Bunbury Proposed Concept Design Heritage Impact Statement

Redevelopment of the Stirling Centre Arts Centre at State Government Infants’ School (fmr), Bunbury Proposed Concept Design Heritage Impact Statement City of Bunbury 30 January 2018 Contact Kent Lyon Director [email protected] Kent Lyon Architect Pty Ltd 96 Beach Road Bunbury, WA Australia 6230 T +61 8 9791 5404 ABN 41 140 658 000 © January 2018 KLA Project No: 2017-025

Timeless design inspired through perspective

Redevelopment of the State Government Infants’ School (fmr), Bunbury

Proposed Concept Design | Heritage Impact Statement | January 2018 Page | 2

Contents 01 Disclaimer ................................................................................................................................... 3 02 Overview .................................................................................................................................... 4 03 Conservation Policies .......................................................................................................... 5 04 Local Heritage Planning .................................................................................................... 12 05 Proposal ..................................................................................................................................... 13 06 Attachments ............................................................................................................................ 17 07 References ............................................................................................................................... 17



01 Disclaimer The following report has been complied after being commissioned by City of Bunbury on 11th September 2017.

We have made our comments and assessments based on review of documentation approved as Concept Designs by City of Bunbury.

We have had a brief informal discussion with the State Heritage Office directly and sought any clarifications through City of Bunbury Stirling Street Arts Centre Redevelopment Project Control Group as a reference point.

Limitations:

This report does not contain any assessment of opinion in relation to

a) any drawings, reports, assessments or item which was not, brought to our attention.

b) a matter which is not within Kent Lyon Architect’s expertise; or

c) a matter, the inspection or assessment of which is solely regulated by statute.



02 Overview Name of Place: State Government Infants’ School (fmr), Bunbury

Other Names: Stirling Street Arts Centre

Date: 29 January 2018

Prepared by: Kent Lyon, Heritage Consultant of Kent Lyon Architect Pty Ltd

Prepared for: City of Bunbury

The Place/Area: Stirling Street Heritage Precinct

Heritage Listings State Heritage Register (Assessed Below Threshold) Place Number 00356, dated 24 February 2017

City of Bunbury Municipal Inventory (Adopted) July 1996 – Place No. B163

City of Bunbury Town Planning Scheme No. 7, Heritage List 2002 – TPS No. 101

City of Bunbury Local Planning Policy No. 61 – Stirling Street Heritage Precinct dated 2008

Conservation Plan Conservation Management Plan for the State Government Infants’ School (Prepared: June 2016)

Statement of S ign i f icance (as per State Heritage Off ice InHerit L ist ing : accessed January 2018)

State Government Infants’ School (fmr), Bunbury, comprising an Inter-War Georgian Revival brick and corrugated iron former Bunbury Infants’ School (1917), brick and corrugated iron Toilet Block (1948), and mature trees has cultural heritage significance for the following reasons:

� the place demonstrates the development of education in the State in the early twentieth century, particularly in relation to the expansion of regional areas;

� the place is an example of the implementation of innovative teaching methods in Western Australia associated with Maria Montessori between 1914 and the 1920s;

� the place is associated with PWD Chief Architect Hillson Beasley, and his successor, William Burden Hardwick having been based on a standard plan for Infant Schools incorporating ‘open-air’ teaching methods, which was used at a number of other schools in the State;

The Bunbury Band Hall (1974), Creche (1975), Pottery Studio (1976), Undercover Area (2009), and Storage Area (2010) associated with the site’s use as Stirling Street Arts Centre are considered to have little cultural heritage significance.



03 Conservation Policies The Conservation Management Plan (June 2016) outlines several policies of relevance to the proposal. Note: only portions of policies have been included below. Also the CMP incorrectly notes south-eastern quadrant when it is actually the south-western quadrant of the site (e.g. page 117).

Policies relating to the assessed significance:

Policy 2.1 (pg101): “The Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter should be used to set the standard of practice for those who provide advice, make decisions about, or undertake works to the place.”

Policy 3.1 (pg101): “The former school building, which forms the key heritage element of the State Government Infants’ School (fmr), Bunbury, has been assessed as being of considerable cultural heritage significance at both the State and local levels.

Conservation of the building and an appropriate setting are therefore strongly recommended.

All proposed works should be informed by, and compatible with, the significance of the place and its component parts (as assessed and documented in Sections 5, 6 and 7).”

“8.3 .1 The genera l sett ing of the former school bui ld ing (pgs101-2)

In accordance with the definitions of the Burra Charter (2013), the term setting means the immediate and extended environment of a place that is part of or contributes to its cultural significance and distinctive character.

In this context the streetscape setting of the main southern elevation (as viewed from Charles and Stirling Streets) is of particular importance in providing an appropriate setting for the place. Evidence of the main sealed playground area, mature trees and shrubs dating from pre-1968 and interpretation of the larger open grassed playground area (inclusive of views from Queens Gardens) are also important in understanding the function and setting of the school.

Issues requiring consideration include, but are not limited to:

• The significant aspects of the setting within the curtilage of the Study Area (see also Section 8.3.2). � • Development pressures and potential within the site (discussed separately under Sections 8.6 and 8.7) � • Any significant visual and/or historical connections to related sites (see also Section 8.8). � • Any intrusive townscape/streetscape elements that impact upon the site (including �vistas). � • The potential impact of any new development outside of the heritage curtilage, if this may impact on significant

vistas to or from the place. “

Policy 3.4 (pg103): “The Melia azedarach (white cedar), Metrosideros Excelsa (New Zealand Christmas tree), Cinnamomum camphora (camphor laurel), and the large pink oleanders on either side of the entrance to the carpark off Stirling Street, have been assessed as being of considerable significance as landscape elements relating to the development of the school grounds.

A professional arboricultural report should be prepared for all of these elements, including the development of individual maintenance regimes (addressing both short and long term actions).

Note: Long-term actions should include the establishment/sourcing of replacement seedlings if a significant tree is showing signs of nearing the end of its natural life (see also Policy 3.7).”

Policy 3.5 (pg103): “Further advice from a professional arboriculturalist should be sought if any of the significant trees or shrubs exhibit signs of unanticipated stress or other deterioration, or if other unanticipated concerns arise (such as storm damage) (see also Policies 3.6 and 3.7).”

Policy 3.6 (pg103): “Removal or major pruning of any of the significant trees or shrubs should only be considered if there are clearly demonstrated issues relating to their condition or their impact on the significant heritage fabric of the former school building.

Where any significant landscaping is proposed for removal, the reasons for the proposal should be clearly demonstrated by a professional arboricultural report and/or structural evidence, as relevant.



Cultural heritage significance and conservation outcomes should be key considerations as part of the decision making process (see also Policy 3.7).”

Policy 3.7 (pg103): “If any of the significant trees or shrubs are removed (in accordance with Policy 3.6), replacement plantings of the same species or, if necessary, a species that will achieve the same visual effect, should be made in the same general area as a matter of priority, preferably using well-established seedings.

Note: If the same species is not appropriate for practical reasons (such as a high level of risk of attack from known pests) another species can be selected, provided that it will achieve the same visual effect (i.e. be of a similar mature size, form, and character, considering issues such as leaf form and colour, flowers, canopy etc).”

Policy 3.8 (pgs103-4): “A landscape plan should be prepared and implemented for the immediate curtilage of the former school building (the area identified for a landscaped/open space curtilage on Figure 8.1, under Section 8.6.2).

This should aim to:

• Protect significant trees (see also Policy 3.4); � • Interpret the school era landscaping of this area, based on the surviving physical evidence, the

1959 aerial photograph, and other documentary or oral evidence; � • Enhance opportunities for views of the main (south) façade from the public realm, with

particular reference to an appreciation of the symmetry and detailing of this elevation; �

Note: Historical evidence provided by the 1959 aerial photograph shows mature trees framing the south-west and south-east corners of the school building, and two large shrubs framing the central bay. The remainder of this frontage was largely open, and this layout emphasised the symmetrical form � of the main façade and revealed it to view from the adjacent public areas.

Any traditional use of smaller plants cannot be readily interpreted from the aerial photograph but, as a general principle, garden beds requiring regular watering should not abut old walls as this is a common factor that contributes to long-term problems relating to damp.

With the exception of trees identified as being of considerable significance under Section 7.1, the existing vegetation in this area has been assessed as being of little/no heritage significance and the larger elements currently obscure parts of the façade from public views. The current design also encourages the build up of leaf litter and soil at the base of the building, which is not consistent with good conservation practice (see also Section 8.4).

• Maintain other key sight lines (see Figure 8.1, Section 8.6.2). � • Retain the sealed open space immediately north of the former school building, and interpret this

as the main play area for the former school see also Sections 8.6.2 and 8.8). �The landscape plan should also consider how this area could be used to support an increased appreciation of the c.1930 detailing of the northern façade (see also Policies 3.15 (d) and (e)); �

• Avoid any potential adverse impact on the significant fabric of the former school building, including the potential long-term impacts of rising damp (see also Section 8.4.5), root damage and/or damage from the impact of branches; �

• Establish conditions that are not conducive to vandalism (for example, by considering options such as reducing dense screening; using thorny low level shrubs or ground covers along the southern elevation; and/or using fixed or movement sensor lighting); �

• Guide the location and size of free-standing or fence-mounted signage in these areas (which should be kept to the minimum required and be of a consistent high quality design) (see also Policy 7.2); �

• Guide the design of any future perimeter fencing (noting that this study concluded that the existing fencing is of an appropriate, simple and functional style and is not visually intrusive within views of the former school building). “

Policy 3.9 (pg104) “The western boundary of the site traditionally featured mature trees at the western end of the former school building, near the toilet block and at the northwestern corner of the site. This should be



retained and reinforced as part of the long-term planning for the site, maintaining a transitional zone between Queens Gardens and the residential areas of East Bunbury (as now viewed from Blair Street). �

The landscaping of this area should include consideration of the location of free-standing or fence-mounted signage (which should be kept to the minimum required and be of a consistent high quality design) (see also Policy 7.2).”

Policy 3.13 (pg106) “Fabric and spaces identified as being of Some Significance (see Section 7.2) should be conserved wherever practical. …

…The following specific conservation actions are recommended in addition to the conservation actions relating to archaeological potential (Section 8.3.4) and physical condition (Section 8.4):

a) While the toilet block represents the ongoing development and use of the place as a school in the mid-twentieth century, its conservation is not considered to be essential. If this structure requires upgrading or replacement to meet modern standards, or as part of larger proposals that will achieve positive conservation outcomes for the original school building, its removal is considered acceptable, subject to archival recording (see Policy 1.7)”

“8.3 .4 Areas of Archaeologica l Potent ia l (pgs108-9)

The aim of this section is to address the management of any known or potential archaeological issues within the study boundaries.

Issues requiring consideration under this section of the policy include, but are not limited to, the degree of archaeological potential of the area(s) under consideration (as set out in Section 3.7), whether further professional investigation is warranted if site disturbance is planned, and the nature of this investigation.

General Principles

• Areas of Exceptional Archaeological Potential � For areas with exceptional archaeological potential, the area should not be disturbed except in the event of a professional archaeological excavation with a comprehensive research plan. �

• Areas of Considerable Archaeological Potential � For areas with considerable archaeological potential, disturbance of the area should be �avoided where possible. �Where disturbance cannot be avoided, an archaeological examination should be undertaken prior to other works taking place. An appropriately qualified archaeologist, who may conduct an architectural excavation or test pit where appropriate, should carry out the assessment. �

• Areas of Some Archaeological Potential � For areas of some significance, disturbance of the area should be avoided where possible. Where disturbance cannot be avoided, an archaeologist should be consulted to determine the best course of action. For example a suitably qualified archaeologist may need to be present when works are undertaken in order to identify, record, and/or �collect material of archaeological significance. The archaeologist shall assess whether a watching brief is appropriate, possibly with the aid of a test excavation. Should unanticipated finds be encountered the archaeologist will need to make an assessment of their significance and, in some cases, undertake more comprehensive investigations.

• A contingency plan for sub-surface disturbance and subsequent uncovering of archaeological features/ materials shall be in place to ensure appropriate treatment of archaeological matter.”

Policy 6.1 (pg116): “Continue to use the former school building as a community arts and crafts venue.”

Policy 6.2 (pg116): “Ensure that any other use(s) that may be introduced to the site over time are compatible with the conservation of the former school building; ongoing public access; opportunities for educational activities; and opportunities for interpretation.”

Policy 6.3 (pg116): “Any new works required to support an approved compatible use should be carefully designed to involve the minimum possible adverse impact(s) on the heritage fabric and value of the place, based on detailed consideration of the available options. This includes the conservation of the former school building and its significant curtilage (as discussed in Section 7).”



“8 .6 .2 Development Potent ia l (pg117)

As stated in Article 8 of the Burra Charter (2013):

Conservation requires the retention of an appropriate setting. This includes retention of the visual and sensory setting, as well as the retention of spiritual and other cultural relationships that contribute to the cultural significance of the place.

New construction, demolition, intrusions or other changes that would adversely affect the setting or relationships are not appropriate.

The site of the State Government Infants’ School (fmr), Bunbury, measures approximately 7246m2. Documentary evidence (including a 1959 aerial photograph) confirms that development for the school was largely confined to the south-eastern (sic) quadrant, and that the remainder of the site was mostly grassed with scattered trees near the boundaries. This has directly informed the assessed zones of significance (see Figure 7.1) and provides opportunities for new development across a considerable proportion of the site (Figure 8.1).”

Figure 8.1: Development Potential (indicating areas where some new development could be

considered)



Policy 6.4 (pg118): “Future built development should generally be located outside of the area identified as being of considerable significance.”

Policy 6.5 (pg118) “Built development within the area identified as being of considerable significance should be restricted to open-sided or enclosed covered-ways, located on the northern side of the former school building.

Proposals for any such structures must be able to demonstrate that these are essential to the functional relationship between the former school building and any post 1970 buildings on the site. They should also involve the minimum possible physical and visual impact on heritage fabric and support an appreciation and/or interpretation of the original design of this façade as a wide verandah and its early infill.”

Policy 6.6 (pg118) “The significant spaces on the southern and western side of the former school building should remain as landscaped areas (see also Section 8.3.2).”

Policy 6.8 (pg118) “Built development and landscaping within the open space areas identified as being of some significance should be designed to maintain and/or frame views to the former school building and significant landscape areas from the adjacent public space.”

Policy 6.10 (pg118) “Any new buildings on the site should generally be of a simple modern design. They should not attempt to replicate a heritage style, but rather be carefully designed to use complementary proportions, scale, massing and materials wherever the old and new can be viewed together.

Any cover-ways linking the old and the new should be of a lightweight, transparent design. New buildings can be constructed of either traditional materials (such as face-brick or rendered masonry) or complementary modern materials.

Note: The key principles of complementary design are articulated in a New South Wales Heritage Office/Royal Institute of Architects (sic) publication titled Design in Context. Guidelines for infill development in the historical environment.”

8 .7 POLICIES RELATING TO OWNER AND/OR USER REQUIREMENTS, CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES (pgs119-20)

Specific requirements, constraints and opportunities (not addressed above) may relate to issues such as financial resources; social or other cultural issues; requirements for modern technology and sustainability; building security and other adaptation to meet modern requirements/standards.

The site is currently operated under the Stirling Street Arts Centre Management Board. Support from the City of Bunbury includes an annual operating grant, plus additional minor capital funding, which has enabled significant equipment and facilities upgrades over time.

The key issues identified during consultation with members of the Stirling Street Arts Centre Management Board and with staff members from the City of Bunbury on 8-9 February 2016 include:

• The Stirling Street Arts Centre Management Board has been developing proposals for the expansion and improvement of their facilities for approximately 10 years, but only minor capital works have been undertaken during that time. � Planning has included the development of a master plan for the site in c.2011-2013, which proposed major development on the site, including new office, studio and meeting spaces. It also included proposals for an auditorium and amphitheatre, aimed at increasing the number of performing arts tenants and events at the centre.

�These plans have not been progressed due to a range of issues including current funding limitations. There have also been significant concerns expressed about the scale of the proposals, with particular reference to the potential impact of increased traffic and noise on residents of the nearby sections of Stirling and Charles Streets.

�Some of the proposals195 also suggested an inappropriate impact on the heritage fabric, including the removal of the significant open-air classroom area, the complete redesign of the interiors, and construction of new buildings in close proximity to the brick section of the former school, on both the eastern and northern sides (impacting directly on significant zones and fabric, as highlighted on Figures 7.1, 7.2 and 8.1 of this report). �(195 For example, Final

Enhancement Plan: Stirling Street Arts Centre Precinct, mcg architects pty ltd, August 2011)

• The success of the Stirling Street Art Centre as a community venue for arts and craft activities, an expansion of the activities offered at the site (such as specialist workshops and the summer school), and an increasing local



population has placed increasing pressure on the available facilities.

�During the consultation process for this report it was stated that the Stirling Street Arts Centre currently caters for 800-1,000 users per week. �

• The available office space is inadequate for current and anticipated requirements.

�The former head teacher’s office is now occupied as a cramped, shared office space, with an overflow office area in the attached former teachers’ store room. These two spaces now cater for up to 4 staff members at various times.

• Storage space is at capacity for both the management and users of the place. � The current storage requirements cannot be adequately met by the previous installation of large built-in cupboards in the former classrooms, the construction of three additional storerooms within the original open-air classroom/hat room area and the establishment of a fenced external storage area, which is occupied by a shed and shipping containers. �From a heritage perspective, some of these storage spaces are also visually and/or physically intrusive (as discussed in Section 7). �

• Toilet facilities are limited to the detached 1948 school toilets. While these have undergone some minor upgrades, the members of the Stirling Street Arts Centre Management Board noted that there have been ongoing problems with root damage to the sewerage system. � Concern was also expressed about the lack of covered access from the main buildings and it was noted that the facilities are sometimes inadequate for community events, such as craft fairs. �

• There is no separate area available for exhibitions, which means that when these are held, classes and activities have to be suspended and the spaces rearranged. This adversely impacts on the regular users of the site, and severely limits opportunities for public exhibitions (major exhibitions are currently restricted to two weekends per year, with the centre closing over a longer period for the set-up and dismantling process). �

• The Stirling Street Arts Centre Management Board believes that the financial viability of the centre would significantly benefit from expanded facilities, considering the potential revenue that could be generated from additional studio, exhibition and function spaces. This aligns with the Board’s long-term aim to become fully self-funding. �

The current priority identified by the Stirling Street Arts Centre Management Board was for the construction of a new administration and toilet block. Any such proposals should be considered with reference to Section 8.6.2 of this report (Policies 6.4 to 6.10). Any associated adaptation of the former school building should be guided by the other conservation policies. � Other current and potential issues relating to the on-going occupation of the place have been considered below. �

Policy 7.3 (pg120) “The design and location of free-sanding signage should consider not only public views of the signs and the necessary dissemination of information, but also the potential impact on the setting of the place (in terms of size, position, colour and number) (see also Policies 3.3, 3.8 and 3.9)

A single design should be adopted for all directional and contact signage to avoid an ad hoc approach over time.”

Policy 7.3 (pg121) “The walls of the former school building should not be used for the installation of art works (inclusive of painted or wall mounted installations).

Note: the west elevation of the original brick classroom block was fully rendered for the purpose of signage and a ceramic artwork in 1989. While this is relevant to the use of the place as a community art and crafts venue, it has adversely impacted on the character of the former school building.

Freestanding art installations in the grounds, and murals on the walls of modern buildings, are generally appropriate, subject to their visual impact on important views of the former school building.”

Policy 7.8 (pg122) “As part of planning for any new buildings on the site, consider opportunities to remove sinks from the former classrooms and to relocate the kitchen away from the former school building (see also Policy 3.16(c)).



As part of such works, redundant wall-mounted pipes should be carefully removed and any significant fabric affected by these works should be sympathetically repaired.”

Policy 7.9 (pg122) “No additional plumbing services should be installed within the original school building, unless it is intended to reinterpret the location of basins within the original hat rooms (as part of reconstruction of these rooms for a purpose consistent with both the historical layout and the current function).”

Policy 7.16 (pg124) “As part of the management of stormwater consideration may be given to the installation of traditional rainwater tanks, to collect water for use on the site. These could be located at the western end of the former school building.”

Policy 8.2 (pg126) “Interpretation of the State Government Infants’ School (fmr), Bunbury, should be underpinned by its continued promotion and use as a community venue.”

Policy 8.3 (pg126) “The interpretation of the State Government Infants’ School (fmr), Bunbury, should convey the significance of the place, with specific reference to the following themes: …

• …Development of the site as a community arts and crafts venue.“



04 Local Heritage Planning Local Planning Policy – Stirling Street Heritage Precinct & Heritage Conservation and Development Policy for Heritage Places

The place has been included in the Stirling Street Heritage Precinct pursuant to Clause 7.2 of the City of Bunbury Town Planning Scheme No. 7. The City of Bunbury’s Local Planning Policy No. 61 – Stirling Street Heritage Precinct dated 2008 including Local Planning Policy – ‘Design Guidelines for Heritage Areas’ dated 2003 and Local Planning Policy No. 46 – Heritage Conservation and Development Policy for Heritage Places dated 2008 also including Local Planning Policy – ‘Design Guidelines for Heritage Areas’ dated 2003 has been adopted to ensure that any new buildings and alteration to existing buildings within the precinct are compatible with and complementary to the historical built environment. The Design Guidelines are therefore applicable to the Proposed Redevelopment Design of the Stirling Street Arts Centre. However this document is more focused on the residential dwellings in heritage areas, so somewhat limited to this proposal.

Heritage List

The State Government Infants’ School (fmr), Bunbury is listed as TPS No. 101 on the Heritage List 2002 – under the City of Bunbury Town Planning Scheme No. 7. As this is a City of Bunbury property currently in use as the Stirling Street Arts Centre the need for this Heritage Impact Statement serves as the basis for reviewing the proposed redevelopment design.

Municipal Inventory

The State Government Infants’ School (fmr), Bunbury is included in the City of Bunbury Municipal Inventory adopted 31 July 1996 as Place B163 (HCWA Place No. 00356), on State Heritage Office InHerit Database it has a Grading/Management Category and Description – Exceptional Significance. However it is unclear whether this recommends the highest level of protection be applied?

The State Government Infants’ School (fmr), Bunbury is also included in the City of Bunbury Municipal Inventory adopted 31 July 1996 as part of HCWA Place No. 05698 – Stirling Street Heritage Precinct, on State Heritage Office InHerit Database it has a Grading/Management Category – Recommended RHP and Description – Highest level of protection appropriate: recommend for entry into the State Register of Heritage Places [RHP]; provide maximum encouragement to the owner to conserve the significance of the place.



05 Proposal Overview

Redevelopment with Proposed Concept Design of the Stirling Street Art Centre at the State Government Infants’ School (fmr), Bunbury, within the Stirling Street Heritage Precinct. There are several aspects to consider for this proposal outlined below with regards to the heritage significance of the place or area, conservation policies from the Conservation Management Plan (2016) that have been considered.

The following aspects of the proposal that respect or enhance the heritage significance of the place or area, for the following reasons:

The proposal will enhance the heritage significance of the State Government Infants’ School (fmr), Bunbury by:

� Respects the ‘Open-Air‘ learning environment philosophy of Maria Montessori teaching as the Proposed Building Design attempts to highlight this concept by being a largely transparent building, with the public being able to see through the building to the other side, creating the illusion that there is no boundary between the outdoors and the indoors. The added benefit of having a transparent building is that the sightlines to the existing building are maintained. �Also by having Multi-Purpose 01 & 02 rooms that opens out to the shared courtyard to the east.

� Continuing the use of the place with a compatible use. This gives opportunities for on-going public access to the interiors of the State Government Infants’ School (fmr), Bunbury, with continuation of educational activities and interpretation within the arts and carefully designed new works that are compatible to the current use and respectful of the former school building and its significant curtilage to the northern side of building. (Policies 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 8.2 & 8.3).

� Retention and enhancement of the western entry to the place by upgrading and directing the community through the new access and subtle directional signage (Policy 6.6).

� Proposed Building Design and landscaping within the open space area designated as some significance maintains and frames views, which currently are obscured from Queens Gardens due to current Toilet Block and foliage along the northern boundary of curtilage from the northeasterly& northwesterly views (Policy 6.8). Refer to two photos below.

View from North East with Existing Northern Face of Building obscured by Undercover structure (2009) and vegetation



View from North West with Existing Northern Face of Building obscured by mature trees & dense undergrowth

� Locating the Proposed Building Design to the north and west quadrant on the site is of a simple modern design, not replicating the heritage style, design or detailing of the State Government Infants’ School (fmr), Bunbury building yet complimenting the scale, massing and materials by integrating brickwork to the western façade (Policy 6.10), as follows: • Roof forms of the existing building has a number of pitched roofs tied together which in elevation create

triangles side by side. The Proposed Building Design creates a playful twist on this � with the side elevation creating distorted triangles through the form of skillion roofs � pitched opposing ways.

• Southern (Stirling Street) front façade to the existing building has two distinct protruding walls, although they only protrude from the main building by less than half a metre. This is reflected �in the Proposed Building Design with a number of protruding walls along the western façade. �

• Battened eaves lining creates a negative detail with the battens �being spaced apart existing building. This concept is suggested within the Proposed Building Design through the use of high roof walls that are perforated screens. The perforated screens are suggested to have patterns/artwork designed by the local artists using the facility and reflecting the heritage story of the facility.

� Demolition of the brick and corrugated iron Toilet Block (1948), subject to archival record (Policy 3.13).

The following aspects could detrimentally impact on heritage significance. The reasons are explained as well as the measures to be taken to minimise impacts:

The proposal has identified as follows:

� Five trees highlighted within Conservation Management Plan that are of considerable significance (Policies 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8 & 3.9). • Two trees – the pink oleanders to the east and west of the car park entrance, do not �relate to the new

development. � • The Metrosideros Excels (New Zealand Christmas Tree) located on the southwestern corner of the

State Government Infants’ School (fmr), Bunbury building has been identified as significant as it could be one of the original or early trees established. The original tree has sprouted offshoots with new trees being formed around. Issues with the tree affecting the structural integrity of the roof of the heritage building needs to be addressed. It is likely that the original tree is the one closest to the building causing the



issues with the State Government Infants’ School (fmr), Bunbury building. There is also the issue that visually the cluster of trees � obscures the heritage façade of the building. Arborist Report indicates the tree to be in reasonably good health with some defective branch attachments visible. Possible course of action is to remove defective branches and remove some of the trees retaining a few to minimize damage to heritage building and create better sightlines to heritage building.

• The Cinnamomum Camphora (Camphor Laurel) located on the western end of the heritage building has been identified as significant. The arborist report indicates the tree �is in good health with some defective branch unions visible. Structural root zone �radius is 3.5m, which is getting very close to the existing State Government Infants’ School (fmr), Bunbury building. Recommended tree protection zone (TPZ) to be 10.8m. The report only recommends removing all infrastructure in the way such as fencing, pathways, garden walls within the TPZ. The tree doesn’t impact on the development and therefore could be retained. �

• The final significant tree to be a Melia Azedarach (White Cedar), noted in the Conservation Management Plan, however the arborist report indicates the same scientific name but as� ‘Cape Lilac’. The tree is located in the northwestern corner of the bitumen surface � area and is significant is due to the planting of the tree on Arbor Day in 1926 by a �student who is still a member of the Bunbury community. The arborist report indicates the tree is in average/good condition with evidence of internal decay and dead/damaged branches throughout the crown. The structural root zone is suggested as 3.5m and the recommended tree protection zone (TPZ) is 12m. The tree is located in the proposed development area. With a 12m TPZ the new building would need to be relocated a fair distance from the existing State Government Infants’ School (fmr), Bunbury building making the connection impractical. The proposed building location is restricted by the Conservation Management Plan with suggested areas of significance maintaining the sightlines to the northern façade of the State Government Infants’ School (fmr), Bunbury building. Therefore shifting the building to avoid the removal of the Cape Lilac or White Cedar is not a possibility. It is recommended the trunk and plaque be retained. �

Due to the nature of being concept designs the proposal is limited in identifying the extent of the works:

Policies noted below which would need further consideration:

� Any proposed landscaping (Policies 3.8 & 6.8). � Incorporation of any Signage with regards to design and mounting (Policy 7.2). � Removal of any redundant plumbing (Policy 7.8). � Areas of Archeological Potential (Section 8.3.4).

Alternative options that have been considered:

A number of options for the Proposed Concept Design, dating back to 2011, have been considered prior to the development of this current proposal. As noted in the Conservation Management Plan (2016) those proposals had significant negative impact on the extant place and it’s surrounding neighbours.

Conclusion:

The Stirling Street Arts Centre — Proposed Concept Design will provide for public access, continue the current & on-going use that would be beneficial to the place. The disadvantages of the proposed layout are primarily the need to prune two trees and remove one tree. The courtyard north of the existing building will be maintained plus benefit from re-surfacing the area to ensure appropriate stormwater disbursement away from the existing building. The ‘open air’ learning environment has been enhanced by the proposed building design in keeping with innovative teaching methods in Western Australia associated with Maria Montessori between 1914 and the 1920s.

The proposal responds to the policies identified in the Conservation Management Plan (2016), however some of the sight lines identified on the Figure 8.1 Development Potential would be diminished, even though they currently aren’t visible due to mature trees, dense undergrowth and the Undercover Area (2009). The proposal is supported by sufficient plans & specifications to adequately describe the full extent of the works. There may need to be further consideration of the items identified above under ‘Due to the nature of being concept designs the proposal is limited in identifying the extent of the works’.



Based on the Conservation Management Plan (2016) along with the Statement of Significance, Graded Zones and Element of Significance & Conservation Policies, the listing of the Place on the State Heritage Office InHerit Database (P00356) and City of Bunbury Heritage List & Municipal Inventory I would advocate seeking any comments in relation to this report in an effort to enhance the prominence of the Proposed Concept Design for the State Government Infants’ School (fmr), Bunbury.



06 Attachments

� Concept Designs – SK.01 Location Plan, SK.02 Proposed Site Plan, SK.03 Perspectives & SK.04 Elevations, by Kent Lyon Architect

� Tree Inspection and Recommendations Arborist Report September 2017, by Kings Tree Care

07 References

� City of Bunbury Town Planning Scheme No. 7, including Heritage List dated 2002 � City of Bunbury Local Planning Policy No. 61 – Stirling Street Heritage Precinct dated 2008 � City of Bunbury Local Planning Policy No. 46 – Heritage Conservation and Development Policy for

Heritage Places dated 2008 � Stirling Street (East Bunbury) Heritage Precinct – Statement of Planning Policy (TP.10) � Municipal Inventory – Place B.4 � Conservation Management Plan (2016), Greenward Consulting

Kings Tree Care Arborist Report September 2017 Page 1

Tree Inspection and Recommendations Prepared for:

City of Bunbury

29/09/2017

Written by:

Ben Jorgensen ISA Certified Arborist AU-0334A


Summary Scope of report The scope of this report is to carry out a basic visual inspection of approximately 20 trees of varying species within a defined area at the Stirling St Art Centre Bunbury and provide information pertaining to the current state of health and structure of the trees, as well as tree protection zone recommendations. Assessment Synopsis

The aim of this assessment is to provide the City of Bunbury with accurate information regarding the health and structural condition of the trees in question and make recommendations based on the likely development of the area.

This is done by visual inspection of the crown, root zone impact at ground level and visual inspection of the trunk to estimate the extent of wood decay. Root zone impact is assessed and estimated in reference to AS4970 – 2009 Protection of trees on development sites.

The use of the terms “Safe” or “Unsafe” when assessing trees is both imprecise and ambiguous as a tree cannot be free from defects or potential hazards, such a state is simply unattainable.

The site inspection was carried out on the 26/09/2017 in overcast but calm weather conditions.

This assessment was carried out using the International Society of Arboriculture Tree Risk Assessment Method (TRAQ) which is a method of quantifying risk through estimating likelihood of tree failure, likelihood of impact and consequences of impact to potential targets within the tree impact zone to deliver an “overall tree risk rating” of High, Moderate or low.


Site Investigation

Individual Tree Inspections

Tree ID: 01. (3 Trees) Species: 3 x Schinus terebinthifolius – Brazilian Pepper Height: 5m Trunk Diameter: 0.9 - 1.1m Location: Northern Boundary fence line Tree health: Vitality is good Structure: Good – No visible branch attachment defects or signs of external decay Comments: All of these trees have some dead branches but overall vigour is good. Overall tree risk rating – Low Structural Root Zone Radius – 3.5m Recommended Tree Protection Zone – 10m Radius Recommendations: Carry out minor Crown lift pruning and deadwood removal.


Tree ID: 02. Species: Corymbia maculate – Western Spotted Gum Height: 9m Trunk Diameter: 0.45m Location: Northern side of Toilet block Tree health: Tree Vitality is Excellent Structure: Average – Codominant stem formation with included bark defect Comments: Predominantly good tree with one defective union, no visible signs of external decay. Overall tree risk rating – Low Structural Root Zone Radius – 2.5m Recommended Tree Protection Zone – 5.4m radius Recommendations: Remove subordinate leader at main stem union.


Tree ID: 03. Species: Acacia (Unknown Specific Epithet) Height: 6m Trunk Diameter: 0.5m Location: North Eastern corner of toilet block Tree health: Tree Vitality is good Structure: Good Comments: No work required. Overall tree risk rating – Low Structural Root Zone Radius – 2.5m Recommended Tree Protection Zone – 6m radius Recommendations: No management work required.


Tree ID: 04. (4 Trees) Species: 4 x Agonis flexuosa – WA Weeping Peppermint Height: 4m Trunk Diameter: 0.4m Location: Inside Northern Boundary fence line Tree health: Tree vitality is excellent Structure: All 4 trees present good structure Comments: No work required Overall tree risk rating – Low Structural Root Zone Radius – 2.5m Recommended Tree Protection Zone – 4.8m Recommendations: No Management work required. No ground level Image available.


Tree ID: 05. Species: Callistemon viminalis – Weeping Bottle Brush Height: 3.5m Trunk Diameter: 0.25m Location: Grassed area Northern side Tree health: Tree vitality is good Structure: Predominantly good, no visible branch attachment defects Comments: No work required Overall tree risk rating – Low Structural Root Zone Radius – 1.5m Recommended Tree Protection Zone – 3m Radius Recommendations: No management works required.


Tree ID: 06. Species: Erythrina indica – Coral Tree Height: 9m Trunk Diameter: 0.9m Location: Northern side of Bitumen surface area Tree health: Vitality is good Structure: Predominantly good structure Comments: Large pruning wound at main union with advanced internal decay, good response growth present, appears to have compartmentalised wound effectively. Some mower damage to surface roots. Overall tree risk rating – Low Structural Root Zone Radius – 3.5m Recommended Tree Protection Zone – 10.8m Recommendations: Remove bitumen surface from tree protection zone radius (See demolition note page 17)


Tree ID: 07. Species: Eucalyptus camaldulensis – River Red Gum Height: 3.5m Trunk Diameter: 0.4m Location: Northern side of bitumen surface area Tree health: Average Structure: Poor, tree has been lopped (Incorrectly pruned) resulting in epicormic regrowth with defective branch attachments and internal decay. Comments: Tree has no suitable pruning options and the risk of branch failure will increase as the regrowth increases in size. Overall tree risk rating – Low Recommendations: Remove tree to ground level and grind stump.


Tree ID: 08. Species: Eucalyptus camaldulensis – River Red Gum Height: 12m Trunk Diameter: 0.6m Location: Northern Side of bitumen surface area Tree health: Vitality is good Structure: Good, no visible branch attachment defects. Comments: Small diameter deadwood throughout crown, conflicting branch with Coral tree, excessive pruning carried out previously has resulted in epicormic regrowth. Overall tree risk rating – Low Structural Root Zone radius – 2.8m Recommended Tree Protection Zone – 7.2m Recommendations: Remove deadwood and conflicting branch, remove epicormic regrowth.


Tree ID: 09.

Species: Melia azedarach – Cape Lilac Height: 11m Trunk Diameter: 1m Location: North Western corner of bitumen surface area Tree health: Average/good Structure: Good Comments: Evidence of advanced internal decay, dead/damaged branches throughout crown. Overall tree risk rating – Low Structural Root Zone Radius – 3.5m Recommended Tree Protection Zone – 12m Recommendations: Remove dead and damaged branches from crown, remove bitumen from tree protection zone radius. (See demolition note page 17)


Tree ID: 10. Species: Lagunaria Patersonia – Norfolk Island Hibiscus Height: 8m Trunk Diameter: 0.5m Location: Western boundary fence line Tree health: Tree vitality is good Structure: Good, no visible branch attachment defects Comments: No work required. Overall tree risk rating – Low Structural Root Zone Radius – 2.5m Recommended Tree Protection Zone – 6m Radius Recommendations: No management works required.


Tree ID: 11. Species: Populus deltoids – Cottonwood Poplar Height: 11mm Trunk Diameter: 0.6m Location: Western end of bitumen surface area Tree health: Vitality is good Structure: Predominantly good, some visible bark inclusion defects Comments: Several bark inclusion defects visible however no previous branch failures were observed. Overall tree risk rating – Low Structural Root Zone Radius – 2.8m Recommended Tree Protection Zone – 7.2m Recommendations: Remove bitumen surface from tree protection zone radius. (See demolition note page 17)


Tree ID: 12. Species: Cinnamomum camphora – Camphor Laurel Height: 8m Trunk Diameter: 0.9m Location: Western end of Art centre building Tree health: Tree vitality is very good Structure: Predominantly good, some defective branch unions visible Comments: Very good response growth at previous pruning wounds. Overall tree risk rating – Low Structural Root Zone Radius – 3.5m Recommended Tree Protection Zone – 10.8m Recommendations: Remove all infrastructure from tree protection zone radius. (See demolition note page 17)


Tree ID: 13. Species: Stand of Metrosideros excels – New Zealand Christmas Tree Height: 6m - 20m Trunk Diameter: 0.4m – 0.5m Location: South Western corner of complex Tree health: Vitality of all trees is good Structure: Predominantly good, some defective branch attachments visible Comments: No visible signs of previous branch failure. Overall tree risk rating – Low Structural Root Zone Radius – 2.5m Recommended Tree Protection Zone – Drip line of trees Recommendations: Remove infrastructure from tree protection zone radius. (See demolition note page 17)


Tree ID: 14. Species: Ulmus parvifolia – Chinese Elm Height: 5m Trunk Diameter: 0.35m Location: Southern fence line Tree health: Vitality is good Structure: Good, no visible branch attachment defects Comments: No visible signs of previous branch failure. Overall tree risk rating – Low Structural Root Zone Radius – 2.2m Recommended Tree Protection Zone – 4.2m Recommendations – No management works required


Tree Protection Zones

All Tree Protection Zones should be installed under supervision of a certified arborist, small encroachments in to the tree protection zone for construction purposes can be made, though it must not be more than 10% of the total protection zone area. If encroachments are made, the protection zone should be increased in other areas to compensate for root loss.

In the case that a “Drip line” protection zone is recommended, the protection zone will be installed around the perimeter of the crown spread, this can include several trees in one protection zone when they are in close proximity to each other.

Demolition around protected trees

In the event that demolition work is required within a Tree Protection Zone, it is recommended that this work be supervised by a certified Arborist. Any roots exposed by demolition or construction processes should be correctly pruned at the perimeter of the tree protection zone and back filled immediately.

Long Term Tree Health

At the completion of the site redevelopment, it is recommended that the critical root zone of all trees be fertilised and covered with a 100mm layer of composted organic mulch, fertiliser application will be calculated on individual tree requirements.


Structural Root Calculation Table


Tree Protection Zone Diagram


Tree Protection Barrier example


Arborist Disclaimer Statement

Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, training, experience and research to examine individual trees and tree stands. Arborists recommend measures to enhance the structure, health, stability and appearance of trees, while attempting to reduce the risk of living near them. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist. Or seek additional advice. Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree. Trees are living organisms subject to attack by disease, insects, fungi and other forces of nature. There are some inherent risks with trees that cannot be predicted with any degree of certainty, even by a skilled and experienced arborist. Arborists cannot predict acts of nature including, without limitation, storms of sufficient strength, which can cause even a healthy tree to fail. Any entity who develops land and builds structures with a tree in the vicinity should be aware of the risks involved with the development of areas within a trees target zone. Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments, like medical care, cannot be guaranteed 100%. Neither this author nor has King’s Tree Care assumed any responsibility for liability associated with this tree stand, the future demise and/or any damage, which may result there from. To live near trees is to accept some degree of risk.

Please feel free to contact me should any further information be required.

Regards,

Ben Jorgensen

Bunbury Proposed Concept Design Heritage Impact Statement

Documents

Transcript of Bunbury Proposed Concept Design Heritage Impact Statement