Page 3892 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 15 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
significantly in clarifying the issues. There is no doubt, Madam Speaker, that there was a significant wish list by members of the community and also by various people who were interested in developing the area. All of them, though, had behind them the unanimous position of supporting and protecting both the homestead and its outbuildings. The real question became what was necessary to protect those areas.
There can be no doubt, Madam Speaker, that the overbearing nature of the developments that have already occurred in that area have had a significant impact on the nature of the Tuggeranong Homestead in terms of its heritage significance as a rural homestead. The response of the committee in regard to protecting the rural character was to suggest that there will need to be significant tree plantings and other plantations in order to protect that rural atmosphere, but the point has already been reached where the overbearing nature of the surrounding suburbs will have an impact on that site. There is no doubt that the current boundaries of the site are there by historical accident. The streets that surround the site, and the creek which has been moved, are there not through design in terms of the heritage nature of the Tuggeranong Homestead but in terms of planning for a suburban area.
Madam Speaker, the one suggestion that had the most impact on the committee in terms of its heritage significance resulted in the recommendation that what ought to be recognised is the work done by the First World War historian Charles Bean. Therefore, the committee has recommended that the Charles Bean Memorial Study Centre be established as part of any development of that site.
None of the submissions that were presented to us suggested that there should be no development on the site. In fact, there was a whole range of ideas, ranging from residential development to development for community use and other forms of commercial development. I think it is significant to say that the committee saw as most significant, apart from the Charles Bean Memorial Study Centre concept, the concept that the areas for residential development should continue, provided they fit in with the normal planning areas and the planning commitments, in line with the submission of the Heritage Council, which varied slightly from the original submission of Peter Freeman and Associates, and reduced to a certain extent the area available for development. Of particular concern was the impact that that would have on the flora and fauna of the area. That is an issue that I believe still has not been resolved and does have to be dealt with. That fits in with one of our recommendations.
I think that some people who had perhaps expected more would have preferred to see us say simply that the whole site should be left untouched and protected. I think that to a certain extent it comes as a shock when you arrive at the Tuggeranong Homestead. I expected to see the sorts of characteristics that are demonstrated by the outbuildings, characteristics that belong with a turn-of-the-century or perhaps pre-1920 building. In fact it has been developed and the impression on arriving at the front of the homestead is of a post-1950 building. There are questions over whether or not that should remain. Those are questions that we have raised in our recommendations and they need to be dealt with in determining the best use for that particular site.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .