Technical Paper 2 â Heritage Assessment - Transport for NSW ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Assessment of Heritage Impact5.05.1 IntroductionThis Statement of Heritage Impact has been prepared in accordance with the criteria developed in the New SouthWales Heritage Offi ce (now the Heritage Branch of the NSW Offi ce of Environment and Heritage) guidelines,Altering Heritage Assets and Statements of Heritage Impact, originally published in the NSW Heritage Manual.There are two sets of questions that are considered in the NSW Heritage Manual ‘Statements of Heritage Impact’guidelines relevant to the Monorail removal.Those relating to partial demolition have been considered below in relation to Pyrmont Bridge, the Darling HarbourRail Corridor and the Former School of Arts.Is the demolition essential for the heritage item to function?• The Monorail was designed and constructed to allow the Pyrmont Bridge, Darling Harbour Rail Corridor andthe Former School of Arts to continue their existing functions. The structures to be removed are all additionsthat were made to these items. Their removal is not essential to the function of any of these heritage items.• The removal methodology concept for Pyrmont Bridge has been developed in consultation with SHFA toensure that no important fabric or features of the bridge are adversely affected by the demolition.• There are no important features of the Darling Harbour Rail Corridor affected by the demolition.• The Former School of Arts is located on the same land parcel that contains the Galeries Victoria Station whichis to be removed. There are no physical works proposed for the Former School of Arts building itself, only thatadjacent to it.Are important features of the item affected by the demolition (e.g. fireplaces in buildings)?• No important features of these heritage items are to be affected by the demolition proposed in the removalmethodology concepts.Is the resolution to partially demolish sympathetic to the heritage significance of the item?• The partial demolition will remove intrusive additions to the Pyrmont Bridge and will enhance the setting andviews of the Former School of Arts and Darling Rail Corridor. As such this resolution is sympathetic to theseheritage items.If the partial demolition is a result of the condition of the fabric, is it certain that the fabric cannot berepaired?• The partial demolition is not required as a result of the condition of the fabric of these heritage items.23Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd
The questions to be considered relating to development adjacent to, or in the vicinity of, a heritage item areaddressed below in relation to the overall Monorail removal concept. In general there will be a positive impact froma heritage perspective, as the Monorail can be considered a negative infl uence in the visual context of the heritagelisted buildings along the route. These general responses are supported by specifi c analysis within a data sheetfor each heritage item, in the following sections of this report.How is the impact of the new development on the heritage significance of the item or area to be minimised?• With the exception of the Pyrmont Bridge, Darling Harbour Rail Corridor and the property containing theFormer School of Arts, the Monorail removal has no physical impact on the heritage items along its route.Specifi c considerations required are noted in the data sheet for each heritage item, in the following sectionsof this report.Why is the new development required to be adjacent to a heritage item?• As the Monorail runs through established street corridors it is in the vicinity of a range of historic and heritagelisted buildings.How does the curtilage allowed around the heritage item contribute to the retention of its heritagesignificance?• Although the buildings along the Monorail route are generally considered to have a lot boundary curtilage theviews to these items, from the public domain, extends the visual catchment to the adjacent roadways. Theopen space of these roadways contributes to their setting and the appreciation of their signifi cance.How does the new development affect views to, and from, the heritage item? What has been done tominimise negative effects?• The removal of the Monorail will improve views to, and from, the heritage items along its route.Is the development sited on any known, or potentially significant archaeological deposits? If so, havealternative sites been considered? Why were they rejected?• Not applicable, archaeological assessment is addressed in the AHMS report.Is the new development sympathetic to the heritage item? In what way (e.g. form, siting, proportions,design)?• The removal of the Monorail is sympathetic to the heritage items along its route as the Monorail can beconsidered a negative infl uence in their visual context.Will the additions visually dominate the heritage item? How has this been minimised?• Not applicable.Will the public, and users of the item, still be able to view and appreciate its significance?• The removal of the Monorail will enhance the opportunities to view and appreciate the signifi cance of theheritage items along its route.24Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd
Page 3 and 4: Monorail Removal ProjectStatement o
Page 8 and 9: The documents reviewed, in preparat
Page 11 and 12: NSW Environmental Planning and Asse
Page 13: Figure 2.5The Monorail stabling and
Page 16 and 17: Report Study Area4.1 Introduction4.
Page 18 and 19: 8 Buckle Chambers53-55 Liverpool St
Page 20 and 21: 24 Pitt Street UnitingChurch 264A P
Page 22 and 23: 4.3 Heritage Areas Along the Monora
Page 24 and 25: Figure 4.5Extract from Sydney LEP 2
Page 28 and 29: 5.2 Impact on the Heritage Items in
Page 30 and 31: Heritage ImpactThe NSW Heritage Man
Page 32 and 33: ItemDarling Harbour Rail Corridor(M
Page 34 and 35: Heritage ImpactThe NSW Heritage Man
Page 36 and 37: 5.3 Impact on the Heritage Items Im
Page 38 and 39: ItemCommerce Buildings345B -353 Sus
Page 40 and 41: ItemRetail Terrace69-79 Liverpool S
Page 42 and 43: ItemCommercial building “Fayworth
Page 44 and 45: ItemSydney Water building(339-341 P
Page 46 and 47: ItemCommercial building “Simpson
Page 48 and 49: ItemCommonwealth Bank423-427 George
Page 50 and 51: 5.4 Impact on the Heritage Items in
Page 52 and 53: ItemFormer warehouse76-78 Liverpool
Page 54 and 55: ItemSpanish Club88 Liverpool Street
Page 56 and 57: ItemCentury Hotel640-642 George Str
Page 58 and 59: ItemEdinburgh Castle Hotel294-294B
Page 60 and 61: ItemSchool building “Lincoln Buil
Page 62 and 63: ItemCommunity building “Pilgrim H
Page 64 and 65: ItemCommercial building “National
Page 66 and 67: ItemCommercial building “Banking
Page 68 and 69: ItemCommunity building “City Tatt
Page 70 and 71: ItemFormer bank facade and external
Page 72 and 73: ItemFormer commercial building “G
Page 74 and 75: ItemFormer warehouse “Archway Ter
Page 76 and 77:
MapReferenceItem Name & Address Her
Page 78:
17 Commercial building“Fayworth H
Page 81 and 82:
Recommended Mitigation Measures6.0T
Page 83:
Bibliography7.0PUBLICATIONSCity of
show all

Technical Paper 2 â Heritage Assessment - Transport for NSW ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?

Technical Paper 2 â Heritage Assessment - Transport for NSW ...