Thomson River Diversion Tunnel Site (H1990)

Thomson River Diversion Tunnel Site (H1990)

Thomson River Walhalla

Heritage Council Registrations Committee

Members – Anthony Darvall (Chair), Paul Coffey, Megan Goulding

Decision of the Heritage Council

After considering the Executive Director’s recommendation and submissions received in response, and after holding a meeting to consider all further submissions received, the Heritage Council has determined, pursuant to Section 54 of the Heritage Act 1995, to amend the registration of the Thomson River Diversion Tunnel in the Victorian Heritage Register.

Anthony Darvall (Chair)

Paul Coffey

Megan Goulding

Decision Date – 21 June 2017

Introduction

The Place

1The Thomson River Diversion Tunnel Site (‘the Place’) comprises the Thomson River Diversion Tunnel, a 5 metre curtilage from the tunnel and a 20 metre (more or less)[1] curtilage from each bank of the section of the Thomson River known as ‘Horseshoe Bend’. The following ‘physical description’ is taken from the Executive Director, Heritage Victoria’s (‘Executive Director’) 16 September 2016 recommendation in relation to the Place:

‘Physical Description:

The Thomson River Diversion Tunnel Site is located about 4km south-west of Walhalla in Gippsland, 1.5km south of where Stringers Creek joins the Thomson River. The tunnel has been excavated under Stockriders Spur and is 220 metres in length. The Thomson River flows north to south and the tunnel extends on a downwards incline between the inlet and outlet and has a sharp change in horizontal angle prior to both the inlet and outlet. The tunnel is up to 2.2 metres in width cut into the bedrock. Within the tunnel there are a series of rock bars separating stages of rock pools. The tunnel diverts water away from a now partly dry 1.2km section of the river bed between the inlet and outlet, which is known as Horseshoe Bend. There are deep pools of water in the river near the inlet and outlet. There is a large rock bar near the inlet which assists the water to pool and flow into the tunnel. The place is located in a steep, well vegetated river valley. The entry and exits of the tunnel contribute to the significance as the most visible elements of the water diversion scheme.’

Original Gazettal

2The Place was gazetted on 11 July 2002 and included in the Victorian Heritage Register (‘the Register’) under the Heritage Act 1995(‘the Act’).

The Proposed Amendment

3On 15 June 2016 the Executive Director accepted an application to amend the registration of the Thomson River Diversion Tunnel in the Registerby adding part of the Thomson River, known as ‘Horseshoe Bend’, to the extent of registration.

Recommendation of the Executive Director

4On 16 September 2016, the Executive Director recommended that the existing registration of the Place be amended in accordance with s 54 of the Act.

The Executive Director recommended the inclusion of additional land in the registration; removal of the heritage category ‘Archaeological Place’; updating the Statement of Significance; the inclusion of new permit exemptions; and changing the name of the Place to reflect the proposed new extent.

5In the Recommendation, the Executive Director gave the following reason for the recommendation:

‘This amendment proposes to add part of the Thomson River known as Horseshoe Bend to the registration of the Thomson River Diversion Tunnel System to provide a better understanding of the water diversion process.’

Section 38 Submissions

6Under s38(1) of the Act, any person may make a submission to the Heritage Council in relation to a recommendation of the Executive Director to include (or amend) a place in the Victorian Heritage Register. The Heritage Council received 12 submissions under s 38(1) of the Act in response to the Recommendation from:

a)Acting Regional Director, Gippsland; and

b)West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority (‘WGCMA’); and

c)Victorian Environmental Water Holder (‘VEWH’); and

d)Integrated Water and Catchments; and

e)Jon Crosbie; and

f)Norman Longmuir; and

g)Ross Scott; and

h)Nillumbik Historical Society; and

i)Gweneth Myers; and

j)Michael Hannaford; and

k)Brett Quine; and

l)Denise and David Edwards.

All submissions made comments in relation to the Recommendation and a number of submissions proposed further changes to the permit policy for the Place. No submissions objecting to the Executive Director’s recommendation or requests for a hearing were received.

Preliminary and Other Matters

Consideration of ‘s 38’ submissions

7As noted above, no request for a hearing was received when submissions were made under s 38(1) in relation to the Executive Director’s recommendation. At a meeting on 1 December 2016, the Heritage Council considered the Recommendation, submissions received in response to it, and further written material provided by the Executive Director in response to the ‘s 38’ submissions. The Heritage Council resolved that a Registrations Committee be constituted to invite and consider further written submissions in relation to the Place and the Recommendation, and to determine the matter without a hearing (see Sections 41(3), 41(4) and 41(5)(b) of the Act). A Registrations Committee (‘the Committee’) was constituted to make its determination by reference to written submissions alone.

Request for an extension of time within which to make a submission

8On 22 December 2016, the Committee invited all parties to provide further information in relation to the Recommendation by 20 January 2017 pursuant to s 41(4) of the Act. On 3 January 2017 the Committee received a request from the Friends of the Horseshoe Bend Tunnel for an 8-10 week extension of time within which to make a written submission. The Committee granted the extension of time and allowedall parties until 31 March 2017 to provide submissions.

Further submissions

9Written submissions pursuant to s 41(4) of the Act were received from:

a)Nillumbik Historical Society; and

b)the Manager Stainable Development, Baw Baw Shire Council (‘Baw Baw Shire Council’); and

c)VEWH; and

d)Ross Scott; and

e)Gweneth Myers; and

f)Friends of the Horseshoe Bend Tunnel; and

g)Chris Foley.

Future use of the Place

10Some submissions received referred to the future use of the Place.The Committee appreciates that there is community concern about the potential development of the place. However, the role of this Committee is to determine the cultural heritage significance of the Place in its current state. It is not in the Committee’s remit to consider the future development or use of the Place and material dealing with these matters has not been considered by the Committee in reaching its decision.

Concurrent listing under the Heritage Rivers Act 1992 and the Heritage Act 1995.

11The Committee appreciates that the inclusion of the section of the Thomson River known as ‘Horseshoe Bend’ in the registration for the Place would result in the concurrent listing of the river under both the Heritage Rivers Act 1992 and the Heritage Act 1995. The role of this Committee is to determine the cultural heritage significance of the Place in accordance with the Heritage Act 1995. There is nothing preventing concurrent listings under both Acts, which has also occurred at other sites.

Submissions

12For the purposes of this decision report, the Committee uses the term ‘submission’ to refer to both the written submissions received under s 38(1) of the Act in response to the Executive Director’s recommendation, and all written submissions that were invited and received by the Committee. Submissions received related only to the proposed amendments to the existing registration of the Place.

13In the Committee’s view, the key issues in the Recommendation and submissions received related to the following three matters:

a)Extent of registration; and

b)the Statement of Cultural Heritage Significance; and

c)the Permit Policy and Exemptions.

14Thefollowing sections are not intended to be a complete record of submissions that were made to the Committee.

Extent of Registration

Submissions and evidence

15The Executive Director recommended that the extent of registration for the Place be amended to include the section of the Thomson River known as ‘Horseshoe Bend’,being a 5 metre curtilage from the Thomson River Diversion Tunnel and a 20 metre (more or less) curtilage from each bank of the river between the tunnel inlet and outlet. The Executive Director assessed the amended extent of registration as being vital to understanding the interaction between the river and thetunnel and integral to the significance of the Place.

16Baw Baw Shire Council and VEWH submitted that they supported the Executive Director’s recommendation to amend the extent of registration, further noting the cultural heritagesignificance of the landscape surrounding the tunnel and the environmental values of the Thomson River.

17WGCMA submitted that they did not oppose the recommended extent of registration however expressed concerns that the listing of Horseshoe Bendwould impact on their statutory responsibilities as a Waterway Manager. WGCMA further submitted that ‘Diagram 1990’ in the Recommendation did not accurately depict the position of the tunnel. In response to WGCMA’s ‘s 38’ submission, the Executive Director agreed that the diagram was inaccurate and provided the Committee with two revised diagrams to replace Diagram 1990 in the Recommendation.

Discussion and conclusion

18The Committee determines to amend the extent of registration for the Place to include the section of the Thomson River known as ‘Horseshoe Bend’, being a 5 metre curtilage from the Thomson River Diversion Tunnel and a 20 metre (more or less) curtilage from each bank of the Thomson River between the tunnel inlet and outlet.

19The Committee further determines that Diagram 1990 should be replaced in the Recommendation with the diagrams provided by the Executive Director in response to WGCMA’s ‘s 38’ submission.

20The Committee appends an amended copy of the Recommendation report as part of the record of its determination, with the changes made by the Executive Director to Diagram 1990 noted as ‘tracked’ changes (ATTACHMENT 1).

Statement of Cultural Heritage Significance

Submissions and evidence

21The Executive Director’s recommendation included a revised Statement of Significance for the Place in order to recognise the addition of Horseshoe Bend in the registration and ensure that the function of the Thomson River Diversion Tunnel as a water diversion system could be understood.

22WGCMA submitted that a number of amendments were required to the recommended Statement of Significance, primarily of a clarifying or drafting nature.

23WGCMA and Integrated Water and Catchmentssubmitted that the Statement of Significance should be amended to include reference to the natural values of the river and reference the impact of the Place as a barrier to fish migration. In response to WGCMA’s s 38 submission, the Executive Director noted that the revised Statement of Significance identified the ‘co-existing natural and cultural heritage values’ of the Place.

24The Friends of the Horseshoe Bend Tunnel and Gweneth Myers submitted that they were against the use of the word “barrier” when referring to the impact of the Place on fish migration, suggesting the use of the word “obstacle” instead.

25Baw Baw Shire Council submitted that they supported the Executive Director’s recommendation to amend the Statement of Significance to include the section of the Thomson River known as ‘Horseshoe Bend’.

Discussion and conclusion

26The Committee agrees with the Executive Director’s assessment of the co-existing natural and cultural heritage values of the Placeand determines that the Statement of Significance should not include additional reference to the natural values of the river.

27Under the Heritage Act 1995, it is the Committee’s role to consider the cultural heritage significance of the Place. It is not the role of this Committee to assess the impact of the Place on fish migration. The Committee has determined not to include reference to the impact of the Place on fish migration in the Statement of Significance.

28The Committee accepts the clarifying and drafting amendments recommended by WGCMA and appends an amended copy of the Recommendation report as part of the record of its determination, with the changes made to the Statement of Significance noted as ‘tracked’ changes (ATTACHMENT 1).

Permit Policy and Exemptions

Submissions and evidence

29The Executive Director recommended that the Permit Policy and Exemptions for the Place should be amendedin accordance with s 42(4) of the Act.

30The Acting Regional Director, Gippsland submitted that they were satisfied with the recommended ‘Fire Suppression Duties’ and ‘Weed and Vermin Control’ exemptions.

31WGCMA submitted that the below‘Landscape and River’ exemptionsshould beincluded in the Permit Policy for the Place under.

a)Revegetation works

b)Works to or extension of existing tracks.

32WGCMA further requested thatthe below ‘Waterway Management’ permit exemptions be included in policy in order toallowwaterway management and maintenanceworks at the Place.

a)Waterway management activities provided the works do not involve the removal or destruction of any significant above-ground features or sub-surface archaeological artefacts or deposits

b)Maintenance of any approved or exempt works provided the activities do not involve the removal or destruction of any significant above-ground features or sub-surface archaeological artefacts or deposits.

c)Works done in pursuant to Section 7 of the Heritage Rivers Act 1992.

33In response to the ‘s 38’ submission from the WGCMA, the Executive Director accepted that changes to the Recommendation should be made to include the above‘Landscape and River’ exemptions. The Executive Director was not supportive of the above ‘Waterway Management’ exemptions proposed by WGCMA. The Executive Directornoted that the proposed exemption allowing works pursuant to Section 7 of the Heritage Rivers Act 1992 was too broad, and potentially allowed for large scale works that may impact on the cultural heritage significance of the place. The Executive Director recommended the inclusion of the below ‘Waterway Management’ exemption.

a)Minor waterway management activities provided that there is no adverse impact on the cultural heritage significance of the Place.

34In response to the ‘Water Management’ exemptions proposed by WGCMA, the Friends of the Horseshoe Bend Tunnel submitted that they were concerned that large scale works would occur without a permit andimpact the cultural heritage significance of the Place.

35Ross Scott and Gweneth Myers submitted that they were not supportive of the ‘Water Management’ permit exemption proposed by WGCMA.

36Integrated Water and Catchmentssubmitted that permit exemptions for waterway management activities and maintenance of any approved or exempt works should be included in the Permit Policy.

37VEWH submitted that a permit exemption allowing the waterway manager to undertake waterway management activities at the Place, should be included in the Permit Policy.

Discussion and conclusion

38The Committee determines that the additional permit exemptions under ‘Landscape and River’, as submitted by WGCMA and agreed to by the Executive Director, should be included in the Permit Policy for the Place.

39The Committee agrees with the Executive Director and the submissions of Ross Scott and Gweneth Myers that the ‘Waterway Management’ permit exemptionsproposed by WGCMA could potentially allow for large scale works at the Place. The Committee is satisfied withthe Executive Director’s recommendation and determines that theabove‘Waterway Management’ permit exemption recommended by the Executive Director in his response to WGCMA’s ‘s 38’ submission should be included in the Permit Policy for the Place.

40The Committee appends an amended copy of the Recommendation report as part of the record of its determination, with the changes made by the Committee to the Permit Policy and Exemptions noted as ‘tracked’ changes (ATTACHMENT 1).

Conclusion

41In accordance with Section 54 of the Heritage Act 1995 the Committee determines that the registration of the Thomson River Diversion Tunnel should be amended in the Victorian Heritage Register as per the Executive Director’s recommendation and with the following amendments:

a)Amend the extent of registration

b)Minor wording changes to the Statement of Significance

c)Include amended ‘Landscape and River’ and ‘Waterway Management’ permit exemptions

The Committee appends an amended copy of the Recommendation report as part of the record of its determination, with the changes made by the Committee to the Statement of Significance, extent of registration, permit policy and permit exemptions noted as ‘tracked changes’ (ATTACHMENT 1).

ATTACHMENT 1

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

RECOMMENDATION TO THE

HERITAGE COUNCIL TO

AMEND AN EXISTING REGISTRATION

AMENDMENT BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE

The current previous registration

The Thomson River Diversion Tunnel (VHR H1990) was excavated through a slate ridge called Stockriders Spur in 1911-12. Its purpose was to divert water away from the river, causing it to bypass the natural river bed between the tunnel’s inlet and outlet. The result was a decreased flow of water into the natural river bed (a horseshoe-shaped bend) which made alluvial mining (searching for fine metal gold or nuggets in the gravel deposits in waterways)easier in the exposed part of the river. The registration currently previously includeds the constructed Thomson River Diversion Tunnel, but no part of the Thomson River.

The proposed amendment

On 15 June 2016 the Executive Director accepted an application to amend the registration of the Thomson River Diversion Tunnel by adding the part of the Thomson River known as ‘Horseshoe Bend’ to the registration. After conducting a cultural heritage assessment of the place, the Executive Director proposeds to include Horseshoe Bend to the registration in addition to the currently previously registered Diversion Tunnel because it is integral to the significance of the place. The form and interaction of both elements (tunnel and river bend) are needed to demonstrate diversion mining technology. The tunnel was used to divert water away from the river bend, and enable the digging and sluicing of exposed river bed deposits for alluvial gold. The proposed registration of the Thomson River Diversion Tunnel Site ensures that the significance of the looping river alignment to operation of the water diversion system can be read and more easily understood.