to visit the Townsville region.

In any event the DERM State-wide Survey will consider and propose to enter places in the QHR that

are assessed to be of cultural heritage significance to the state of Queensland. The State-wide Survey


27

will not preclude or excuse the Townsville City Council from its responsibilities in identifying places

assessed to be of local heritage significance to the local government area of Townsville.

3.3.4 The Queensland Heritage Strategy

The Queensland Heritage Strategy is a state government directed package of initiatives and reforms

that seek to achieve a proactive, strategic and policy-driven approach to managing cultural heritage

issues in Queensland.

The strategy arose from a review of cultural heritage practices in Queensland that began in 2004, which

among other things also resulted in the changes to the Queensland Heritage Act 1992 that required

local governments to create heritage registers in their areas (part 11 of the QHA).

The Queensland Heritage Strategy defines how the Queensland government, the Department of

Environment and Resource Management and the Queensland Heritage Council, will manage and

coordinate heritage issues. The strategy is built around five key directions:

improving the way Queensland understands and values its heritage;

embedding heritage in mainstream policy and planning;

strengthening Queensland’s investment in managing and conserving its

heritage;

leading and partnering with government, community and industry to conserve

Queensland’s heritage;

building the capacity of government, community and industry to conserve

Queensland’s heritage.

One of the guiding principles of the strategy is to:

ensure that policies and processes for identifying, assessing, conserving and

managing Queensland’s heritage are embedded in state, regional and local

planning and policy making.

The strategy is predominantly a state government initiative and recognises that Queensland’s most

important heritage places are entered in the Queensland Heritage Register. However it also

acknowledges that Queensland also has many far less famous places that are important to local

communities—from the local pub to the iconic ‘Queenslander’ house.

In terms of local government requirements or actions, the strategy acknowledges that some places

which are important at a local level, but do not necessarily meet the State heritage requirements, can

be recognised by a local government’s own heritage register, or be identified in a local government


28

planning scheme. The strategy also notes that Local governments have been required to keep a local

heritage register since 2008 (with the changes to the QHA at that time). Some local governments

include provisions for identifying and managing heritage places in their planning schemes. A local

government’s investment in its local heritage generally reflects the value the local community places on

its heritage.

The strategy identifies a number of outstanding issues that are still to be addressed and systemic gaps

that need to be filled across the state in terms of cultural heritage identification and conservation.

A variable approach to identifying and protecting local heritage places across

local governments, and

the need for greater recognition of cultural heritage in the State’s planning

system, to avoid limiting its position in statutory plans and policies.

It would appear that the Queensland Heritage Strategy was developed in conjunction with the changes

to the QHA in 2008 that officially recognised the role of local government in the heritage system, with

the introduction of Part 11. The strategy does not specifically require or empower the Townsville City

Council to carry out any tasks it is not already doing with respect to cultural heritage matters. It is an

attempt to encourage an appreciation of heritage across all levels of government, including local

government.

3.4 Previous heritage studies

Previous heritage studies of the Townsville City Council local government area, and of the wider region

where relevant, were reviewed and analysed for the purposes of this Cultural Heritage Study, as a

background to understand the current state of cultural heritage identification and conservation in the


The following heritage studies were provided by the Townsville City Council:

Woods Bagot Pty Ltd in association with Dorothy Gibson-Wilde, ‘Townsville urban

conservation study’, a report for the Townsville City Council, 9 volumes, 1993;

‘Thom Blake Historian, Townsville CBD heritage survey’, a report for the Townsville City

Council, July 1999;

ERM, in conjunction with Environment North Environmental Managers and Planners,

‘Thuringowa heritage strategy and planning guidelines, 2001;

Judith Jensen-Heritage Consultant and Ralph Power & Associates, ‘Magnetic Island

heritage study’, a report for the Townsville City Council, 2002;

Townsville City Council Heritage and Urban Planning Unit, ‘Townsville Character

Precincts Survey, Draft Final Report, September 2010.


29

A study of North Queensland during World War II prepared by the Environmental Protection Agency of

the Queensland government (now DERM) was also provided. It is wider in scope than the Townsville

based studies and does not provide or suggest potential heritage listings.

3.4.1 The 1993 Urban Conservation Study

The 1993 Urban Conservation Study examined large areas of several inner suburbs of Townsville

which comprised the City’s then Residential D Zone (later Residential 3 zoning – essentially a zoning

which allowed a higher density than a single detached dwelling), and the area designated as the South

Townsville Building Better Cities Project Area.

These suburbs included North Ward ((including Melton Hill and Stanton Hill), West End, Garbutt,

Railway Estate, Hermit Park, Hyde Park, Pimlico, Rosslea and Mundingburra. In addition the study

area included the South Townsville Building Better Cities (BBC) Project Area which comprised a large

portion of the historic suburb of South Townsville.

The heritage places identified and documented in the Urban Conservation Study comprised the typical

building stock of most communities – houses, churches, corner stores, hotels, and halls. While the

study noted that a “remarkable diversity” of building types were discovered in the course of the project,

the overwhelming majority of places identified were residential dwellings, due to the area under study.

The study further noted that many more places of heritage significance were to be found in the suburbs

examined but as they were located in adjacent commercial or other zones they were as a result not

examined as part of this study.

The 1993 Urban Conservation Study identified some 1,283 survey items of possible heritage

significance in its study area. Apart from a five volume survey inventory, the 1993 Urban Conservation

Study also included a separate volume on house styles and types in Townsville, a separate volume

thematic histories of the Residential D Zone suburbs and the South Townsville Building Better Cities

Project area, and a separate volume that offered design guidelines for new development in the

Residential D Zone.

Not all the places identified in the Urban Conservation Study found their way into the Local Heritage

Database. It would appear that in the administrative process from identification of places in the 1993

Urban Conservation Study, to the entry of sites in a schedule to the planning scheme, Council

requested owners consent to the entry of their places in this schedule. Some owners did not consent to

this action of Council and so their places were not entered in the heritage schedule. Discussions with

Council officers have not confirmed how many places this may apply to.


30

3.4.2 The 1999 CBD Study

The 1999 CBD Heritage Study was commissioned at the time of a Development Control Plan being

prepared for the Townsville Central Business District, as well as a review of the Council's planning

scheme in accordance with the Integrated Planning Act 1997.

The study noted that an intrinsic part of the character of the Townsville CBD was its buildings of historic

value (which holds true for many if not all places). To that time, there were no complete or systematic

listings of the buildings of cultural heritage significance in the CBD area. The aim of the 1999 study

was to provide information and guidelines to assist the preparation of the DCP and planning scheme

review.

The brief followed the typical methodology of heritage studies at that time of identifying buildings,

places and precincts of cultural significance in the CBD, and to put in place mechanisms and provisions

such that due consideration is given to the cultural significance of these places in the development

assessment process.

3.4.3 The 2002 Magnetic Island Study

The report was prepared as part of a review of the Townsville City Council planning scheme in

accordance with the requirements of the Integrated Planning Act 1997 for a planning scheme to identify

valuable features in its local government area.

This study as well followed the typical methodology of heritage studies at that time of providing a

background contextual history, and identifying buildings, places and precincts of cultural significance on

the island that demonstrated important themes in the history of the island.

3.4.4 The Draft Character Precincts Survey

In a separate process, the Heritage and Urban Planning Unit of Townsville City Council has been

engaged in an analysis of residential character areas in many areas of Townsville.

The project commenced in 2008 and has continued into 2010, and therefore includes the former

Thuringowa City Council within the amalgamated Townsville City Council local government area.

A Draft Study of this work was finalised in September 2010 and has been made available for this

project.


31

The Draft Character Precincts Survey has taken a slightly different approach to the traditional concepts

of identification and conservation of aspects of the built environment.

The study explains how it arrived at the idea of ‘Character Precincts’. The rationale of the study was to

recognise and ameliorate the detrimental effects of incremental change on Townsville's suburban

environments. This rationale presumes that physical environments have a profound effect on the

creation and maintenance of personal and community identities and how the city is perceived.

The ‘Character Precincts’ were defined as areas of the built environment that may not meet the strict

criteria for listing as places of cultural heritage significance in themselves, but are regarded as being of

value to the community. The study defines a “Character Precinct” as a suburban location that contains

a high concentration of residences representative of the character of the suburb.

Interestingly the age of the housing being assessed has not, it would appear, had a major bearing on

the recommendation or identification of a character precinct as part of this study. To this end many

post World War II suburbs or areas, including Balgal Beach, Gulliver, Heatley and Vincent, have been

assessed as part of the study and character precincts determined in each of these suburbs. The main

determinant appears to be intactness of a particular area as demonstrating that character over and

above other places that do not demonstrate that character that have been degraded or diminished.

As far as can be determined the Draft Character Precincts Survey has not progressed to the point of

making recommendations on any of the identified areas or precincts, unlike the heritage studies

described above which included lists of places worthy of heritage listing or some form of identification

and protection.

3.4.5 The 2001 Thuringowa Heritage Study

The Thuringowa Heritage Strategy and Planning Guidelines was prepared in 2001.

The Thuringowa planning scheme identifies approximately 60 places of cultural heritage significance.

The list attributes distinctions between these heritage places of Low, Moderate and High, with different

development assessment provisions to match these levels of significance.

It would appear that the study utilised an existing heritage database or list as a basis for the study. This

database contained 56 entries or identified places, which were added to during the course of the study,

while some of the originally identified 56 places did not make the final heritage register in the planning

scheme.

The study reviewed the Council’s extant list and any criteria or background studies to confirm their

suitability for inclusion on the list. An assessment of the level of cultural heritage significance of each of


32

the sites was made, and the policy directions for each site based on the level of significance of each

site was provided. The study provided site information of these identified sites in terms of description,

history and statement of cultural significance.

It is not clear precisely from the available evidence how this list of places was derived. It would appear

that this heritage study used an existing heritage database or list as a basis for this register. This

database contained 56 entries or identified places, which were added to during the course of the study,

while some of the originally identified 56 places did not make the final heritage register in the planning

scheme.

The list includes the typical buildings of heritage significance (a number of houses, and a railway station

for example), but also World War II sites, camping reserves, roads, creeks and in some places vacant

ground.

It would appear that some of these places, or indeed many of these places, have been identified for

their archaeological value, or at least their potential archaeological value, only.

Archaeological issues and heritage places were debated at length in the stakeholder discussions,

without necessarily achieving a consensus or desired resolution to this debate. Notwithstanding this

lack of consensus, there is no doubt that there may be heritage places of archaeological potential in the


3.4.6 The Queensland Cultural Heritage Context Study

A Queensland Cultural Heritage Context Study (context study) was prepared by the former

Environmental Protection Agency (now DERM) in 2005.2

The context study is not a statutory

document, and it makes no binding recommendations on the Townsville City Council or any other local

government. It serves a more strategic purpose, forming the basis of the State-wide Survey currently

being undertaken by DERM Cultural Heritage officers. The Study is also referenced in the Regional

Plans identified and discussed earlier in this chapter.

The Context Study sets out a thematic framework within which cultural heritage places in Queensland

can be analysed and understood, with regard to settlement patterns of the state and the economic,

social and environmental influences and thematic strands that have shaped Queensland’s history. The

study provides examples of the types of places that might represent these patterns of settlement,

influences and thematic strands, and set out a framework within which regional cultural heritage

assessments and thematic assessments can be undertaken in designated regions.

2 Thom Blake Historian, ‘Queensland cultural heritage context study’, November 2005.


33

In this study, the former Townsville and Thuringowa City Council local government areas were included

in the North Region. The study suggests examples of places in the North region which may be of

cultural significance:

pastoral stations established in the first phase of expansion in the 1860s and

1870s;

hotels on early routes developed for the pastoral and mining industries;

mining; gold but also silver industry including abandoned settlements;

evidence of World War II activities including airfields, buildings such as

Quonset huts, training camps, field hospitals, forts;

sugar industry and the development of towns and settlements around mills;

also tram networks associated with mills, port facilities such as wharves and

bulk handling terminals.

It is pointed out that none of the previous studies referred to above in the Townsville area has been

prepared in accordance with this context study. The context study may form the basis of preparing

further heritage studies in the area.

The urban focus and concentration of the existing Townsville heritage studies is acknowledged. While

the Thuringowa heritage study includes places in Paluma, north of Townsville, there is little

representation of the pastoral industry for example, or indeed many other industries in the region in the

local registers currently.

3.5 The Burra Charter

Although the brief makes few specific references to this, it is useful to discuss the Burra Charter of

Australia ICOMOS (the Australia ICOMOS charter for places of cultural significance).

The Burra Charter is the accepted standard for heritage identification and conservation in Australia. It

is not a statutory document and the Townsville City Council is not required to recognise the principles

and processes of this document.

The charter provides the general philosophies and approaches to heritage conservation for those who

make decisions regarding historic buildings or places. A number of fundamental principles provide the

basic framework of the Burra Charter–

places are worth keeping because they enrich our lives by helping us

understand the past, or by contributing to the richness of the present

environment, or may be considered valuable to future generations;

the aim of conservation is to retain the cultural significance of a place;


34

cultural significance is demonstrated and reflected in its physical fabric, and

also in its use, associations and meanings: and

work to a place of heritage value should be based on a thorough understanding

of cultural significance.

While the Burra Charter is used in practice to guide decisions on how to conserve buildings or places

that are already considered culturally significant, in 1988 a series of guidelines for the establishment of

cultural significance were adopted by Australia ICOMOS as an adjunct to the main charter. These

guidelines have provided a useful benchmark and philosophical reference for the identification of places

in this study.

An inherent principle of the Burra Charter is that there are places worth keeping because they enrich

our lives by helping us understand the past, or by contributing to the richness of the present

environment, or may be of value to future generations. The Burra Charter defines a place as a:

…site, area, building or other work, group of buildings or other works together with associated

contents and surrounds.

Further, the Burra Charter defines fabric as:

…all the physical material of the place.3

3.5.1 Places of cultural significance

Places of heritage value, or of cultural heritage significance, are usually those places that provide some

evidence of the past that is considered important enough to be conserved for the future.

While a place of cultural heritage significance can be a site where an important event happened, a

‘place’ of significance is in most cases a building, or has some physical fabric or building element

associated with it. A vacant site where a building was located or where some famous event occurred is

not usually considered to be a place of cultural heritage significance, as there are no conservation

outcomes or requirements that arise.

3.6 Current planning scheme provisions

The relevant planning scheme provisions for cultural heritage values in the existing planning schemes

for the former Townsville and Thuringowa City Councils were examined and evaluated.

3 See Peter Marquis-Kyle and Meredith Walker, The illustrated Burra Charter: making good decisions about the care of

important places (Sydney: Australia ICOMOS, 1992) for the definition of these terms.


35

3.6.1 Townsville

The Local Heritage Database (LHD) for Townsville is contained in Schedule 5 of the Townsville City

Plan planning scheme. The database contains approximately 1,200 places of cultural heritage

significance in the city area.

The current Townsville City Plan refers to cultural heritage issues in a number of areas.

One of the DEOs of the planning scheme concerns heritage and character, while there are numerous

references within the scheme provisions, as well as a Cultural Heritage Overlay Code.

The Desired Environmental Outcome for Heritage and Character is as follows:

Development complements the prominent character of the City and recognises the need to

conserve or enhance areas and places of special aesthetic, architectural, cultural, historic,

scientific, social or spiritual significance.

Strategies for achieving the heritage and character DEO include –

Ensure the incorporation of cultural and heritage values in the design of new

public spaces;

Identify and protect places of cultural, heritage or historical significance for

aesthetic and identity purposes.

Facilitate the incorporation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’

history and culture into new landscapes and input by relevant Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islander stakeholders.

Nominate areas of special historic character, which are considered to

contribute significantly to the residential character of the City as a whole.

Facilitate the improvement of the visual character of defined tourism areas and

of City access networks and gateways, centres and facilities servicing tourist

needs.

Ensure that development proposals in areas of high cultural significance trigger

an assessment of cultural heritage values and likely impacts.

There are specific outcomes concerning Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural heritage

significance in the eight District Codes of the planning scheme. Each of these state the same specific

outcome:


36

There are no adverse impacts on any place that has cultural heritage significance to

Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people.

The specific outcome then notes that the identification and management of such places can only be

undertaken in consultation with the relevant Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander representatives. There

are no places of Aboriginal cultural heritage identified in the existing registers of either Townsville or

Thuringowa.

The Cultural Heritage Features Code of the Townsville City Council contains overall outcomes and

specific outcomes for heritage conservation.

A policy to the current City Plan (City Plan Policy 1) provides supporting information to the planning

scheme. The policy details the type of information Council may require to assist in the assessment of

development of heritage places, which is essentially a conservation plan for the heritage place, to be

prepared by a qualified person. The policy sets out a long list of the minimum requirements that a

conservation plan should encompass.

3.6.2 Thuringowa

The Thuringowa Heritage schedule contains some 60 places of cultural heritage significance to this

former local government area. A large proportion of these are places of archaeological value only, or

places where it is not very clear if any significant fabric survives in-situ.

The schedule also ranks the significance of all places in the schedule as High, Moderate and Low, with

different conservation mechanisms for each. It is noted that most places have either High or Moderate

significance – there are only four places of Low significance in Schedule 5.1 of the Thuringowa City

Heritage Register.

The current Thuringowa City Plan refers to cultural heritage issues in a number of areas, including the

Desired Environmental Outcomes and a Cultural Heritage Code.

DEO 3 concerns heritage and is as follows:

Places (including the fabric of Places) of natural, indigenous and non-indigenous heritage

significance at an international, national, state or local level are recognised, respected and

conserved.

This DEO is to be achieved by a City Strategy of:


37

(a) maintaining the City’s historical characteristics through the protection of Places that

contribute to the City’s natural, indigenous and historic heritage;

(b) managing the heritage significance of Places;

(c) facilitating the co-existence of Places of heritage significance with compatible

development in terms of siting, bulk, form, scale and heritage character;

(d) encouraging adaptive reuse of Places of Heritage significance to aid in the preservation

of heritage characteristics.

DEO 4 of the planning scheme concerns Character, City Image, Amenity and Lifestyle and states as

follows:

The City’s valuable features, built environment and land use pattern result in a distinct sense of

place and local identity, and are vibrant, safe and healthy, with access to community and

cultural facilities and services

This DEO is to be achieved by a City Strategy that seeks to:

protecting or enhancing the City’s natural and built environment as an integral

part of the City’s Landscape Character Types;

reinforcing the City’s character through effective siting, design and layout of

development that reflects community expectations;

promotes safety and security; reflects local and desired character; enhances

local identity and lifestyle; contributes to the formation of a sense of place; and

responds to the City’s tropical climate.

retaining visual and aesthetic enjoyment for the community and visitors by

protecting the Scenic Quality of the Escarpments and Hillsides (refer to map 2

– Desired Environmental Outcomes) and coast; and minimising visual

interruption to the escarpments, hillsides, City gateways and internal views

from principal routes and future principal routes.

The Thuringowa planning scheme Heritage Code has a purpose and a series of code provisions.

The Heritage Code is structured in accordance with the schedule of heritage places, with different

planning outcomes and performance measures for places of Low, Moderate and High Cultural Heritage

Significance.

For places of Low Cultural Heritage Significance, the code only requires a recognition and recording of

the significance of places. A place of Low significance can be removed if a plaque is erected to

describe it is put in its place.


38

For places of Moderate Cultural Heritage Significance development is to be compatible with its cultural

heritage significance as a performance measure. This is achieved by ensuring the development of

premises does not occur within 20 metres of the place, as an acceptable solution. .

For places of High Cultural Heritage Significance, the code does not specify an acceptable solution for

development.

3.7 The Community Plan

The Community Plan documents provided to date by the Townsville City Council indicate that heritage

and character issues are among the issues identified by the Townsville community.

The community expects Townsville to be a place where heritage values are recognised and protected,

where architecture from different periods is valued, that the buildings of the city give it a diverse and

distinctive appearance and that Council attempts to preserve them. The demolition of heritage

buildings is regretted. Heritage is not to be ignored but lived in, celebrated and preserved.

The following quotes from members of the community are expressed in the Community Plan and have

relevance to the present study:

A city area which we can be proud of by appealing to visitors and Townsvillites

with our heritage, history and development of new infrastructure;

Beautiful streetscapes e.g.. leafy like Palmer St not ugly minimalist installations

(Flinders St East) nor ugly minimalist architecture/too many ugly high rises;

Ensure the traditional character and identity of the city is retained;

Achieving a sustainable balance between urban development and built

heritage.

The present Cultural Heritage Study as part of the new planning scheme addresses these community

concerns, in respect to the identification and conservation of the city’s history, the retention of the city’s

streetscapes and traditional character, and by making recommendations on the appropriate balance

between development and conservation.


39

4.0 THE MAIN ISSUES

The major issues of cultural heritage and character matters for this Cultural Heritage Study are

discussed below.

4.1 The prevailing legislation – effects

The QHA gives legislative effect to the Queensland Heritage Register, and the contents of this register.

These places and areas are identified and conserved under the QHA and administered by officers of

the Queensland government (not local government).

The recent amendments to the QHA added a local dimension to the provisions of this legislation,

requiring most local governments to keep a register of places of cultural heritage significance in their

local government areas.

This has an important consequence for this project, and the new Townsville City Council planning

scheme, an issue which has been discussed at length with Council officers and others throughout this

project.

It is expected that a heritage register or list will continue to exist for the former Townsville City Council

local government area, which is not subject to the provisions of Part 11 of the QHA. The development

of these places will be regulated by a specific heritage code in the new planning scheme. However to

satisfy Part 11 of the QHA, a local heritage register is required to be created for the former Thuringowa

City Council local government area, and the development of these places is to be regulated by the

IDAS Code for Heritage in the Queensland Heritage Regulation 2003 (as well as a planning scheme

code if so chosen).

This administrative ‘anomaly’ of Part 11 of the QHA could mean as a worst case scenario for the

Townsville City Council new planning scheme, the creation of two heritage registers in the Townsville

City Council local government area, and two regulatory mechanisms for the development assessment

of the places entered in these registers.

This is not a preferred outcome for any planning scheme or local government and needs to be resolved

via discussions with the relevant government departments.

It is clear however that the ultimate resolution of this issue will not be achieved within the timeframe of

this Cultural Heritage Study.


40

The legislative requirements for the new planning scheme in terms of cultural heritage is discussed

further in the following chapter (section 5.1) that offers a range of options and recommendations for

Council to deal with this issue and achieve a satisfactory resolution.

4.2 The existing heritage registers

The existing heritage listings of both Councils were discussed at length throughout this project with

Council officers and in the stakeholder discussions.

One issue which emerged as a result was the rigour of these existing heritage listings.

Schedule 5 of the Townsville City Plan contains more than 1,200 individual listings. The vast bulk of

these are residential properties in the inner suburbs of Townsville.

The Thuringowa planning scheme identifies approximately 60 places of cultural heritage significance,

and ranks their cultural significance as Low, Moderate and High. The list includes the typical buildings

of heritage significance (a number of houses, and a railway station for example), but also World War II

sites, camping reserves, roads, creeks and in some places vacant ground. It would appear that some

of these places, or indeed many of these places, have been identified for their archaeological value, or

at least their potential archaeological value, only.

While there should not be an upper limit to heritage listings, it is quite probable that there are too many

places entered in Schedule 5 as places of cultural heritage significance to the Townsville City Council,

and probably too many places in the Thuringowa register that are of doubtful heritage value and cultural

heritage significance.

The large majority of the existing Townsville heritage listings in the City Plan were taken from the Urban

Conservation Study undertaken for the Townsville City Council in 1993, of a series of inner residential

areas of Townsville (the Residential D Zone).

Many of these are unremarkable houses that appear to demonstrate very little or no cultural heritage

significance or value.

Further, for many of the places entered in the LHD, there is limited or no information on these places to

sustain these listings. There is little or not enough historical information, physical description or

statements of significance prepared about these places, to support their heritage listing.

This is another critical issue of the existing heritage resource and information base in Townsville. It is

considered that Schedule 5 of the Townsville City Plan exaggerates the stock of culturally significant

buildings and places in the Townsville city area by including places that are not of heritage value, or at


41

the very least the argument to sustain such a listing has not been made or articulated to a sufficient

level.

There are important areas of the city which were not part of the 1993 study and are not represented in

Schedule 5. Parts of South Townsville and Railway Estate (south of Boundary Street), Aitkenvale,

Mysterton, Belgian Gardens, and parts of Mundingburra have not been assessed and may contain

places of cultural significance to the same degree as those areas already surveyed and conserved

under the planning scheme.

It is understood that the process of the initial identification of heritage places in the 1993 Urban

Conservation Study, to the final entry of places in Schedule 5 of the Townsville City Plan, the consent of

owners was required before places could be entered in this register. This approach or methodology in

listing heritage places is especially problematic, as many members of the general public would no doubt

be dubious or cautious about heritage listing of their properties and not given their consent for such

Council action, as was noted in the previous chapter.

4.2.1 Heritage value or character value?

It is evident that there has been a ‘blurring’ of heritage and character values in the existing heritage

listings in the Townsville City Plan. There are too many ‘ordinary’ houses entered in the LHD, for which

claims of cultural heritage significance (and the development controls that this requires) cannot be

sustained.

There are more efficient and cogent ways and mechanisms to identify and control heritage and

character values in the Townsville City Council local government area, than listing hundreds of ordinary

houses in a Council heritage register or database as places of cultural heritage significance.

The Heritage and Urban Planning Unit of the Townsville City Council has already commenced a Draft

Character Precincts Survey that examines the residential character values in some of these areas

already surveyed and represented in Schedule 5, as well as others that have not been.

This approach and the methodologies in this study are commended – indeed character protection

initiatives should be considered for some areas of the Townsville suburbs rather than (the stricter)

heritage controls.

Character identification and protection is discussed in more detail in following sections of this report,

including sections 5.3, 6.3 and 6.4.


42

4.2.2 Post-war heritage and character

The issue of post-war heritage and character values was raised during this project and the stakeholder

discussions.

There was a general consensus that there need not be an upper date range beyond which something

could not be considered heritage.

A factor in this is the significant post World War II growth of Townsville, based in part on the

establishment of Lavarack Barracks and the James Cook University in the 1960s, and the large

population growth of this period and the development of a number of discrete Townsville suburbs at this

time. The suburbs of Vincent, and Heatley to some degree were highlighted as demonstrative of this

period of historical development of the town, and as consistent areas of residential character. The Draft

Character Precincts Survey includes these and other post-war suburbs and areas as worthy of

identification and protection.

Some of the places identified above and other major post-war development in Townsville have been

considered for possible heritage listing as part of this Cultural Heritage Study.

4.2.3 The content of the heritage register

The precise content of the local heritage register for the new planning scheme for the Townsville City

Council is one of the major issues of the Cultural Heritage Study.

What types of places should be recognised and entered in the register?

Are the current recognition and identification processes for cultural heritage in Townsville consistent

with good conservation practice?

Are there too many places entered now? Is this an appropriate question to ask (ie – should there be an

upper limit or the best number?)

Are there places missing from the register?

These questions and issues are examined in some detail in the following chapter in Section 5.2, which

gives direction to the content of the local heritage register and offers a range of options and

recommendations.


43

4.3 Existing heritage provisions

The rigour of the existing planning scheme provisions for heritage in both the Townsville and

Thuringowa planning schemes was another issue raised.

The stakeholder discussions suggested that the existing codes and provisions were not strong enough

to achieve the best heritage outcomes.

The present Townsville City Council Cultural Heritage Overlay Code reads more like a character

protection code than a cultural heritage code. The code refers to streetscape and the effect the

removal of a house may have on that streetscape, but contains few provisions concerning the impacts

of a development application on the building fabric, the heritage values and/or cultural heritage

significance of the heritage place itself.

The circumstances in which the Cultural Heritage Overlay and Overlay Code of the Townsville City Plan

are relevant to proposed development were noted as an issue and arose in the stakeholder discussion.

It would appear that the Townsville Cultural Heritage Overlay Code applies to development that is

adjoining, adjacent, opposite, diagonally opposite or indeed behind a heritage place, and the effect of

development in these locations on the heritage place is assessed. Again, this makes the Cultural

Heritage Overlay Code appear more like a character-type code, as this form of development control is

more often found in terms of the protection of residential character.

The levels of assessment for development applications involving heritage places were discussed and

raised as an issue in the stakeholder discussions and have been discussed at length with Council

officers. It was noted that code assessable development for heritage places did not allow the

community to have any real input to development applications that involved demolition or removal of

heritage places. Other local authorities determine that demolition or removal of a local heritage place to

be impact assessable development, and generally inappropriate or not preferred development.

It is understood that the heritage listing of places in the former Townsville City Council area has not

prevented the relocation of these heritage places to other areas, and indeed that the heritage listing has

followed these places to their new locations.

Heritage provisions need to conserve places in-situ, and only allow removal of a place as a last resort.

It is accepted conservation practice that the physical location of a heritage place is part of its cultural

significance. It is accepted that a heritage place should remain in its historical location. Relocation is

generally unacceptable, unless this is the sole practical means of ensuring the survival of a heritage

place.


44

The Thuringowa Heritage schedule ranks the significance of the places in the schedule as High,

Moderate and Low, with different conservation mechanisms for each. A place of Low significance can

be removed if a plaque is erected to describe it is put in its stead. The logical question must be asked –

is something of Low cultural heritage significance actually significant? The simple removal of a place

and its replacement with a plaque describing its cultural significance is not considered to be an

adequate conservation outcome for heritage places.

The appropriate cultural heritage (and character) provisions for the new planning scheme (codes, levels

of assessment, local areas plans and other mechanisms) are discussed in length in the following

chapters of this report, specifically in sections 6.5 and 6.6.


45

5.0 OPTIONS AND RECOMMENDATONS

This chapter sketches out the various options for Council with respect to cultural heritage and character

issues and the resolution of these for the new planning scheme for Townsville City Council.

In some of these areas there is not a ‘choice’ of options as such – there are a number of

recommendations or indeed requirements that, it is considered, Council should address in order to

achieve heritage and character outcomes in its new planning scheme.

Precisely how these requirements are met may involve a range of options for the consideration by

Council and the Townsville community. The final deliberations on these and the recommendations

arising out of these are for the Townsville City Council and the Townsville community to decide as part

of a planning scheme preparation process.

5.1 The prevailing legislation – solutions

As noted earlier the issues of cultural heritage and building character values and local governments and

planning schemes are expressed in various pieces of state legislation, including the SPA and the QHA.

5.1.1 Part 11 of the QHA

The Part 11 anomaly is one of the main heritage issues to be addressed by Council for its new planning

scheme.

The main problem to avoid is the possible duplication of heritage registers, and the potential for dual

development assessment provisions for the local heritage places in the new planning scheme. The

following questions flesh out this problem for the new planning scheme for Townsville:

Is there a single heritage register in the new planning scheme, or are there two

registers – one for the former Townsville City Council area (based on the

existing Schedule 5 of the City Plan) and one for the former Thuringowa City

Council area based on the requirements of Part 11 of the QHA?;

Is the heritage register/s part of the scheme, or outside the scheme?

(Currently both registers are contained in schedules that sit inside the scheme,

while the Part 11 provisions of the QHA can allow a register to be adopted,

applied or incorporated into a planning scheme);


46

If the register sits inside or outside the planning scheme, are new heritage

places added to the register as a planning scheme amendment, or some other

process?

What are the appropriate codes for the assessment of development of heritage

places?

Does the new planning scheme need a heritage code of its own or can it rely

on the IDAS Code for Heritage in the Queensland Heritage Regulation 2003?

While each of the above questions has their own answers, it is recommended that Council take

whatever action that removes confusion, removes anomalies and removes cumbersome mechanisms,

such that recommendations and actions that arise and the suite of options put forward have clarity and

consistency.

While “doing nothing” is effectively an option for Council’s consideration, it is not seriously offered to

Council as one worth pursuing.

It is pointed out that the preparation of the new planning scheme offers the opportunity for the various

registers and codes to be rationalised across the enlarged Townsville City Council local government

area, as long as any legislative requirements for the two former local council areas are dealt with

properly as well.

The best and only real recommendation to make to resolve this issue is for the Townsville City Council

to seek an exemption for the former Thuringowa City Council local government area from Part 11 of the

QHA, on the basis that places of cultural heritage significance have been identified in that local

government area, and that the new planning scheme for the amalgamated Council will satisfactorily

provide for the conservation of these places via its own heritage register and code provisions. The new

planning scheme for the Townsville City Council local government area will need to include a heritage

code for the assessment of development of heritage places for the former Townsville City Council area.

An exemption of the former Thuringowa City Council area from Part 11 of the QHA will mean that the

assessment of development of heritage places in the former Thuringowa area can utilise this heritage

code as well, and the IDAS Code for Heritage in the Queensland Heritage Regulation 2003 becomes

irrelevant to the new planning scheme.

To achieve this, Council should prepare a comprehensive draft register of places, a heritage overlay

and associated heritage overlay code as part of the preparation for the new planning scheme, and

approach the DERM and the DLGP to exempt the whole of the Townsville City Council.

If the DERM and the DLGP both agree to the local heritage register and code requirements proposed

by the Townsville City Council for its new planning scheme, then the new planning scheme will be the


47

only mechanism to identify places of cultural heritage significance in the City area, and regulate

development on these places, and not through a combination of the planning scheme, the Part 11

provisions of the QHA and the IDAS Code for Heritage in the Queensland Heritage Regulation 2003.

The benefits of this option are that it would allow for the creation and maintenance of one heritage

register only, one regulatory code mechanism within the new planning scheme, and that only one

process (being the scheme amendment process) would need to be followed by the Council in the event

that places were to be added or removed from the list.

To achieve this, the local heritage register would need to be incorporated in the new planning scheme

for the Townsville City Council local government area. This is not seen to be a problem as both

Townsville and Thuringowa registers are included in their schemes as schedules.

Another way in which the Part 11 issue may be resolved is for Council to approach the DERM and the

DLGP to have the entire Townsville City Council local government area bound by the Part 11

amendments. This would mean the former Townsville City Council local government area would

effectively ‘give up’ its exemption.

Further, this would mean that a new local heritage register would have to be created for the

amalgamated Townsville City Council local government area in accordance with the provisions of Part

11 of the Act.

This option clears away some of the confusion of these anomalies and creates some simplicities. In the

context of heritage registers and planning scheme codes, one register would be created under Part 11

of the QHA, the register could be adopted by, applied by or incorporated into the planning scheme, and

the IDAS Code for Heritage in the Queensland Heritage Regulation 2003 could be used to assess

development applications for heritage impacts.

However this is not a preferred option as it effectively discounts the efforts made to date by the

Townsville City Council to include heritage provisions in its planning scheme, and the many years of

hard work to achieve these development outcomes.

However, in the event that neither of the above options is achieved, the exemption of the former

Thuringowa City Council local government area, or the reverse, the exemption of the former Townsville

City Council local government area from effect of the Part 11 amendments, then the following outcomes

would appear to be the only result.

The Townsville City Council would maintain its list of places in the LHD for the former Townsville City

Council area in the new planning scheme.


48

For those places of cultural heritage significance outside of the former Townsville City Council area,

Council prepares a separate local heritage register under Part 11 of the QHA and to comply with the

requirements of this legislation.

This effectively creates two heritage registers – one for the former Townsville City Council local

government area, and the other the former Thuringowa City Council local government area, and two

heritage protection mechanisms – one for the former Townsville City Council local government area

being a heritage overlay code in the new planning scheme, and the other the former Thuringowa City

Council local government area being the IDAS Code for Heritage.

It is highly likely that the final resolution of this matter will take some time, which will extend beyond the

commission for this current study.

The effect of the QHA legislation that mean the Part 11 provisions of the QHA apply to the former Thuringowa City Council area but not the former Townsville City Council

area, needs to be resolved. This may take some time to achieve. It is recommended

that Council seek an exemption for the former Thuringowa City Council local

government area from these Part 11 provisions, to have the entire Townsville City Council local government area removed from these considerations.

5.2 The new heritage register

The Local Heritage Database (LHD) for the former Townsville City Council area is contained in

Schedule 5 of the Townsville planning scheme, and contains approximately 1,200 places considered to

be of cultural heritage significance in the former Townsville City Council local government area.

Further, the heritage register for the Thuringowa City Council planning scheme identifies approximately

60 places of cultural heritage significance in Schedule 5.1 of the scheme. The list attributes distinctions

between these heritage places of Low, Moderate and High.

This section of the report and the various sub-headings contained within it attempt to describe what

places

5.2.1 An opinion on existing heritage listings

The existing Local Heritage Database (LHD) for the former Townsville City Council overemphasises the

heritage resources of the city area. Residential properties are over-represented at the expense of other

properties, and indeed too many ‘ordinary’ houses are included in the database.


49

Only those places considered to be of cultural heritage significance should be proposed to be ‘carried

over’ into the local heritage register for the new planning scheme for the Townsville City Council local

government area. This is discussed in more detail later in this chapter.

At this final stage of the Cultural Heritage Study of the Townsville City Council, after site visits and field

work, an exhaustive review of the existing materials, and discussions with stakeholders, it is clear that

there are many places in the Townsville City Council area and currently in the LHD and the Thuringowa

schedule that are considered to be of cultural heritage significance, and would be suitable for entry in

any local heritage register for the new planning scheme for the Townsville City Council.

However, it is also clear that many of these places are considered to be of value only as examples of

residential character, and therefore make a contribution to the residential character of those areas of

the city.

Further, it is also clear that some of the identified places in the LHD are considered to be little value at

all, in a heritage or character sense, and as such Council should consider not proposing any form of

heritage or character protection over these sites.

The existing listings in the Townsville LHD and the Thuringowa heritage schedule have been audited as

part of this study, and the results of this desk-top audit are included in Appendix A of this report. This

represents a professional opinion on the merit of the existing heritage resources of the Townsville local

government area.

This of course should not be seen as a definitive assessment of these places. It is recommended that

Council’s own Heritage and Urban Planning Unit carry out its own audit of these places as a separate

exercise and the results compared to those that given in this Final Report to check results.

The identification of places that are considered to have heritage and character values is a serious

matter. It should be carried out with clarity of purpose and an accepted understanding by the relevant

community of what is being attempted by the authority proposing such actions. What heritage listing

effectively means is that places identified as such (generally buildings but also other types of places)

are of such importance that their conservation is warranted for the benefit of present and future

generations. These actions clearly affect private property owners and the choices owners have over

their properties in what they can do to their own private property. Such actions should not be taken

lightly, should be reinforced by research and appropriate justification, and should be transparent and

straightforward. Character designations and controls have a similar import in that they attempt to

impose some element of demolition control over private property. In some ways as well character

controls go further than heritage listing in that much wider areas (groups of houses, streets, parts of

suburbs) can be identified for demolition control provisions, but also restrictions can be placed on sites

within these broader areas with respect to design guidelines preferred for these areas.


50

It is axiomatic that those places proposed to be entered in a heritage register should be of heritage

value, and be of cultural heritage significance.

While the term “cultural heritage significance” is not defined in the current planning schemes for

Townsville or Thuringowa (the Thuringowa scheme definition defaults to that in the Queensland

Heritage Act 1992) this is not an issue as the term has been discussed and defined in both statutory

and non-statutory arenas or forums for many years and there is little point in proposing any new

definitions.

The new local heritage register for the new planning scheme for the Townsville City Council should

identify and include those places that are considered to be of cultural heritage significance and worthy

of conservation. In accordance with the above definitions, these are the places that assist in

understanding the past, assist in creating richness in the present environment, and are considered to

be valuable to future generations.

Broadly, the proposed heritage register should include those places that help demonstrate some aspect

of importance of Townsville’s past (whether that be historical importance, architectural, aesthetic, and

social importance). Heritage places tell us something or demonstrate something of importance of

history and the past. Not all old buildings or places do this, and as such there is some implicit

comparison or ‘sifting’ that is required in choosing or selecting what places are of cultural heritage

significance. Such analysis and investigation has to identify which places are considered to have those

specific and identifiable special qualities, over and above the other places, to find those places that are

considered to be of cultural heritage significance to the Townsville City Council local government area.

Places entered in a heritage register (state, local state or federal) need to be supported by a statement

of significance, which is a clear and succinct summary of the principal aspects of the cultural heritage

significance of a place.

The Part 11 provisions of the QHA provide some guidance in this matter as to the level of information

required to support the listing of a place in a local heritage register.

Section 113 requires that a local government must keep a register (a local heritage register) of places

of cultural heritage significance in its area, while the content of the register is informed by Section 114.

For each place entered in this local heritage register there must be included, as part of the ‘entry’ of that

place:

enough information to identify the location and boundaries of the place; and

a statement about the cultural heritage significance of the place.

The statement of cultural heritage significance is a base requirement for places entered in a local

heritage register under Part 11. For a consistent approach for heritage across the state


51

Places of cultural heritage significance are NOT those buildings (which are mainly houses) that have a

basic visual appeal that contribute to the residential character of the suburb or area within the city.

This is examined further in this chapter under the discussion about residential character. A number of examples in the LHD in South Townsville demonstrate what the above discussion is

elucidating. The house at 24 Archer Street, South Townsville, is on the LHD (property # 81520), and is

a prefabricated concrete house on a concrete base. It was constructed in 1913-4 as a display home by

Buffa & Company, which pioneered an industry in the city of concrete house construction. The house

demonstrates the introduction of a new building technology in Townsville for residential construction

and is an early and rare example of a concrete house for North Queensland.

Plate 1: This house at 24 Archer Street South Townsville is considered to be a place of a place of cultural heritage significance and is entered in the LHD.

Another example is the building at 115-147 Perkins Street, South Townsville, a warehouse and bulk

store constructed for the New Zealand Loan and Mercantile Agency Company Ltd in 1899. The

building demonstrates the importance of the pastoral industry to early Townsville and the region, and

the early history of South Townsville as an industrial area near the port.


52

Plate 2: The former New Zealand Loan and Mercantile Agency Company Ltd warehouse and bulk store is considered to be a place of a place of cultural heritage significance in Perkins Street, South Townsville and is entered in the LHD.

Apart from these the range of hotels or pubs in South Townsville (there are a number of them) are

important examples of their type, help demonstrate the history of the South Townsville area as a

working class area, and have important visual and aesthetic qualities.

Plate 3: The house at 8 Archer Street South Townsville is considered to be a place of cultural heritage significance and is entered in the LHD.

Another example from the LHD of a place in South Townsville that is used to further exemplify this

argument (but to argue the alternative) is the house at 8 Archer Street, South Townsville (property #


53

81510). This is an early timber asymmetric bungalow from the early twentieth century, which really

appears to be little more than that. The statement of significance for the place describes it as a good

example of an early asymmetric house and an example of a recycled house from Charters Towers

(which is not known for certain). This is an example of a place that may have some residential

character value, as opposed to cultural heritage significance.

It is acknowledged that the LHD database sheet states that approval was given to relocate this house to

another location – it has been used in this context merely as an example.

The local heritage register should only include those places assessed to be of cultural

heritage significance, as this term is understood in heritage conservation practice. If a house has some value as an example of residential character only, this is not sufficient

enough to be included in the local heritage register.

5.2.2 Places on the Queensland Heritage Register

The existing heritage schedules in both the Townsville and Thuringowa planning schemes include

those places entered in the Queensland Heritage Register (QHR). As places entered in the QHR are

conserved in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Queensland Heritage Act 1992, an option

for Council could be to elect to not enter those State heritage places in the local heritage register of its

new planning scheme.

This could be contemplated in an attempt by Council to avoid duplication of places in heritage lists or

registers, and in recognition of the role of the DERM Cultural Heritage Branch as a concurrence agency

(or assessment manager) to a development application lodged over a site in the Townsville local

government area and entered in the QHR.

This is the main advantage in pursuing this approach to not list places entered in the Queensland

Heritage Register. Multiple heritage registers can cause confusion in the minds of the public and can

create real arguments of additional and further bureaucracy. The heritage impacts of development will

be assessed by officers of the Queensland government. Given this, does Council need to be involved

as well?

While this can be contemplated, this report does not suggest that it be pursued by the Townsville City

Council in its new planning scheme.

A better option, and one that is recommended by this report, is that the local heritage register in the

new planning scheme for the Townsville City Council does include places entered on the Queensland

Heritage Register. This is recommended for a number of important reasons.


54

If places entered in the Queensland Heritage Register are not included in the local heritage register in

the new planning scheme for the Townsville City Council, the Council runs the real risk of devolving

responsibility for an aspect of development assessment to an external organisation for matters peculiar

to Townsville. The risk in this approach is that the Cultural Heritage Branch of DERM, in its role as a

concurrence agency in the IDAS process to a development application lodged with the Townsville City

Council over a State heritage place, may make a decision concerning a development that Council may

not agree with. If the place is not also identified by the local government as being of cultural heritage

significance, the local council has no opportunity to make any determination on heritage grounds.

A similar scenario to this has happened in Townsville recently, over a site in Flinders Street East, which

was raised and examined in the stakeholder discussions for this project. While the site in question was

on the LHD as well as the QHR, it would appear Council largely devolved its assessment of heritage

matters to the DERM.

If a place in Townsville is entered in the Queensland Heritage Register as a State heritage place, and

the local heritage register of the Townsville planning scheme, then officers of the DERM Cultural

Heritage Branch and the Townsville City Council would both be involved in the assessment of the

development. The DERM officers would assess the development against the object of the Queensland

Heritage Act 1992, while the Townsville City Council officers would assess the development against the

relevant provisions of the new planning scheme. This would encourage shared knowledge between the

state and council officers, would allow most if not all heritage issues or concerns to be raised in the

development assessment process, and should encourage the best possible outcomes for heritage

conservation.

The other risk in not including State heritage places in a local government register is that the DERM

Cultural Heritage Branch could resolve to remove a site from the Queensland Heritage Register within

the Townsville City Council local government area. While rare this can happen. If that place is not

otherwise identified at the local government level, and the local government takes a different view about

the significance of the place (i.e. that it still has values of local heritage significance), then provided the

place is recognised by the local government as a place of cultural heritage significance, the DERM

action is of less consequence as a level of conservation protection can still be applied. If not, and

DERM resolves to remove a place from the Queensland Heritage Register, the local council may not be

able to put in place any provisions to protect the place in time. This leads to uncertainty and potentially

problematic outcomes for property owners and the general population in the actions of its local council.

A row of four timber framed shops at 13 Palmer Street, South Townsville, which is on the LHD (ID#

81150) demonstrates this issue perfectly. The site was also entered in the Queensland Heritage

Register, but was removed from the register in 2005 as the DERM officers (then EPA) determined that

the site was no longer a place of cultural heritage significance. In this scenario, if the place is not in the

LHD as well, there are no heritage protection mechanisms in place to continue its conservation if the

place is removed from the QHR.


55

For reasons of completeness and accuracy, a local heritage register for an area should include all

places considered to be of cultural heritage significance in its area, regardless of whether the place may

be entered in another register.

The local heritage register for the new Townsville planning scheme should contain

places entered in the Queensland Heritage Register in the Townsville City Council local government area. While this may be seen as “doubling-up”, and perhaps an

excessively bureaucratic and over-zealous approach, it is the safer and more complete

option for the identification and conservation of heritage places in a local government

area.

5.2.3 Archaeological places

The Thuringowa planning scheme heritage schedule contains a number of places which are sites of

culturally significant fabric, rather than buildings as such. These are identified places of potential

archaeological value and have cultural heritage significance as a result, as opposed places that contain

buildings or some other form of ‘above-ground’ fabric that is readily visible and understood.

The Townsville planning scheme LHD does not contain such places.

The stakeholders’ discussion for this project indicated that there were many places in the Townsville

City Council local government area that could be considered to be of cultural heritage significance for

their potential archaeological value. These were mainly sites in the central business district of

Townsville where the earliest European settlement was located.

These sites have not yet been researched or documented as part of this study.

There is no reason why the local heritage register for the new planning scheme for the Townsville City

Council cannot contain places that have cultural heritage significance for their archaeological potential,

for the physical fabric they (may) contain within their sites. Such sites would need to be researched

and presented, the same as any other site on the local heritage register. However as the evidence

these sites contain is within the ground, as opposed to above ground and readily visible, the arguments

as to why such places are of cultural heritage significance need to be as cogent as possible.

Places of cultural heritage significance for their archaeological value are considered to be significant for

the potential they have to contain information of importance in the history of a town or local area. This

is explained in more detail in the next chapter of this report in the discussions on the heritage criterion

c).


56

To reduce uncertainty, it is recommended that a separate archaeological register is not created as part

of the planning scheme, but that places of potential archaeological value are included within the one

local heritage register for the new planning scheme.

Archaeological issues and heritage places were debated at length in the stakeholder discussions,

without necessarily achieving a consensus or desired end state of this debate. Notwithstanding this

lack of consensus, there is no doubt that there are heritage places of archaeological potential in the

Townsville City Council local government area, particularly parts of the central business district (apart

from those sites already identified in the former Thuringowa planning scheme).

Heritage places of archaeological potential can be included in the same heritage register as other

places. It is a more consistent approach to have a single register and single heritage code.

Places of cultural heritage significance for the archaeological potential should be entered in the local heritage register for the new planning scheme for the Townsville

City Council. A separate register for archaeological places is not necessary and

should not be created.

5.2.4 Relocated buildings

The history of North Queensland and the widespread practice of relocating buildings in the area from

mining towns into the suburbs of Townsville over the years were discussed at the stakeholder

meetings.

This curious feature of the North Queensland built environment was discussed at length by Peter Bell in

his book Timber and iron: houses in north Queensland mining settlements, 1861-1920. Bell describes

the phenomenon and the early twentieth century development of some suburbs of Townsville:

While short-distance removal of houses was a commonplace and almost random occurrence

within towns and local districts throughout the period under study, the most systematic pattern

of relocation came with the decline of the mining towns during and immediately after the First

World War, when large numbers of houses were removed to the coastal towns…The extent of

this exodus is difficult to assess, as it left virtually no documentary evidence. Usually the only

testimony available is the oral statement of an occupant or nearby resident, and after the

passage of sixty years (now 90 years – the book was written in the late 1970s/early 1980s)

that evidence is becoming rare.

The belief that whole suburbs of Townsville were brought from Charters Towers is

undoubtedly exaggerated, although there is good reason to believe that substantial numbers

of Charters Towers houses were removed to the growing suburbs of South Townsville, Hermit


57

Park and Railway Estate in the 1920s. Several houses reputedly from Charters Towers were

found to show no physical evidence of removal and indeed in some cases to have been

demonstrably on their present sites long before the exodus from Charters Towers had begun.

There is apparently a piece of nostalgic folklore abroad leading contemporary residents to

assume any venerable house is “from the goldfields”.4

The above quote highlights a number of important issues in the context of this discussion. The

relocation of houses from the goldfields and inland north Queensland to Townsville is an important

element of the history of the city and the region and should be celebrated and honoured. However in

terms of working out which particular houses have been relocated, it is difficult to know precisely

because there is no documentary evidence of this and equally no physical evidence of this practice

surviving in these houses currently. It is fair to say that the relocation of houses has reached almost

mythical status in Townsville and the actual numbers of houses that experienced such removal may be

exaggerated.

While it is readily acknowledged that this practice of removing houses happened in the past, what does

that mean for the future?

The discussion of this issue prefaced a consideration of the vexed issue of moving heritage buildings as

a viable conservation tool or approach. While some stakeholders were adamant that moving buildings

is not a desirable conservation outcome, others were less convinced.

The issue is relevant in the context of this Cultural Heritage Study, in that it is understood some places

included in the LHD have (probably) been relocated from mining towns and other areas to Townsville.

The issue is further complicated by the fact that in some instances the Townsville City Council allows

houses on the LHD to be removed to new locations. This heritage listing then follows these buildings to

their new locations.

In terms of possible listings, it is recommended that Townsville City Council should not be concerned

about entering places in the local heritage register if they were removed from other towns to their

current location. In some respects the past relocation of the house becomes almost irrelevant to a

consideration of its heritage (or character) value. Such a house or building has no doubt been in this

‘relocated’ location for a longer period than its original location. If it is determined to have cultural

heritage significance (or indeed character value) in its current location (which is not its original location),

then that alone should be the major factor in any consideration of its future. The fact that it may have

been relocated to its current location is perhaps not so important in determining its future, or its future

location.

4 Peter Bell, Timber and iron: houses in north Queensland mining settlements, 1861-1920 (St Lucia: University of

Queensland Press, 1984) pp. 182-3).


58

It is recommended that the local practice of allowing heritage listed buildings to be removed should be

discouraged, as should the practice of relocating the ‘listing’ to follow this new location.

Buildings that were relocated to their current site can be included in the local heritage

register for the new planning scheme for the Townsville City Council, if determined to

be of cultural heritage significance. This historical fact (if proven) should be immaterial

to a consideration of cultural heritage significance. This historical fact (if proven) should not, however, be used in any arguments to remove a heritage place from its

current location.

5.2.5 Provision for additional places

The local heritage register that is prepared for the new planning scheme should never be considered a

final determination of the heritage resources of the Townsville City Council local government area.

The process of heritage listing and what is considered to be of cultural heritage significance is a product

of a particular time and culture. Heritage assessment and identification is not static. Commonly held

views on the importance of particular places may change as times change and culture evolves and

what constitutes the cultural heritage of places also changes and evolves. What may have been

common can become rarer, and its potential value or significance increase as a result.

These things can change as times change and what may be considered unimportant in the present can

become more important, and perhaps culturally significant to any given community as that community

itself changes over time.

There are a number of areas of the city that have not yet been examined for their heritage resources

that have arisen during the study so far. The suburb of South Townsville in particular the area south of

Boundary Street and the small laneways is an obvious omission, and should be surveyed for both

heritage and character elements.

The suburb of Vincent came up in the stakeholder discussion as important evidence of the growth of

Townsville in the 1960s. The housing stock is fairly standard Queensland Housing Commission

(Defence housing) of the period – elevated single storey houses which are enclosed underneath,

parallel to the street and normally constructed of timber (and typically the thinner boards of the post war

period) – and is fairly consistent across the suburb.

While it may not be wise or appropriate to consider the entire suburb for heritage listing, any heritage

conservation objectives with respect to the importance of Vincent need not be served by attempting

this. One or two particular buildings may be researched and surveyed that encapsulate the suburb or


59

the period in the city. The first house in the suburb perhaps may be of historical significance if it could

be researched and verified.

There is also a general dearth of places outside the urban areas, which is considered to be the greater

Townsville city area and Paluma (albeit not an urban area as such).

There are very few places recognised for their heritage significance that are associated or

demonstrative of the importance of primary industries to the region. It is possible that no places exist,

but this needs to be tested and proved.

In any event there should be a mechanism or process whereby additional places can be added to the

local heritage register for the Townsville City Council local government area, which can include if

possible or desired a mechanism for the local community to nominate places to the register for heritage

identification.

Heritage identification and listing is not a static process and what is considered to be

of cultural heritage significance changes over time. The Townsville City Council

should facilitate processes that allow additional places to be entered in the local heritage register, whether by a formal process of allowing public nominations, or some

other mechanism.

5.2.6 The fabric as evidence

Another important factor to consider is that places considered worthy of conservation in heritage terms

and therefore worthy of being entered in a heritage register need to be able to demonstrate their

cultural significance in their surviving physical fabric.

It is implicit in heritage identification and assessment that the intactness of the physical fabric of the

heritage place is a major factor in assessing whether such a place is culturally significant, and should

be entered in a heritage register. The level of intactness or integrity indicates how well a place

demonstrates the qualities that have been ascribed to it, and its relative importance in satisfying the

various criteria or values of cultural heritage significance; the degree to which a place can be

considered to be of cultural heritage significance.

Discussions and analysis of fabric do not supersede or replace assessments of cultural heritage

significance and how places satisfy criteria of cultural heritage significance. Analysis of building fabric

or elemental fabric explains and demonstrates how well places satisfy criteria of cultural heritage

significance.


60

Integrity or intactness does not of course prove or demonstrate cultural heritage significance by itself.

Generally the more intact a place, the greater it can demonstrate the qualities claimed for it, and

therefore the potential for cultural significance is enhanced. While integrity or intactness does not prove

cultural significance, a lack of integrity or intactness usually impacts on cultural significance, and

compromises the qualities claimed for a site.

The cultural significance of a place is embodied in the place itself, and its fabric. The building fabric is a

document for interpretation itself:

…the fabric of a place is the most accurate (though often incomplete) document of its

history…Physical evidence tells the story of what actually happened, rather than what

someone intended should happen, or believed did happen. It provides data on the sequence

of changes and intimate information on human usage and habit.5

If the fabric of the place has been compromised to such a level that the surviving evidence of the place

has also been compromised, then there is little to be achieved by proposing a heritage listing or

protection for such a place.

Plate 4: A former cinema at Echlin Street, West End is recognisable as a cinema but has been modified for its new use.

These judgements are made implicitly and all the time in heritage conservation and assessment and

have informed the findings of this study. In many cases this is a subjective assessment based on

objective information – the level of alteration of building fabric.

5 James Semple Kerr, The conservation plan: a guide to the preparation of conservation plans for places of European

cultural significance (fourth edition) (Sydney: National Trust of Australia (NSW), 1996) p. 7.


61

An example of this in Townsville is illustrated above. This former 1920s cinema at West End is

included in the Townsville LHD. The building no longer operates as a cinema and is a retail outlet.

While its general bulk, scale and street presentation is demonstrative of a cinema, it would appear the

external building fabric has been reworked considerably, which is no doubt matched by changes

internally. It may be that the level of alterations to the building fabric of this place is such that an

argument could be presented that the place is not worth listing or protection. This report does not

recommend this – this building is used to demonstrate this as a relevant example.

When assessing places for entry in the local heritage register for the Townsville City

Council (or any heritage register), the importance of the fabric of the place in

demonstrating the cultural heritage significance attributed to the place is a vital determinant. If places have been altered considerably, this generally weakens or

compromises claims for or attributions of cultural heritage significance.

5.2.7 Rankings of cultural heritage significance

To express this in the simplest terms, a place should be entered in a local heritage register if it is

determined to be of cultural heritage significance.

A place is determined to be of cultural heritage significance if it satisfies one or more of the criteria of

cultural heritage significance that are contained within the planning scheme (there is more discussion

on the criteria later in this chapter).

It is recommended that the Townsville City Council not consider as an option a ranking system of

heritage places in terms of cultural heritage significance (Low, Medium and High), as the former

Thuringowa City Council planning scheme has done.

Such a ranking system becomes cumbersome and confusing, and does not communicate to the local

Townsville community a confident assertion of cultural heritage significance or values. If a place is

considered to be of Low heritage significance or value, then how valuable is it?

If the regulating authority is not wholly convinced of a place’s value, then the community will not be

either.

Places to be included in the local heritage register for the new planning scheme for the

Townsville City Council should not be ranked Low, Medium or High. This can create confusion and can weaken the register unnecessarily. If places are assessed to be of

cultural heritage significance to the Townsville community then that should be

sufficient for entry in the local heritage register for the new planning scheme. Precise


62

conservation options for heritage places can be dealt with at the time of assessment of

development applications.

5.2.8 Indigenous places

While the focus of this study has been European cultural heritage, the brief for this project has required

the study develop a policy framework for indigenous cultural heritage in accordance with the Aboriginal

Cultural Heritage Act 2003 and Duty of Care provisions.

While theoretically Queensland local governments can make provision for Aboriginal cultural heritage

places in their planning schemes, few if any planning schemes actually record such places in these

registers.

It is generally considered to be culturally inappropriate to depict Indigenous cultural heritage places in

planning scheme maps and other documents, and highlighting these places as important places, and

therefore ‘broadcasting’ this cultural heritage significance to the general community, as occurs for

places of European cultural heritage. There are fundamental issues of cultural and gender sensitivity in

dealing with Aboriginal cultural heritage places, and how this sensitive information is collected, handled,

and disseminated, and how issues of confidentiality are handled.

As a result such places are not identified in the same way, or following the same processes as

European cultural heritage places.

The Townsville City Plan acknowledges Aboriginal cultural heritage significance in a number of areas,

mainly in the DEOs and the specific outcomes of the various district codes. It is noted however that

there are no places entered in the current LHD of Aboriginal cultural heritage significance, in due regard

to current and established practice.

As examined in section 3.1.5 of this report under the discussion of the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act

2003, the identification and assessment of places of Aboriginal cultural heritage is unlike the

identification and assessment of places of places recognised for European cultural values. The

particular Aboriginal people themselves, and their views on a place, are the key elements in firstly

assessing whether a place is culturally significant, and then managing any activity likely to affect this

significance.

Therefore, it is considered that any such places cannot be recognised by this Cultural Heritage Study or

the processes or tasks available as part of the brief for this study.

The Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 does not bind the Townsville City Council, or any other local

government, to investigate and identify Aboriginal cultural heritage, create registers of Aboriginal


63

cultural heritage, or include references to Aboriginal cultural heritage in their planning schemes. Any

acknowledgement, recording, or identification of Aboriginal cultural heritage is carried out under the

auspices of that legislation, in association with Aboriginal people.

However the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 states that local governments are able to utilise the

information in the register in the preparation of their planning schemes.

At the very least, then, the Townsville City Council may request access to the Aboriginal cultural

heritage register as part of its new planning scheme preparation, to ascertain what places if any are

within the Townsville local government area, in accordance with the provisions of Section 47(2)(a) of

the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003.

There is no recommendation, and there should be no intention on the part of Council, to create any

form of Aboriginal cultural heritage register for the new planning scheme with any of this information.

Any places of Aboriginal cultural heritage significance in the Townsville area should be

identified under the provisions of the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 and the

various processes identified in that legislation, and in conjunction with local Aboriginal people, and not under the provisions of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 or the

Queensland Heritage Act 1992.

It is culturally inappropriate to list places of Aboriginal cultural heritage significance in heritage registers in planning schemes.

Places of Aboriginal cultural heritage significance should NOT be recognised in the

new planning scheme for the Townsville City Council or be entered in the local heritage register of the scheme.

The Townsville City Council may access the Aboriginal cultural heritage register

created under the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 as part of its new planning scheme preparation, to ascertain what places if any are within the Townsville local

government area.

It is a general requirement of the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 that persons carrying out an activity must take all reasonable and practicable measures to ensure

the activity does not harm Aboriginal cultural heritage (the cultural heritage duty of

care). Therefore, in accordance with these duty of care provisions, land use and development in the Townsville City Council local government area should not have any

adverse impacts on places of Aboriginal cultural heritage significance.


64

5.2.9 Where is the register located?

Currently both the Townsville and Thuringowa heritage registers are included in the scheme as

schedules.

The final ‘location’ of the local heritage register is to some degree bound with the issue of the Part 11

amendments of the QHA.

The Part 11 amendments allow, for those local government areas that are bound by the amendments,

for planning schemes to adopt, apply or incorporate the local heritage register.

If the former Thuringowa City Council local government area is exempted from the Part 11 amendments

(which is recommended), then a single heritage register can be created for the Townsville City Council

local government area. Given the existing Townsville LHD is located within the planning scheme as a

schedule, then the best location for the local heritage register is within the scheme as a schedule.

Any future changes to the heritage register therefore would need to occur via a planning scheme

amendment process, and not via the process in the Part 11 of the QHA, which effectively sits outside

the planning scheme amendment process.

The advantages of having a heritage register outside the planning scheme is that changes to the

heritage register can be easier to administer, as these do not require an amendment to the planning

scheme. The disadvantages of having the heritage register outside the scheme is that it can be open to

legal challenge as to its effectiveness, not being part of the planning scheme. This has happened a

number of times in Brisbane – the heritage register for the Brisbane City Council local government area

in a planning scheme policy, outside the planning scheme.

The local heritage register for the new planning scheme for the Townsville City Council should be contained in the planning scheme itself. Changes to the register (additions

or deletions) will then be done via a planning scheme amendment process.

5.2.10 Summary of heritage recommendations

A heritage register for the Townsville City Council local government area should be created as part of

the new planning scheme for the City. It is recommended it be incorporated into the scheme as a

schedule.

An option for Council’s consideration would be to ‘carry over’ all existing heritage listings in the

Townsville planning scheme and the Thuringowa planning scheme schedules into the new heritage

register.


65

This is not recommended as many of these places are not considered to be of cultural heritage

significance. These listings create an exaggerated picture of the extent of heritage resources in the

Townsville local government area.

An alternative option, which is recommended, is that these existing listings are reviewed, and as a

result of this review be reduced in number.

It is recommended that an audit be carried out of the existing Schedule 5 and Schedule 5.1 listings in

the existing schemes to only include those places that are considered to be of cultural heritage

significance. A desk-top audit has been completed for this study and a suggested register or schedule

is included in this report in Appendix A. It is recommended that the Council’s Heritage and Urban

Planning Unit carry out its own audit of this material in the coming months, but based on more

exhaustive recording and investigation than was possible as part of this study.

Places considered to be of cultural heritage significance should be able to express this significance in

their physical fabric. In most situations this relates to the integrity of the building or place’s fabric in

being able to demonstrate the cultural heritage significance claimed for the place. Places that are badly

altered and contain little in their fabric that relate to the claimed significance may not be culturally

significant and may not be worth recognising and conserving.

Places of Low significance in the former Thuringowa City Council planning scheme should be removed

from the register (if they still exist). Judgements should be made about the rest of the places in the

former Thuringowa schedule.

The single heritage register can contain archaeological places, relocated buildings, and places on the

Queensland Heritage Register.

There should be a mechanism or process whereby places can be added or nominated to the local

heritage register such that the scope of heritage and what is considered can evolve over time.

Places should not be ranked Low, Medium or High Significance. A place should be entered if it is

determined to be of cultural heritage significance, which is the only test against which it should be

judged. It is of no relevance to a place if it is not thought to be as significant as other places entered in

the local heritage register.

Places of Aboriginal cultural heritage significance would not be included in this register. There are

separate processes of identifying and acknowledging places of Aboriginal cultural heritage under the

Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003.


66

5.3 Character identification

5.3.1 What is character?

In the context of protection controls for buildings and issues of building character, the term “Character”

has not been as precisely defined as heritage.

There is no defined term the equivalent of cultural heritage significance when discussing building

character issues, nor is there an equivalent of the Burra Charter, or an equivalent group such as

Australia ICOMOS.

The pioneering work done in attempting to articulate and identify building character issues was carried

out by conservation architects Allom Lovell Marquis-Kyle (ALM-K) in 1994, who examined the

residential character of the Brisbane City Council local government area, and by the Brisbane City

Council for seeing the need to commission the study in the first place.6

.

Among other things this study resulted in the first residential character controls being brought in by the

by the Brisbane City Council, within the inner to middle suburbs of Brisbane. In answering the broad

question “What is character?”, the ALM-K report defaulted to a dictionary definition of character, which

the Macquarie Dictionary defines as:

…the aggregate of qualities that distinguish one person or thing from another.7

This report also noted that every place has its own character, but that like beauty character was in the

eye of the beholder. Each observer of a place used their own values to decide how valuable the

character of that place was and whether it should be protected or considered above and beyond other

places. Taking its cues from the above definition, the report noted that character of a street or suburb

was derived from a combination of elements – topography, vegetation, the people who lived there and

how they interacted with one another, the houses and streets.

This is the first point of distinction between heritage and character. Every place has some type of

character, and may have a value that is generated from that character. Not every place has a heritage

value, but all places have a type of character. Heritage is generally seen as a positive, and something

to be identified and protected. The character of some places may not be seen as a positive and may

indeed have negative connotations; something that can be identified, but without any overwhelming

need or desire to be protected and remain unchanged.

6 Allom Lovell Marquis-Kyle Architects, ‘The character of residential areas: Brisbane’, a report for the Brisbane City Council,

1994. 7 Allom Lovell Marquis-Kyle Architects, ‘The character of residential areas: Brisbane’, p. 32.


67

When looking at towns, suburbs, or indeed human settlements of any scale, the character of a place

can be affected or influenced by the buildings contained within them, the placement of buildings on their

lots, the arrangement of streets and widths of roads, the types of land uses carried out both in the past

and present, the presence (or lack) of vegetation, the topography either hilly or flat. In this regard the

character of a small country town is different from that of a beachside village or settlement, different

from a suburban street, and different from the central business district of a major city. The character of

an industrial suburb is different from the inner city, and different from a farming community.

Character values are generally drawn from an observed and understood consistency of:

building stock;

building materials;

position and location in the street;

building height; and

land use.

Character values and heritage values are closely related – character value can be seen as a sub-set of

heritage value, as part of the inheritance from the past that we may wish to pass onto future

generations.

While heritage value is more an individual value, and is demonstrated in the physical fabric of a place,

character value is more a collective or group value, or an acknowledgment or understanding of an

aggregate value. In most instances character places where they are proposed for some form of

protection, are not ‘listed’ individually – precincts of buildings (houses predominantly) are aggregated in

a conceptually wider sense to create a larger grouping, precinct, area, that is considered to be of some

value or importance, that the community feels should be protected.

The other point to make is that character value is predominantly a visual value or characteristic. Places

of character value are not ascribed any of the other values that comprise heritage values as described

earlier in this report. Character places have no demonstrated aesthetic, architectural, historical or

social value inherent in the fabric of the place, or any meanings associated with the places. They may

of course represent their history, as every building or place tells something of its history. Generally

however such places are not important in history or important because of their history.

As noted above a general rule of thumb to consider is that heritage places can be from any period of

history – nineteenth century, twentieth century, 1950s, 1960s, or even the 1970s. Character places

relate to development trends which change over time, but usually a line is drawn at a point in time in

which places are considered character places, and when they are not.

Character value is not the same as heritage value. Places of heritage significance are

singular, and have a range of values (aesthetic, historic, etc). Places of character value


68

have a basic visual appeal or quality, and are generally an aggregated or collective

value based on consistency of building stock over a wider area than the individual

heritage place.

5.3.2 Housing character areas in Townsville

Distinct from places of cultural heritage significance, the inner suburbs of Townsville (and other areas)

include areas of special residential character that may be considered by Council as character areas or

precincts. These include, but are not limited to, the suburbs of:

West End;

South Townsville;

Railway Estate;

Hermit Park;

Hyde Park;

Mysterton;

Belgian Gardens; and

North Ward.

Plate 5: Character housing in West End.

These suburbs generally are the earlier suburbs in Townsville which were settled from the late

nineteenth century and into the mid twentieth century period. ‘Traditional’ residential character is


69

generally accepted as those houses constructed in Queensland up to the late 1930s period – what is

commonly and popularly known as the “Queenslander”. Without getting into in-depth discussions and

analyses of styles, as housing styles do vary across this period, such ‘Queenslander” houses were

typically constructed of timber, raised on low or mid size stumps, with front and/or side verandahs,

pyramidal or gabled roofs, timber balustrading and other typical detailing of the period in which these

houses are constructed. Broadly, the general community accepts and acknowledges that these

housing styles from the past are valuable and worth conserving.

Plate 6: Character housing in South Townsville

Plate 7: ‘Fibro’ houses in Balgal Beach


70

There are also other parts of the city where other forms of residential character have been and may be

considered for identification and proposed controls. These include the Townsville suburbs of Vincent

and Gulliver (identified in the Draft Character Precincts Survey), and Balgal Beach (also identified in the

Draft Character Precincts Survey).

The Townsville City Council local government area has a number of areas that contain

housing considered to be of residential character value. This includes suburbs of pre-World War II housing stock, and other areas.

5.3.3 Options for character identification

There are a number of options for Council’s consideration for the identification of character areas in

these suburbs.

Council could consider declaring a neighbourhood character overlay area in parts of the city, in which

character housing may be found, and then imposing a determined date of construction for character

identification such that houses built prior to a certain date would be considered under this process as

character housing. An appropriate date could be determined through an analysis of important events in

Townsville’s history, or epochal periods (pre-1900 to capture surviving nineteenth century housing, pre-

1918 to capture housing up to World War I, pre-1930 for housing prior to the Depression, pre-1946 to

capture housing prior to World War II, and so on).

The benefit of this approach is that, theoretically, all houses prior to a certain date can be ‘identified’, so

that character protection mechanisms can be put in place.

The negatives with this approach are many. It is often hard to implement properly. Council does not

attempt to research all houses prior to a certain date and designate these as character housing – rather

a default position is taken that all ‘old’ houses in a declared residential area are considered constructed

prior to a certain date unless proven otherwise. This ‘proving otherwise’ is only normally done when an

applicant lodges a development application that proposes the removal of an early house in a declared

residential character area, which involves some historical research to be undertaken by the applicant to

determine a date of construction of the subject house. If it can be proven from this research that the

house was constructed after the pre-determined cut-off date, then the character designation no longer

applies. However it is often difficult to prove a precise date of a house from the available documentary

evidence which includes land title records and postal directories (photographs are notoriously difficult to

use for dating purposes). This process can also be ineffective as it may not prevent overnight or

random demolition or house removal. If an early house in a declared residential area is demolished or

removed quickly, who can know precisely what age the house was, and is too late at that point

anyway?


71

The imposition of an arbitrary date of construction for character designation is also difficult, as few

house owners will know the subtleties of styles, and how styles change over time. They may feel they

own an “old house”, but would have little idea if it was constructed before or after a particular date.

Neither may Council officers for that matter.

Another option applies with using a pre-determined cut-off date for character housing, but utilises

existing resources. The Townsville City Council holds aerial photographs of the city from the mid

twentieth century period onwards. Using these as a base, Council could impose a different pre-

determined ‘cut-off’ date to which character housing areas apply, so that all surviving houses that can

be found on these photographs could be considered as character dwellings. This approach is similar to

the approach the Brisbane City Council has taken in determining its housing character areas – it holds

1946 aerial photographs of the city and so uses a pre-1946 date for character housing. The 1946 aerial

photographs dovetail neatly into the established analysis of Queensland housing that has shown

housing styles changed considerably in the late 1940s and into the 1950s, as the building controls

imposed after World War II and the adoption of new materials meant that styles and designs changed.

Houses evolved away from the established designs of the early to mid twentieth century period, to

something quite different, which importantly is not generally held in the same regard as pre-World War

II housing.

It is noted that the QPP describe areas of “Neighbourhood Character” as being primarily those areas

that contain pre-1946 houses, as well as other neighbourhoods that may have significant character as

identified by a local government.

It is understood that the Townsville City Council hold aerial photographs for most of the city area that

were taken in 1941. These could be used as the cut-off date to determine pre-war residential areas

that may be of traditional character value.

This is an option for Council’s consideration in respect to residential character identification.

The benefit of this approach is that the determination is largely an objective exercise, rather than a

subjective one – if a particular house in question appears in the aerial photograph, it can be considered

for character designation. If it is not, then it is not. The negatives of this approach are that the source

material in some instances is not conclusive, and the appearance of a particular property within the

aerial photographs cannot be proved. While an imposed ‘cut-off’ date is clear to all, it can also be seen

as quite arbitrary, and may mean that some areas considered to be of some importance may not be

captured.

The Townsville City Council could consider a range of options in determining areas of

housing character, either by arriving at a pre-determined cut-off date within which all

houses constructed prior to this cut-off date is considered to be of housing character,


72

or utilising existing resources such as aerial photographs of the city in assisting in the

determination of areas of housing character.

5.3.4 The Draft Character Precincts Survey

The better option for Council’s consideration for the identification of residential character areas is one

that has already been determined and commenced by the Townsville City Council Heritage and Urban

Planning Unit – the Draft Character Precincts Survey.

The character precincts identified in the Draft Character Precincts Survey are defined areas of the built

environment that do not meet the strict criteria for listing as places of cultural heritage significance in

themselves, but have been analysed and identified as being of some value to the Townsville

community.

This is an approach wholly consistent with the identification of areas of residential character in other

places. Over time redevelopment and change to inner suburban areas of cities occurs to such an

extent that the community generally identifies or understands a loss of value, but normally incrementally

over a period of time, rather than the single threat of demolition of an individual building of heritage

value. The community generally appreciates and admires certain parts of the city that demonstrate

valuable qualities, which is in many cases articulated and expressed in the built environment of these

areas, which is often those areas which contain concentrations of early houses (the general community

tends to respond positively to older houses).

The Executive Summary of the Draft Character Precincts Survey explains that the project examined

every suburb of Townsville to uncover areas or groupings of houses that could be considered worthy of

identification as a ‘Character Precinct’. Each suburb of the city was examined and a brief summary of

the features that influenced the history and development of the suburb and its suburban character that

has resulted is presented. A total of 61 precincts in 20 suburbs of the city (together with Balgal Beach

and Paluma) have been identified as satisfying the methodology of the study.

The study defines a “Character Precinct” as a suburban location that contains a high concentration

(added emphasis) of residences that are representative of the character of the suburb. The grouping or

precinct includes not only the houses within their lot, but also the garden and street settings of each

house within this lot.

It is recommended that this approach be continued but that the precincts are expanded, based on

further field work, to include larger areas of the suburbs investigated and analysed. The field work and

analysis for this Cultural Heritage Study has indicated that many parts of the suburbs of West End,

South Townsville, Railway Estate, Hermit Park, Mysterton and Belgian Gardens contain relatively large

concentrations of character housing, and ‘character contributor’ buildings such as corner stores (which


73

are discussed below) that could be considered as a neighbourhood character overlay in accordance

with the QPP provisions for constraint overlays.

The Character Precincts Survey also includes 1950s and 1960s housing as character precincts, with

post World War II suburbs or areas including Balgal Beach, Gulliver, Heatley, Garbutt and Vincent

assessed as containing areas of character housing worthy of identification and possible protection.

It is noted that while the QPP identifies neighbourhood character as a constraint overlay and primarily

areas with pre-1946 dwelling houses, the QPP does allow for other areas that are not pre-1946 to be

considered under a character overlay (other neighbourhoods with significant character identified by a

local government).

Any declared area of special housing character in the Townsville City Council local government area

will need to clearly articulate how and why an area has been identified as demonstrating a valued

character, such that its identification and conservation is proposed by planning scheme controls. It is

suggested that the consistency and uniformity of the housing stock of these areas does not usually

create a valuable character in itself. The defined character precincts in the city will no doubt be

determined at a local level by the Townsville community.

The Draft Character Precincts Survey and the mapping carried out for the study is a

useful basis for the possible creation of areas of special residential character for the

new planning scheme for the Townsville City Council local government area.

There is no reason why areas designated as a character overlay for the new planning

scheme for the Townsville City Council cannot include areas of post-1946 housing, to

be consistent with the QPP.

5.3.5 Non-residential buildings

Buildings of traditional character are usually considered to be houses, as it is houses that dominate

suburbs and largely create the traditional character that people like and admire. Small commercial

buildings, the ‘corner store’ and the like, can also be considered as part of traditional building character.

These commercial buildings were often built in the same period as their neighbouring houses, quite

often of similar materials such as timber weatherboards and corrugated iron, and an overwhelming

residential scale such that these buildings contribute in a meaningful way to the character of the area

and have a connection with the local community.

These early stores were usually built to the front property alignment, and often have post supported

awnings with parapets above. They are a building type that the community, generally, like and admire,

in a similar manner to the traditional character housing of the first few decades of the twentieth century.


74

While an historical understanding can be gleaned from these buildings, in that they demonstrate how

small scale retail transactions were carried out in these suburbs in this period before most people had

cars and shopped at supermarkets, these buildings are not normally considered to be of historical value

or cultural heritage significance.

The Townsville City Council could consider including such commercial buildings and other non-

residential buildings (halls, sporting pavilions, etc) in any neighbourhood character overlay identification

in the new planning scheme.

A good example of an early corner store that demonstrates these qualities and the above discussion is

the commercial building at 77 Harold Street, West End (on the corner of Sidney Street). This building is

included in the LHD as a place of cultural heritage significance (ID# 44750), but without any history or

significance attributed. However it is likely this building could be considered to contribute to the general

traditional character of West End, and as such could be identified under a neighbourhood character

overlay.

Plate 8: The corner store in Harold Street, West End – a commercial building that contributes to the interwar residential character of the suburb.

Any identification of areas of special residential character in Townsville should also

include non-residential buildings (such as corner stores, halls, etc) where they

demonstrate similar qualities as the neighbouring residential buildings (materials,

form, scale etc).


75

5.3.6 Defining an area?

The precise number of character houses or buildings needed to create a precinct worthy of

identification and then consequent protection can be difficult to address, as demonstrated in the

following questions:

Does a whole street need to be intact of character housing to create a

precinct?

What constitutes a street? Is it the whole street from start to finish, or a part of

a street from cross street to cross street?

How much intrusion is allowed before a street or part-street no longer

constitutes a character precinct?

The answers to these questions are many and varied, and a determinative position may not be possible

in the scope of this study. The approach taken by the Brisbane City Council is to determine a character

precinct as three houses in a row as a ‘cluster’, although it also considers ‘spot-recognition’ of individual

character houses.

By definition in any declared character precinct or area the character elements should represent a

majority proportion in a given visual catchment, and not be overly intruded on by modern elements that

interrupt and compromise this traditional character.

The main argument to emphasise at this point is that residential character values or qualities that

planning schemes normally seek to identify and protect are an accumulative quality or value – a value

that is “more than the sum of its parts”. This is usually demonstrated by groupings of houses that share

common characteristics, or proximity of houses that share common characteristics.

It is highly likely that houses would need to be in groups or ‘clusters’ of at least three houses together in

the same street sharing side boundaries, to create a character precinct for identified character areas in

Townsville. The precise numbers may be difficult to predict, or espouse in a written report – the

cumulative qualities of housing in a given area are the main things to elicit from such an analysis, and

areas identified as important for their housing character would need to be where the character houses

are the dominant elements overall. Areas of North Ward for example, north of Warburton Street

towards the Strand, feature some character housing, but the character of this part of the city is not one

where traditional housing character is perceived to be the dominant feature. The housing character of

this area is more mixed, and heterogeneous, not homogenous, due to the more modern high rise

housing developments that have been constructed there in recent years. By contrast areas such as

South Townsville, parts of West End, parts of Hermit Park and Railway Estate are more homogenous in


76

terms of its housing stock, and feature many examples of these styles of traditional houses, such that

the dominant housing character of these areas is of the traditional Queenslander-type house.

It is noted that the Draft Character Precincts Survey examined this very problem in determining how

particular areas of the suburbs could be identified as demonstrating housing character values – it

defined a character precinct as a suburban location that contains a high concentration of residences

that demonstrate and represent character. The Draft Character Precincts Survey does not explain how

many houses make up a high concentration, which is to be expected. A determination of a residential

character area is not that precise or clear-cut, such that a simple exercise in addition can be performed

to declare a defined area.

While a cluster of at least three houses may be necessary to draw a character precinct on a map or

plan, the analysis should be broader to include the initial groups of houses, then areas of houses within

streets, then streets within suburbs, to create definable character areas where distinct areas of housing

character can be identified, and then proposed for some form of character protection through planning

scheme provisions.

But it is stressed that in most (almost all) cases houses need to be in identifiable groups or clusters. It

is difficult to argue that individual or isolated houses are important in creating the character of a

residential area, such that the retention of these isolated examples would be warranted. Individual

houses that may demonstrate the elements of character housing described above, are not normally

identified for protection or conservation, when there are no other character houses contiguous or in

close proximity. There is in most instances no value created by a “sum of the parts” analysis when

looking at a single character house in isolation.

The exception to the above may be where a beachside village or location may feature random or

isolated houses, that when taken together in a cognitive sense, rather than a visual or physically

proximate sense, contribute to the character of that particular area. The various suburbs of Magnetic

Island may be examples where individual houses can contribute to the character of those areas, and

may enjoy some form of character identification and protection by the new planning scheme, but do not

necessarily have to be in close proximity or adjacent to one another to create a distinct precinct. In this

instance, such isolated examples can be evocative of the past housing styles of the settlement, and

largely due to the isolated nature (an island being the classic example – Balgal Beach is another) of the

settlement the perceived value of these earlier housing styles is amplified. In this analysis there still

needs to be a grouping of houses – they just need not be contiguous to one another or in clusters or

groups to be considered a character area or precinct.

While character elements are not normally individually entered in a character register, an option for

Council’s consideration for areas of residential character identification may be the inclusion of individual

buildings on a character register, utilising the existing resource of the properties on the LHD. This will

by its very nature be a long list of places that are essentially identified for the same thing – the


77

contribution these buildings make to the character of the identified area. This may also be a laborious

and time consuming approach that may not be worth the resources that need to be devoted to it, and

has the potential to be confused with the heritage register in the planning scheme.

The better option would be for slightly larger geographic areas to be designated as part of the

residential or neighbourhood character overlay (similar to the mapping created for the Draft Character

Precincts Survey) in accordance with the QPP provisions for constraints overlays. The related

character code provisions and other planning scheme material would then need to be prepared in such

a way that it is clear what the residential building character that the scheme is trying to protect, which

buildings would contribute to that character, and which ones would not.

To be considered for character identification and control, in most cases character

houses need to be in groups or clusters or some form of identifiable area. The

exception to this is the beachside or island location where individual houses may contribute to a character of an area that is valuable or important, although there still

needs to be a collection of houses in an area to create a distinct group or precinct.

Character houses should not be entered in a character register as this can cause confusion with the local heritage register. Character areas should be identified via the

Neighbourhood Character overlay mechanisms consistent with the constraints overlay

provisions of the QPP.

5.3.7 Summary for character

Council may utilise a range of tools in which to identify housing character areas, including historical

aerial mapping such as the 1941 aerial photographs held by Council as a base to determine character

housing. This approach does not assist in the determination of post-World War II housing as character

housing.

It is recommended that the approach of the Draft Character Precincts Survey, as already commenced

by the officers of the Heritage and Urban Planning Unit of Council, be continued, and that the areas

identified in this study form the basis of proposed residential character overlay areas in the city.

It is further recommended that character houses creating a character precinct would need to exist in

groups or ‘clusters’ of at least three houses together in the same street sharing side boundaries. This

but this would be a base requirement only. It is not enough to simply locate all areas of groups of three

character houses and identify these as character precincts. The residential character worth notifying

and protecting needs to be the dominant residential character of a particular area, and to have a

character that is considered valuable, to allow planning scheme controls to be put in place over

demolition/relocation of these houses, and the style and form of new housing in these areas.


78

Commercial buildings such as corner stores that were constructed in the same period as the character

housing adjacent or nearby can be considered for character identification as well, and the same

provisions placed over these types of buildings.

The identification of post-1946 buildings as character areas is more than possible with the broader

character identification process, although Council will need to articulate in some depth precisely what

the values of these places are, so that the general Townsville community understands the reasoning

behind the designation and the appropriate protection mechanisms that will be put in place.

5.4 Residential character areas and possible conflicts

Following on from this acknowledgment and understanding of the residential character qualities of

these inner suburbs of Townsville, the character values of these areas may be compromised or affected

by new development that may be encouraged through other parts of a planning scheme process, and

the identification of particular areas for residential infill or consolidation.

The brief and the reporting for this study overall required the various consultants preparing these

planning scheme studies to liaise with one another in order to gauge potential conflicts in the findings

and recommendations made across the various disciplines of each of the consultants.

For this Cultural Heritage Study, the other study that is most relevant in terms of assessing potential

conflicts or issues with the recommendations is the Residential Land Use Study (RLUS), which has

been prepared by Urbis.

The RLUS examines different scenarios for the future development of residential land in Townsville,

where and how this is to be developed, including both ‘greenfield’ and infill options.

The RLUS study has determined that there was sufficient ‘greenfield’ land supply for both urban and

rural residential development in Townsville to meet the projected demand for this need within the local

government area until 2031, with potential for this to extend out to 2036. In addition to this, the RLUS

devised three hypothetical scenarios for infill residential development:

dispersed consolidation – The allocation of residential infill across multiple

locations throughout the city (scenario 1);

activity centres focused consolidation – The allocation of residential infill

focused on the city’s activity centres (scenario 2);

node and corridor focused consolidation – The allocation of residential infill in

activity centres and the corridors linking these centres (scenario 3).


79

All three scenarios have indicated increased residential density in the CBD and the inner city suburbs,

which Urbis has defined as the SLAs surrounding the CBD – North Ward-Castle Hill, Railway Estate,

South Townsville and West End.

It is not surprising, given their inner city location, that these identified areas all contain large areas of

traditional character housing. It is also unsurprising that these areas have been earmarked for urban

consolidation and possible increased residential densities, as this represents a more efficient use of

land for residential purposes close to the CBD, close to services and facilities, and close to other

attractors.

While the CBD does not have a residential character as such, it contains many heritage buildings and

places that are entered in the Queensland Heritage Register, as well as places culturally significant to

the Townsville community which should be entered in the local heritage register of the new planning

scheme. Generally, the heritage places in the CBD are dispersed throughout the general city area and

punctuate those parts of the city centre in which they are found, but are also adjacent to many newer

developments. Cultural heritage values will no doubt remain, largely unaffected by new development.

Therefore, any attempts to increase residential densities in the CBD should not have a deleterious

impact on the cultural heritage significance of the CBD in broad terms, as long as identified heritage

places are conserved appropriately and incorporated into new developments appropriately (if this is

relevant).

It is also noted that new residential developments have occurred in recent years in the Townsville CBD,

of high densities (20+ storeys), and in some locations incorporating heritage buildings as well (the

Dalgety’s development for example). While these new developments may have changed the character

of the city area, the cultural heritage significance of the individually listed heritage buildings in the CBD

has remained.

The only area of the CBD which should ideally remain unaffected by new residential development

would be the northern side of Flinders Street East, which is an important heritage precinct as it features

a remarkably consistent building stock from the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Flinders

Street East contains many individually listed heritage places, which would probably prevent any major

redevelopment in this area for residential purposes, but there could be pressures for redevelopment

within these sites. The consistent scale of development in Flinders Street East is an important

component of its visual qualities and aesthetic value and any attempts to disrupt or modify that scale

could have impacts on this area.

From the available information and the level of detail indicated in the mapping prepared to date

scenario 3 (Node and Corridor) would appear to be preferable in terms of housing character and the

protection of this residential character of these inner areas. The Node and Corridor scenario proposes

increasing residential densities in West End, South Townsville, North Ward/Castle Hill and Hyde


80

Park/Mysterton, but at lower targets than the other scenarios (less than 500 additional dwellings in

West End and between 501-1000 additional dwellings in the other locations).

There is little to no detail on how these increases in density are to occur in terms of quantum of

development, height, scale of development, or on what sizes of sites. This is understandable, as the

fine grain analysis required to suggest a range of parameters has not been done and will not be done

for this RLUS.

The suburb of West End north of Ingham Road is an important heritage and character residential area.

It is also relatively intact with a smaller number of unit developments than other comparable suburbs.

While its proximity to the city centre is acknowledged, attempts to recognise the residential character

qualities of the suburb, by limiting the increases in residential densities proposed as part of a residential

infill strategy is to be encouraged. Any increases in residential density in this suburb will need to

carefully considered, located and designed.

South Townsville is also an important heritage and character area of the city and while it has undergone

recent changes with redevelopment along Palmer Street, it contains large areas and definable precincts

of traditional residential character. Large sections of South Townsville are identified in the Draft

Character Precincts Survey prepared by Townsville City Council.

There is however a clear and discernible change in the character of South Townsville south-east of

Perkins Street and the railway line, which changes from the more intensive mixed use focus around

Palmer Street, to a more consistent ‘character residential’ focus across the railway line. It is probable

that increased residential densities may be achievable without great impact on the character of South

Townsville, if the appropriate locations for proposed residential development are chosen.

Hyde Park and Mysterton are early suburbs of Townsville and feature many examples of traditional

housing character from the interwar period, in definable precincts. These suburbs are also relatively

intact in character terms, with large pockets of early housing unaffected by more modern intrusions.

Large portions of Mysterton are identified in the Draft Character Precincts Survey prepared by

Townsville City Council.

North Ward is an interesting part of the city for consideration in these terms. While the suburb contains

many places listed in Schedule 5 of the Townsville City Plan (many of which are thought to have

residential character value rather than cultural heritage significance), it also features a number of more

recent residential developments, it is close to the CBD, The Strand and the Townsville airport, and

enjoys other amenity considerations. All of these features and qualities may make the suburb a

relatively attractive proposition for an increased residential focus under the new planning scheme.

There is a clear division of North Ward on either side of Warburton Street, the main road from Bundock

Street into the city which effectively cuts the suburb in two. While both sides of the suburb feature large


81

areas of traditional residential character, together with more modern residential developments of a

greater density, the part of the suburb between The Strand and Warburton Street has a discernibly

different character than the area between Warburton Street and Castle Hill, which is relatively more

intact in residential character terms.

This issue has been discussed with Council officers in an informal manner. Further analysis and

consideration needs to be made about North Ward before any conclusive statements can be made

about its future residential and character outcomes in the new planning scheme. It is likely that it could

absorb additional density without impacting on residential character areas too greatly (if located in

appropriate areas).

It is acknowledged that the Options Report for the RLUS includes as a key insight and direction for the

development of a residential infill strategy includes:

agreement that character precincts within the city centre and inner city should

remain intact and not be impacted by redevelopment.

The articulation of this principle by the RLUS is welcomed. As noted above however there may be

opportunities to explore greater residential density in the CBD while conserving and protecting

significant elements of the city centre area.

While the RLUS offers the three infill scenarios described above, it also appears to combine the

elements of these scenarios into a single consolidated infill scenario. This mapping exercise identifies

the following locations and proposed residential increases in numbers of dwellings:

CBD (greater than 2,000 dwelling increase);

Oonoonba/Idalia – this is an Urban Development Area as designated by the

Urban Land Development Authority of the Queensland government (1,001-

2,000 dwelling increase);

North Ward (1,001-2,000 dwelling increase);

South Townsville (501-1,000 dwelling increase);

West End (501-1,000 dwelling increase);

Railway Estate (501-1,000 dwelling increase);

Hyde Park/Mysterton (501-1,000 dwelling increase);

Aitkenvale (501-1,000 dwelling increase);

James Cook University Node – Discovery Rise (501-1,000 dwelling increase);

Thuringowa Central (less than 500 dwelling increase).

This consolidated infill scenario also incorporates corridor development along the Ross River Road to

Thuringowa Central.


82

The recommended approach in the RLUS for infill residential development in Townsville is therefore in

the following locations:

primary locations – CBD and surrounds;

secondary locations – Aitkenvale and Thuringowa;

tertiary locations (Hyde Park, Bowen Road and Ross River Road node,

Charters Towers Road node, JCU campus, Oonoonba ULDA site,

Mundingburra node).

In this it is assumed that the ‘surrounds’ of the CBD include those inner suburbs noted above – South

Townsville, West End, North Ward and Railway Estate.

The statements made previously in this section concerning the residential character values of these

suburbs are reiterated in response to the above consolidated infill scenario.

It is considered that of the suburbs identified for possible increases in residential densities in the RLUS,

West End would be the most sensitive to such development, then South Townsville, then Hyde

Park/Mysterton, and then North Ward. While Railway Estate has large areas of traditional residential

character, it would appear that the preferred location for increased residential densities in this suburb is

part of an approved residential development that is being developed over stages.

Any attempts at increasing residential densities in the inner suburban areas of Townsville will need to be aware of and pay due regard to areas of character housing,

and minimise intrusions into these areas. It is considered that West End and South

Townsville would be the suburbs most sensitive to increased residential densities.


83

6.0 STRATEGY AND POLICY

6.1 The Queensland Planning Provisions

As noted in section 3.1.4 of this report, the SPA allows for the creation of standard planning scheme

provisions for the whole of Queensland, for the purpose of standardising planning schemes across the

state – the Queensland Planning Provisions (the QPP).

The purpose of the QPP is to:

provide a clear and consistent framework for planning schemes in Queensland

assist the implementation of state, regional and local policies affecting land use

and development

assist in the integration of state, regional, local and community expectations for

planning scheme areas.

Cultural heritage and character issues are acknowledged in the QPP as important elements of cities

and towns to be addressed in planning schemes. These issues are implicit throughout the QPP.

Module B of the QPP determines the following planning scheme elements, which identify how land in

the planning scheme area is organised, to be mandatory components of a planning scheme:

strategic framework;

priority infrastructure plan;

zones;

declared master planned areas where contained within the scheme area.

Module B of the QPP further determines that the following planning scheme elements are optional

components of a planning scheme:

overlays;

local plans;

precincts of zones;

precincts of local plans;

planning scheme policies.


84

6.2 Strategic framework

In accordance with the provisions of Module B of the QPP the strategic framework of the new planning

scheme for the Townsville City Council does the following:

sets the policy position for the whole of the planning scheme area;

identifies the future development intent for the planning scheme area;

where there is a regional plan, identifies that it is consistent with the regional

plan;

is used in the assessment of impact assessable development;

is used where the development does not comply with the applicable code/s.

The strategic framework is arranged with the following components:

themes;

strategic outcomes;

elements;

specific outcomes;

land use strategies.

Where a Regional Plan exists for the local government’s region, the themes for the Strategic

Framework of the planning scheme are derived from the desired regional outcomes (DRO) in the

Regional Plan. Where there is no Regional Plan (such as in Townsville) the QPP determines a basic

structure for the Strategic Framework of the planning scheme which is based on the following seven

themes:

settlement pattern;

natural environment;

community identity and diversity;

natural resources and landscape;

access and mobility;

economic development;

infrastructure and services.

6.2.1 Themes

The QPP themes relevant to Cultural Heritage and Residential Character are Settlement Pattern and

Community Identity and Diversity.

The policy statement for the Settlement Pattern theme is as follows:


85

The pattern of planned land use integrates existing and future development and maintains the

natural and scenic qualities of the landscape. The planned expansion of urban areas is

underpinned by community need while maintaining and enhancing access to services,

recreational and social infrastructure. The unique architectural, cultural, historic, scientific,

natural, social or spiritual qualities of places are conserved and enhanced by development…

The policy statement for the Community Identity and Diversity theme is as follows:

Development enhances the character and identity of existing and future communities in urban

and rural areas. It facilitates the provision of services, facilities, open space, parks and

linkages, recreation areas, opportunities for active and passive recreation, places to work, live

and play and to celebrate culture, history and identity. The conservation and re-use of

heritage places is facilitated. Planning assists in the timely provision of social infrastructure

such as educational institutions and health services.

6.2.2 Elements

Infill development is one of the elements of the Settlement Pattern theme for the Strategic Framework,

while cultural heritage and indigenous cultural heritage are two of the elements of the Community

Identity and Diversity theme.

Infill development is relevant to considerations of residential character, while the elements of cultural

heritage and indigenous cultural heritage are self-explanatory.

The QPP acknowledges that some elements may occur across a number of themes and may need to

be included in more than a single theme.

Cultural heritage and Indigenous cultural heritage are elements that may occur across both the

Settlement Pattern and Community Identity and diversity themes. The policy statements for both

themes include references to heritage issues, although heritage is not listed as a relevant element to

the Settlement Pattern theme and is only listed in the Community identity and diversity theme.

6.2.3 Example provisions

The following statements have been tabulated to follow the format specified in the QPP, to demonstrate

how strategic policy for heritage and character can be integrated into the Strategic Framework for the

new planning scheme:


86

Element Strategic Outcomes Specific Outcomes Land Use Strategies

Infill development Townsville has areas of

special and unique

residential character,

derived from the

prevailing topography

and vegetation, but

primarily from extant

housing stock. Much of

this existing housing

stock will remain and

new development will

be encouraged to

reflect dominant design

elements in these

areas.

The special character of

Townsville’s residential

areas is recognised and

protected. Infill

development in specific

residential areas is

consistent with the

established character in

these areas.

A Neighbourhood

Character Overlay is

created by the planning

scheme which

recognises and

encompasses those

parts of the city that

have special residential

character value.

A Neighbourhood

Character Overlay

Code is created by the

planning scheme.

Demolition or removal

of houses in these

identified overlay areas

will be assessable

under this Overlay

Code.

New development in

neighbourhood

character overlay areas

complements traditional

building elements and

the general scale of

development in these

areas.

A Residential Character

Zone is created in some

specific parts of the city

to reflect and conserve

the strong traditional

residential character of

these areas.

Cultural heritage Townsville has been the The planning scheme A local heritage register


87

major city of North

Queensland since

European settlement.

There is much evidence

of this legacy and

history in the built

environment and urban

fabric of the city.

The cultural heritage of

Townsville makes a

major contribution to the

identity of the city and

local communities.

The cultural heritage of

Townsville is identified

and conserved for the

present and future

Townsville

communities. New

development reflects

and respects cultural

significance where

appropriate.

identifies and conserves

cultural heritage, by

listing places of cultural

heritage and landscape

heritage significance on

a local heritage register.

The development of

places of cultural

heritage significance

does not detract from

this heritage

significance.

The reuse of cultural

heritage places for new

uses is supported.

Development adjoining

or contiguous to a local

heritage place does not

cause adverse impacts

on significant views or

the visual setting of the

heritage place.

is created by the

planning scheme and

includes all places

considered to be of

(non-indigenous)

cultural heritage

significance.

A Heritage Overlay is

created by the planning

scheme and is

populated by places

entered in the local

heritage register.

A Heritage Overlay

Code is created by the

planning scheme and is

used in the assessment

of development of

places entered in the

local heritage register

and recognised by the

Heritage Overlay.

The cultural heritage

significance of these

places will be a

consideration in the

assessment of

development of heritage

places. Development

that will have an

adverse impact on

cultural significance and

cause a major loss to

this cultural significance

is inappropriate.

New uses for heritage


88

places will be supported

where it is

demonstrated that

these new uses are

compatible with the

cultural heritage

significance of these

places and minimise the

impacts on or removal

of significant fabric.

Indigenous cultural

heritage

Development in the


is consistent with the

provisions of the

Aboriginal Cultural

Heritage Act 2003 with

respect to Aboriginal

cultural heritage places,

and the identification

and conservation of

these places. Places of

Aboriginal cultural

heritage significance

are not identified in this

planning scheme, and

will be recognised and

afforded protection

where this is

appropriate under that

legislation.

There are no adverse

impacts on any place

that has cultural

heritage significance to

Aboriginal or Torres

Strait Islander peoples.

Land use and

development in the


are to be consistent

with Aboriginal cultural

heritage values.

Development must be

carried out and take all

reasonable and

practicable measures to

ensure such

development activity

does not harm

Aboriginal cultural

heritage.

6.3 QPP overlays

The QPP indicates that identified heritage places and designated character areas can be

accommodated within planning schemes as “overlays”. With respect to overlays and overlay codes, the

text of Module B describes overlays as follows:

The term 'overlay' is used to identify special attributes of land that are sensitive to the effects

of development, or may constrain development due to an environmental hazard or the value

of a resource.


89

The purpose of an overlay is to address both State and local government interests by identifying areas

that include one or all of the following:

Be sensitive to the effects of development;

Constrain land or development;

Be subject to valuable resources; or

Present opportunities for development.

The standard suite of overlays in Module B includes land included in a development constraints

category, character category, infrastructure category, environment category and land that contains

natural resources.

Land in a character category includes the following:

Heritage – the heritage overlay deals with areas identified as local or State

heritage sites;

Landscape heritage – the landscape heritage overlay deals with landscapes

with significant indigenous or non-indigenous cultural heritage value identified

in a regional plan or by a local government;

Neighbourhood character – the neighbourhood character overlay deals

primarily with pre-1946 dwelling houses and other neighbourhoods with

significant character identified by a local government. This may include

demolition control precincts; (added emphasis)

Scenic amenity – the scenic amenity overlay deals with areas of high scenic

amenity and significant view corridors identified by regional plans or by a local

government.

In preparing its new planning scheme, Council can utilise the Heritage Overlay provisions for identified

sites in the local government area that are included in the local heritage register for the planning

scheme. As the local heritage register should include places in the Townsville City Council local

government area on the Queensland Heritage Register, the heritage overlay in the new planning

scheme will include all State and local heritage places and should operate as intended by the QPP.

Similarly, in preparing its new planning scheme, Council can utilise the neighbourhood character

overlay for those areas that contain special housing character – what Council considers to be the

character housing to be identified and protected. The words significant and traditional have been

avoided in this analysis as the term significant is normally used for cultural heritage matters, while the

term traditional implies pre-1946 housing. While the QPP provisions mention pre-1946 for

neighbourhood character housing, it would appear that this is not an absolute requirement, as the

definition allows for other neighbourhoods with significant character identified by a local


90

government. It would appear that Council could identify areas such as Balgal Beach, Gulliver and

Vincent as residential character areas (if it wanted to), and this would not contravene the requirements

of the QPP.

Therefore, it is recommended as an option for Council’s consideration that a Neighbourhood Character

Overlay be created for those areas that have special housing character. The mapping in the Draft

Character Precincts survey may be a useful basis for the creation of these neighbourhood character

overlay areas.

It is acknowledged that the QPP indicate that the inclusion of sites in a planning scheme overlay should

not automatically change the level of assessment. Indeed the QPP envisages that there would be few

instances where this would occur, as overlays generally affect a development either as a constraint or

an opportunity requiring the application of additional assessment criteria, as overlays trigger the

assessment of development against an applicable code or provisions in another code.

While the QPP does not envisage this, it is clear that in both heritage and character overlays the level of

assessment for building work (and only building work) to sites affected by the heritage or character

overlay will change the level of assessment, probably from exempt or self-assessable, to code or

impact assessable.

For example, demolition of a house is not usually assessable against a planning scheme, while building

work for a house may be self-assessable if the acceptable solutions of the relevant residential code are

met. However demolition or building work to a house (or indeed some other building) that is on land

subject to the heritage or character overlay will be assessable, and at least code assessable (or

potentially impact for demolition) development.

6.4 Zones and precincts

While heritage places can be recognised in a planning scheme, they can be found across many types

of land uses or typologies (residential, commercial, recreational, or industrial).

It would be incorrect to envisage a heritage ‘zone’ for a planning scheme, as land use outcomes for

heritage places will vary from site to site, from the underlying (and proposed) land use for one site to

underlying (and proposed) land use for another site.

As areas of residential character are more consistent in terms of underlying and preferred land uses

there is more potential for a zone or precinct to be created that recognises residential character areas

or values.


91

6.4.1 QPP zones

In discussing possible zones for a planning scheme, the QPP describes a residential zone called

“Character Residential”.

The purpose of the Character Residential zone in the QPP is to preserve the existing historic character

of the area including existing buildings, mature plantings and the streetscape. The QPP further

indicates that development within such a zone should be sensitive to the existing historic character of

the area by incorporating design elements that are compatible with this historic character.

The purpose of the zone is to provide for the character of a predominantly residential area. The

residential uses are supported by community uses and small-scale services and facilities that cater for

local residents.

The QPP suggests overall outcomes for a character residential zone as follows:

protects existing character from unsuitable development;

provides for a range of residential dwelling choices that reflect the

existing character;

development that facilitates urban consolidation and the efficient use of

physical and social infrastructure is encouraged where it complements

and maintains the existing character; (added emphasis)

development is designed to incorporate sustainable practices including

maximising energy efficiency, water conservation and transport use;

development provides a high level of amenity and is reflective of the

surrounding character of the area;

the scale and density of development facilitates an efficient land use pattern

that supports walkable neighbourhoods that are well connected to employment

nodes, centres, open space and recreational areas, community services and

educational opportunities;

non-residential uses may be supported where such uses directly support the

day to day needs of the immediate residential community, do not detract from

the character, and do not undermine the viability of nearby centres;

development responds to land constraints, including but not limited to

topography, bushfire and flooding constraints;

development mitigates any adverse impacts on adjoining areas of

environmental significance, including creeks, gullies, waterways, wetlands,

coastal areas, habitats and vegetation and bushland through location, design,

operation and management requirements.


92

The first three overall outcomes listed above encompass the identification and protection of residential

character areas.

While a new planning scheme can create a ‘character residential’ zone, it appears that the land in this

zone needs to be included as well in the Neighbourhood Character overlay in a planning scheme, and

referred to as such in the planning scheme, in order to make development applications over such areas

assessable development. Terms such as ‘Demolition Control Precinct’, or indeed ‘Character

Residential Zone’ are not sufficient – it is understood that the QPP determine that the Neighbourhood

Character overlay is required in order to control the demolition of character houses.

In any event the Character Residential Zone is just that – a zone. The QPP states that zones:

..organise the planning scheme area in a way that facilitates the location of preferred or

acceptable land uses.

The ‘overlay’ provisions encompass some form of constraint, unlike the zone provisions. As noted

above the QPP states that overlays are used to:

…identify special attributes of land that are sensitive to the effects of development, or may

constrain development due to an environmental hazard or the value of a resource.

The creation of a Character Residential Zone in those areas of the inner suburbs that have strong

traditional character values and to which the Neighbourhood Character Overlay areas would also apply

is recommended.

The precise field work to determine these areas has not been done for this Cultural Heritage Study as it

was not required. Further, the precise areas of the city to which this zoning may apply will need to be

developed in due reference to the recommendations in the Residential Land Use Study.

The Neighbourhood Character Overlay is required to be applied in those areas identified to contain

areas of special residential character as a separate but related planning scheme mechanism, as

opposed to the mere imposition of a Character Residential zone. It is likely, or possible, that all areas

of special residential character would not be in the within Character Residential zone. The QPP allows

for five different types of residential zones:

Residential living

Residential choice

Apartment residential

Character residential

Tourist accommodation


93

The possibility of other zones allows for some flexibility in approach for the new planning scheme to

balance the protection of traditional residential character, new development, and increasing residential

densities in inner areas.

To summarise, a Neighbourhood Character Overlay area would need to be applied over some of the

identified areas of special residential character, to allow demolition control of houses within these areas

that contribute to this character. The Character Residential Zone and the provisions for this would

support this overlay in those areas where this zone is applied. However it is understood that the

character overlay mechanism is required as a first and base step – the character zone will assist in

achieving character outcomes, but it is not essential to do so. It is understood that the Character

Residential Zone by itself is not sufficient to provide the appropriate mechanisms to identify and

conserve neighbourhood character.

6.5 Planning scheme codes

The new planning scheme will require a cultural heritage code associated with the identified heritage

places and the heritage overlay.

6.5.1 A heritage code

The local heritage register (whatever its contents) should be linked to a heritage overlay and associated

heritage overlay code in the new planning scheme for the Townsville City Council local government

area.

The code would need to be identified as an applicable code against which development on any of those

places in the register will be assessed against.

The code should include a purpose, performance criteria and acceptable solutions for development of

places of cultural heritage significance. It would also need to clearly describe which places it applies to

and in what circumstances it applies.

The purpose of the code generally is the conservation of the identified elements of cultural heritage

significance in Townsville.

While potential development scenarios of heritage places are specific to each place, the code needs to

articulate that the proposed development of places entered in the local heritage register has been

conceived and prepared with due regard of the cultural heritage significance of the subject local

heritage place.


94

As most heritage places are buildings, the proposed development of heritage places can affect heritage

values and cultural significance when building works are proposed to heritage places that remove or

demolish whole buildings or parts of buildings, gutting the interiors of buildings, or constructing new

buildings within the sites of existing heritage places. All actions can have impacts on the cultural

heritage significance of heritage places.

The current Townsville Cultural Heritage Features Code is applicable to material change of use

applications on or adjacent to sites listed in Schedule 5 (the LHD) of the Townsville planning scheme.

The administrative definitions in the scheme indicate that adjacent is defined as “lying near and

adjoining”, and includes a small diagram that shows a representative site listed in the LHD and a total of

eight individual lots as being defined as adjacent to the LHD site and therefore being bound by the

heritage overlay code provisions. The eight lots include lots directly opposite and diagonally opposite

the cultural heritage feature, those contiguous with the heritage feature and diagonally behind the

heritage feature.

It is suggested that the applicability of a heritage code to include the eight surrounding lots in the

example illustrated in the Townsville planning scheme definitions of “adjacent” is overly ambitious. This

should be discouraged. It is difficult to understand how the heritage significance of a particular site

could be affected or impacted on by development occurring diagonally across a street from the heritage

place, or on a site diagonally behind that does not share a visible boundary with the heritage place.

The only impact could be on views to the heritage place, which by the location of the lots identified as

being subject to the code provisions, would be it is considered be very marginal at best.

The heritage provisions of the SEQ Regional Plan and the FNQ Regional Plan give some clues as to

the applicability of a heritage code in the new planning scheme for the Townsville City Council local

government area. It is acknowledged that a Regional Plan does not exist for North Queensland, but it

is considered useful to examine those in existence for guidance in this matter. Both the SEQ and FNQ

Regional Plans include as land use policies in respect to cultural heritage objectives that development

in or adjacent to Queensland heritage places and local heritage places does not compromise the

cultural heritage significance of those places.

The definition of the term adjacent is the critical aspect of this. It is recommended that Council abandon

the term “adjacent” and replace it with a term such as adjoining, or contiguous, to only capture those

lots the development of which may have an impact on the cultural heritage values of an identified

heritage place, which are considered to be those that share a common boundary (in most cases a side

boundary), those places that have a direct visual bearing on the heritage place itself.

The heritage code also needs to consider places of potential archaeological value. It would need to

recognise that the significance of these places is not in the above ground fabric but in the potential they

hold to contain information of value to the history of Townsville in-situ. The code would need to refer to

the probability of the imposition of approval conditions on development of such places, that if


95

excavation was to take place then an archaeological consultant may need to be appointed to supervise

such excavation, and then prepare a report on findings to be lodged with Council and the Heritage and

Urban Planning Unit, to demonstrate compliance with the code for archaeological places.

6.5.2 A ‘character’ code

To identify and protect the traditional character within certain suburbs of the Townsville City Council

local government area the new planning scheme should consider a “Neighbourhood Character” code,

or “Demolition” code. The precise title could to be determined later, but the term “Neighbourhood

Character” would align with the QPP definitions.

This code is applicable in two discrete but related ways:

Building work including demolition/removal of buildings of traditional character

value;

Building work to existing buildings or to new buildings in these areas, to

regulate the design, form and appearance of this new building work in these

designated neighbourhood character areas.

The most important method of the maintenance of traditional character values is the implementation of

provisions controlling demolition and removal of those places that help create this character. This can

be achieved by preparing a specific code in the planning scheme with regard to the protection of

traditional character values in those identified areas of the Townsville City Council local government

area.

The Neighbourhood Character Overlay provisions should recognise and protect these residential

character places and the particular qualities they give to this part of the city, encompassing both

existing houses and new development in this area. Development in the designated Neighbourhood

Character Overlay in the new planning scheme area would be assessed against the Neighbourhood

Character Overlay Code.

The object of this Neighbourhood Character Code would be to conserve the established residential

characteristics contained within the Character Overlay area. Provisions controlling house removal

and/or demolition are vital to preserve streetscape and character values and should be considered as

part of this code.

The Neighbourhood Character Code could contain provisions that seek to prevent relocation and

demolition of those houses that contribute to the residential character values in these identified areas,

and require that demolition or removal in these areas is assessable development.


96

Demolition and removal controls still allow some scope for demolition and removal, but as assessable

development and via a development approval. If it can be demonstrated by the proponent of a

development that the removal of a particular building from a designated character overlay area will not

compromise the character values of the area, then the proposed demolition or removal can be

approved. Further, if it can be demonstrated by the proponent of a development that the particular

house proposed for removal does not demonstrate character values (it is a modern house or has been

substantially altered and does not then make a positive contribution to this character) then the proposed

demolition or removal may be allowed.

The Character Code should not regulate works that will not impact on residential character values. This

would include, but not be limited to, extensions to the rear of properties, internal works or changes to

houses, the construction of car ports and other buildings within view of the streetscape as long as

certain guidelines were achieved (via a self-assessable type checklist).

The code should contain guidelines for self-assessable development in the designated character

overlay area such that residents know which work requires approval and which work does not, which

may gently encourage owners to carry out works that are not assessable development and do not

require development approval.

The demolition and/or removal of character houses in the designated character overlay area would be

assessable development and should be at least code assessable development. Such development

would be assessed against the Neighbourhood Character Overlay Code. Council may consider

whether some parts of the inner residential area have such valued residential character that demolition

and/or removal be impact assessable development (parts of South Townsville, West End for example).

Similarly it is recommended that new development in the Neighbourhood Character Overlay area be

regulated by the Neighbourhood Character Code to assess the impact that this new development will

have on the established residential character in this Character Overlay area. A series of design

guidelines could be included in the Character Code to guide new development in these proposed

Character areas, concerning such elements as:

height;

construction materials;

setbacks and placement of buildings on sites;

roof forms;

overall scale and form;

density.

New development would be assessed for its impact on the character of the local streetscape and the

area. Consideration of these elements in new design in the proposed Neighbourhood Character


97

Overlay area should ensure that new development is sympathetic to the dominant residential character

of the area, with regard to the broad building elements described above.

The protection of the residential character of an area can be assisted by the provisions of the planning

scheme and the uses envisaged for those areas under the scheme. In residential areas, places where

increased residential densities are proposed in areas where lower densities are apparent can drive up

land values and encourage redevelopment of sites. This planning scheme designation can encourage

the redevelopment of such sites, which places pressure on the existing housing stock in terms of

proposed demolition or removal of character housing, and thereby compromise the character values of

the area.

Plate 9: A new residential development in Morehead Street, South Townsville, that is not sympathetic with the traditional residential character of the area – in terms of bulk, scale, height, or materials.

The above photograph illustrates a recent residential development in Morehead Street South

Townsville that is not sympathetic with the traditional character of the area. Its bulk, scale and height

are inconsistent with the prevailing streetscape and qualities of this fine character area. This type of

development should not be encouraged in this suburb as it is not consistent with the traditional

residential character of the area.

As a contrast, another new residential development in the same street of South Townsville is illustrated

below. While it allows a much reduced yield, the development is much more sympathetic to the existing

residential character of South Townsville, in its bulk, building form and expression, height and design

details. These two developments show quite clearly and easily the importance of density outcomes in


98

traditional housing character areas and the conflicts between achieving increased densities and the

retention of traditional housing character.

Plate 10: Another residential development in Morehead Street South Townsville which is more sympathetic to, and more consistent with, the established residential character of the suburb.

Council needs to realise and understand the strong impact that land use zoning has on the retention of

character housing and character areas. Low density residential development should be encouraged in

character areas as much as possible, or at least be considered against the density targets in areas

identified in the Residential Land Use Study.

6.6 Levels of assessment

The Cultural Heritage Study offers the following recommendations on the proposed levels of

assessment for heritage places and character areas in the new planning scheme for the Townsville City

Council.

6.6.1 Levels of assessment - heritage

For the purposes of development assessment for heritage places, any assessable development of a

site entered in the heritage register for the new planning scheme for the Townsville City Council will be

subject to at least code assessment. Council could choose to make such development impact

assessable if it so desires. This is explained further below, and the circumstances wherein Council

could elect to have assessable development impact assessable are discussed.


99

The following text analyses the relevant sections of the SPA in its discussions of levels of assessments

for local heritage places (that is, places entered in a local heritage register in accordance with the

provisions of Part 11 of the QHA). Although this is not relevant for the former Townsville City Council

local government area, the reasons for this will become readily apparent.

Section 232 of the SPA provides that a regulation may prescribe that development is self-assessable

development, development requiring compliance assessment, or assessable development. Schedule 3

of the Sustainable Planning Regulation 2009 is the relevant section of the SPR with respect to this.

Part 1, Table 5 (various aspects of development) item 3 of Schedule 3 of the SPR confirms that all

aspects of development on a local heritage place (with four types of exceptions) constitute code

assessable development, unless a planning scheme, temporary local planning instrument, master plan

or preliminary approval to which section 242 of the SPA applies requires such development to be

impact assessable.

It is quite probable that development involving only Building Work (and no other assessable

development) could be proposed to places entered in the local a heritage register as part of the new

planning scheme for the Townsville City Council – a new garage, verandah, the addition of bedrooms or

other rooms to a residential property that may represent additional gross floor area but may not

represent a material change of use.

It is acknowledged that the above discussion relates to local heritage places identified in accordance

with the processes of Part 11 of the QHA. It has been emphasised at length that the former Townsville

City Council is exempt from these provisions. Nevertheless it is considered that for consistency this

same level of assessment would have to be applied to heritage places in the former Townsville City

Council local government area, and the former Thuringowa City Council local government area,

regardless of the resolution of the Part 11 amendments with respect to the amalgamated Townsville

City Council local government area.

It is considered that a level of assessment of code assessment for development over heritage places

listed in a local government planning scheme represents a ‘base’ level of assessment, as a result of the

Part 11 amendments to the QHA.

The effect of these provisions is that all aspects of development on a heritage place identified in the

new local heritage register for the new Townsville planning scheme will have to be at least code

assessable. It is considered that such development of a heritage place cannot be made self-

assessable, compliance assessable, prohibited or exempt development under the new planning

scheme for the Townsville City Council.


100

Therefore it is considered that the proposed development of a heritage place identified in the new local

heritage register for the Townsville City Council local government area for the following purposes will be

code assessable development in the new Townsville planning scheme:

carrying out building work;

carrrying out plumbing or drainage work;

carrying out operational work;

reconfiguring a lot;

making a material change of use of premises.

All aspects of development on local heritage places in the new planning scheme for the Townsville City

Council local government area will be at least code assessable. The planning scheme provisions can

make such development impact assessable.

The above requirement is not dissimilar from the existing requirements of the Townsville City Plan and

the Cultural Heritage Features Code, wherein building work to places in the LHD is code assessable

development.

However it would appear that there are currently no requirements in the Townsville City Plan and the

Cultural Heritage Features Code for development applications for reconfiguration of lot on places on the

LHD to be made assessable development, and be assessed against any provisions of the planning

scheme.

In instances where a place is included in the Queensland Heritage Register as a State heritage place it

is possible, and common, for applicants to seek exemption certificates for maintenance work, minor

repair work and other forms of minor work (such as kitchen and bathroom fitouts – work that has no or

minimal impact on cultural heritage significance).

Therefore any Heritage Code in the new planning scheme will need to recognise the exemption

certificate provisions under the QHA and render such work exempt development under the planning

scheme at least for development involving Building Work only.

The proposed development of a heritage place identified in the new local heritage

register for the Townsville City Council local government area will be at least code assessable development.


101

6.6.2 The proposed removal/demolition of heritage places

It is recommended that Council further consider the level of assessment for the proposed removal

and/or demolition of heritage places to be impact assessable development, as opposed to code

assessable development.

It is clearly evident that moving or demolishing a place of cultural heritage significance seriously

compromises its cultural significance.

If relocated, the place is removed from its original location, and in most cases is divorced from its

historical setting and context. Its contribution to the wider history of the town or location is in most

cases compromised. The building then becomes a shell or cipher of its former self.

Demolition is the ultimate act against a heritage place, which destroys its significance in total as such

that no conservation work can ameliorate such an act. Demolition can never be a preferred

conservation outcome.

The Burra Charter: the Australia ICOMOS Charter for places of cultural significance, 1999, states in

relation to location of heritage places and the removal of these:

Article 9. Location

9.1 The physical location of a place is part of its cultural significance. Ã building, work or

other component of a place should remain in its historical location. Relocation is generally

unacceptable unless this is the sole practical means of ensuring its survival.

9.2 Some buildings, works or other components of places were designed to be readily

removable or already have a history of relocation. Provided such buildings, works or other

components do not have significant links with their present location, removal may be

appropriate.

9.3 If any building, work or other component is moved, it should be moved 1o an

appropriate location and given an appropriate use. Such action should not be to the

detriment of any place of cultural significance.

As a planning scheme may make such development impact assessable development, it is

recommended that Council consider making the relocation and/or demolition of a local heritage place to

be Impact Assessable development. As a result such assessable development would then be

assessed against the planning scheme as a whole and any relevant state planning policies, and would

provide for public notification.


102

Council should consider making building work (demolition or removal) applications

over local heritage places impact assessable development.

6.6.3 Levels of assessment – character

It is recommended that Council require the demolition or removal of character buildings in the

designated Neighbourhood Character overlay areas and certain development works to houses to be at

least code assessable development, and be assessed against the provisions of the Character Code.

Council may consider the proposed demolition or removal of character houses in specific parts of the

city to be subject to impact assessment (in parts of South Townsville or West End for example), to

reflect the more consistent and high quality residential character values of the building stock of those

areas.

Apart from demolition or removal, certain development works to those places identified in the

designated character overlay areas may be code assessable development and be assessed against

the code provisions relating to new building work in areas of residential character value and entered in

the Neighbourhood Character Overlay area.

The code should contain provisions that should seek to regulate other building works that may impact

on or compromise these character values, but not prevent works or development that do not have an

effect on character values or the contribution these buildings make to the city and region.

The character code could regulate external building works such as elevating houses and enclosing

underneath, making additions to houses at the front of sites, and for the construction of

outbuilding/garages/carports at the front of sites (as new building work to existing houses in character

areas).

It is considered that extensions to the rear of character houses would be the preferred method of house

extension or addition in these areas. The code could provide for this preference by containing

provisions for such building work to be self-assessable development.

The construction of carports and garages at the street front similarly could be controlled by the code or

guided in a manner that allows for the most compatible development forms. One method for achieving

this in most circumstances is to provide for self assessable development where the gable roof form of

the garage has the same pitch as the existing house. Other built forms could be assessable

development. It is understood that this is similar to the existing provisions of the Townsville planning

scheme.


103

A Character Code should not place any restrictions on internal building works or alterations, or external

building works or additions/alterations at the rear of the site, as such works do not compromise or

impact on the character values of the area.

Additions to character houses that do not affect streetscape values or the visual contribution such

houses make to street views would not be considered under a Character Code. A rough line of halfway

along the depth of the house on the block could be taken as a reasonable point at which an extension

or alteration forward of this line becomes assessable development and caught within the code

provisions. This would mean that any extension that comes forward of the half-way point along the

depth of the house as it is located on its block would be assessable development – an extension that

does not encroach this halfway-point of the depth of the house on the block would not.

The demolition or removal of houses and character buildings in the designated

Neighbourhood Character Overlay areas should be code assessable development. Council could consider the proposed demolition or removal of character houses in

specific parts of the city to be subject to impact assessment.

6.7 Local area plans

Local area plans provide detailed guidance for land use planning and development outcomes at a

localised level in particular localities.

It is clear, from the site investigations carried out for this study, that some parts of Townsville may

benefit from or may require the preparation of local areas plans to guide land use planning and

development outcomes at a local level, where cultural heritage matters would be a major factor in the

preparation and articulation of these local plans and local planning provisions.

It is expected that a local area plan may be prepared for the Townsville CBD as part of the new

planning scheme. The Townsville CBD contains many places of cultural heritage significance and

indeed many places on the Queensland Heritage Register. Increasing residential densities in the city

centre may be pursued by the new planning scheme. It is likely that this may lead to pressure on

heritage sites and the development options available in the CBD.

While heritage values should be recognised and considered on listed sites through the operation of the

heritage codes (and the input of DERM on places entered in the Queensland Heritage Register through

the provisions of the QHA), it is important that any redevelopment of heritage places in the CBD in

particular does not encourage “facadism”. A Local Area Plan for the CBD will need to recognise this.

“Facadism”, the practice of demolishing most of a building but leaving its front elevation to preserve the

former streetscape value of the building, to create room for new development behind, is considered an


104

outdated and inappropriate conservation mechanism. Such a practice was quite prevalent in the 1980s

and early 1990s, rather than in more recent history, prior to any effective heritage legislation being

introduced in Queensland. Brisbane has many examples of facades being retained from this period

and incorporated into new development. Currently, the practice is at best avoided (in a theoretical

sense), or at least is strongly discouraged by heritage authorities and within general conservation

practice.

It is always problematic, and one that often cleaves the heritage and development industries from each

other. Facadism is no longer seen as a viable conservation approach – it is little more than tokenism,

and is not even a half-hearted response to heritage conservation. However the practice of facadism in

part attempts to conserve the scale of the streetscape and the aesthetic values of the public realm, that

part of the building that contributes to the public domain.8

In this regard development that is proposed on the site of a local heritage place in the CBD, which will

be in all probability of a greater scale and dimension than the heritage place, needs to consider the

cultural significance of the local heritage place and the conservation of significant building fabric. The

local heritage place needs to be considered as a whole building that requires conservation, and not just

as a façade contributing to the streetscape and townscape.

It is possible heritage places can be physically incorporated into new development that takes place

behind the existing building. In these circumstances it is recommended that new development present

a transition from the old to the new within the site. New development should not remove, obscure or

compromise the rear parts of buildings. In many instances the rear elevations of heritage buildings can

be as important in historical and aesthetic terms as the front elevations, in demonstrating how buildings

were used in the past. These should be considered as part of proposed development on areas within

the CBD and conserved where they contribute to the cultural heritage significance of these local

heritage places.

The suburb of South Townsville is clearly an area that has gone through recent transition with intensive

‘urban renewal’ type developments in Palmer Street that have affected the character of this area

remarkably. Its close location to the CBD and Ross Creek and the lifestyle opportunities provided

mean that this development pressure may continue into the future. A Local Area Plan for this area may

consider heritage and character provisions additional to the code requirements.

It is possible that development on Magnetic Island may warrant a Local Area Plan. The island contains

many ‘ordinary’ houses (that are on the LHD) that are no doubt an element of the residential character

of the island. It is possible that demolition or removal of these character houses could be assessed

against a Magnetic Island LAP Code, if these houses are not finally recognised by the heritage or

character planning provisions. 8 See National Trust of New South Wales, Facadism: a policy paper (Sydney, 1985) for further discussion of this topic.


105

It is considered that local plans may designate specific areas that could be subject to heritage

considerations with respect to new development, which are not heritage places themselves, or are not

adjacent to heritage places, but their redevelopment may prejudice heritage places. One such area is

the vacant land opposite Flinders Street East in the CBD, which allows fine views of the important

heritage streetscape of Flinders Street East. No doubt there are other such places. The ‘fine grain’,

local area planning process is a method in which these types of places can be identified and

recognised.

6.8 Other relevant information

The Cultural Heritage Study offers the following additional information that may be considered by the

Townsville City Council in the preparation of its new planning scheme. This is information that may not

reside in the planning scheme itself but can be included as a planning scheme policy.

6.8.1 A heritage planning scheme policy

Planning scheme policies support the local dimensions of a matter dealt with by a planning scheme.

They can only address local planning matters and must not regulate or prohibit development or the use

of premises; or take the place of a policy which should be contained within the main body of the

planning scheme.

An option for Council’s consideration is that the new planning scheme for the Townsville City Council be

supported by a Heritage Planning Scheme Policy. Such a policy could explain in more detail the

cultural heritage values of the city and wider region, and the approach followed by the heritage

provisions of the scheme.

The planning scheme policy could provide advice on both identification of new heritage places and

conservation of existing heritage places. Heritage is not a static beast, and it is more than likely that

new places will be considered for heritage identification and conservation as culture changes and the

‘past’ changes over time.

In this regard a planning scheme policy for heritage needs to address the likelihood of additional places

being added to the register over time, and indicate the process by which new places can be entered in

the new heritage register for the City.


106

6.8.2 Heritage criteria

The Townsville City Council should consider the adoption of heritage criteria, or criteria for cultural

heritage significance, for places entered in its local heritage register.

Normally heritage criteria are promulgated to which places are assessed against and arguments made

for places to satisfy this criterion, or that criterion. If Council is of the opinion that a place satisfies one

of more of these criteria, the place is then entered in the heritage register.

A place usually only has to satisfy one criteria of significance to be considered culturally significant and

then be entered in a register. Most places satisfy one of two broad areas of significance – aesthetic

significance (“an attractive building or place”), or historical significance (“an old building or place”).

Most places of historical significance are quite often considered to be of social significance (a building

that a community has used over time and is considered important to that community) as well

These criteria might be expressed in the following manner:

A building, site or place may be entered in the Townsville City Council local heritage register if it

meets one or more of the following cultural heritage criteria:

a) it is important in demonstrating the evolution or pattern of the city’s or local

area’s history;

b) it demonstrates rare, uncommon or endangered aspects of the city’s or local

area’s cultural heritage;

c) it has potential to yield information that will contribute to the knowledge and

understanding of the city’s or local area’s history;

d) it is important in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a particular class

or classes of cultural places;

e) it is important because of its aesthetic significance;

f) it is important in demonstrating a high degree of creative or technological

achievement at a particular period;

g) it has a strong or special association with the life or work of a particular

community or cultural group for social, cultural or spiritual reasons;

h) it has a special association with the life or work of a particular person, group or

organisation of importance in the city’s or local area’s history.

The above criteria are largely based on the criteria for cultural heritage significance in the QHA, which

in turn are based on the established heritage criteria that have been developed and refined and since

the mid 1970s and the passage of the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975. Many heritage

authorities, statutory and non-statutory alike, utilise criteria similar to these criteria in their policy

documents, supporting information and indeed legislation.


107

The heritage planning scheme policy should include the criteria of cultural heritage significance for the

future entry of additional places in the local heritage register for the scheme as proposed. The

suggested criteria could be included within the planning scheme policy, or alternative criteria could be

developed.

Some form of criteria need to be considered so that future listings are as transparent as possible in

terms of describing what types of heritage values the identified heritage places are considered to

contain.

The term “cultural significance” is synonymous with heritage value or heritage important places. Places

of heritage significance or heritage value are usually described as being places of cultural significance,

or cultural heritage significance. These two latter terms are also used interchangeably.

Cultural significance is generally defined as being aesthetic, historic, scientific, social or spiritual value

for past, present or future generations. This definition is taken from the Australia ICOMOS Charter for

Places of Cultural Significance (the Burra Charter), and the term is generally accepted by all

practitioners working in the cultural heritage field.

Every place or building has a history and an aesthetic, and each would have some type of association

with its builders, owners and residents. However not all places or buildings would have a scientific or

spiritual dimension. The term “value” is also important in this context – to be considered significant,

places are considered to have some value over and above other places that are not of value, and over

and above their utilitarian nature. Therefore some judgement and comparison of places over and

above other places, is unavoidable in determining cultural heritage significance.9

The following discussion elicits the various elements of the values described above as comprising

cultural significance.

Historical value can range across the history of society, settlement or development. To a great extent

historical value provides a foundation or basis for all other cultural significance values. A place may

have historical value because:

it is important for its association with events, developments or cultural phases

which have had an important role in the occupation, evolution or pattern of

development of a community;

it is an example of rare, endangered or uncommon aspects of the life and work

of a community;

9 See Ivan McDonald Architects, ‘Toowoomba City Centre Heritage Study’, 2001, p. 4.


108

it has a strong association with the life or work of a person or group of people

of importance to a community;

it is an important representative of the range of places which comprise the

cultural heritage of a community;

it has been influenced by an event, phase or activity that was important in the

local history of a community;

it was the site of an event that was important in the local history of a

community;

it demonstrates a distinctive way of life or custom that is no longer in use, is in

danger of being lost or is of exceptional interest.

Aesthetic value takes into account the community’s perception of the form, scale, colour, texture and

materials of a place and its use. Places of aesthetic value normally demonstrate one or more of the

following aspects:

a high degree of creative accomplishment;

important design or visual qualities;

in their use of construction materials, design or detailing create a building with

a high degree of visual interest or quality.

Architectural value is normally considered as a sub-set of aesthetic value, as most places that have

architectural value also have aesthetic value. However the reverse does not always hold true; not all

places that have aesthetic value also have architectural value. Architectural value can also be

considered a sub-set of historical value, as the architectural values being ascribed to a place usually

relate to some element of architectural history and the value of a place as to how it demonstrates a

particular style of architecture.

Architectural value relates to the stylistic qualities or innovations related to architecture and design,

innovations of construction, details or use of materials. A place may have architectural value as:

a particularly good example of a particular architectural style or design

innovation;

an extremely old or rare example of a style of building that was characteristic of

a specific theme or era;

it utilises materials in a rare or unusual manner;

it is representative of the work of an important local designer or architect.

Scientific value relates to particular scientific or technological innovations or rare or unusual technical

processes or uses. A place may have scientific value as:


109

it demonstrates a high degree of technical innovation or accomplishment for its

time;

it contains machinery or equipment that demonstrates uses or processes that

are rare, in danger of being lost, or of exceptional interest to a community,

In many instances those places that have scientific value are artefacts, elements or pieces of

machinery or equipment, that may have been common at one time but are now rare or endangered.

Social value embraces the qualities for which a place has become a focus of special attachment or

association to a community. Spiritual value, as noted above, is usually considered a sub-set of social

value, and encompasses the special associations that people have with churches, or other places of

community interest or shared experience for political, cultural or other social reasons. A place may

have social value as:

it is highly valued by a community for reasons of religious, spiritual, cultural,

educational or social associations;

it is recognised by a community as having public value or is held in high

esteem for its associations with the whole or part of a community, whose

history or culture it is interwoven with the history of the place.

6.8.3 How do the criteria relate to cultural significance?

The following text briefly attempts to demonstrate what types of places would satisfy which criteria.

It is also emphasised that in practice many heritage places satisfy more than one criterion, although in

practice as well a place is only required to satisfy one criterion to be considered culturally significant.

Places considered culturally significant for their historical value or importance are assessed and

identified places under criteria a), b) and c), of the criteria mentioned on a previous page.

Places identified as satisfying criterion a), are places that demonstrate important elements of the history

of Townsville, or the local area. These could include the earliest houses in a particular suburb, a local

post office or state school that has been well used by the community for many years, a well used

community facility (such as a park or swimming pool for example) or a government building (such as

the Customs House). If a building or place demonstrates some important element in the history of an

area, in its reason for construction, its use over time, or its regard of the local community, it may be

considered significant in terms of criterion a). Early churches are another example of a place that

demonstrates this criterion, as they demonstrate the growth and development of a community, its

culture, observances and practices.


110

Places considered culturally significant under criterion b), are places which may not be historically

significant in themselves (as in the elements demonstrated are more prosaic) but demonstrate

something which is now relatively rare, and as such these places assume a value that they may not

have had in the past, or one that is based on their reason for construction, or long-standing use. An

example could be a miner’s type cottage – when constructed it may have been a simple residence and

like others that may have been built. But in the modern day, if few other examples survive, then the

surviving example may be considered significant as a rare or uncommon example of a once common

type.

Places considered significant under criterion c), are normally those places of archaeological potential,

or contain archaeological deposits. The place has the potential to yield information, in the form of

archaeological deposits or some other form of fabric that contributes to the knowledge and

understanding of the city’s or local area’s history. Research has to be carried out to prove why a place,

which demonstrates no fabric or elements of cultural heritage significance to the observer, is

recognised under this criterion for the potential the place has to yield information that is important

historically.

Places considered culturally significant for their aesthetic, architectural or technical value or importance

are assessed and identified places under criteria d), e) and f).

Places considered to be significant under criterion d), are significant examples of a particular type of

place. The best example to demonstrate this would be the typical corner hotel, or pub, which is a

readily understood and widely accessible historic building type. The typical hotel has a number of

defining elements and features – built to the street, two or three storeys high, verandahs with

balustrading to all floors, constructed of masonry (sometimes timber), with a series of typical internal

features as well. Places considered significant under his criterion normally retain these typical features

and demonstrate them in an important way. In assessing places under this criterion, there is a strong

element of comparison with other similar places – how well does it demonstrate these characteristics?

Places considered to be significant under criterion e), are places of aesthetic value or significance. As

noted above, the aesthetic value of a heritage place takes into account perceptions of form, scale,

colour, texture and building materials, of a place and its use. Places of aesthetic value normally

demonstrate one or more of the following aspects:

a high degree of creative accomplishment;

important design or visual qualities;

their use of construction materials, design or detailing creates a building with a

high degree of visual interest or quality.

This is not the same as architectural value, as will be shown below.


111

Similar to above, in assessing places under this criterion there is a strong element of comparison with

other similar places – why is this place singled out for aesthetic importance and not other places?

Places considered to be significant under criterion f), are considered significant as exemplars of a

particular architectural style or form, or represent a breakthrough in terms of feats of engineering or

some other type of pursuit. In Townsville the Mount Spec Road would be an example of this, as would

the St James Cathedral, and the Victoria Bridge.

Similar to above, in assessing places under this criterion there is a strong element of comparison with

other similar places – why is this place singled out for its creative or technical accomplishment, and not

other places? Usually there is evidence of scholarship, or an understanding of the type or style of place

involved, as to the recognition of a place under this criterion.

Places considered as culturally significant for their social value or associational importance are

assessed and identified places under criteria g) and h).

Places considered to be significant under criterion g), are those places that have been well used and

loved by a community over many years. This relates very closely with historical value, and most places

of social value and recognised under criterion g) are also significant under criterion a). But the reverse

does not always work – not every place of historical value is of social value.

Places considered to be significant under criterion h), are those places that have a special association

with the life or work of an important person. Usually this is a two-step process – is the person of

importance to the local community (it is always useful to articulate why as well) and what does the place

demonstrate about their life and work? It is not normally enough to identify the house that a person

lived in; the claim for cultural significance should go beyond this. Rosebank in Mysterton, the house of

Andrew Ball, a founder of Townsville, is considered culturally significant for its special association with

Andrew Ball.

The heritage criteria are used to demonstrate and explain the cultural heritage significance of a place. Places are assessed against the heritage criteria and need to

satisfy at least one of these criteria to be considered culturally significant. Research is

carried out into the heritage place and arguments need to be made to sustain and

justify a heritage listing.

6.8.4 Heritage Impact Statements

The planning scheme policy for heritage can also discuss the requirements of development applications

lodged over places entered in Council’s local heritage register.


112

It is recommended that any planning scheme policy concerning heritage should contain information on

the requirements for the preparation of Heritage Impact Statement (HIS) reports for lodgement with

development applications over local heritage places. The specific requirements for the preparation of a

HIS would be included in the planning scheme policy.

A Heritage Impact Statement (HIS) should not be confused with a Conservation Management Plan

(CMP). In theory a CMP is prepared before any schemes are devised for a building or place, and

therefore one of the major elements of a CMP is the consideration of a potentially wide range of future

uses for a particular place. A CMP is prepared for a certain period of time and indeed may have a

‘shelf life’ of 5-10 years, and contains conservation policies that detail what building works or proposed

uses may be required for a building or place to ensure conservation of its cultural heritage significance.

A HIS report is a more focussed document, prepared in response to a particular scheme for the

proposed development of a heritage place. The HIS report assesses the impact a proposed scheme

will have on the heritage significance of a building/site/place. Ideally a CMP may exist for a

building/site/place, and the HIS report may be prepared using the current conservation management

plan as a base. The HIS report may ‘borrow’ some of the information in the conservation management

plan; indeed it is expected that the HIS will include some of this material.

For places to be entered in the local heritage register for the new planning scheme of the Townsville

City Council, it not recommended that a Conservation Management Plan (CMP) be prepared and be in

place for these buildings. It is perhaps unreasonable to demand the preparation of CMPs for all places

entered in a local government register. The DERM does specify a conservation management plan as a

mandatory requirement for lodgement of DAs over places entered in the Queensland Heritage Register

(a heritage impact statement is a mandatory requirement), and for this reason a local government

should not require such a document.

However when places entered in the local heritage register are the subject of a development

application, a HIS report should be prepared and submitted along with the other development

applications documents, as heritage values and impacts will be one of the aspects of the development

that will need to be assessed by the Council’s development assessment staff (including the Heritage

and Urban Planning Unit of Council).

The HIS report can of course take into account the existing documentation on the place held by

Council, but it will require some analysis and investigation on the part of the proponent. In this way the

HIS becomes another consultant report prepared for development applications (similar to traffic impact

assessments, commercial impact assessments, stormwater management plans, etc).

Where the proposed development of a local heritage place predominantly involves development on the

site of a local heritage place, a HIS report examines the impact the proposed development has on the

cultural significance of the local heritage place. The HIS report is to assess the impact the proposed


113

development would have on the aesthetic, architectural, historical, scientific, social or technological

significance of the local heritage place to the present generation or past or future generations.

The HIS report should address the following aspects:

an analysis of the history and the physical fabric of the building/site/place;

an assessment of cultural significance of the building and what parts of the

fabric demonstrate that significance;

a description of the proposed development; and

an assessment of the impact the proposed development will have on the

cultural significance of the building/site/place.

The HIS report should include photographs of the local heritage place, and plans or some form of

documentation of the proposed development, to illustrate the proposed development and to

demonstrate where and how the fabric of the place is to be modified, adapted and/or conserved.

The Burra Charter of Australia ICOMOS is the accepted standard for conservation analysis in this

country. A HIS report should be based on the principles and processes of the Burra Charter, insofar as

the cultural significance of the building/site/place should be determined through an analysis of its

documentary and physical evidence. The HIS report should encourage conservation of the local

heritage place; the aim of conservation being to retain the cultural significance of a place.

If development adjacent to a local heritage place is assessable development for heritage issues,

Council could require the preparation of a HIS report to be prepared and submitted with any

development application lodged on such a site.

A HIS report (adjacent development) in these circumstances could consider the visual and aesthetic

qualities of the local heritage place and its contribution to the streetscape, and how the proposed

development will impact on those qualities. The HIS report (adjacent development) may need to

analyse, to some degree, the history and fabric of the local heritage place to determine its cultural

significance, in order to assess the impacts the proposed development will have on this significance.

However these impacts will be largely visual, as no building fabric of the local heritage place would be

removed or altered in such a proposed development.

A HIS report (adjacent development) on a local heritage place would need to consider the impact the

proposed development would have on any or all of the following aspects and elements of the local

heritage place and its cultural heritage significance:

where the significant views and/or view corridors of the local heritage place are

located;


114

what impacts will the proposed development have on these views and/or view

corridors;

whether the local heritage place is in a wider streetscape or townscape of

importance;

what are the qualities and characteristics of this townscape, and what impacts

will the proposed development have on these qualities;

how does the proposed development address the values of the streetscape

and how does it respond to the prevailing architectural character and/or built

environment of the street;

the architectural design of the proposed development in relation to the existing

local heritage place, in terms of the scale and height of the proposed

development, the choice of building materials, colours, fenestration patterns,

and setbacks.

To adequately discuss or explain these streetscape and townscape qualities and impacts on cultural

heritage significance, it is reasonable to expect that the HIS report – adjacent development would

include photographs of the local heritage place, and the precinct or streetscape within the development

will be located where relevant, and illustrations of the proposed development in its context.

It is noted that the IDAS forms for development on local heritage places (that is, those places entered in

local heritage registers in accordance with Part 11 of the QHA) specify as a mandatory requirement the

preparation of a Heritage Impact Statement to accompany such a development application. The

relevant IDAS form (Local heritage place – IDAS Form 4) states that a statement of impact on the

cultural heritage significance of the registered place is a mandatory requirement to accompany the

development application. The form states that HIS report must describe the relative values of the

physical attributes of the place which contribute to the cultural heritage significance as these are

described in the Local Heritage Register listing for the place, and an assessment of how these are

conserved or impacted upon under the proposed development.

Despite the inconsistencies of the Part 11 requirements in the amalgamated Townsville City Council

local government area, a HIS will have to be a mandatory requirement to accompany development

applications lodged over places entered in the local heritage register for the new planning scheme for

the Townsville City Council.

A Heritage Impact Statement (HIS) will be a mandatory requirement to accompany

applications lodged over places entered in the local heritage register for the new

Townsville planning scheme. The HIS will need to articulate the cultural heritage significance of a place, describe the works proposed and the impacts these works will

have on this significance.


115

6.9 Financial incentives

Financial incentives for owners of heritage places are proposed for Council’s consideration.

The types and range of incentives are quite broad, and include rate reductions, discounts on

development application fees, development bonuses and transferable site area, and a heritage grant

program.

It is acknowledged that Council has an existing service providing architectural advice to owners of

heritage properties, which is itself a form of financial incentive to owners.

Rate reductions are a tool available to Council for its consideration for financial incentives to owners of

heritage places. Rate reductions are attractive in at least one way as they would potentially be

available to all owners, and would not require any contributing dollar amounts of the owners themselves

to take advantage of such an incentive. However the numbers of heritage places listed by Council is a

factor in this type of scheme – the greater the number of places listed the smaller the amount of money

that may be available for such a scheme. There may be implicit pressure in this type of scheme to

reduce the physical number of places listed.

Reductions in development assessment fees are another consideration, but are only available to those

lodging development applications over heritage places. It is understood only a small number of

development applications are lodged over heritage places in Townsville now, even with a heritage

database of approximately 1,300. This may not be an efficient or beneficial way of targeting incentives.

Development incentives and bonuses are of no help to those who do not propose to redevelop their

sites, and can sometimes lead to negative impacts on heritage values. Transferable development

rights may be of value in a small geographic area (such as a CBD), but only when the broader property

market is at the correct point in the cycle to take advantage of any such provisions.

Heritage grants are another option for financial incentives for Council’s consideration. The Brisbane

City Council has a heritage grant service, which has an annual allocation of money which can be

utilised by owners of heritage places to carry out conservation work and heritage studies. Owners of

places make applications to BCC for funding of such conservation plans or works, and applications for

funding are decided by the BCC Heritage Unit in conjunction with the advice of the Heritage Advisory

Committee.

Such funding is only available as a reimbursable expense, and is only for a proportion of the dollar

value expended (from 20 to 40%). The funding is also only available for conservation works or

conservation studies, and is directed in part by the BCC officer (an architect) who suggests the best

conservation approach and outcome for a particular place. Grants are usually given for reroofing,


116

repainting and restumping – important maintenance works that need to be done at some point by

owners, who can avail themselves of some external funding to assist these works. Grants are capped

at maximum figures ($10,000 for private owners and $15,000 for non-profit groups). BCC has more

than 2,000 places listed in its local heritage register – in a given financial year it may have more than

100 applicants for funding.

A recommendation to the Townsville City Council for the best option for financial incentives for heritage

is beyond the scope of this study, and beyond the expertise of this study. Financial modelling may be

required to determine the best approach for Council, based on the number of heritage places listed, the

average rateable values in Townsville, the best way to target conservation works. While rate reductions

would be useful ‘carrots’ for all owners of heritage places, such reductions achieve nothing for

conservation and will in all probability be such small amounts that owners may not notice any

discernible benefit.

The nub of financial incentives is how to structure and target these incentives such that they apply fairly

and evenly across the spectrum of owners and their issues, and achieve the best value for any dollars

expended by a local government. This is an area of debate that is still to be determined.


117

7.0 THE NEXT STEPS

7.1 The desk-top audit

The existing heritage listings for the Townsville and Thuringowa planning schemes have been audited

and assessed as part of this Cultural Heritage Study.

Given the large number of places already identified, this has been little more than a cursory

examination of the information held for each place on the Townsville LHD and in the Thuringowa

heritage strategy. This examination has been a visual exercise primarily, together with some critical

assessments related to building type (with the acknowledged over-representation of houses), the

information collected and researched on each of the places, the apparent age of the building concerned

(where this was relevant), any discernible issues of intactness and integrity, and any architectural merit

or quality that could be discerned from the collected information.

It is readily acknowledged that every single one of these places have not been physically inspected as

part of the site investigations for this study.

This desk-top audit and assessment has reduced the number of places that could be considered to be

of cultural heritage significance to Townsville or the local area, in accordance with the criteria noted in

the previous chapter, to approximately 300. These places are those that this Cultural Heritage Study

has determined to be the recommended local heritage register for the Townsville City Council, based

on the existing information resource of the LHD and the additional places researched for this study.

This is one opinion only of the cultural heritage resources of the Townsville City Council and it is open

to challenge or interpretation by Council officers if they see fit. It is recommended that the Heritage and

Urban Planning Unit of Council carry out its own audit, as a comparative technique, to test and gauge

the results.

Some of the places currently in the LHD have been excluded from the revised heritage register

completely. This decision to exclude these places was based on integrity or intactness, a perceived

lack of heritage values, an acknowledgment in the LHD that the place had been removed, or a general

opinion reached that there was no supportable reason to highlight the place as being valuable.

7.2 Heritage or character?

The desk-top audit has resulted in a large reduction in the number of places considered to be of cultural

heritage significance, from the existing heritage listings in the planning schemes.


118

While a small number of these listings have been dropped altogether from any consideration, this study

does not suggest that these other places that are not included in the recommended heritage register

have no value at all.

The analysis performed to include only a small proportion of the 1,300 existing listings in the

recommended heritage register, has also resulted in a consideration of some of these LHD properties

to be places of potential residential character value, rather than places of cultural heritage significance.

It is expected that many of these places have been identified in the mapping for the Draft Character

Precincts Study as part of the defined Character Precincts. The Draft Character Precincts Study used

the existing LHD listings as a base and worked from there to examine houses in clusters and precincts.

Therefore it is recommended that this list of potential character places be checked for their inclusion in

the mapping of the Draft Character Precincts Survey. For those potential character places that are not

contained within these maps, it is recommended that additional field work and investigations be carried

out for these to check whether these places are contained within large enough areas or groupings to be

considered as part of additional Character Precincts. From an understanding of the work carried out for

the Draft Character Precincts Survey, it would appear that all areas that could be considered consistent

residential character precincts in these inner suburbs of Townsville have already been assessed and

determined. It may be that some of the potential character places not within the mapping of the Draft

Character Precincts Survey, are isolated examples, and it may be difficult to define these in a character

precinct if they are not contained within a character precinct.

The mapping for the Draft Character Precincts Survey should be checked as well against the places

assessed for inclusion in the recommended heritage register. For example large areas around Melton

Terrace/Cleveland Terrace and Paluma have been defined as Character Precincts in the Draft

Character Precincts Survey. The assessments for the desk-top audit carried out for this study have

concluded that many of these places should remain on the local heritage register and are included in

the recommended heritage register for this study.

7.3 Additional places

A small number of additional places have been identified and researched as places for consideration in

the new local heritage register for the Townsville City Council.

These places have been included as they demonstrate significant elements of post World War II

development in Townsville, or were not included in previous assessments for whatever reasons.


119

Information on these places has been prepared for this study and is presented in a similar format as the

heritage listings in the LHD, and is provided in Appendix B of this report.

7.4 Additional studies

The urban focus of existing heritage studies and listings was identified during this Cultural Heritage

Study as a gap in the knowledge base of the existing heritage resources in the Townsville local

government area.

As a longer term project it is recommended that Council prepare a heritage study or assessment of

rural areas contained within the Townsville City Council local government area, with a view to finding

and considering places associated or demonstrated with pastoralism and rural industries for heritage

listing. Such studies could utilise the key historical themes discussed in the Queensland Cultural

Heritage Context Study which has been examined in this report.

It may be of course that such places do not survive. It is noted that the QHR for the Townsville City

Council local government area is very urban-centric, and contains very few places outside Townsville

city itself.

It is also recommended Council prepare an archaeological study of particular parts of the city (the CBD

would be the main focus), perhaps utilising the student body of James Cook University to carry out such

a project, to uncover sites of cultural heritage significance for the potential archaeological value.


120

8.0 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION

The conduct of the Cultural Heritage Study has been enhanced and strengthened through a series of

discussions that have taken place in Townsville since September 2010, with a range of people with an

interest and expertise in cultural heritage and development assessment matters.

8.1 Council and government consultation

Prior to the preparation of the Issues Paper the consultant team met with Townsville City Council

Development Assessment staff, the Townsville City Council Heritage Working Group, and the staff of

the Northern Region of the Cultural Heritage Branch of the Department of Environment and Resource

Management. All meetings were organised and attended by the staff of the Heritage and Urban

Planning Unit of Townsville City Council Planning and Development section.

Each of these meetings followed the same informal format – a series of questions were prepared by the

consultant team to start the discussion, which roamed across various areas and raised a number of key

points and issues concerning heritage matters in Townsville. Minutes of these discussions were taken

by the Project Manager (Ted Brandi) and the consultant team.

A summary of the questions that formed the basis of these discussions and the list of people who

attended these discussions is included in this report as Appendix C.

8.2 Consultant discussion

During the preparation of the Cultural Heritage Study discussions and meetings were also held with the

following consultant teams for the Townsville City Council planning scheme project:

Urbis – Central City Master Plan Study (James Tuma, Peter Gill and Madonna

Locke);

Urbis – Residential Lands Use Study (Eleanor Horton);

Ross Planning – Open Space and Recreation Study (Dion Collins and Kate

Heissenbuttel);

GHD – Scenic Amenity Study (Tracey Hooper).

Further, a series of conversations and discussions have been had with Mary Burns, Acting Manager,

Register and Strategic Projects: Heritage, within the Cultural Heritage Branch of the Department of

Environment and Resource Management in Brisbane, regarding the State-wide Survey being carried

out by the Department.


121

It is pointed out that no general community consultation or workshops were required as part of the brief

for this project.

8.3 Issues that arose through these discussions

A number of issues discussed at this meeting have already been mentioned in this report –

archaeological places, rigour of codes and listings in the current schemes, the appropriate levels of

assessment, whether recent places can be considered heritage places, relocating heritage buildings,

and post World War II heritage and character.

Other more miscellaneous issues arose from the discussions with stakeholders, such as a greater

education of the public to heritage matters, and incentives for conservation. Neither of these is

pertinent only to Townsville – they are issues for any city or jurisdiction that is dealing with cultural

heritage matters.

Notwithstanding the above, it is clear that the Townsville City Council (and Thuringowa pre-2008) has

been heavily involved in the education of the community about the importance of cultural heritage and

the history of its city and suburbs. This is evident in the many publications, activities, events, heritage

awards programs, the work of the Heritage Working Group, and importantly, the significant human

resources both Councils have devoted to heritage and local history studies over the years.

Compared to other councils in Queensland, the Townsville City Council should be confident of its

achievements in cultural heritage education to the general public.

APPENDIX A Proposed heritage places database (audited results)

(\(9NqE

ON¡loGD CO

Ë99-t9-t>croN]\È$ÈË$:¡Il\l\l\Luo-o-o-'æÌÉËÉrINNN-9#€fl€oooooJJJJJI'= IIcã9ccO tr'= O OÈ>=Èfoãl=oo=ÈE==

trotr

-o.gop-øì.9oÈ'ãfOs.1, ØJ.ñsÈj<o(doçJa.l

cræo-:ÉF<tt$ONJNño@o

r(9

ËEôlÈc.i oKÉOFoo(Er!

==oozz

oosoU'

g)

-!sR.DE.^Èçõ 1". os)..r- ao ro F (Ð

IFpñä8,8 I ñ - sNtS ñÈ :P RPR:'P:=¡il4ã'1 õ õ õ ,Pa l¡a,ProùîL=rËcr r! r! ,1,1,?'1 E'. -L .grr-]flrFÇ-9--N O)- et rlO)(9N tsCIt (Ðt ¡lO¡OæP5ñtiFos 3ë--5 ñtñ3 5à ls RSEPs;ssÈsãs spEEs .'ssss ss ìs ìsss3asfr RRgsStsññ88S9$È=Ep3-_RÈ-=3ESPE g ãE Ë F H € Ë ä E E Ë E P Ë ËË Ë E E E Ë Ëì F 3È ÈFE ìl\:N l\ó]\l+]\ la]\ -. N(l) 1\- O_FN ]\t\]\ì- 1.-ô = ^ l\'' N¡\ N

e : È e i e ñ p * È ã H H t a i p a þ"""É: e E ; * t ã ã p p *ar-NF- ø(9--OO ø ø ø0 t øN@(9tf NN@F(ft-FcìrÉt-(lrN=

fl È È È ¡i È fl I È € +¡ +¡ a¡ I I +¡ # fl I fl ¡ g I I fl fl fl fl fl 3 f flLooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooÉ. J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J

^ËËËiËË{ËË{{Ë{f sËËËÆÈEgÊ ggÊ95ÊgÊF o o o o o oË o oËËË.ËËl

å g g g g g g E g* E E E E E e åË.ååFg¡ E E g g EEEE g E

ooo-IO

=!¡¡oool- 0t

oL¿Eo.3-?öà c,)(! tE

=LsôE¡-g

Ës Ë F ã EËP ö it & Ê

c)Fõo=r*

Ëäp EEgE

õõ

'Ëe s Ë **ËË¡

¡g fi ËËåËååg¡ËËEtg $¡ gË g¡ gËE

t¡ g g

ËËËrrrr 3

f;EËggggEÞz+FrOlsotlf,(f) l¡' - N N (Y).9 ç F ñ N (o æ lÍ, lo (9 N - (Ð F N N d) r

2È o oooooooooooo e I o o od) O O O O O O ç O O O) - (9 (9 .rf F rO rO Ot ]\ O CD O q, rO O O (g O O Ot O l! e O e I Q I Oáñ rO ]\ o) N c', ñ í) - - ôt N (9 (o F ]\ o o O æ ct tf o) rf (9 c, (Ð € cD cD o N o 1\ (:Ð q) lo o) Fõ-ct o aÐ o È - - ci t ro |fi |fi |o ñ o u) (o (o ñ ñ o, ñ N (9 ro o - - - F N N (? (Ð ç t (? T '¡l-È O O e O O O O O O O O O O C È ç r. F È - - N N N N (9 ct (t (Ð .9 (Ð (9 (r:, aÐ (9 (Ð ç ìf \f

tI F F - - -

F IF tF F F !F -

IF F F F !F F - - -

F - -

F'F - - - -

F IF - - -

F IF F -

E)

EEõu,gEoðEfEED'o s ËË ù e Ë Ëtrì oú 5¡

= ø 3 =oF cL Þ= õ d d¡ o

)¿ E E fiF È i E o' u'

Ë Ë €É e clË Ë ËeË ÉåoÕ E E È õ 9f=6õ ftå åg¡ åË

oo

*çs H Ëqe" ç eS¡iE.3; : :fEüJ*o.È = E,¡ìõ ë .E*Ë

F;Ë ËËsHË =EËË:

; J È> Rà Rñi E Pg[[ Èi E.o 5 a ;ii ¿'e Ioü J(É) - ? of N_ Ë

T EË E T ER.ig. ; -à Ñ

EÊgFïsp* FoE' Ë*-*o! fi!¡iSt "sl"ui $nEIFÈnn: seË :n::Ef n:fEEE äE*inf E

Ë:Ì5:rÈË-S¡E =XäHse XISHHH isIHËp F9Ë3.8*S9ËF9à.q SSËi;g ^9*9999 æ gSã9SS IË Ë g [[ ËË F ¡ ËË ãËsF Ë Ë Ë p Ë Ë sË s : Ë È e Ë ËË Ë i ËË Ë e r Ë Ë

È i E $l i E i: & e; r: e; i i Ð i Ë ä È E Ð Ð Ð È t; E ã fr E; E Ë Ë; il*€-ôlFtf-O

I e i e ei X I e: Ï Ï 5:::3 3:31:: Ì: i:: i i::: I::::::ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooJJJJJJJJ J J JJJJ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ JJJJJLr-LEL:L

-G F F -G E E - õ 5 g g g Ë Ë

g g g g ã

g g s = Ë =

; Ë Ë Ë Ë È g g g 5 ã 5

=

5 5=ËËìÈì5È.c o or r r È -s -tr -E -E.E tr tr .= s .= .. tr E.tr - . 2 2 2 e9.9 € 2 - =G G tr.tr á.c.cE E E =IË=IEEEEEEÈ È 5 EEEË E E E õ Ë È È F E # # È 5 5 E E È E=EE

elts#fl

ËËsFåËËËFË Ë ËË Ë

g

Ë Ë Ë g

¡ Ë fi ¡ t t

=

gåË åË Ë Ë Ë Ë Ë Ë

g Ë Ë\f (D ç (g (g ôl N ç ñ \Ì (Ð rl - - tt N ñ N ç .t ç t ç ñ @ - N N (9 CD - t :f t (9 - F? (9 N -

oooooooooooo oeoo oooP ooog oooo oBoo€ æ N t ro N l\ N € e - .rf o o ctr (0 ]\ € o |.) t\ o lo o o o l\ æ N (r) o N (9 (o ]\ Q I N l\ €O - N Ñ N æ Ot ct c) (o æ (9 O F N (9 (9 (Ð + !t t t rO ì. æ o) CD Ot O O N (Ð .9 .9 F? tl !t t !f lfPPPPP99:3PPRÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑNNNNNNNNNNNN

àcLtroI'EU,bFàE

ÈË,,gruEë6räoo.-ÕÈoEDol!S EË ç äÊgE ËE EË E :E Ëg Eo- ^+P=Ë--Ë-EEË s Ë E

gËãE;ËËãgËgËËs*l=EuËËËËË¡å

.gE E Ë,ËeËqIo

*ËEeËËiËFËü ËHt-EF-À ouelel ."

=Elr;Ë ä !*a E

EÈsEes'-ìËËË[sËË¡si.ÈËEÉÌËËÈENroN|¡)otæ(90--N-N(Ð-NO-N-tF'F--l,1a'laa'?'?Ëçrrorrroloroo)o000tooËËõ=õõ"-*:

Ëit Ë!:!.Ë=-:Ë !. ! ifii-È -f-È 5

Ë Ë Ë Ë ì Ë = = i ! å::: ! | Ë I = e Ëri

a s s s s s = " Ee Ë Ë ËË Ë i n Ë Ë*ri Ë* i s p : Ë Ë Êri: f ËrË s Ë

æoææ€€€€

==P3333=[ ! i i i i r: [ ã ; 5 e Ð Ð Ð I e : e ; 3 r ; r Ë

=

e È t e å t 3 e ä i Ë t p pN]\FOo)€(ON(Ð - \l l\ (g (g (O (v) æ € € -

(9- N (9 N N - { N(J N rÐÈ lO - - l¡) N l\ lO (gO - ø)- N - N

ËËËËËËËËËËËËËËËËËËËËËËËË õËËËËËËËËËËËËËËËJ J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J O. J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J

ãg*gggsEgggãÈããÈË$ãEfËflfrrsãr,r;l = =u;tr.tr-trEsE.E tr-tr.tr-tr tr tr tr tr E

ÈE=28=2=2E È E =zEFË È È È Ë E È Ë Ë È F F ãE È ãiÈ E Ë E Ë Ë E Ë Ë Ë Ë

EoE E q-Ë.EEEE _Ë. E ^8 E _E _=E E "-0¡ 6, 6)oo0,9E 9o 9_,tggrEEgùgggåùùùtàËtË tEÈø t*-flå EH;oooü8ff

ËÈEåÈÈ EËÈ Ë E Ë Ë ËËËËåË Ê - Ë E ääËËågËEËËË E EE ËE Ëtr ë Ë õ E Ë Ë tr E c E r tr tr tr tr tr : tr õ Ë tr F e ø *tr .E =

tr =

I ó v q q e tr'^.= E

¡ËË ;ËËËrËËËsËEäpt#ñs;*gf srn ãBñËË5RËå¡p55+ <<Y<<< É <<<,å J óaiÉ,åó J JE+EEoåf .åØS€i, ø¿aÉ-r z +? TrO Þ rf t æ O t (o @ € N N c(, € CD CD O (v) N N -= rt - - -

r úl O N (g jl 1\ - æ E O t\ (') (9 (O

- - F F - (\ ñ - rÐ (9 r{. -'F'F F - N (9 ôl ¡O > (\ - - - (9 N ç - N I ç - (\ (f) - N N (g N

oooooo ooo o Et 8PEE PE otR RgE EEo i - (Ð ç ro t. o rô (o Õ e o o o o o N o oo (9 o ctr N t (o o ç t o t @ ot o N .1, cD e l\ ]\|¡) rO (o (o (o (t @ l\ ]\ l\ l\ @ O) O - N (Y) !f lO ]\ o) O O F F F N N N rO l! O € Ot Ot o) O) C C OÑ N Ñ N N N N ôt ñr N N N N C) C) ({r (v) c) (Y) (r) (Ð rl ç ç tf t tt t \f t tt tt ç !t tl \f It u) t¡t roN N N N N N N N ñI N ôl N N (\l N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N (\{ N N (\l N N ôI N N

o!,àËÈ

=o

! T= i F 5 ilF 3 Ë

= ai = Ê F Ëe il ElE ãE F R .* ;; õ L

å 3i H F ia Ë iÈ Ë ËRe E; s uE È ;Ë sE 5s ;. Ë-

Ëå lpiË È Ëq É ;i sc:Ëtirs t=EË Ë Ë È

ÈEgËiIgi**l lllËlËi I I Ë Ili I Ëir uíïiËtilirl!ÈÈ53ss5Ë5!!85!!9EEi55i!!395H!3!f 5!33!!5È ; Ë s È - flË ã È ã ã É="ÉË ; ; È E Ë s È ã

-=,ÊÉÉ Ë g ¿ g ã

=

E ñ

=

¡ =È $

gg È å g Ë ¡ E È È È È Ë ¡ if Ë Ë Ë E E È E È È Ë È Ë ã E åËÈ Ë

g g Ë g ËËg,o

9 9, fl gÈ#syfl # yr fl Ëfl ##fl ëo o o qrooooo o oo 6, oo ooo oE = E EEEEEE E EE E EE EEE Ë Eö-n-aö ööööõöËËõoöö,ö öõ ööö - P ö. oE'

Ë Ë Ë ËË * - Ë Ë È Ë Ë Ë Ë ËË ä Ë Ë gË =

Ë e * r Ë Ë - ËcE Ë Ë * ; Ë ËË5Ës¡= rËs55=85ËË5Ë=5qTå=Et5EEÈ;Þ,{

=¡cesfi s

n Ë t E t Ë Ë Ë ë ë È È Ë ä ä g s ë ë ËgË N il Ë'$R ì; F # o*. Ë t fi f Ë ñ Ë

OOO OO - .F (o€NN(î

Nrf o (\tñr o o ro (9 çol\roo çro oo (9 at (o o (o o o o o o o o o o o o o o oI) o æ o o (9 e| c| o lo \f llc, t to o o o (9 o € oñ6s38S3Ë3RS8à3PNsSg5$E$88S3EEEEEEü8EE88SN N N N N N N N N N (Ð (Ð (Ð (9 (Ð .9 (Ð (9 (9 (Ð CO C) (r) (Ð (9 (9 (Ð C) (Y) (Ð (9 C9 (9 (vt (Y) (Ð (Ð (1 (r) (Ð

ËËEE3Jm,9,Eq¡

o\Ë!rEõ .e #Ë'fi Ë .EoöE.ñ'õTf;oà ø -áFt : i tro=.=v''=^O-ä ã

=E ?2 € q Èë f E E Ë € ,eË g E EÉE2Ë'ïeíEËtuågEalåË*Ëe õ ã À Ë sÈ €Eo'.i'

ç q fl Ë Ë r Er E:9o¡g

fr Ë Ëg äËË EË,ÈË :''E --rõ Ëc¡

ËËgÊË Ë:t 'jE-ÞEö ä68,i ÈõEp E r:r'¿ '- FE :

q, ¡\ ty= w ÈÈ l-

= " ri i ËË ë5 Í 5þ ! rE ;Ë I R pI P -3-3 RJ^çod t õq õ dñ ocB otf firstoGlrrf 9aO)- (9 NS OÑ Sti l:---@ç O -ã- j ç N(\I Ncr:;EEF;E : äËeÈËËEE _ËIEg'. Loæãr,o r¡ Ë:S: i ägg Èj; ËSñ ggpgRg $ oaña æ d,@ç o:- Fã-=iii

sxË ;5Ë;iËe!:Ë ü ËE; E¡sF s:ss-5ë888N8ËËXËËfr Ëñ ÈgF*5Ë¡8Rs-=s =--(''| L¡o

=æ'-F(gFlo(o

;Ë iËË*Ë [* * *ix ËËi * t Ë l Ë*Ë ;ËË Ë ;iËcÈËË* Ì$Ë p ri ì E;; ì ! ! E;È E; ì g E ì I ! E ! L n Ë r € +¡ n # r¡ n {:¡ +i r ¿ r,(,ÉO O O O O O O O O O O Og O O O> O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o oEEoJ J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J CD J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J - S N rü

==E=ãEãÈ;ËEEEEÈE*ÈEEEEEEEããËã

g EEEeEE 9 =,ËI I .+ I F .+ F F .r +r q +r .+ .+ F - È É ¡ s E e e € v F E tr tr ç Ë q q E .+ r: E P tr O

E E g E F g È È g g g g g g È g åÈ g g È g g g g E È E Ë 5 g g g Ë g g Ë € Ë Ë

õ -3i u,'ËËËätäËg¡grËËËËËEtätrålårËåggfiå¡EEõEËuËËË Ë ãË g # Ë igei eE=-ããooè9ø'õo¡o¡=ÈE=.eJc?g)Ot(Ð(gC{'r-¡lll-çNOtNFF19O

o o ooooeo oB oo oooo SoooSooEESào o € o o + o o € g' + Ñ qt o o € gr o F (9 o |¡) 0 (r) - o o o o o rD - t ct¡ F (9 tl € l\ o)]\ (') Or O - (\ t € rf t ¡ô - c, ct¡ o o o N (9 l\ \f (0 Í) (o o (Ð (0 N æ o o N (9 rt to o o o N Nggggeçges55$$s$$$$$$ gsgs+sìggEEEEEEEE6õñ

õIt,otr

at,

t,tr(!

(oENL-Eõ.ÊtrËl.O

.ooõEN. Ðò 3t,

-Ë90l.Jo-EgF€

tNãÌ(')l- (oG)EÈ,SÈ Ë 9o¡:N O- ñ*,la y õ-9¡.l¡ S Èñc - +o;ñ e ÈE;õ^ J FF

sìE s 95

rFËEeËüË¡ÉÞciFFÉò.Fjrf - - lO-- CO (fl - l:iÌe: ä: =3eOOOOæOvOOJJJJ-JsJJ====:=:==frrr=r=rrtrtrÉÊoÊocÊooootrotroo

-99-ìg>3-ooooãoãoo====È=È==

oooO riG

ÈflsLélÈ**8EEöËgbo s È É É -- ar e FËËöööEÉ2o!!EËËEiÞEÞÞE.E.EEËE9Sg===:= = o-E-E==Èi=Èõr¡<grroóÞçtoN-NNFF(OF(v)

L

oooEoo.

oø)ìuõ gEF t'Î

èø-o ^-H-õ- :go:=) ]D

96 E,øË åËs E.= iü Ëã5€.iãe

= i-tL=SØ)- Ocl

= r(o

L Àí,^ É-ÈÉ. N:N Ëõù, JIO-3 pPO) .EO

-lft!P loILç\fC''(o!¿CrlO-l\NFeÊl--ñ===NlOña¡güüËõçe:äõsñsä,r-Ctt)-ooSì-L.9F-a9---NÈ599Ë9999:^cfrr-9oc¡cro¡)ñaoar-99f?.¡tserectd)rl^ o(lrooãFro€ñFN-NNõt-SON'úOOOOa-l:NN(Ð]:l:Ì-Ì-=ÈO-ÀO-â¡O-ÀÀÀ_(nÉ,É,É,;trüú,É,t-o-

ri-o¡-(9(9(JùI999ëËfl99ooooooooooJJJJJJJJJJ

=rE-rrrrrrøÊÊctrtrtrtrctrtroooooooool9g----gg-

ãoooooooooÈ===E=====

obÈEi,z egã 3g r

E ã EY E* Ë lu 9.å;gEt Ë EË-Ëq ÉËËË= Ë €Ès i*t€,E-Ë

ËËi Ë: atã-g¡=

$ËËËËËEgËF!EË#EEEá Ê.>l\ cEg ::O eFÊ È qÞ

E Ë ÉìO-=rrr g E8cl N t!Èæ r¡)iÍ Í) (o PõÈ È iuãËi5 E Ì sËil:H

.Ë__H$= r. Ën¡=bE3gñES*r9P 8t8SõSr:.ðtERËEË¡T*TFFËËII fr *Ë;i:s:ÉAÉ õ Ë; õ o o õ tr 5 t _P o *o o o rE o o- È - lf J € - <o - ñ - iÍ c'l (J tf J J J O- J O-

ã = &i p = È==Ë 3.E E e E E ËlaË e ËlaE E Ë Ë ï'e'P= =o

Ë l! = = = È õ-= f È ã ìËËø, = ìI Ê E6Ê I I f I f ü f 8f I Ê,5ö Ë Ê Ê

ËË- ÈÆ :

=Ëãã,u ietËE- -EgËË

Ës*Í#sEEsuËsË *?sFE:

ËËË Ë Ë E i ËËåË€ ååËË Ë ã r EËN (J ¡¡ € Ë ¡a) J È (o È - ñ rO O- Z rl |¡t (g (9 - F

pgsS sgSE$8sEtE oooç o) O (9 O N l\ rO O) N N F F N (g O l\ @ l\ e O\t A, t rO (g ]\ l\ € O N (Ð rl \t rO (o O t F rt N O)- ç N N N N N N (Ð (9 (Ð (l) (Ð (Ð (r) lO € CD rO € ælo ¡o ro ro ro ro ro ro ¡o ro ro |o ro þ ro ro lo |¡) (0 (0 (o

HgËË85F OF

çE*ËåË-tôl

oooooooo(roooõOGGGG#LLLLLL

ôLLLLLLõoooooo.=t-Ft-t-l-Fø)EE!rtrtr!t,¡Ê8trtrtrtrglÚl!lÚrEoñlg0,o,0.l0.l0,o9>>.=ooooooEOOOOOOro0(o\fo(o\flfc)NNNçç

ooooooo(O-N(9(o€g)(D-ç,FFFF(ol\1\]\l\Nl\

ooeoooooooooo-(9-Nr'flFo@NoFNNNt)(r).9(Ðrft¡O(g(gl\¡\]\l\l\l\Fl\l\1\l\l\

oooI

-oCL

9.DreËtcDE.gö.=!roÈoEc F Ë E b soE- È S F Ë E

Er l*Ëe ;_ eËE =Ë*=ã *gg*Ë,2

çËËËiËËEËåËËËËËËåËHËËË_u, E,t (i,ieËsÈÈ'iO.ho

dñ Þ ä þ:q F È s'o E Ë-n t þ È HoE t p^$ ; ; -Ë ", Ë

ä äi ì Ë :ã å ä eEF=: I g o$'i;ie'P 5EÈ= Ë *tiËH ËiFË

tct æ^*s $¡ $ *E i Èi g

;t=l Il ti** ; ir;ËË i l rätËtËrnlËfu ltH¡Ë;IrI;:3:: i3.gl -È È € È È g # n È n Ëv vv e fl n € vvr e e Ë {!.''.È,riÈ,È, +.ooooooooooôôoo:oooooooooooooooooooooQoooJJJJJJJJJJJJ JJ!JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ=, >, > > >= 2= 2 2 2 2 Z > >= >= r t r r r r, > > t, ==rïi:rïirÌirÍirÌi¡jio o o o o o o-- o-- o o o o o o o= o= o o o o o o o o o o o==E=E!!!!!=! È! E!!!!!EE'? ! ¡!!!!!!;!=!=?498 99999=a== f 5= - ¡3 f f 5 f ¡ã 5- = - 5= f = = = - 5= ¡ = =t=t=====o o o o o o o o o ô o o o o o o o ô o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o _r9 0 !! !! _!! -!! lEõ3¡rùrr¡rùrùrùrÉùrFùrùr.¡r.¡rc¡rt¡rùrÉùrÉ.¡rùrùrùrîñi¡rc¡rr¡rr¡r6.nl=FÉ,FÉÉ.É.É.ú,

Ë

,Ë

å åg Ë åË t g

t Ë år Ë Ë Ë Ë Ë l Ë l åt g* g

Ë Ë ååË

E

gHggHsHË8trtrtrtrtr'Ftr888EEEgtO O O O O O ãtozzzzzz-.+NONOIO]\NOç!ÌrtN--C)(O

oeooooo o ooeooeo o ooooooooooo o o99ooÑ æ N 1\ (\t (Ð - O t O ¡- + o) 0 0 N (D O (D C O t rO (o F ]\ (0 € N ç t O O tO e !O Q t9 Q OtN N (9 (9 rO rO (o .9 cf) t t- g) o) (o ¡at rO É' Or (D O -,F'F F N N (f) (9 rO F (o l\ (Þ (9 q' ì- (9 (B æ O(o (o (o (g (O (O (o ]\ t\ Ñ l\ l- f- @ qt o) O O O - - -,F F !F tF F - - N N N N .(l lO l\ Q € Gg O¡Ñ Ñ ì. N l: ]: l: ls l: ]s 1: I\ ]: l: ls È- € ó æ € æ @ æ æ € @ € € @ € c, q, æ € € oo æ æ co €

_¡o!,o=ãF E," EËE 3;ËË ir

Ë9, fiËfi"siã= Ë ËiË + Ë: iËEE å*FË!!Ë

o-É.

CL

(t,ct)gogattrìo

.c,€eËËEoE3OÊogl/¿l!O-É,Ø

",INÈ(\oõJr!ñË* Ë

$!€' 8Ë

ÈËtitlffi lgr**lËs¡rlri**uc-{-¡araFrac.tl:(o trtrtr =22 ¡9Rt-tNN-toçls-{NÑiiËËËËËËË €€€€€t ËËËËËËËËËËËËËEõËJJJJJJJJ

ÉÉÉÉÉËËÈ;ËËËËËËËË säËËËËË$;ËËÉËËËÉdËËeüÆp#ffftËËrf;8rr8 &&Eä8rfit9Ê8üfÊPËËËt

l Ë

g¡gg Ë Ë Ë Ëg* Ë

g ågË Ë ååf Ë

gg gË** g* g g ¡ Ë Ë Ë Ë Ë å¡gg r t ¡

ooooooooct)ç(o(ÐNCDN\frfO)çsf ¡OæCDTOO)OO)+ * r { r r i r * * + * i * * r r * I * r * + * I I5$$$$85rBi i i i i i i i i i i * i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

APPENDIX B Additional non-indigenous heritage places

TOWNSVILLE CITY COUNCIL

Local Heritage Database

PROPERTY NO: XXXX 5 Sabadine Street, Aitkenvale

RPD: Lot 169-171 RP703537

Description: A single storey residence constructed of timber with a pyramidal roof

and separate verandah roof encircling the core of the house. The house

sits on a large block with mature vegetation. The timber fence to West

Street appears to be early or original.

History: This house has not been individually researched, but would appear to

have been constructed in the late nineteenth century.

Significance: The house has aesthetic value as a fine example of a domestic residence

from the late nineteenth century period in Townsville, and located in a

complementary domestic setting.

Category: Residential

Local Authority: Townsville

Other/Previous Names: ?

Present Tenure: Private

Listing Boundary: Whole site

Level of Significance: Local heritage register

Other Listings: None

Comments: None



PROPERTY NO: XXXX 18 Fifth Avenue, South Townsville

RPD: Lot 42-43 RP703389

Description: This building is a single storey timber residence elevated on low stumps,

and features a distinctive transverse triple gabled roof form.


date from the late nineteenth or early twentieth centuries. It may have

been relocated from a mining settlement, but this cannot be proven or

disproven from available documentary sources. With its triple gabled

roof the house is similar in form (but much smaller in scale) to the

Pfeiffer House in Charters Towers (a mine manager’s house). This roof

form was also used in many of the Chillagoe Company’s buildings of this

early twentieth century period.

Significance: While most housing stock in Townsville is similar to that in other parts

of Queensland a number of houses survive that are distinctive to the

North Queensland region and broadly are products of the mining or

pastoral history of the region. The house is culturally significant as an

example of the North Queensland domestic architecture that is peculiar

to the region, demonstrated by its distinctive roof form. It would

appear to be a rare example of this form of residence in Townsville.


Local Authority: Townsville City Council






Comments: None



PROPERTY NO: XXXX 35 Sixth Avenue, South Townsville

RPD: Lot 23 RP7033889

Description: This single storey house is timber framed and constructed of timber

weatherboards with fibre cement sheeting. It has a single transverse

gable (the two room cottage form), with an enclosed rear verandah and

another attached living area (kitchen/bathroom?) to the rear of the site.


date from the late nineteenth or early twentieth century. It may have

been relocated from a mining settlement, but this cannot be proven or

disproven from available documentary sources. It is an example of a

“miner’s cottage” from this late nineteenth or early twentieth century

period.

Significance: While most housing stock in Townsville is similar to that in other parts

of Queensland a number of houses survive that are distinctive to the

North Queensland region and broadly are products of the mining or

pastoral history of the region. This house demonstrates the principal

characteristics of the “miner’s cottage” of North Queensland from the

turn of the twentieth century, with its two room core, enclosed front

and rear verandah, and attached kitchen/bathroom wing at the rear.








Comments: None



PROPERTY NO: XXXX 47 Esplanade, Balgal Beach

RPD: Lot 102 B9031

Description: A single storey house on ground constructed of ‘fibro’ sheeting and

timber framing. The house is quite small and would appear to be only

two rooms internally with an attached verandah/lean-to at the front.

History: This house has not been individually researched. It would appear from

its basic construction techniques and overall form to have been

constructed in the 1950s or 1960s.

Significance: This building is perhaps the quintessential “fibro shack” at Balgal Beach,

a small settlement north of Townsville near Rolling Stone that features a

number of these buildings. Its small size, construction materials and

general intactness suggests that this building is important in

demonstrating the principal characteristics of the post-war “fibro

shack”, a class of places contained in certain parts of Townsville.








Comments: None



PROPERTY NO: XXXX Archer Street, South Townsville

RPD: Lot 1, 4 & 8 T118181

Description: The building features two contiguous masonry buildings, with gabled

roofs sheeted in asbestos cement.

History: Documentary evidence suggests this building was constructed for the

Vacuum Oil Company in 1915, as a bulk store. In the later 1930s (it

would also appear) the site was acquired by the Shell Company of

Australia which used the building as its depot.

Significance: The building provides evidence of the industrial growth and

development of South Townsville in the early twentieth century, as part

of the port of Townsville nearby.

Category: Industrial







Comments: None



PROPERTY NO: XXXX Former AML&F Offices – 120 Denham Street, Townsville City

RPD: Lot 2 RP718721

Description: A two storey rendered masonry building with a hipped roof finished in

terracotta tiles, with a new suspended awning to the main elevation of

Denham Street. The building still features the AML&F logo to Denham

Street on the first floor, with windows to both floors and both

elevations, with glass bricks to Walker Street.

History: This building was constructed in 1925 as the Townsville offices of the

pastoral company Australian Mercantile Land & Finance Company

(AML&F). The AML&F Company was an English-Australian finance

company, incorporated in 1863, to operate in the Australian colonies.

The first office of the company was established in Brisbane in

1863AML&F ran pastoral stations in Australia, lent money to

pastoralists to finance the acquisition of properties, and owned and

operated woolstores in the capital cities, selling Australian wool to

English and other overseas markets. The AML&F had offices in London,

Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane by the early twentieth century, and

opened this building in Townsville in 1925 as a service to its north

Queensland clients, who were too far away from the company’s

Brisbane office to transact business.

Significance: The building demonstrates the development and growth in the pastoral

economy of North Queensland in the interwar period, and the presence

of the AML&F Company in the city and an important element of that

pastoral activity regionally. The building is one of the few offices of the

AML&F surviving in Queensland.

Category: Commercial office building


Other/Previous Names: NBC Chambers





Comments:



PROPERTY NO: XXXX James Cook University Library – 150 Angus Smith Drive, Douglas

RPD: Lot 40 SP189822 (part of)

Description: The building is essentially a single storey volume but massively

overscaled to achieve an architectural prominence in the campus

setting. The building is constructed of masonry with a heavy timber roof

extending beyond the footprint of the building, and achieves an organic

form with its use of off-form concrete, sloping walls, porthole windows,

curved corners and extensive glazing to the upper sections of the

elevations. The influence of the modernist architect Le Corbusier and

his Chandigarh buildings is evident.

History: The James Cook University Library was constructed in the mid 1960s to a

design by architect James Birrell, who was at the time the architect for

the University of Queensland (James Cook University was a college of

the University of Queensland). Site planning of the Ross River site at

Douglas for the university commenced in 1962/3. Work commenced on

site preparation, building of access roads, installation of stormwater

drainage and services provision in 1964-5. The first buildings to be

designed were the first Hall of Residence and the main Academic

Building, with tenders called in 1966. In 1966-7 plans and specifications

were prepared for the Library Building, tenders were called and a

contract had been let. Construction continued over 1967 and 1968, and

the building was completed and occupied for the academic year of 1969.

The architect James Birrell described the building as the centrepiece of

the campus and for that reason it had to be a feature building of the

University. In 2008 the building was renamed the Eddie Koiki Mabo

Library, after Eddie Mabo, who worked at the James Cook University as

a cleaner and apparently carried out research at the Library that

provided the background to his ultimately successful case involving

native title (the Mabo judgement). The building was awarded the 25

year award by the RAIA in 2006, recognising the architectural quality of

buildings from the recent past.

Significance: The James Cook University Library is significant for its architectural

qualities, as another fine example of post-war Regional Brutalism in

Townsville (together with the Supreme Court Building and the

Townsville Civic Centre). It demonstrates a creative architectural

achievement of the period.

Category: Public/institutional


Other/Previous Names: Eddie Koiki Mabo Library

Present Tenure: Private/James Cook University

Listing Boundary: Building and sufficient curtilege to experience the building



Comments: None



PROPERTY NO: XXXX Jensen Uniting Church – 5-9 Veales Road, Jensen

RPD: Lot 2-4 RP882869

Description: A single storey L shaped building constructed of timber weatherboards

with a gabled corrugated iron roof with ridge ventilators, arched

windows and other typical details.

History: The history of this church has not been able to be verified through

documentary research. The form and appearance of the building would

suggest it was constructed in the early to mid twentieth century.

Significance: The building demonstrates the principal characteristics of a religious

building from this period, with its overall Gothic inspired form, typical

detailing and architectural expression. The building has aesthetic and

architectural value as an example of its type.

Category: Church







Comments: None



PROPERTY NO: XXXX Perkins Street, South Townsville

RPD: Lot 112 SP130012

Description: A single storey shed/storage building sheeted in corrugated iron, with a

gabled roof also sheeted in corrugated iron. A railway platform runs

along the side of the building adjacent to the railway line.

History: Documentary evidence suggests this building may have been

constructed in the mid 1920 as a railway goods shed.

Significance: The building provides evidence of the industrial development of South

Townsville in the early twentieth century period in association with the

port and railway infrastructure.

Category: Industrial



Present Tenure: Public




Comments: None



PROPERTY NO: XXXX Railway Estate State School – 29-47 Railway Avenue, Railway Estate

RPD: Lot 626 EP1920

Description: The Railway Estate State School is a single storey timber building raised

on brick piers with a corrugated iron sheeted roof. The main building is

formed in a “U” shape with teachers’ rooms at an angle providing a

distinctive architectural composition.

History: The Railway Estate State School was originally constructed in 1915-6,

with a major addition completed in 1917. The first stage contained

three classrooms constructed on high brick piers with concreted areas

underneath, with accommodation for 148 pupils and two teachers’

rooms arranged at angles to the main building, and two hat and cloak

rooms at the ends of the verandahs with toilets underneath. The three

classrooms were divided by glazed accordion partitions with access to

each classroom being from the verandah along the outer side. This first

stage cost £1,800 to construct. The second stage was constructed

similar to the first and contained another two classrooms divided by a

glazed accordion partition, with accommodation for another 100 pupils.

It cost £747 to build. A third stage was proposed to complete the

building to finally provide accommodation for 348 pupils. The school

buildings are examples of the sectional schools common in Queensland

educational architecture of the time and are similar to other school

buildings of the period such as those at Cannon Hill in Brisbane and

Berserker in Rockhampton.

Significance: The Railway Estate State School is significant for its aesthetic and

architectural qualities, and as a fine example of educational architecture

of the Queensland Public Works Department of the Edwardian period,

and as evidence of the growth and development of the suburb of

Railway Estate in the First World War I period.

Category: Educational/public


Other/Previous Names: None

Present Tenure: Public/government




Comments: None



PROPERTY NO: XXXX St Mathews Anglican Church – 6 Carmody Street, Hermit Park

RPD: Lot 42-44 & Lot 67 RP703476

Description: A masonry church building with a steeply sloping gabled roof form

sheeted in corrugated iron, with a masonry feature wall to the front

elevation.

History: The building was constructed in 1957 to a design by architects Lund,

Hutton, Newell Black & Paulsen.

Significance: The building is culturally significant for its architectural quality, in its

adaptation of the typical Gothic inspired form of religious architecture

to the Modernist idiom of the post-war period. It demonstrates a

creative architectural achievement of the period.

Category: Church





Level of Significance: Local heritage register.


Comments: None



PROPERTY NO: XXXX Supreme Court Building – 31-69 Walker Street, Townsville

RPD: Lot 716 T118501

Description: The Supreme Court complex is two adjoining buildings of four and two

storeys, constructed of masonry, with a distinctive rough concrete finish

to the horizontal elements of the external elevations. The buildings are

heavily overscaled and the footprint of each floor extends over the one

below adding to the heavy scale of the design. The complex was

designed to be seen in the round, with its four sided elevation equally

impressive to Wills Street (the rear of the building).

History: This building was constructed to a design by the Queensland Public

Works Department in the mid 1970s. The site was resumed in 1969, the

building designed and construction commenced in 1972. The original

contractor failed to continue the contract, and a new contract was

entered into in 1973. By mid 1974 the building was about half complete,

and it was finished the following year, at a total construction cost of

almost $4 million. The building was opened by the Premier, Joh Bjelke-

Petersen in October 1975, and was named the Edmund Sheppard

Building. A contemporary account described the building in the

following way: its distinctive architecture lends to its significance as one

of the more prestigious Government buildings in North Queensland.

Significance: The Supreme Court Complex is significant for its architectural qualities,

as another fine example of post-war Regional Brutalism in Townsville

(together with the James Cook University Library and the Townsville

Civic Centre). It demonstrates a creative architectural achievement of

the period.



Other/Previous Names: Edmund Sheppard Building

Present Tenure: Government

Listing Boundary: The extent of the building and sufficient curtilege on either side

(excluding car park).



Comments: None



PROPERTY NO: XXXX Townsville Civic Centre - 103-141 Walker Street, Townsville City

RPD: Lot 137 & 141 T1181, Lot 12 T11817, Lot 1-3 RP701696, Lot 1-2 RP744965

Description: The building is a multi-storey masonry structure with protruding forms

expressing the internal workings and circulation of the building. A large

inside/outside forecourt space is created to the street by the

overhanging levels of the upper floors of the building above.

History: This building was designed by Brisbane based architects Lund Hutton

Ryan Morton. This firm won an architectural competition in the early

1970s to design the new administrative offices of the Townsville City

Council once it relocated from the early twentieth century Town Hall in

Flinders Street. The building was opened in March 1976 by the Premier

of Queensland, Joh Bjelke-Petersen.

Significance: The building is significant for its architectural quality, and is another in

the series of monumental Brutalist-inspired buildings in Townsville of

the late 1960s and early 1970s (including the adjacent Supreme Court

and the James Cook University Library. It demonstrates a creative

architectural achievement of the period.


Local Authority: Townsville






Comments: None



PROPERTY NO: XXXX West End Park – 63-69 Ingham Road, West End

RPD: Lot 4 T118351

Description: A public park on the corner of Church and Pridmore Streets and Ingham

Road, and adjacent to the former West End Cemetery. The park

contains a Federation era rotunda/bandstand which is constructed of

timber posts and corrugated iron sheeting and surmounted by an iron

cupola, with paths, trees and other features.

History: West End Park was formerly part of the West End cemetery reserve.

While the cemetery reserve was initially surveyed in 1865 it was

bounded by road reserves to the west, north and south and did not have

access to the main road into Townsville (later Flinders Street West). In

1886 the park site was added to the cemetery reserve (Lot 4 of Suburban

Section 1, an area of five acres at the corner of Church Street and

Flinders Street West) to provide access to the cemetery from this main

road. The cemetery was administered by trustees at this time, but with

the opening of a new cemetery at Belgian Gardens, maintenance and

lack of funds at West End became a problem. In 1901 the cemetery

trustees relinquished the unfenced part of the cemetery (the area of

West End Park), at the corner of Flinders Street West and Church Street,

which was gazetted as a recreation reserve and administered by the

Townsville Municipal Council. The bandstand/rotunda may have been

constructed at this time. In 1910 the recreation reserve was returned to

the cemetery reserve. West End Cemetery was closed officially in 1930.

During the Second World War a Civil Construction Corp camp was

established in the park area at the corner of Church Street and Flinders

Street West. Finally, the park was formalised in 1958 when the area was

excised from the cemetery reserve to create the present recreation

reserve.

Significance: West End Park is important for its aesthetic, historical, and social

significance. The park has been a recreation reserve for many years and

its history is closely connected with that of the adjacent cemetery. The

park has social significance as a community resource and recreational

area for the local Townsville community for more than 100 years. The

bandstand/rotunda has aesthetic value and demonstrates the principal

characteristics of this type of place in its building form, materials and

architectural expression.

Category: Public park/recreation


Other/Previous Names: (part of West End cemetery reserve)

Present Tenure: Local authority




Comments: None



PROPERTY NO: XXXX West End Uniting Church – 71 Ingham Road, West End

RPD: Lot 2 RP709434

Description: The site features a single storey masonry church with a tiled roof, and a

timber hall adjacent.

History: This church and hall were constructed for the West End Methodist

Church. An original church was constructed in West End in 1886,

opposite this site, and was replaced after a cyclone in 1898. In the 1920s

a hall (the current hall) was constructed on the opposite site (ie, the

current site), where a handsome new church was to be constructed as a

memorial to the Methodist pioneers. It would appear from

documentary sources that this church (the current church building) was

not constructed until the early 1950s, but from its appearance would

have been designed in the interwar period.

Significance: The church and hall demonstrate the principal characteristics of religious

buildings from the interwar period including the general Gothic inspired

form and religious detailing. The church building has aesthetic

significance as a result of it building materials and overall architectural

expression.

Category: Church


Other/Previous Names: Restoration Inn





Comments: None



PROPERTY NO: XXXX Woodstock CWA Hall – 42 Woodstock Avenue, Woodstock

RPD: Lot 24 EP352

Description: This simple hall building is rectangular in shape and is sheeted with

corrugated iron, with a gabled roof also sheeted in corrugated iron,

elevated on low stumps. The hall has an attached shade structure to

one side, with a built extension to this side as well.

History: In August 1922 an open conference for country women of Queensland

was arranged by the Governor of Queensland, Sir Matthew Nathan and

held in Brisbane. Nathan had become interested in the lives of country

people he had met in travelling the state in his official capacity as

Governor, and realised the hardship and isolation felt by many often fell

on country women. At the time, Queensland was suffering severe

drought and the conference was prompted by a desire to alleviate

problems experienced by rural women. A Country Women's Association

for Queensland was formed as a result of this meeting. All country

women present at this conference were elected members of the general

committee and were empowered to form branches in their local

districts. The CWA aimed to improve the quality of life of country

women and children by providing opportunities for social interaction

and recreation and by improving rural education and health, and raised

money for specific projects. Members of the CWA provided care and

support for country women and children, and among other things

organised the construction of rest rooms or community halls in towns

and settlements. The CWA attempted to meet the needs of rural

families with practical measures such as the provision of beachside

holiday accommodation, rest rooms for mothers in towns, bush nurse

centres and student hostels. CWA members worked to improve the

knowledge and skills of rural women by hosting lectures, teaching

handicrafts and home industries and maintaining libraries in their halls

and meeting places. Their halls were often focal points of the local

community and their members were frequently active in other local

organizations. Members provide meals for servicemen during World

War II.

The Northern Division of the CWA was formed in Townsville in 1923, and

within 10 years had more than 2,600 members in more than 100

branches across North Queensland. Women connected with all primary

industries were included in the membership of the Division – sugar,

dairying, farming, pastoral, mining, tobacco, timber – where women

faced an existence that was hard and difficult, where domestic comforts

were generally unknown.

The CWA Branch was formed in Woodstock in 1929 and by 1933 had a

membership of 16. A meeting held in June 1931, attended by the

President of the Division (Mrs Crowther) and members of the tennis, ,

football and cricket clubs, to discuss the construction of a hall for the

district community under the control of the CWA branch. Money was

raised as a nucleus of a building fund. An application was made to the

Lands Department for a reserve of three acres adjoining the school. An

advisory council of men was appointed to deal with plans and

specifications for the building. A working bee of men was formed, who

organised the construction of the building. The hall was constructed at a

cost of £250 and was officially opened in December 1931. The hall

became a busy social centre for the district, holding dances as

fundraisers and general community events. A Younger Set branch was

formed in Woodstock, which in 1933 had a membership of 13

Significance: This place is important for its historical and social significance to the

town of Woodstock, and the efforts of the CWA in the wider district in

providing community facilities.

Category: Community building/facility




Listing Boundary: Building and sufficient area for curtilege



Comments: None

APPENDIX C Summary of stakeholder discussions

SUMMARY OF STAKEHOLDER DISCUSSIONS

Meetings were held with Townsville City Council DA staff, the Townsville City Council Heritage

Working Group, and the officers of the Department of Environment and Resource Management

Cultural Heritage Branch Northern Region.

The following text was presented as a summary to the discussions with each of these groups:

The Townsville City Council is preparing a Cultural Heritage Study for the amalgamated city

council area prior to preparing a new planning scheme.

The purpose of the study is to among other things provide a policy framework for cultural

heritage places for the planning scheme; audit existing places; identify, evaluate and

document cultural heritage places, and provide a set of criteria for new heritage places.

Brannock & Associates have been commissioned to prepare this cultural heritage study and

carry out this project for the Townsville City Council.

In order to successfully carry out this work, we would like to know your opinion on a range of

important issues with respect to heritage and character, which are listed on the following

pages.

The following represents an amalgam of the questions that were asked of these groups:

What should the Townsville City Council be doing in order to conserve places of cultural

heritage significance and residential character values in the local government area?

In terms of development applications, and development assessment generally in the

Townsville City Council local government area, are heritage and character issues particularly

acute? Are there many DAs lodged that involve identified heritage places? (The existing

Townsville City Council planning scheme schedule for heritage contains more than 1,300

identified heritage places);

What is the level of ‘sophistication’ of DAs lodged in Townsville? Does Council impose any

additional requirements to pass a ‘properly made application’ test?

Is there pressure for new development in the Townsville CBD that has heritage implications?

Is there development pressure in the inner suburbs of Townsville for more intensive

development, either of the same use (single residential to denser residential), or for new uses

(residential to commercial for example)? Does this have any heritage or character

implications?

DERM (Cultural Heritage Branch) is a concurrence agency to DAs lodged over places on the

Queensland Heritage Register. What is the working relationship between the DERM and

TCC? Is there consistency in DA assessment between DERM Cultural Heritage and TCC?

For DAs lodged over places on the Townsville CC local heritage register, is there much

coordination between the Council heritage staff and the DA staff? Is this something that could

be improved/continued/abandoned?

What would be the reception among the Townsville development community if DAs lodged

over heritage places in the new Townsville City Council planning scheme (for building works

or Material Change of Use) were impact assessable?

Should proposed demolition of heritage places on the Townsville local heritage register be

impact assessable (inconsistent/non-preferred/generally inappropriate) development?

Do you see a distinction between heritage values and building character values in

Townsville?

Is finding an appropriate land use an issue with heritage places in the city that you know of?

Are there any strategies that could be developed by Council to counter this?

What level of control should Council exercise over early houses in the city –

demolition/removal only, or at all?

Is redundancy an issue with heritage places in the city? Are there any strategies that could

be developed by Council to counter this?

Should any Townsville City Council heritage register or list contain more recent (Post World

War II) places of cultural heritage significance?

Are there archaeological sites of potential cultural heritage significance in the Townsville City

Council local government area, and if so, how should the planning scheme and local heritage

register consider these?

How should the local heritage register in the new planning scheme deal with existing heritage

sites identified in the former Thuringowa City Council area?

Should there be an upper limit of places in a heritage register?

Are heritage values retained if places are removed to a new location?

How could any heritage type code in a new planning scheme for the Townsville City Council

be drafted to ensure consistency and rigour in development assessment in Townsville, and to

ensure better outcomes for heritage in the city? Would this help DERM’s assessment of

development applications at all?

Anything else worth talking about?

Attendees at the Townsville City Council Heritage Working Group (7 October 2010) discussion were

as follows:

Councillor Ray Gartrell, Jo Prego, Zanita Davis, Rob Dusting, Dr Dorothy

Gibson-Wilde, Dr Shelley Greer, Dr Judith Jensen, Helen Lucas, Peter

McLeod, Stuart Pentland, John Weir, John Edgar, Ted Brandi, and

John Brannock and Scott Richards (Brannock & Associates)

Attendees at the Department of Environment and Resource Management (Cultural Heritage Branch)

discussion (20 October 2010) were as follows:

Rob Dusting (DERM), Sandi Robb (DERM), Kristy Thorne (DIP), Monica

Lowe (DIP), Sally Curran (TCC), John Edgar (TCC), Ted Brandi (TCC), and

Scott Richards (Brannock & Associates).

APPENDIX D Mapping of heritage places

final report - home - townsville city council · carried out a -topdesk audit of these listings and...

Documents