Heritage Considerations |
| 3.1 |
The AWM’s submission states that the site and the Memorial are covered by the Heritage Masterplan 1997.1
|
| 3.2 |
The AWM proposes to reuse much of the lower level of the building, and it will require intervention into the building fabric to varying degrees. Further, a new opening will be created in the building’s western façade.2
|
| 3.3 |
At the hearing, the committee learned that the AWM has engaged the help of Peter Freeman Pty Ltd, Conservation Architects, in order to ensure that the AWM proposal will be approved by the National Capital Authority (NCA). These architects provide specialist advice to the AWM on specific heritage issues, such as the cut opening to the western façade and the detail that the stonework will require.3 The inquiry heard that the NCA initially had concerns relating to the AWM’s plans, including:
…the scale of the HMAS Brisbane in the courtyard, the intrusive nature of the bridge into the War Memorial and subsequently the
impact that the development would have on the fabric of the building.4
|
| 3.4 |
The NCA was specifically concerned that:
Opening up the building, taking parts of the building away, would break down the original fabric.5
|
| 3.5 |
However, the AWM submitted their proposal to the Department of Environment and Heritage (DEH) for consideration. The NCA provided comments on the proposal to the DEH who then made a decision that the proposals, as they relate to the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, are not a controlled action.6 As a result, the NCA is satisfied that:
The development would be consistent with the provisions of the Plan.7
|
|
|
Display of the HMAS Brisbane Bridge |
| 3.6 |
At the inquiry the AWM indicated that the HMAS Brisbane display was temporary and would continue for a minimum of 10 years.8 The Committee enquired whether the bridge from the HMAS Brisbane would definitely need to be removed after 10 years or if it’s display term could be extended.9 The NCA replied that:
In terms of any works approved and submitted under the Plan, they [AWM] identified it was temporary and in concert with the conditions of the DEH approval. They could come back and ask for that to be extended.10
|
Environmental Factors |
Airconditioning |
| 3.7 |
At the hearing the AWM told the Committee that:
All museums have very strict parameters for not just temperature control but also humidity control.11
|
| 3.8 |
As a result, museums can be quite energy consuming. However, the AWM added that new technologies, particularly those related to plant, mean that much of the plant can be run in a more energy efficient manner. Further, the Memorial has the added benefit of passive control, because of the mass of the building.12
|
|
|
Energy Conservation Initiatives |
| 3.9 |
In its submission the AWM proposed a range of concepts to be incorporated in the design of mechanical services to minimise energy consumption in the redeveloped areas.13
|
| 3.10 |
At the inquiry the committee heard that the AWM is:
…also looking at, and have used in East Building, water-saving devices like the waterless urinal as one example and also energy efficient lighting wherever possible.14
|
| 3.11 |
The Committee was told that the AWM has a comprehensive and accredited energy management plan.15
|
Local Environmental Impact |
| 3.12 |
At the inquiry the Chair observed that the AWM would have more visitors as the building expands, and asked what impact the current proposal would have on the environment and the surrounds of the Gallery.16
|
| 3.13 |
The AWM responded that it has no current plans to add car parking, but is very conscious of the impact of buses and additional car parking on the local residents.17 Further, the Memorial works with the NCA which has very strict guidelines regarding the use of the Memorial grounds. Another factor is that the Memorial grounds contain commemorative devices that require very respectful treatment.18
|
Equity Access |
| 3.14 |
The Committee heard that the AWM has engaged an independent consultant to advise it on access to the building. The AWM seeks to ensure that there is equity of both physical and intellectual access to its displays. As such the AWM is considering further options to ensure intellectual access for visitors.19
|
|
|
Consultation |
| 3.15 |
Surveys undertaken by the AWM have indicated a need for the redevelopment of the Post 1945 Conflict galleries, particularly as some 43 per cent of visitors have some affiliation with the 110,000 who served in these conflicts.20
|
| 3.16 |
In addition to public consultation, the AWM submission stated that it has been consulting widely with stakeholders, and that this process is considered to be an important part of gallery development. The submission received from The Returned and Services League of Australia (RSL) stated that it values the consultation process that is undertaken, and that it strongly supports the AWM proposal.21
|
| 3.17 |
The AWM submitted that it has consulted with the NCA and the DEH, and has briefed the relevant ACT Government Authorities, the nearby Campbell High School and local residents. The AWM also plans to brief the Australian Greenhouse Office.22
|
| 3.18 |
At the hearing, the Committee was told that the AWM has been
… having ongoing discussions with the NCA and the DEH over probably the last four years regarding the whole project23
|
|
|
Funding |
| 3.19 |
The total budget for the proposed gallery redevelopment project is $17.8 million. The AWM explained that:
An amount of $14.7 million has been allocated from existing reserves and prudent allocation of funds for all design, architectural primary works, building services, multimedia production, staffing, and gallery exhibition works.24
|
| 3.20 |
The AWM plans to fund the remainder of the project through sponsorship and other fundraising activities.25
|
| |
Recommendation 1
The Committee recommends that works relating to the proposed redevelopment of the post 1945 Conflicts Galleries and Discovery Room at the Australian War Memorial proceed at the estimated cost of $ 17.8 million. |
| |
Hon Judi Moylan MP
Chair
29 March 2006 |
| 1 |
Appendix C, Submission No. 1, paragraph 26 Back
|
| 2 |
ibid, paragraph 27 Back |
| 3 |
Appendix D, Official Transcript of Evidence, page 6 - 7 Back |
| 4 |
Appendix D, Official Transcript of Evidence, page 14 Back |
| 5 |
ibid Back |
| 6 |
Volume of Submissions, Submission 4, section 3.4 Back |
| 7 |
Appendix D, Official Transcript of Evidence, page 14 Back |
| 8 |
ibid, page 7 Back |
| 9 |
ibid Back |
| 10 |
ibid, page 15 Back |
| 11 |
Appendix D, Official Transcript of Evidence, page 10 Back |
| 12 |
ibid Back |
| 13 |
Volume of Submissions , Submission No. 2, paragraph 3 Back |
| 14 |
Appendix D, Official Transcript of Evidence, page 10 Back |
| 15 |
ibid, pages 10-11 Back |
| 16 |
ibid, page 9 Back |
| 17 |
Appendix D, Official Transcript of Evidence, pages 9-10 Back |
| 18 |
ibid, page 10 Back |
| 19 |
Appendix D, Official Transcript of Evidence, page 9 Back |
| 20 |
Appendix C, Submission No. 1, paragraph 10 Back |
| 21 |
Volume of Submissions, Submission No. 3 Back |
| 22 |
Appendix C, Submission No. 1, paragraph 30 Back |
| 23 |
Appendix D, Official Transcript of Evidence, page 5 Back |
| 24 |
Appendix C, Submission No 1, paragraph 15 Back |
| 25 |
ibid Back |