–95–Policy 54.1 The policies and supporting arguments in this <strong>conservation</strong><strong>plan</strong> should be endorsed as a guide to future development and<strong>conservation</strong> by the <strong>Sydney</strong> <strong>Opera</strong> <strong>House</strong> Trust and used in support of(or in response to) future applications and negotiations with governmentagencies.Conservation policies may need adjustment to meet unforeseen circumstancesand to clarify intentions.Policy 54.2 This policy document should be reviewed as the need arisesbut not later than July 2008.Internal processesThe present stateAs well as enlivening the place as a performing arts venue, functioningas a community gathering place, servicing an increasing number of visitors,and meeting reasonable commercial imperatives, the <strong>Sydney</strong> <strong>Opera</strong><strong>House</strong> Trust is concerned to retain the integrity of the building and itssetting. However it is evident from recent developments* that processesdesigned to achieve the last objective are not working well and thatheritage input into the early stages of a project is sometimes missing.* See figs 31, 32, 43, 44,47, 51, 54, 66, 67 & 70.Examples this year (2002) illustrate the point. The first is the creepingexpansion of the <strong>Opera</strong> Bar in the Lower Forecourt. The modest stagesby which it encroached on its setting helped it avoid attention. Oncetables and chairs were placed on the relatively narrow raised pathwaybeside the harbour parapet, it seemed necessary for linked stainless steelbollards to be added to the adjacent steps as a safety measure (fig.72).There are now a promiscuous mix of bronze, granite, black painted steeland polished stainless steel bollards around the <strong>Opera</strong> <strong>House</strong>, and tablesand chairs on a path better devoted to pedestrian promenade.Other intrusions are more dramatic. The venue for hire erected inSeptember 2002 on the north Broadwalk is an extreme example(fig.32) and the letting of a contract for ice cream, coffee and food barsin the Forecourt (fig.31) is another. All were erected without anyapparent heritage input or, perhaps, in defiance of any informalheritage advice.However, the current project with the strongest potential for adverseimpact on the setting is the proposal for erecting long stay infrastructureto accommodate performances in the forecourt. Compare, forexample, the ‘existing’ and ‘proposed’ images on page 10 of the Venueimprovement <strong>plan</strong> with the list of facilities required on pages 48 to 49of these policies. Any such proposal will require well consideredheritage input, and an impact statement, before any permanent developmentproposal can be decided upon.72. Tables, chairs and bollards on theraised pathway beside the harbour parapetin the lower forecourt. JSK photograph8.10.02.Awareness and co-ordination of heritage issuesThe <strong>Sydney</strong> <strong>Opera</strong> <strong>House</strong> Trust adoption of this revised <strong>conservation</strong><strong>plan</strong> and the reconstitution of the Trust-appointed ConservationCouncil are the first steps in repairing the decision making process. Itwill help ensure that the executive and management of the <strong>Sydney</strong><strong>Opera</strong> <strong>House</strong> are aware of heritage issues and the need to incorporatethem into their ‘business case’ methodology for all projects. Providingcopies of this <strong>conservation</strong> <strong>plan</strong> is a first step, but it needs to bebacked up by the inclusion of heritage briefings and discussions as anintegral part of internal training programs. In this way the processeswill become familiar and ‘matter of course’ rather than alien and arcane.
–96–The process should be given certainty by the promulgation of clearand formal responsibility for heritage issues in each ‘portfolio’ withinthe <strong>Opera</strong> <strong>House</strong> structure. It will ensure that the need to considerheritage is recognised and that the office of the Director of Facilities isalerted to any proposal. The Facilities ‘portfolio’ is the natural co-ordinatorof heritage matters within the <strong>Opera</strong> <strong>House</strong> system, well able todecide on necessary follow-up action.Policy 55.1 All staff and consultants should have access to a copy ofthis <strong>conservation</strong> <strong>plan</strong>.Policy 55.2 A heritage component should be incorporated into theinduction and training of senior and medium level staff involved inany changes to the building and its setting. (Staff turnover will makecontinuity of training a necessity.)Policy 55.3 Responsibility for heritage matters should be included injob descriptions of relevant positions.Policy 55.4 The office of the Director of Facilities should be formallyresponsible for co-ordinating advice on heritage issues.Sequence and advice in developing proposalsThe process of developing <strong>plan</strong>s without expert heritage input andthen subjecting them to an assessment of heritage impact is inefficientand likely to result in alteration and unnecessary delay. It also creates aclimate of confrontation rather than the facilitation of progressivelydeveloped solutions.Policy 56.1 Continuity of relevant and experienced heritage <strong>conservation</strong>advice should be provided as part of the process by which changesto the <strong>Sydney</strong> <strong>Opera</strong> <strong>House</strong> and its setting are developed and executed.The timing of this advice is important. For major projects it should bedrawn upon:• initially, at the concept stage;• during the development and refinement, or alteration, of the proposal;• for a formal statement of heritage impact, or its equivalent, inresponse to the completed development application;• to keep a watchful eye on work actually underway.Accessing professional heritage advice should not be cumbersome butflexible enough to suit the nature of the proposal.Conservation CouncilIn 1996 the <strong>Sydney</strong> <strong>Opera</strong> <strong>House</strong> Trust arranged for a further level ofheritage <strong>conservation</strong> advice by the appointment of a ConservationCouncil. Its charter was to advise the Trust on ‘the discharge of theTrust’s responsibilities under the provisions of Section 4(1)(a) of the<strong>Sydney</strong> <strong>Opera</strong> <strong>House</strong> Trust Act, with particular reference to the care,control and maintenance of the <strong>Opera</strong> <strong>House</strong> (Brief… for ConservationCouncil [March 1996]). Members were to include:• a member of the <strong>Sydney</strong> <strong>Opera</strong> <strong>House</strong> Trust;• the government architect or his nominee;• an eminent architect from private practice or academia;• an eminent engineer from private practice or academia;• a nominee from the Ministry for the Arts;
- Page 7:
(vi)
- Page 10 and 11:
-3-Early defence works and visitors
- Page 13 and 14:
-6-5. Detail from a Charles Bayliss
- Page 15 and 16:
-8-domain’ denies ‘facilities f
- Page 17 and 18:
-10-In 1861 a five-gun (42-pounder?
- Page 19 and 20:
12. Site boundary for aproposed Nat
- Page 23 and 24:
-16-held, as an article of faith, t
- Page 25 and 26:
-18-form of the corridors were dete
- Page 27 and 28:
-20-In addition to this generally a
- Page 29 and 30:
-22-to be a multi-purpose hall. To
- Page 31 and 32:
-24-1. exterior and external works;
- Page 33 and 34:
-26-The second was the long-overdue
- Page 35 and 36:
-28-Redesign of catering facilities
- Page 37 and 38:
-30and approving proposals for wo
- Page 39 and 40:
-32-ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCEThe g
- Page 41 and 42:
-34-Schedule of levels of significa
- Page 43 and 44:
-36-• folded beams throughout the
- Page 45 and 46:
-38-• Coburn’s Curtain of the S
- Page 47 and 48:
-40-Awards for excellenceThe follow
- Page 49 and 50:
-42-The area covered by this conser
- Page 51 and 52: -44-inadequate for present use. Thi
- Page 53 and 54: -46-where a ‘higher standard of f
- Page 55 and 56: -48-32. Unacceptable ‘temporary
- Page 57 and 58: -50-above. However, any determinati
- Page 59 and 60: -52-• colour, texture, reflectivi
- Page 61 and 62: -54-glass design and manufacture me
- Page 63 and 64: -56-planters and limited transparen
- Page 65 and 66: -58-Policy 18.3 of the 1993 conserv
- Page 67 and 68: -60-seating, signs, drinking founta
- Page 69 and 70: -62-Both approaches (via the exteri
- Page 71 and 72: -64-the same angle as the existing
- Page 73 and 74: -66-Policy 21.1 Any adaptation or d
- Page 75 and 76: -68-Interior lighting policiesThe a
- Page 77 and 78: -70-The seating in both Concert Hal
- Page 79 and 80: -72-As it is now proposed to open t
- Page 81 and 82: -74-SPACES ABOVE PODIUM LEVELSConce
- Page 83 and 84: -76-scheme of the major hall (Utzon
- Page 85 and 86: -78-Policy 31.1 The Reception Hall
- Page 87 and 88: -80-Because of its height, volume,
- Page 89 and 90: -82-60. Newly extended western foye
- Page 91 and 92: -84-cost-effective, the least intru
- Page 93 and 94: -86-relevant material (stone, ceram
- Page 95 and 96: -88-and the early work was beset wi
- Page 97 and 98: -90-Management and staff commitment
- Page 99 and 100: -92-are now partly missing while ot
- Page 101: -94-Policy 51.1 The more significan
- Page 105 and 106: -98-• four eminent government and
- Page 107 and 108: -100-• the actual periods in whic
- Page 109 and 110: -104-Advertising, visual material,
- Page 111 and 112: -106-James Semple KerrDr Jim Kerr h
- Page 113: -102-Kerr, E.J., Designing a coloni