Tuesday, July 31, 2018

Mayor and deputy in bid for role reversal

THE Derwent Valley mayor and deputy mayor will attempt to swap roles in this year's council elections.  Deputy mayor Ben Shaw announced some weeks ago that he would seeking election as mayor this October and mayor Martyn Evans confirmed last week that he intended to nominate for the position of deputy mayor.

The resignation of Cr Paul Belcher last week leaves Cr Julie Triffett as the only other known contender for the mayoral role although it would not be unexpected for several more to come forward. At the last council election in 2014 there were five candidates for mayor, seven for deputy mayor and 19 candidates for the councillors. The candidates elected mayor and deputy mayor must also be elected as a councillor to take up the leadership roles.

Intending candidates for councillor known at this stage are:
Have we missed anyone? Send us an email. As with a council elections in the last 10 years, all other council candidates are invited to submit statements, profiles or photos to the New Norfolk News by emailing newnorfolknews@gmail.com

There are no formal candidates at this stage as nominations have not yet opened. Nominations will be accepted from September 10-24, but all campaigning from August 8 (including campaign expenses prior to August 8) must be declared to the Tasmanian Electoral Commission after the election.

Nomination as a councillor 
To nominate, you must be an elector in the municipal area and must not:

  • be a councillor of another council whose term of office is to end after the issue of the certificate of election;
  • have been barred by a court (under section 48(6), 338A, 339 or 339A) from nominating as a candidate;
  • be an employee of the council in that municipal area;
  • have previously been removed from the office of councillor because of inadequacy or incompetence;
  • be bankrupt;
  • be subject to an assessment order or treatment order under the Mental Health Act 2013 or an order under the Guardianship and Administration Act 1995;
  • be undergoing a term of imprisonment; or
  • have been sentenced for a crime but the sentence has not been executed.

A  person  may  not  be  a  candidate  for  the  office  of  councillor  in  more  than  one municipal area.

Nomination as mayor or deputy mayor 
The mayor and deputy mayor of a council are elected for a four-year period by the electors of the
municipal area at the same time as the election of councillors.

The Act provides that you are eligible to nominate as a candidate for mayor or deputy mayor if
you are eligible to nominate for the office of councillor.

You may not:

  • be a candidate for both the offices of mayor and deputy mayor concurrently.
  • accept the office of mayor or deputy mayor unless you are also an elected councillor.

A booklet for intending candidates is available online and nomination forms for the positions of councillor, mayor or deputy mayor may also be downloaded from the Tasmanian Electoral Commission website.

Last chance to have your say today

A "LISTENING POST" in High St today is the final public session in the Derwent Valley Council's  Your Valley Your Voice 2030" community consultation for its new strategic plan.

The "listening post" will be at Lees Corner, in High St, New Norfolk, from 1-4pm this afternoon.

The council has said that additional sessions may be held and will be advertised via Facebook if so. Those unable to attend in person can submit their ideas online. Anonymous comments will not be accepted.

TODAY (Tuesday)
New Norfolk Listening Post: 1pm-4pm, Lees Corner, High St, New Norfolk

* Download the latest version of the community consultation schedule here.


Monday, July 30, 2018

Lachlan, don't miss your chance tonight

COUNCIL representatives will be at Lachlan tonight for one of the last community sessions of the "Your Valley Your Voice 2030" listening tour today. The community hall on Lachlan Rd will be the venue, from 6-8pm.

There will also be a "listening post" at Lees Corner, in High St, New Norfolk, from 3.30-5pm this afternoon. The purpose of both events is to collect the views of the Derwent Valley municipality for inclusion in the council's new strategic plan.

The last of the scheduled public sessions will be held tomorrow (Tuesday), with another listening post at Lees Corner from 1-4pm. The council says additional sessions may be held and will be advertised via Facebook. Those unable to attend in person can submit their ideas online. Anonymous comments will not be accepted.

* Download the latest version of the community consultation schedule here.

TODAY (Monday)
New Norfolk Listening Post: 3.30-5pm, Lees Corner, High St, New Norfolk 
Lachlan Community Workshop: 6-8pm, Lachlan Community Hall, Lachlan Rd, Lachlan

TOMORROW (Tuesday)
New Norfolk Listening Post: 1pm-4pm, Lees Corner, High St, New Norfolk

Sunday, July 29, 2018

Switch coming to recycling collection week

Click image to enlarge. New dates are highlighted in green.
A CHANGE is coming to the Derwent Valley Council's fortnightly kerbside recycling roster. To allow a switch in the week the yellow bins  are emptied, the bins will be done this week as usual, and then again next week. They will then be emptied a fortnight later.

The council has entered into a new long-term arrangement with its recycling contractor, after the sudden change in providers early this year. The new arrangement has required a change in the week that the fortnightly recycling is done.

There is no change to the day of the week or time of day that bins should be put out. There is also no change to the garbage collection service, which is conducted weekly.

  • Kerbside recycling collection services will occur as usual on Monday (July 30), Tuesday (July 31) and Friday (August 3).
  • The following week the kerbside recycling bins will be emptied again - Monday (August 6), Tuesday (August 7) and Friday (August 10) - and then will be emptied on a fortnightly basis thereafter.

Visit the council’s website to download the revised recycling calendar. If you are unsure which day your bin is emptied, call the council's environmental services section on 6261 8530 for assistance.

The council offers the following advice for making sure your bins are emptied by the contractor:

  • When your bins are placed at the kerbside, make sure there is 1 metre between bins, as the contractor needs to be able to pick bins up and place them down again;
  • Make sure the wheels of the bin are facing your property;
  • Do not place bins under trees that have overhanging branches;
  • Do not overfill your bins as overfilled or excessively heavy bins may not be emptied.
  • To report damaged, lost or stolen bins, contact the council on 6261 8530.


Road works at Lachlan

COUNCIL crews will be carrying out works at Lachlan Rd, Lachlan, just before Illabrook Rd, tomorrow (Monday). The intention is to install barriers to limit further earth movement where there have been several rockfalls recently.

Water-filled barriers will be placed along a stretch of just over 20 metres of road as a remedial measure until a more permanent solution is found and put in place. Traffic conditions will be altered and a reduced speed zone of 40km/h will be in place within the affected area.

The council asks users of the road to be alert to the changes and drive with caution at all times.

Community consultation continues today

THERE will be no day of rest for the seventh day of the Derwent Valley Council's "Your Valley Your Voice 2030" listening tour today.

Council representatives will be at the Peppermint Hill tip site (off Dean St) this morning from 10-11.30 and then at Woolworths Supermarket (George St) from 1.30-3.30pm to tonight to collect the views of the general public on the future of the Derwent Valley municipality for inclusion in the council's new strategic plan.

The council suggests the following "thought starters":
  • what I love about the Derwent Valley...
  • in 12 years’ time, I hope the Derwent Valley is...
  • my hope for the future is...
  • what I would like to see in the Derwent Valley...
  • what we should keep in Derwent Valley that is special...
The last of the scheduled public sessions will be held tomorrow and Tuesday. Others have been held at Bushy Park, Glenora, Westerway, Maydena.

TOMORROW (Monday)
New Norfolk Listening Post: 3.30-5pm, Lees Corner, High St, New Norfolk 
Lachlan Community Workshop: 6-8pm, Lachlan Community Hall, Lachlan Rd, Lachlan

TUESDAY
New Norfolk Listening Post: 1pm-4pm, Lees Corner, High St, New Norfolk

The council has also been holding a number of specific workshops throughout the consultation process. These have been by invitation only, and have included topics such as sport and recreation, and local history.

Additional public sessions may be held and will be advertised via Facebook.  Those unable to attend in person can submit their ideas online. Anonymous comments will not be accepted.

* Download the latest version of the community consultation schedule here.

Saturday, July 28, 2018

Willow Court decision: Minister gives his reasons

THE reasons for the rejection of Willow Court's inclusion on the National Heritage List have been published by the Derwent Valley Council. Nine pages of the 16-page document deal with the reasons behind Environment and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg's decision not to list the site, and a nine-page annexure details the legistation behind the National Heritage List. The first part is published below and the whole document can be downloaded here.

Mr Frydenberg says:
  • On February 6, 2015, the Derwent Valley Council nominated the Willow Court Barracks Precinct and Frescati House for inclusion in the National Heritage List. In 2015, the nominated place was included in the Finalised Priority Assessment List for the National Heritage List (NHL) for the 2015-2016 assessment period.
  • The Australian Heritage Council completed its assessment of the nominated place and sent this, along with public comments received, to him on January 25, 2018
  • The Department of the Environment and Energy recommended that the precinct should not be included in the National Heritage List.

Mr Fydenberg says he reached his decision not to include Willow Court Barracks Precinct and Frescati House on the National Heritage List based on evidence consisting of a brief prepared by Heritage Branch, Department of the Environment and Energy in January 2018, which included the following attachments:
a. The nomination form for Willow Court Barracks Precinct and Frescati House;
b. The assessment report by the Australian Heritage Council on the nominated place;
c. Written comments which the Australian Heritage Council received from the Derwent Valley Council and Cultural Heritage Practitioners Tasmania; and
d. The recommendation of the Department of the Environment and Energy.


Mr Fydenberg said he was required to determine that the nominated place was within the Australian jurisdiction, and had one or more National Heritage values. "As the nominated place was located in New Norfolk, in south-east Tasmania, I noted that the nominated place was wholly within the Australian jurisdiction," he said.

To determine whether the nominated place had National Heritage values, Mr Fydenberg considered the advice he received in relation to each criteria.

Importance in the course, or pattern, of Australia's natural or cultural history: "I noted the claim by the nominator under criterion (a) that the place has National Heritage values because of its importance in the course or pattern of Australian history, and particularly because: 'Willow Court has the distinction of being Australia's oldest surviving example of a purpose-built colonial mental health institution.'

"In considering this claim, I noted the finding by the Australian Heritage Council that: 'Willow Court Precinct is the oldest surviving and longest functioning mental health facility in Australia. ...The length of its operating time is notable, but not of itself demonstrative of an aspect of the course or pattern of Australian history.'

"The nominator claimed that the precinct has outstanding heritage value because of its importance in the course or pattern of Australian history, as: 'Willow Court is highly significant in being able to demonstrate patterns in the evolution of the philosophy of design and construction of mental institutions. ...The influence of the convict system is also evident in some of the early architecture.

"The nominator also stated that: 'Willow Court also records the evolution of philosophical attitudes of the treatment of the  mentally ill throughout the 19th and 20th centuries and attitudes towards those with mental illness.

"The nominator also stated Frescati House is of high cultural heritage significance as an integral part of the Willow Court story, having been the home of a succession of Chief Medical Officers for more than a century.'

"In considering these claims, I noted the finding by the Australian Heritage Council that: 'Willow Court represents the broad history of developing mental health treatment in Australia and attitudes to mental health more generally. While representing this broad history, Willow Court is not considered to be best placed to demonstrate it to an outstanding standard. The long history of Willow Court is partially reflected in the hospital buildings on the site, which range from the early 19th century Barracks to later 20th century structures. To exhibit the progression of mental health history in Australia over 170 years, Willow Court would need to be able demonstrate this history through the site. The nominated Precinct does not have a large number of extant buildings of high integrity to demonstrate to an outstanding standard this progression over time. Many buildings which were part of the site's history have been demolished, particularly in the 1960s and 70s when improvements to the ho-spital led to the replacement of a number of older buildings. This impacted the site's ability to demonstrate the progression of mental health history in Australia. ...In comparison to Willow Court, other institutions better exhibit the history of mental health care in Australia, including the Glenside Hospital in Adelaide, the Goodna Hospital for the Insane in Brisbane, and Callan Park Asylum in Sydney. All these institutions were established in the mid- to late-19th century and operated until at least late in the 20th century, with Glenside and Goodna still functioning hospitals. In comparing these institutions, the comparison is not in relation to their visual appearance or physical intactness alone, but rather the ability of the sites to demonstrate changing medical treatments, models of mental health care and attitudes to mental illness through their physical fabric. The types of care and facilities which existed at a more advanced level at these other sides are aspects which strengthen their historic value. ...Willow Court was often behind other institutions in Australia in progression and modernisation of treatment. This is apparent in the way in which the Willow Court hospital looked to other Australian facilities for guidance, for example in the form of the visit in 1883 of medical experts from New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia to provide advice on improving Willow Court. ... In conclusion Willow Court does not have an outstanding capacity to demonstrate Australia's history of mental health care. The nominated area and the broader historical site lack the integrity and coherency required to tell this story to a high standard. Other institutions with similar periods of operation are better able to demonstrate the scale and change of the history process of mental health care in Australian through the 19th and 20th centuries, due to their greater integrity and coherency as a site better allowing them to convey this story.

"I also noted the findings by the Australian Heritage Council that the precinct does not demonstrate the processes of convictism more generally due to it only exhibiting one aspect of this broader system, with the Council finding that: 'As an invalid hospital, Willow Court is not well placed to demonstrate ...  core aspects of the convict system. The mental health care of convicts was part of the support system for convictism overall rather than an essential element of the historical process.

"I agreed with the Council's assessment that the nominated place did not have importance in the course or pattern of Australia's natural or cultural history for the purposes of regulation 10.01A(2)(a).


Possession of uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of Australia's natural cultural history: "Under criterion (b) the nominator stated that: 'While parts of 19th century mental institution buildings are preserved in other places around Australia (for example the Gladesville Hospital in Sydney), Willow Court is rare and highly significant as the only example of an entire 19th century mental institution preserved in its original layout and setting.

"I noted the finding by the Australian Heritage Council that: 'The Willow Court Precinct is a 19th century mental institution, with later 20th century additions to the site. There are a number of 19th century mental institutions in Australia, some of which continued into 20th century care, and some of which functioned as other types of institutions. These include the Gladesville Mental Hospital (1838 - 1997), the Goodna Mental Hospital, now the Park Centre for Mental Health (1865 - Present) and the Glenside Mental Hospital (1846-1852, then 1870-Present). Other 19th century mental hospitals which demonstrate the characteristics of such a site are the Fremantle Lunatic Asylum, now the Fremantle Arts Centre, the Parramatta Lunatic Asylum, now part of the Westmead Hospital. The Willow Court Precinct is therefore not rare in a national context, as there are a number of other similar mental health institutions throughout Australia. The nomination indicates that Willow Court is uncommon because it demonstrates integrity that is rare in a national context, namely as an example of an entire 19th century mental institution preserved in its individual layout. While some original buildings from the 19th century era of Willow Court Precinct remain, the integrity of the site is not fully preserved in its 19th century form. A substantial number of 19th century buildings from the early era of the Precinct have been demolished, and in some cases replaced with early and later 20th century buildings.'

"I agreed with the Council's assessment that the nominated place did not possess uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of Australia's cultural history.

Potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of Australia's natural or cultural history: "The nominator stated in reference to criterion (c) that: 'Through its rich documentary record, Willow Court has the potential to contribute to an understanding of many aspects of Australia's cultural history. These aspects include: changing philosophies for the care and housing of mental patients[...], changes in government provision for the care of the mentally ill [.. .], development of the supporting health system, from its origins as part of the convict system to public hospitals; changes in public attitudes to the mentally ill. [...] During an exploratory and assessment visit to New Norfolk in late 2014, Associate Professor [Heather] Burke advised that the site and surrounding areas would support more than 10 years of archaeological work.

"In considering these claims, I noted the finding by the Australian Heritage Council that: 'A significant number of buildings have been demolished through the site's history, reducing its ability to yield information which contributes to a better understanding of mental health history in Australia. The value of the remaining buildings at the site does not demonstrate potential of national importance. [.. .]While mental health history is an area of Australia's story which could be informed through archaeological investigation, in comparison to other sites there is insufficient information to suggest the value of Willow Court to shed light on the story of mental health care in Australia is of national importance.'

"I agreed with the Council's assessment that the nominated place did not have potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of Australia's cultural history for the purposes of regulation.


Importance in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a class of Australia's natural or cultural places: "In reference to criterion (d)(i) the nominator stated: 'It includes many buildings which individually demonstrate the principal characteristics of the full range of development in mental hospital design and management from the 1830s onwards.'

In considering these claims, I noted the finding by the Australian Heritage Council that: 'As a class of place, there is great difficulty in establishing common characteristics for welfare, benevolent and other similar institutions overall across Australia, given the temporal and geographic breadth which the institutions cover. Institutions had some common characteristics, such as accommodation for their residents on a single campus, but in general there could be significant variation in the nature of the institution depending on its function and the time it was built. It is therefore difficult to identify the existence of principal characteristics of institutions in Australia. A thematic study of benevolent institutions commissioned by the Australian Heritage Council identified Willow Court as an institution likely to be of national significance. However, it was not possible to establish the key characteristics of such institutions as to reveal how Willow Court could be highly representative of these features. In addition, given the limited integrity of the site, it is considered Willow Court would not demonstrate such features."

"I agreed with the Council's assessment that the nominated place did not have importance in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a class of Australia's cultural places.

Importance in exhibiting particular aesthetic characteristics valued by a community or cultural group: "The nominator claimed in reference to this criterion that the Willow Court Barracks Precinct and Frescati House is important because it demonstrates aesthetic characteristics valued by the local, Tasmanian and interstate community. The nomination stated that 'one of the key observable features of the place is the sparseness and lack of decoration of buildings, the simplicity of open areas and the impact of enclosed outdoor spaces with no furniture or softening influences'.

"In considering this claim, I noted that the Australian Heritage Council found: 'The nominator states that parts of the Precinct are valued for their aesthetic value, most prominently the Barracks and Frescati House. However, the aesthetic characteristic of these buildings are similar in aesthetic appeal to many other historic precincts in Australia. The aesthetic characteristics valued by the community for the Precinct are significant at the local and potentially state level, but in comparison with other sites listed for their aesthetic value, such as the Port Arthur Historic Site in Tasmania and the Kingston and Arthurs Value Historic Area on Norfolk Island, the Precinct does not exhibit characteristics of outstanding value at a national level. Additionally, evidence of the Precinct being valued by the community for its particular aesthetic characteristics at a national level is not well demonstrated. There is a lack of evidence, such as surveys or public statements or lobbying by the local or state community which reveals that the community values the place for its aesthetic characteristics.'

"I agreed with the Council's assessment that the nominated place did not have importance in exhibiting particular aesthetic characteristics valued by a community or cultural group.

Importance in demonstrating a high degree of creative or technical achievement at a particular period: "The nominator states that Willow Court demonstrates creative or technical achievement under criterion (f), as it 'preserves aspects of the theory of design of early 19th century convict barrack buildings in its front-entry style constructed around the internal walls of a courtyard.' The nominator also notes that Frescati House demonstrates many elements of early 19th century weatherboard cottages.

In considering this claim, I noted the Australian Heritage Council's finding that: 'Although designed by [John Lee] Archer, the barracks were not of a high architectural standard nor did they demonstrate technical excellence in relation to the provision of accommodation for convicts. ... From its earliest establishment Willow Court Barracks was an extension of an already existing site, rather than a purpose built facility which had the capacity to enact leading and innovative approaches to mental health care buildings. ... There is no indication that the building of Frescati House demonstrates a high degree of creative or technical achievement.'

I agreed with the Council's assessment that the nominated place did not have importance in demonstrating a high degree of creative or technical achievement at a particular period.

Strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group for social, cultural or spiritual reasons: "The nominator states that Willow Court has outstanding heritage value to the nation because of its special association with the Tasmanian community. This connection extends to ex-patients and their families, both local and interstate. The nomination also claims that the Barracks and Frescati House have strong associations for Tasmanians and the Derwent Valley community as symbols of convict and colonial past."

"In considering this claim, I noted the Australian Heritage Council finding that: 'The association of the New Norfolk community, and of former patients and their families, with the Precinct is a special one, reflecting the intimate connections people had with the Precinct due to the nature of the care it provided. However, the association of these groups with the Precinct is more prominent at a state and local level, due to the role Willow Court played in local and state mental health care. There is no evidence to suggest the community association with the Precinct is outstanding nationally, in comparison with sites such as the Australian War Memorial, which have an association with the Australian community which is iconic at a national level.'

"I agreed with the Council's assessment that the nominated place did not have a strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group for social, cultural or spiritual reasons.

Special association with the life or works of a person, or group of persons, of importance in Australia's natural or cultural history: "The nominator states under criterion (h) that the place has outstanding heritage values because of its special association with the architect John Lee Archer, and the building of Frescati House as a summer retreat for the Van Diemen's Land Colonial Secretary, John Burnett.

"When considering this claim, I noted the Australian Heritage Council's assessment that: 'While John Lee Archer played an important role in the building of colonial Tasmania through his architectural contribution to the colony, it is not established that his contribution was of significance to the cultural history of Australia as a whole. His contribution was restricted to the colony of Tasmania, and the buildings he designed themselves are not of national significance. ... There is no indication that [John] Burnett made an outstanding contribution to Australia's cultural history. In addition, Frescati House was a holiday location for Burnett and not associated with the work he was prominent for, as Colonial Secretary. There are a number of other figures who had passing association with Willow Court, such as Lt-Governor George Arthur, who ordered the construction of the hospital, and the composer John Woodcock Graves. However, these figures' contributions to Australian history, of varying levels of significance, are not greatly connected to their association with Willow Court.'

"I agreed with the Council's assessment that the nominated place did not have a special association with the life or works of a person of importance in Australia's cultural history.

Importance as part of Indigenous tradition: "I noted that the Precinct was not nominated for inclusion on the National Heritage List under this criterion. I also noted the Australian Heritage Council's assessment that on available evidence it is not demonstrated that the place is nationally significant under this criterion."


PUBLIC COMMENTS

"I noted two submissions had been received.

"The submission received from the Derwent Valley Council supported the listing of the Precinct on the basis on the matters identified in their nomination, and also provided further information including Conservation Management Plans for Frescati House and other buildings in the Precinct.

"The submission from Cultural Heritage Practitioners Tasmania supported the listing of the site under criteria (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (h), on the basis of claims consistent with those made in the nomination.

"In its assessment of the National Heritage values of the place, the [National Heritage] Council took into account all the relevant issues and evidence raised in the submissions.

"I also had regard to these submissions when making my decision. I concluded that the comments were consistent with the claims made in the nomination and did not provide any additional information against the National Heritage criteria which demonstrated that the Precinct has National Heritage values."


RECOMMENDATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY

"The Department of the Environment and Energy considered that the Council's report conclusively addressed the nominator's claims against each National Heritage criteria and the issues raised in public submissions, taking into account the information provided as well as undertaking research and comparative analysis against other heritage sites and the National Heritage criteria.

"Based on consideration of the Council's assessment report and recommendation and public comments received, the Department of the Environment and Energy agreed with the Council's recommendation that the Precinct not be included in the National Heritage List."


REASONS FOR DECISION

"Based on the Council's assessment and the public submissions, as well as the nomination and the Department's recommendation, I decided that Willow Court Barracks Precinct and Frescati House did not meet the National Heritage criteria in regulation 10.01A(2) of the EPBC Regulations. On this basis, I was satisfied that Willow Court Barracks Precinct and Frescati House did not have National Heritage values for the purposes of section 324C(2)(b) of the EPBC Act.

"Accordingly I decided, pursuant to section 324JJ(1)(b) of the EPBC Act, not to include the nominated place, Willow Court Barracks Precinct and Frescati House, in the National Heritage List."


FULL REPORT BELOW
(Additional materials such as the the full assessment provided by the Australian Heritage Council; the ministerial brief prepared by Heritage Branch, Department of the Environment and Energy; the thematic study of benevolent institutions commissioned by the Australian Heritage Council; and public submissions made by the Derwent Valley Council and Cultural Practitioners Tasmania have not been provided.)

STATEMENT OF REASONS DECISION UNDER SECTION 324JJ
ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION ACT 1999

Willow Court Barracks Precinct and Frescati House

BACKGROUND

1. On 6 February 2015, the Derwent Valley Council nominated the 'Willow Court Barracks Precinct and Frescati House' (the nominated place) for inclusion in the National Heritage List. In 2015, the nominated place was included in the Finalised Priority Assessment List for the National Heritage List (NHL) for the 2015-2016 assessment period.

2. The Australian Heritage Council (the Council) completed its assessment of the nominated place, in accordance with s 324JH of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC Act).

3. The Council sent its written assessment of the nominated place, and the written comments which it received following the Council's invitation to comment in accordance with s 324JG, to me on 25 January 2018

4. Having regard to the Council's report and public comments on the nomination, the Department of the Environment and Energy recommended that the Precinct should not be included in the National Heritage List.

LEGISLATION

5. Relevant legislation is set out in Annexure A.

EVIDENCE OR OTHER MATERIAL ON WHICH MY FINDINGS WERE BASED

6. In making my decision, section 324JJ(5) of the EPBC Act required me to have regard to the Council's assessment of whether the place meets any of the National Heritage criteria and any public comments submitted. I was also able to have regard to any other relevant information or advice.

7. The evidence and material on which I based my decision not to include Willow Court Barracks Precinct and Frescati House in the NHL consisted of a brief prepared by Heritage Branch, Department of the Environment and Energy in January 2018, which included the following attachments:
a. The nomination form for Willow Court Barracks Precinct and Frescati House;
b. The assessment report by the Council on the nominated place;
c. Written comments which the Council received under subsection 324JG(1) from:
i. Derwent Valley Council {the nominator and owner and occupier of the site), and
ii. Cultural Heritage Practitioners Tasmania; and
d. The recommendation of the Department of the Environment and Energy.

FINDINGS ON MATERIAL QUESTIONS OF FACT

8. Under section 324C(2) of the EPBC Act, a place may be included in the NHL only if:

a. The place is within the Australian jurisdiction, and
b. I am satisfied that the place has one or more National Heritage values.

Whether the nominated place is within the Australian jurisdiction

9. As the nominated place was located in New Norfolk, in south-east Tasmania, I noted that the nominated place was wholly within the Australian jurisdiction for the purposes of section 324C(2)(a).

Whether the nominated place has National Heritage values

10. I noted that, under section 324D(1), a place only has a National Heritage value if the place meets one of the criteria prescribed in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Regulations 2000 (Cth) (the EPBC Regulations) for the purposes of section 3240(1). The National Heritage values of the place are the place's heritage values that cause the place to meet the National Heritage criteria.
11. Under regulation 10.01A(2) of the EPBC Regulations, the National Heritage criteria for a place are any or all of the following:
a. the place has outstanding heritage value to the nation because of the place's importance in the course, or pattern, of Australia's natural or cultural history;
b. the place has outstanding heritage value to the nation because of the place's possession of uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of Australiq's natural or cultural history;
c. the place has outstanding heritage value to the nation because of the place's potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of Australia's natural or cultural history;
d. the place has outstanding heritage value to the nation because of the place's importance in demonstrating the principal characteristics of:
i. a class of Australia's natural or cultural places; or
ii. a class of Australia's natural or cultural environments;
e. the place has outstanding heritage value to the nation because of the place's importance in exhibiting particular aesthetic characteristics valued by a community or cultural group;
f. the place has outstanding heritage value to the nation because of the place's importance in demonstrating a high degree of creative or technical achievement at a particular period;
g. the place has outstanding heritage value to the nation because of the place's strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group for social, cultural or spiritual reasons;
h. the place has outstanding heritage value to the nation because of the place's special association with the life or works of a person, or group of persons, of importance in Australia 's natural or cultural history;
i. the place has outstanding heritage value to the nation because of the place's importance as part of indigenous tradition.

12. In considering whether the nominated place met any of the National Heritage criteria, I had regard to the Council's assessment and written comments received under section 324JG(1) in respect of the nominated place, the nomination form, and the Department of the Environment and Energy's advice.

Importance in the course, or pattern, of Australia's natural or cultural history

13. Under regulation 10.01A(2)(a) of the EPBC Regulations, a place may meet the National Heritage criteria if it has outstanding heritage value to the nation because of its importance in the course, or pattern, of Australia's natural or cultural history. I noted the claim by the nominator under criterion (a) that the place has National Heritage values because of its importance in the course or pattern of Australian history, and particularly because:

Willow Court has the distinction of being Australia's oldest surviving example of a purpose-built colonial mental health institution (p 6, Nomination).

14. In considering this claim, I noted the finding by the Australian Heritage Council that:

Willow Court Precinct is the oldest surviving and longest functioning mental health facility in Australia. [...]The length of its operating time is notable, but not of itself demonstrative of an aspect of the course or pattern of Australian history.

15. The nominator claimed that the Precinct has outstanding heritage value because of its importance in the course or pattern of Australian history, as:
Willow Court is highly significant in being able to demonstrate patterns in the evolution of the philosophy of design and construction of mental institutions. [... ] The influence of the convict system is also evident in some of the early architecture (p. 6, Nomination).

The nominator also stated that:

Willow Court also records the evolution of philosophical attitudes of the treatment of the  mentally ill throughout the 19th and 20th centuries and attitudes towards those with mental illness (p. 6, Nomination).

16. The nominator also stated Frescati House is of high cultural heritage significance as an integral part of the Willow Court story, having been the home of a succession of
Chief Medical Officers for more than a century (p. 6, Nomination).

17. In considering these claims, I noted the finding by the Australian Heritage Council that:

Willow Court represents the broad history of developing mental health treatment in Australia and attitudes to mental health more generally. While representing this broad history,
Willow Court is not considered to be best placed to demonstrate it to an outstanding standard.

The long history of Willow Court is partially reflected in the hospital buildings on the site, which range from the early 19th century Barracks to later 20th century structures. To exhibit the progression of mental health history in Australia over 170 years, Willow Court would need to be able demonstrate this history through the site. The nominated Precinct does not have a large number of extant buildings of high integrity to demonstrate to an outstanding standard this progression over time. Many buildings which were part of the site's history have been demolished, particularly in the 1960s and 70s when improvements to the ho-spital led to the replacement of a number of older buildings. This impacted the site's ability to demonstrate the progression of mental health history in Australia.

[... ]

In comparison to Willow Court, other institutions better exhibit the history of mental health care in Australia, including the Glenside Hospital in Adelaide, the Goodna Hospital for the Insane in Brisbane, and Callan Park Asylum in Sydney. All these institutions were established in the mid- to late-19th century and operated until at least late in the 20th century, with Glenside and Goodna still functioning hospitals. In comparing these institutions, the comparison is not in relation to their visual appearance or physical intactness alone, but rather the ability of the sites to demonstrate changing medical treatments, models of mental health care and attitudes to mental illness through their physical fabric. The types of care and facilities which existed at a more advanced level at these other sides are aspects which strengthen their historic value.
[...]

Willow Court was often behind other institutions in Australia in progression and modernisation of treatment. This is apparent in the way in which the Willow Court hospital looked to other Australian facilities for guidance, for example in the form of the visit in 1883 of medical experts from New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia to provide advice on improving Willow Court.

[... ]

In conclusion Willow Court does not have an outstanding capacity to demonstrate Australia's history of mental health care. The nominated area and the broader historical site lack the integrity and coherency required to tell this story to a high standard. Other institutions with similar periods of operation are better able to demonstrate the scale and change of the history process of mental health care in Australian through the 19th and 20th centuries, due to their greater integrity and coherency as a site better allowing them to convey this story.

18. I also noted the findings by the Australian Heritage Council that the Precinct does not demonstrate the processes of convictism more generally due to it only exhibiting one aspect of this broader system, with the Council finding that:

As an invalid hospital, Willow Court is not well placed to demonstrate[ ... ] core aspects of the convict system. The mental health care of convicts was part of the support system for convictism overall rather than an essential element of the historical process.

19. I agreed with the Council's assessment that the nominated place did not have importance in the course or pattern of Australia's natural or cultural history for the purposes of regulation 10.01A(2)(a).

Possession of uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of Australia's natural cultural history

20. Under regulation 10.01A(2)(b) of the EPBC Regulations, a place may meet the National Heritage criteria if it has outstanding heritage value to the nation because of its possession of uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of Australia's natural or cultural history.

21. Under criterion (b) the nominator stated that:

While parts of 19th century mental institution buildings are preserved in other places around Australia (for example the Gladesville Hospital in Sydney), Willow Court is rare and highly significant as the only example of an entire 19th century mental institution preserved in its original layout and setting (p 6, Nomination). ·

I noted the finding by the Australian Heritage Council that:

The Willow Court Precinct is a 19th century mental institution, with later 20th century additions to the site. There are a number of 19th century mental institutions in Australia, some of which continued into 20th century care, and some of which functioned as other types of institutions. These include the Gladesville Mental Hospital (1838 - 1997), the Goodna Mental Hospital, now the Park Centre for Mental Health (1865 - Present) and the Glenside Mental Hospital (1846-1852, then 1870-Present). Other 19th century mental hospitals which demonstrate the characteristics of such a site are the Fremantle Lunatic Asylum, now the Fremantle Arts Centre, the Parramatta Lunatic Asylum, now part of the Westmead Hospital. The Willow Court Precinct is therefore not rare in a national context, as there are a number of other similar mental health institutions throughout Australia.

The nomination indicates that Willow Court is uncommon because it demonstrates integrity that is rare in a national context, namely as an example of an entire 19th century mental institution preserved in its individual layout. While some original buildings from the 19th century era of Willow Court Precinct remain, the integrity of the site is not fully preserved in its 19th century form. A substantial number of 19th century buildings from the early era of the Precinct have been demolished, and in some cases replaced with early and later 20th century buildings.

22. I agreed with the Council's assessment that the nominated place did not possess uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of Australia's cultural history for the purposes of regulation 10.01A(2)(b).

Potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of Australia's natural or cultural history

23. Under regulation 10.01A(2)(c) of the EPBC Regulations, a place may meet the National Heritage criteria if it has outstanding heritage value to the nation because of its potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of Australia's natural or cultural history.

24. The nominator stated in reference to criterion (c) that:

Through its rich documentary record, Willow Court has the potential to contribute to an understanding of many aspects of Australia's cultural history. These aspects include: changing philosophies for the care and housing of mental patients[...], changes in government provision for the care of the mentally ill [.. .], development of the supporting health system, from its origins as part of the convict system to public hospitals; changes in public attitudes to the mentally ill. [...] During an exploratory and assessment visit to New Norfolk in late 2014, Associate Professor [Heather] Burke advised that the site and surrounding areas would support more than 10 years of archaeological work (p. 7 Nomination).

25. In considering these claims, I noted the finding by the Australian Heritage Council that:

A significant number of buildings have been demolished through the site's history, reducing its ability to yield information which contributes to a better understanding of mental health history in Australia. The value of the remaining buildings at the site does not demonstrate potential of national importance. [.. .]While mental health history is an area of Australia's story which could be informed through archaeological investigation, in comparison to other sites there is insufficient information to suggest the value of Willow Court to shed light on the story of mental health care in Australia is of national importance.

26. I agreed with the Council's assessment that the nominated place did not hav potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of Australia's cultural history for the purposes of regulation 10.01A(2)(c).

Importance in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a class of Australia's natural or cultural places

27. Under regulation 10.01A(2)(d)(i) of the EPBC Regulations, a place may meet the National Heritage criteria if it has outstanding heritage value to the nation because of its importance in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a class of Australia's natural or cultural places.

28. In reference to criterion (d)(i) the nominator stated:

It includes many buildings which individually demonstrate the principal characteristics of the full range of development in mental hospital design and management from the 1830s onwards (p. 7, Nomination).

29. In considering these claims, I noted the finding by the Australian Heritage Council that:

As a class of place, there is great difficulty in establishing common characteristics for welfare, benevolent and other similar institutions overall across Australia, given the temporal and geographic breadth which the institutions cover. Institutions had some common characteristics, such as accommodation for their residents on a single campus, but in general there could be significant variation in the nature of the institution depending on its function and the time it was built. It is therefore difficult to identify the existence of principal characteristics of institutions in Australia. A thematic study of benevolent institutions commissioned by the Australian Heritage Council identified Willow Court as an institution likely to be of national significance. However, it was not possible to establish the key characteristics of such institutions as  to reveal  how  Willow Court could be highly representative of these features. In addition, given the limited integrity of the site, it is considered Willow Court would not demonstrate such features.

30. I agreed with the Council's assessment that the nominated place did not have importance in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a class of Australia's cultural places for the purposes of regulation 10.01A(2)(d)(i).

Importance in exhibiting particular aesthetic characteristics valued by a community or cultural group

31. Under regulation 10.01A(2)(e) of the EPBC Regulations, a place may meet the National Heritage criteria if it has outstanding heritage value to the nation because of its importance in exhibiting particular aesthetic characteristics valued by a community or cultural group.

32. The nominator claimed in reference to this criterion that the Willow Court Barracks Precinct and Frescati House is important because it demonstrates aesthetic characteristics valued by the local, Tasmanian and interstate community (p. 8, Nomination). The nomination stated that "one of the key observable features of the place is the sparseness and lack of decoration of buildings, the simplicity of open areas and the impact of enclosed outdoor spaces with no furniture or softening influences".

33. In considering this claim, I noted that the Australian Heritage Council found:

The nominator states that parts of the Precinct are valued for their aesthetic value, most prominently the Barracks and Frescati House. However, the aesthetic characteristic of these buildings are similar in aesthetic appeal to many other historic precincts in Australia. The aesthetic characteristics valued by the community for the Precinct are significant at the local and potentially state level, but in comparison with other sites listed for their aesthetic value, such as the Port Arthur Historic Site in Tasmania and the Kingston and Arthurs Value Historic Area on Norfolk Island, the Precinct does not exhibit characteristics of outstanding value at a national level. Additionally, evidence of the Precinct being valued by the community for its particular aesthetic characteristics at a national level is not well demonstrated. There is a lack of evidence, such as surveys or public statements or lobbying by the local or state community which reveals that the community values the place for its aesthetic characteristics.

34. I agreed with the Council's assessment that the nominated place did not have importance in exhibiting particular aesthetic characteristics valued by a community or cultural group for the purposes of regulation 10.01A(2)(e).

Importance in demonstrating a high degree of creative or technical achievement at a particular period

35. Under regulation 10.01A(2)(f) of the EPBC Regulations, a place may meet the National Heritage criteria if it has outstanding heritage value to the nation because of its importance in demonstrating a high degree or creative or technical achievement at a particular period.

36. The nominator states that Willow Court demonstrates creative or technical achievement under criterion (f), as it "preserves aspects of the theory of design of early 19th century convict barrack buildings in its front-entry style constructed around the internal walls of a courtyard." (p. 9, Nomination). The nominator also notes that Frescati House demonstrates many elements of early 19th century weatherboard cottages.

37. In considering this claim, I noted the Australian Heritage Council's finding that:

Although designed by [John Lee] Archer, the barracks were not of a high architectural standard nor did they demonstrate technical excellence in relation to the provision of accommodation for convicts. [... ] From its earliest establishment Willow Court Barracks was an extension of an already existing site, rather than a purpose built facility which had the capacity to enact leading and innovative approaches to mental health care buildings. [... ]There is no indication that the building of Frescati House demonstrates a high degree of creative or technical achievement.

38. I agreed with the Council's assessment that the nominated place did not have importance in demonstrating a high degree of creative or technical achievement at a particular period for the purposes of regulation 10.01A(2)(f).

Strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group for social, cultural or spiritual reasons

39. Under regulation 10.01A(2)(g) of the EPBC Regulations, a place may meet the National Heritage criteria if it has outstanding heritage value to the nation because of its strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group for social, cultural or spiritual reasons.

40. The nominator states that Willow Court has outstanding heritage value to the nation because of its special association with the Tasmanian community. This connection extends to ex-patients and their families, both local and interstate. The nomination also claims that the Barracks and Frescati House have strong associations for Tasmanians and the Derwent Valley community as symbols of convict and colonial past (p 9, Nomination).

41. In considering this claim, I noted the Australian Heritage Council finding that:

The association of the New Norfolk community, and of former patients and their families, with the Precinct is a special one, reflecting the intimate connections people had with the Precinct due to the nature of the care it provided. However, the association of these groups with the Precinct is more prominent at a state and local level, due to the role Willow Court played in local and state mental health care. There is no evidence to suggest the community association with the Precinct is outstanding nationally, in comparison with sites such as the Australian War Memorial, which have an association with the Australian community which is iconic at a national level.

42. I agreed with the Council's assessment that the nominated place did not have a strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group for social, cultural or spiritual reasons for the purposes of regulation 10.01A(2)(g).

Special association with the life or works of a person, or group of persons, of importance in Australia's natural or cultural history

43. Under regulation 10.01A(2)(h) of the EPBC Regulations, a place may meet the National Heritage criteria if it has outstanding heritage value to the nation because of its special association with the life or works of a person, or group of persons, of importance in Australia's natural or cultural history.

44. The nominator states under criterion (h) that the place has outstanding heritage values because of its special association with the architect John Lee Archer, and the building of Frescati House as a summer retreat for the Van Diemen's Land Colonial Secretary, John Burnett (p 10, Nomination.)

45. When considering this claim, I noted the Australian Heritage Council's assessment that:

While John Lee Archer played an important role in the building of colonial Tasmania through his architectural contribution to the colony, it is not established that his contribution was of significance to the cultural history of Australia as a whole. His contribution was restricted to the colony of Tasmania, and the buildings he designed themselves are not of national significance.

[... ]

There is no indication that [John] Burnett made an outstanding contribution to Australia's cultural history. In addition, Frescati House was a holiday location for Burnett and not associated with the work he was prominent for, as Colonial Secretary. There are a number of other figures who had passing association with Willow Court, such as Lt-Governor George Arthur, who ordered the construction of the hospital, and the composer John Woodcock Graves. However, these figures' contributions to Australian history, of varying levels of significance, are not greatly connected to their association with Willow Court.

46. I agreed with the Council's assessment that the nominated place did not have a special association with the life or works of a person of importance in Australia's cultural history for the purposes of regulation 10.01A(2)(h).

Importance as part of Indigenous tradition

47. Under regulation 10.01A(2)(i) of the EPBC Regulations, a place may meet the National Heritage criteria if it has outstanding heritage value to the nation because of its importance as part of Indigenous tradition.

48. I noted that the Precinct was not nominated for inclusion on the National Heritage List under this criterion. I also noted the Australian Heritage Council's assessment that on available evidence it is not demonstrated that the place is nationally significant under this criterion.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

49. I noted two submissions had been received.

50. The submission received from the Derwent Valley Council supported the listing of the Precinct on the basis on the matters identified in their nomination, and also provided further information including Conservation Management Plans for Frescati House and other buildings in the Precinct.

51. The submission from Cultural Heritage Practitioners Tasmania supported the listing of the site under criteria (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (h), on the basis of claims consistent with those made in the nomination.

52. In its assessment of the National Heritage values of the place, the Council took into account all the relevant issues and evidence raised in the submissions.

53. I also had regard to these submissions when making my decision. I concluded that the comments were consistent with the claims made in the nomination and did not provide any additional information against the National Heritage criteria which demonstrated that the Precinct has National Heritage values.

RECOMMENDATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY

54. The Department of the Environment and Energy considered that the Council's report conclusively addressed the nominator's claims against each National Heritage criteria and the issues raised in public submissions, taking into account the information provided as well as undertaking research and comparative analysis against other heritage sites and the National Heritage criteria.

55. Based on consideration of the Council's assessment report and recommendation and public comments received, the Department of the Environment and Energy agreed with the Council's recommendation that the Precinct not be included in the National Heritage List.

REASONS FOR DECISION

56. Based on the Council's assessment and the public submissions, as well as the nomination and the Department's recommendation, I decided that Willow Court Barracks Precinct and Frescati House did not meet the National Heritage criteria in regulation 10.01A(2) of the EPBC Regulations. On this basis, I was satisfied that Willow Court Barracks Precinct and Frescati House did not have National Heritage values for the purposes of section 324C(2)(b) of the EPBC Act.

57. Accordingly I decided, pursuant to section 324JJ(1)(b) of the EPBC Act, not to include the nominated place, Willow Court Barracks Precinct and Frescati House, in the National Heritage List.

Josh Frydenberg 
Minister for the Environment and Energy
29/6/2018



Friday, July 27, 2018

Belcher bows out of council

THE Derwent Valley Council will operate with only seven elected members until the October election following the resignation of councillor Paul Belcher today. In a statement issued to selected media (not including the New Norfolk News), mayor Martyn Evans said Mr Belcher had made a significant contribution to the community and was widely respected.

Mr Belcher, a disability support worker who has been campaigning for election as mayor, has said in his own statement that an opportunity has arisen in his life that will involve a career change. He said the change meant he could not not remain on the council and he would not be taking part in this year's election.

Mayor Evans said Mr Belcher had been an invaluable member of council since his election in  2014. “On behalf of council and staff, I would like to thank Paul for his service and commitment to our community. Paul has been a very passionate advocate for the Derwent Valley prior to and during his time on council”

“Paul’s advocacy for the ratepayer around rates and the cost of living is exemplary of his devotion to making this community and the valley a better place. I wish him the best of luck in his future pursuits” Cr Evans said.

Due to the short timeframe until the next election, the vacancy on council will not be filled. Mr Belcher is the second councillor to leave the Derwent Valley Council this year, following Damian Bester who resigned in February due to changes in his own employment.


Council and chemists to help against meingococcal

THE Derwent Valley Council will join the campaign against the outbreak of meningococcal disease in southern Tasmania. The council has announced it will work with the Department of Health and Human Services to provide the community with vaccines against meningococcal strains A, C, W and Y (given as one vaccine).

The council’s intention is to hold free meningococcal vaccination sessions for members of the community aged between six weeks and 21 years (ie those born after August 1, 1997). It will make an announcement about the time and place of these sessions as soon as the vaccines become available.

"Council will not be providing vaccinations for meningococcal B - this vaccine is only available on private prescription," a council spokesman said. "Please contact your local doctor or pharmacist to arrange a vaccination for this strain."

Local pharmacies have also announced their ability to assist. Bel Bird of the New Norfolk Guardian Pharmacy says stock of meningococcal vaccines is arriving daily and it was hoped to be able to offer subsidised clinics for meningococcal ACWY vaccinations in the near future.

The New Norfolk AMCAL Pharmacy also reports a lot of interest in meningococcal vaccines. "We do have both strains readily available at the moment. For the time being you do need a prescription from the doctor and they are not yet covered by the Government. We will keep you updated as to when they become covered and when pharmacists are able to immunise against meningococcal," a spokesman said.

A fact sheet about Meningococcal Disease is available here. For all other information or inquiries call the Public Health Hotline on 1800 671 738.

Council consulting at Molesworth tonight

IT'S day five of the Derwent Valley Council's "Your Valley Your Voice 2030" listening tour today. 

Council representatives will be at Molesworth tonight to collect the views of the general public on the future of the Derwent Valley municipality for inclusion in the council's new strategic plan.

Over the weekend there will be more opportunities to share your views in New Norfolk, including at the High St market tomorrow, and at Peppermint Hill tip site and Woolworths supermarket on Sunday. It will be Lachlan's turn on Monday.

The council suggests the following "thought starters":

  • what I love about the Derwent Valley...
  • in 12 years’ time, I hope the Derwent Valley is...
  • my hope for the future is...
  • what I would like to see in the Derwent Valley...
  • what we should keep in Derwent Valley that is special...

TODAY (Friday)
Molesworth Community Workshop: 6pm-8pm, Molesworth Community Hall, 560 Molesworth Rd, Molesworth. All welcome. 

SATURDAY
New Norfolk Listening Post: 8am-2pm, High St Market, New Norfolk. All welcome. 

SUNDAY

New Norfolk Listening Post: 10-11.30am Peppermint Hill Waste Disposal Area, off Dean St, New Norfolk. All welcome.
New Norfolk Listening Post: 1.30-3.30pm, Woolworths Supermarket, George St, New Norfolk. All welcome. 



The council will also hold a number of sector specific workshops throughout the consultation process. Additional public sessions may be held and will be advertised via Facebook. Those unable to attend in person can submit their ideas online. Anonymous comments will not be accepted.

* Download the latest version of the community consultation schedule here.

Thursday, July 26, 2018

Police seek witnesses to car fire

POLICE would like to speak with anyone who may have seen people at the scene of a car fire at Sorell Creek this morning. Police were notified of the incident at 6.45 this morning, at which stage the small car was still on fire.

Police say the car, a silver Suzuki Liana, had earlier broken down at the location. It was in the same spot for most of this week. As well as being set on fire, the car had its wheels removed by persons unknown.

Any information can be provided to Sergeant Chris Hey at the New Norfolk Police Station or by calling anonymously Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000.


Listening tour returns to New Norfolk today

THE community consultations for the new Derwent Valley Council strategic plan returns to New Norfolk today for three further information-gathering sessions. Tomorrow (Friday) will be Molesworth's turn.

Mayor Martyn Evans says the council is seeking feedback from community groups, residents, local business and industries, in relation to the development of a new strategic plan which it has dubbed "Your Valley Your Voice 2030".

“Council is genuinely committed to listening to the thoughts and ideas from its community,” Cr Evans said in a statement earlier in the week. “We want to hear your thoughts about how we can work together to make the Valley a better place.”

The schedule of community consultations included more than 40 "workshops, listening posts and other opportunities to have a say". Invitation-only sessions will also be held on specific subject areas.

"This will give council a great insight into how the community would like to plan for the Valley’s future," Cr Evans said. The consultations will run until July 31.

"It is a chance for the community to share ideas and voice how they want to develop and shape the Derwent Valley for the future," Cr Evans said.

The council suggests the following "thought starters":
  • what I love about the Derwent Valley...
  • in 12 years’ time, I hope the Derwent Valley is...
  • my hope for the future is...
  • what I would like to see in the Derwent Valley...
  • what we should keep in Derwent Valley that is special...

TODAY (Thursday)
New Norfolk Community Workshop: 1-3pm, Corumbene Home, 13 Lower Rd, New Norfolk. All welcome.
New Norfolk Listening Post: 5.30-6.30pm, Woolworths Supermarket, George St, New Norfolk. All welcome. 
New Norfolk Community Workshop: 6.30-8pm,  Council Social Rooms, Circle St, New Norfolk. all welcome. 

TOMORROW (Friday)

Molesworth Community Workshop: 6pm-8pm, Molesworth Community Hall, 560 Molesworth Rd, Molesworth. All welcome. 

SATURDAY
New Norfolk Listening Post: 8am-2pm, High St Market, New Norfolk. All welcome. 

SUNDAY

New Norfolk Listening Post: 10-11.30am Peppermint Hill Waste Disposal Area, off Dean St, New Norfolk. All welcome.
New Norfolk Listening Post: 1.30-3.30pm, Woolworths Supermarket, George St, New Norfolk. All welcome. 


The council will also hold a number of sector specific workshops throughout the consultation process. Additional sessions may be held and will be advertised via Facebook. Those unable to attend in person can submit their ideas online. Anonymous comments will not be accepted.

* Download the latest version of the community consultation schedule here.

Wednesday, July 25, 2018

Final flood warning for River Ouse

Bureau of Meteorology, Tasmania


Final Flood Warning for the River Ouse in the River Derwent Catchment

Issued at 8:44 am on Wednesday 25 July 2018

Flood Warning Number: 4
Minor flooding is no longer expected along the River Ouse during Wednesday.
In the 24 hours to 9 am Wednesday widespread rainfall totals of 10-20 mm were observed in the Derwent catchment, with isolated totals up to 35 mm.
A further 5-10 mm is forecast for Wednesday, mainly in the west and southwest parts of the catchment. Higher rainfall totals are possible in elevated areas.
River rises are likely in the River Derwent and its tributaries during Wednesday as flows move downstream.

River Ouse:

Minor flooding is no longer expected along the River Ouse.
The River Ouse at Ashton is expected to remain below the minor flood level (2.40 m) during Wednesday.
The River Ouse at Ouse is expected to remain below the minor flood level (4.00 m) during Wednesday.


Flood Safety Advice:

FloodSafe advice is available at www.ses.tas.gov.au
Road closure information is available at www.police.tas.gov.au
For emergency assistance call the SES on telephone number 132 500
For life threatening situations, call 000 immediately.


Next Issue:

This is a final warning, no further warnings will be issued for this event.


Latest River Heights:

LocationHeight of River (m)TendencyDate/Time of Observation
River Derwent below Lake St Clair1.81Steady01:00 AM WED 25/07/18
River Ouse at Ashton1.39Steady08:00 AM WED 25/07/18
River Ouse at 3B Weir1.01Steady08:00 AM WED 25/07/18
River Clyde at Bothwell0.50Steady08:00 AM WED 25/07/18
River Derwent below Meadowbank Dam2.85Steady08:00 AM WED 25/07/18
River Derwent at Macquarie Plains1.70Steady08:07 AM WED 25/07/18
Tyenna River at Newbury0.81Steady08:00 AM WED 25/07/18
Styx River at Bruces Bridge1.45Falling08:34 AM WED 25/07/18
River Derwent at New Norfolk1.08Rising08:37 AM WED 25/07/18

This advice is also available by dialling 1300 659 216. Warning, rainfall and river information are available at www.bom.gov.au/tas/flood. The latest weather forecast is available at www.bom.gov.au/tas/forecasts.