|
Ipswich, Queensland Losing Our Uniquely Australian Heritage.
This web page is to make everyone aware about some of the facts surrounding the Heritage Listed 1864-65 Heiner Road Bridge Abutments and the 1864 Wharf Tramway Railway.
Please read this document and give it your full attention in an effort to save some of our most important heritage before it is too late.
The heritage significance of the Heiner Road Precinct (the birth place of Queensland Railways) was no secret, due to previous Heritage Studies and their subsequent listing of Heiner Road , Heiner Road Over Bridge, Tram Rail Line and the Wharf
The University of Queensland conducted the heritage study in 1991 and this formed the basis of the Ipswich Heritage Register.
Heiner Road, the Over Bridge Abutments and more importantly the Wharf Tramway / Railway have always been listed on the Ipswich City Council's ‘Ipswich Heritage Register' and this should have been enough to protect them for future generations.
I can assure you that the Ipswich City Council and the Commercial Precinct Developer would have definitely known about the Wharf Tramway/Railway and Bridge Abutments for at least the last 5 years as I and others have raised questions at various public ‘Riverlink' and ‘Heritage' meetings in Ipswich where both Council and Developer were represented during that time. I have also lodged written submissions with regards to the both of the Riverlink development applications, pointing out the heritage value of these items and their respective listings under the Ipswich Heritage Register.
It was publicly stated by the developer during the first Riverlink development consultation period that “no items of significant heritage will be lost”.
What does significant mean? Well according to the Hamlyn dictionary it means: important, of consequence, expressing a meaning, having a special meaning.
I believe 'the first in the World' and 'the first in Queensland' are significant.
It also complies with the following meanings for significance:
- significance: the importance of a place as measured against an agreed set of heritage criteria, and usually as described in a short statement justifying the conclusions about significance.
- significance, architectural: significance in terms of architectural merit, possibly including originality, innovation, aesthetic value, uniqueness or representativeness, to connection with an outstanding architect or other professional.
- significance, associational: significance derived from an
 association with a famous person or organisation; or with an important historical event; or with social, economic or cultural activities.
- significance, cultural: 'aesthetic, historic, scientific or social value for past, present or future generations' (Burra Charter).
- significance, historical: significance in terms of historical events or associations with the past.
- significance, natural: significance derived from biophysical or geological attributes, including either uniqueness or being representative of particular phenomena. Aesthetic and scientific significance may both be involved, and biodiversity conservation can also be a key factor. A quick walk around the site and the riverside parkland and you understand it's unique inner city beauty.
- significance, social: the importance of a property to a society, or a group in society, for social rather than economic or historical reasons. Ask the people who are fighting to save it.
It was also recently publicly stated by the developer that if they had been told earlier that they could have incorporated these elements into the development.
Does this imply that the Ipswich City Council and State Government representatives did not highlight the importance of these Heritage Places to the Developer and in turn insist that the design incorporate them?
Was a detailed Heritage Conservation and Management Study done by the developers as part of the development application to establish the historical importance of structures on the site before submitting drawings for development approval? If so why did this study not identify the historic importance of Heiner Road , the overbridge abutments and wharf railway?
The wharf railway is mentioned as being the first section of railway in Queensland in numerous articles in books and heritage trails that are readily available, Heiner Road and the Overbridge are mentioned in the Ipswich Heritage Study as well as in many files readily available from the Queensland State Archives.
What value do we place on our heritage? I believe that surviving elements of the railway pioneering days of the mid 1860's especially the first of items are priceless and should be preserved at all cost.
Why do the people of Ipswich have to lose their priceless 1864-65 Southern and Western Railway heritage and potential tourism income simply because someone has made a mistake?
Who will compensate the citizens of Ipswich and Queensland for what was and still is the avoidable loss of their priceless heritage?
The first Riverlink development application in 2001 that was presented to the public was sympathetic to our heritage and only required minor alterations to make it co-exist with the heiner road bridge and wharf railway.
The totally re-designed second development application submitted in late 2003 includes building over a large parcel of what was, until recently, publicly owned riverside parkland (northern riverbank between the two river bridges), This design also clashes with our existing heritage. It became apparent to me after reviewing the second development application that neither the Ipswich City Council or the Commercial Precinct Developer had any interest in identifying and promoting the importance of the 140 year old Heiner Road, Overbridge and the Wharf Tramway / Railway to the people of Ipswich let alone attempting to save them for our future generations of Queenslanders.
How many people in the general public who live in Ipswich have seen the current Riverlink proposed commercial village development plans? None that I have talked to. As far as I know, the larger second submission which included the higher density Riverlink commercial village plans were never presented to the general public of Ipswich for consultation through public meetings (as they were in the first Riverlink proposal) by either the developer or the Ipswich City Council before the it was submitted for Council approval.
As a member of the Ipswich City Council's Heritage Consultative Committee I believed that I would have had advance knowledge of plans by the developer to make a low garden wall out the Heritage Listed 1864-65 sandstone bridge abutments and to build over of the Heritage Listed 1864 Wharf Railway at an early enough stage in the project's development that I and other members would have been able to provide constructive feedback. (I was wrong). We should have been given an opportuity to make suggestions on how to adaptively re-use our existing heritage on this site well before the ‘Riverlink/Riverheart' drawings were submitted for public viewing and public written submissions in August/September 2003,
If I had known that the Ipswich Heritage Register would not be respected by the developer and not defended by the Ipswich City Council, I would have registered the bridge and railway on the State Heritage Register 5 years ago myself as they are unique in the history of Ipswich and the development of Railways in Queensland and Australia and should be preserved for future generations.
I and other like minded people believe that, for whatever reason, a major mistake has been made in not recognising the true heritage value of the site where the birth of the Southern and Western Railway (the first railway in Queensland and more importantly according to the state heritage register, the first railway in the world to be constructed as a government enterprise) took place over 140 years ago in 1863. Let us not compound this one mistake by making additional mistakes just because it is easier to build over them. Let us correct the problem now and move on.
I believe that a CBD shopping centre that incorporates and features the 1864 bridge and a tastefully landscaped 1864 wharf tramway/walkway and a reconstructed ‘old' wharf complete with paddle steamers would be a better asset to the city of Ipswich than the currently proposed pre-cast concrete boxes and multi story concrete carpark casting shadow over the Bremer River. The proposed carpark is much closer to the river than the existing Ipswich City Square is on the opposite side of the river.
I do not believe that the current commercial precinct design has maximized the heritage tourism potential of this heritage site (the birth place of Railways in Queensland ) for the long term benefit of the people of Ipswich and Queensland . The original objective when expressions of interest were called in 1999 was to redevelop the Ipswich Rail Yards in a way which enhances their value to the community while maintaining their cultural and heritage value within Queensland . If the current developer of the commercial village section of the site can not deliver a project that conforms to these guidelines they should step aside and allow another developer to do so. Only a small section of the overall development is required to be re-designed to incorporate the existing heritage .
For the City of Ipswich to survive as a viable commercial centre we have to offer a unique experience for shoppers, diners and tourists, an atmosphere that can not be found anywhere else, something that people will remember forever and will want to come back to with their family and friends and experience again and again. This site is unique as it linked our once busy paddle steamer river transport with the birth of railways in Queensland .
I put it to the Queensland State Government, Ipswich City Council and the Commercial Precinct Developer to stand up and be proud of our heritage and partially re-design the project to co-exist with and feature the 1864-65 Heiner Road, 1864-65 OverBridge and 1864 Wharf Tramway / Railway. This time set the correct parameters up front and design the project accordingly, i.e. the heritage items have been on this site for 140 years for all to see (they have not been hidden from view), but you must walk around the site with an open mind and with your eyes open to see them.
It is never too late to save our heritage, especially heritage that is important in the development of Ipswich and more importantly this great state of Queensland, and that is the very reason why the State Government set up the Queensland Heritage Council to preserve our Heritage for future generations.
The decision by the Queensland State Minister for Development and Innovation to remove the top 3 courses of sandstone from the bridge abutments and bury the remainder without public access does not support the notion that Queensland is the Smart State let alone innovative.
The people of Ipswich will hardly be able to promote our City as ' Ipswich is Leading the Way in Heritage' if we allow this decision to be implemented.
The people of Ipswich want our proud Heritage to co-exist with vibrant new sympathetic developments, and not unnecessarily be destroyed by these developments.
Why should the people of Ipswich have to choose between one or the other? We can have both.
We are the current caretakers of our cultural heritage, the unique items in question are 140 year old spanning over three centuries, they are the only surviving elements of the first section of railway in Queensland, are we going to deprive the next generation the chance to see early examples of their forefathers engineering which took place in 1864, right at the very beginning of what was to become the largest narrow gauge railway in the world.
The eyes of the world are upon us, let us prove that Ipswich is serious about leading the way in heritage and that Queensland is the smart state and come up with a more innovative solution to this development than what has been suggested so far.
This development should never have proceeded to the point where I and others have to suggest possible solutions.
I must reiterate that the majority of people in Ipswich (including myself) have always wanted 'Riverlink' to proceed and that this has nothing to do with stopping 'Riverlink' it is all about saving our heritage by intergrating it into the development. It is my understanding that the future of the 'Riverlink' development is now secure. Can we now concentrate on saving our heritage for the next generation? Let this development be remembered for the right reasons and not remembered by future generations for the unwanted destruction of their heritage.
Phil Nunn
pencad@gil.com.au
© youripswich.com 2004, 2004-08-08
| 
