“The site where the building is, is not where the ...

2008-09-22T13:40:00.000+10:00

“The site where the building is, is not where the building will remain. That issue is dead in the water, Wettenhall said.” Well Mr Wettenhall, the building is not the only thing that will be dead in the water. This whole issue reeks of political interference and further, seriously questions the integrity of the Queensland Heritage Council and the Queensland Heritage Act 1992.

Queensland Heritage Act 1992
2 Object of this Act
(1) The object of this Act is to provide for the conservation of Queensland’s cultural heritage for the benefit of the community and future generations.
(2) The object is to be primarily achieved by—
(a) establishing the Queensland Heritage Council; and
(b) keeping the Queensland heritage register; and
(c) keeping local heritage registers; and
(d) regulating, in conjunction with other legislation, development affecting the cultural heritage significance of registered places; and
(e) providing for heritage agreements to encourage appropriate management of registered places; and
(f) providing for appropriate enforcement powers to help protect Queensland’s cultural heritage.
(3) In exercising powers conferred by this Act, the Minister, the chief executive, the council and other persons and entities concerned in its administration must seek to achieve—
(a) the retention of the cultural heritage significance of the places and artefacts to which it applies; and
(b) the greatest sustainable benefit to the community from those places and artefacts consistent with the conservation of their cultural heritage significance.
Part 2 Queensland Heritage Council
7 Council’s relationship with the State
The council does not represent the State.
8 Functions of council
(1) The council has the following functions—
(a) to provide strategic advice to the Minister about matters relating to Queensland’s cultural heritage, including, for example, measures necessary to conserve Queensland’s
cultural heritage;
(b) to provide information to the community to encourage interest in, and understanding of, Queensland’s cultural heritage;
(c) to advise entities about conserving Queensland’s cultural heritage, including, for example, government entities and community organisations;
(d) to encourage the appropriate management of places of cultural heritage significance;
(e) to perform other functions given to the council under this Act or by the Minister.
(2) In performing its functions, the council must act independently, impartially and in the public interest.

The Heritage Council clearly determined that the Cairns Yacht Club building met the criteria for Cultural Heritage significance but then on objection by the Port Authority and others removed the listing because of boundary uncertainties. The Heritage Council had 3 choices when making a decision about the proposed removal of a place from the register;
(a) to remove the place from the register; or
(b) to vary the entry of the place in the register; or
(c) to leave the place in the register.

The Heritage Council chose to remove the place from the register when it could have varied the entry or left it in place. Given the definition of “place,” guiding principles for defining boundaries, its functions and adoption of the “Burra Charter,” serious questions need to be asked. You can’t tell me the Heritage Council wasn’t in some way influenced by the following statement in Council’s letter of 11 July 2003. If this did play a part Section 7 and 8 (2) of the Queensland Heritage Act 1992 have been seriously breached.

“Council worked closely with the Cairns Port Authority during the
preparation of the Cityport Masterplan and have given its support to
Cityport project. The project subsequently received approval from the
Coordinator General effectively giving “whole of government” approval to
the project.”

The Port Authority engaged a high powered Brisbane legal firm to fight the listing on the basis of being unable to identify the heritage boundary of the CYC place but of course had no trouble identifying boundaries for Precinct 6, 7 and 8 in the Cityport Master Plan.
What really disgusts me is the Port Authority’s follow up action via a Certificate of Immunity to prevent any further application to list the CYC building on the Queensland Heritage List until 2009 by which time the building would conveniently be gone.

Cultural heritage is recognised both nationally and internationally as an important component of tourism. Retaining the CYC building is not in conflict with the intended function of Precinct 7 – a tourist area. It is in the public interest to retain the building and in this so called “smart state” integrating the building into future development plans should be a breeze.

That the CYC building be conserved where it is, is fundamental to its cultural heritage values. The “Burra Charter” which was adopted by the Heritage Council says:

• Values – the assessment of significance should consider all values related to a place
• Setting – a place can seldom be separated from its setting. For most places aspects of the setting contribute to the significance
• Location – the location of most structures is integral to their history and significance. Relocation should always be regarded as a last resort
• Contents – contents, fixtures and objects that contribute to the significance should be retained at the place.
• Participation – many people may have interests or special associations with a place. All should be given the opportunity to participate in the conservation of a place
• Co-existence of cultural values – a place may be valued by more than one community. A place should be managed to conserve all values.

Is there not one politician with the fortitude and integrity to stand up on behalf of the community they serve and acknowledge that what has been done is wrong and take action to remedy it?

Well here we go again. NO PUBLIC CONSULTATION as ...

2008-09-22T09:49:00.000+10:00

Well here we go again. NO PUBLIC CONSULTATION as to where the building will be moved to.
My guess is that it will be the eastern end of the Heritage Wharf. It better be because that's the only way we will still have a public amenity that overlooks the waters of Trinity. Put it this way. If its not, then they can shove the whole lot up their Khyber because I, like 130,000 other Cairns people have NO REASON to go into the City.

Comments on CairnsBlog.net: State Government to move Yacht Club building

“The site where the building is, is not where the ...

Well here we go again. NO PUBLIC CONSULTATION as ...