conservation management plan. - gmct · this conservation management plan has been undertaken in...

Conservation Management Plan.

Williamstown Cemetery H 1837

Champion Road, Williamstown

30thDecember2015

This Conservation Management Plan has been undertaken in accordancewith the principles of the Burra Charter adopted by ICOMOS Australia

The document assesses management issues related to the restoration,maintenance and repair of the Cemetery.

This document has been completed by David Wixtedand Ellen Ogborne.

In conjunction with Steve Fitzgerald.

© heritage ALLIANCE, Steve Fitzgerald (Arboriculture Pty Ltd), GMCT 2015

C 1900 Newspaper advertisement for monumental masons.Williamstown Chronicle, July 1900.

heritage ALLIANCEJob 2014-36 Williamstown Cemetery CMP 3

CONTENTSILLUSTRATIONS & DRAWINGS ............................................................................................................................4EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..........................................................................................................................................61.0 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................................91.1 Background, Brief and Methodology ............................................................................................................91.2 Site Ownership............................................................................................................................................101.3 Study Team.................................................................................................................................................101.4 Copyright.....................................................................................................................................................101.5 Acknowledgments .......................................................................................................................................101.6 Definitions ...................................................................................................................................................101.7 Abbreviations ..............................................................................................................................................112.0 PHYSICAL SURVEY ..................................................................................................................................122.1 The Site.......................................................................................................................................................122.2 Buildings......................................................................................................................................................142.3 The Fountain ...............................................................................................................................................162.4 Paths ...........................................................................................................................................................162.5 Fences ........................................................................................................................................................172.6 The memorials and monuments..................................................................................................................182.7 Other structures ..........................................................................................................................................222.8 Trees ...........................................................................................................................................................233.0 ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE ...............................................................................263.1 History of Williamstown ...............................................................................................................................263.2 History of the Williamstown General Cemetery...........................................................................................283.3 Contextual History.......................................................................................................................................423.4 Comparative Analysis .................................................................................................................................493.5 Assessment of Significance ........................................................................................................................513.6 Further Research ........................................................................................................................................544.0 CONSERVATION POLICY STATEMENT ..................................................................................................564.1 Constraints and Requirements....................................................................................................................564.2 Site Significance (precis).............................................................................................................................564.3 Elements of Primary, Contributory, Lesser and No Significance ................................................................564.4 Site Specific Policies ...................................................................................................................................574.5 Future Use and Development .....................................................................................................................624.6 The Impact of Climate Change on the Historic Environment ......................................................................665.0 CONSERVATION WORKS.........................................................................................................................695.1 Maintenance and repair works to the site by priority...................................................................................695.2 Maintenance Works ....................................................................................................................................695.3 Risk Management of the Site ......................................................................................................................735.4 Future Management Issues for the site.......................................................................................................765.5 Priority List ..................................................................................................................................................766.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY.........................................................................................................................................77APPENDIX A PLANS OF THE CEMETERY .....................................................................................................79APPENDIX B CEMETERY LEGISLATION VICTORIA.....................................................................................82APPENDIX C THE BURRA CHARTER.............................................................................................................83APPENDIX D LIST OF PLANTS ......................................................................................................................90APPENDIX E ARBORICULTURALIST REPORT .............................................................................................95

heritage ALLIANCE4 Job 2014-36 Williamstown Cemetery CMP

ILLUSTRATIONS & DRAWINGSFigure 1 Location of the cemetery on Champion Road opposite the Victorian Railway Workshops. Source: Whereis .......... 13Figure 2: The cemetery entry with from opposite at Champion Road showing the former St Kilda Town Hall gates and gate

posts from the Exhibition buildings. Dominant Canary Island palms trees are in the background. These are the majorfeature of the site. Source: Heritage ALLIANCE 2015 ................................................................................................. 13

Figure 3: Inside the cemetery, lower south side gravel path with pine and cypress trees in the oldest part of the cemetery.Source: Heritage ALLIANCE 2015................................................................................................................................. 14

Figure 4: The major historic building on site (office, safe room, manager and chapel) of 1937 designed by architect FrederickMorsby. Source: Heritage ALLIANCE 2015.................................................................................................................. 14

Figure 5: The brick toilet block on Champion Road with the north half built prior to 1911. One portion of the building(northern) appears on a MMBW map of 1912. The building appears to have been built as two near identical halves-one prior to 1912, the other probably just after once sewerage reached the site. Source: Heritage ALLIANCE 2015 . 15

Figure 6: The house and workshops (circa 1966-67) in brick viewed from the north side. All trees in this view are CanaryIsland Palms. Source: heritage ALLIANCE 2015.......................................................................................................... 16

Figure 7:Lower cul-de-sac of the main path with asphalt surface and brick spoon drains. The roads are generally in goodrepair although there is some loss of asphalt in some small areas. Source: Heritage ALLIANCE 2015 ....................... 17

Figure 8: The Wardrop & Scurry Fountain of 1892. Source: Heritage ALLIANCE 2015 .......................................................... 17Figure 9: Front picket fence (non historic) between 1930s gates and the cyclone fence. Source: Heritage ALLIANCE 2015. 18Figure 10: Monument to 5 sailors lost in an explosion on the HMVS Cerberus in 1881. Source: Heritage ALLIANCE 2015 .. 19Figure 11: Monument to 7 lost in a boating accident in Port Phillip Bay (the yacht Queenie) in 1899. Five of the deaths were

of the same family. Source: Heritage ALLIANCE 2015 ................................................................................................. 20Figure 12: The Point Gellibrand Vault erected from 1899 containing on its top bench obelisk monuments and headstones

surviving from the old cemetery. The fence is a combination of cast metal and gas pipe. This is the most importantmonument in the cemetery. Source: Heritage ALLIANCE 2015 .................................................................................... 20

Figure 13: Chest Vault for the Hall family 1871-circa 1890. .................................................................................................... 21Figure 14: Robert Ellery and family grave (in disrepair). This important grave requires repair to the lower basalt walling and

rail. ................................................................................................................................................................................. 21Figure 15: Memorial to three Japanese sailors from the naval ship “Tsukuba’ who died of beri-beri in 1882, part restored and

improved by Alan Davidson and Sachiko Noguchi and the Japanese Naval Association. ............................................ 22Figure 16: Sarah Liley memorial, wife of Captain Liley died 1899............................................................................................ 22Figure 17: A tap in lower portion of cemetery. Source: Heritage ALLIANCE 2015 ................................................................. 23Figure 18: Denominational Section Label in cast iron (listed as a registered element within the cemetery). Source: Heritage

ALLIANCE 2015............................................................................................................................................................. 23Figure 19: New Bhutan Cypress along the southwest boundary (of approx. 15 years old) where once there were larger older

pines which show up in a 1930 aerial of the site. Source: Heritage ALLIANCE 2015 ................................................... 24Figure 20: A self-seeded palm in the foreground with Heritage listed palms to the rear along the entry way. The self-seeded

tree has lifted the ground around graves in the foreground. It is not a tree listed as part of the heritage Registrationalthough the pathway trees are. Some palms within graves may however be deliberate plantings. Source: HeritageALLIANCE 2015............................................................................................................................................................. 25

Figure 21: Map of Port Phillip from the survey of Mr. Wedge and others c1835. Point Harwood (now Point Gellibrand) markedin red. Source: SLV........................................................................................................................................................ 27

Figure 22: Site of Point Gellibrand Cemetery just to the east of the Williamstown Railway Station and just above the presentday Fort Gellibrand. Source: Parish Plan 1842............................................................................................................. 29

Figure 23: The Point Gellibrand cemetery in the 19th Century, JH Harvey circa 1875. The obelisk in view is probably one ofthose on the present day Point Gellibrand vault. The stone wall was convict built. Source: SLV picture collection .... 30

Figure 24: The first notice in Williamstown Chronicle identifying the proposal to transfer bodies from Pt Gellibrand. Source:Williamstown Chronicle 8 July 1899, p3. ....................................................................................................................... 34

Figure 25: Sketch of Gellibrand’s Point Cemetery, shortly before the reclamation of the site by the railways department in1898. Source: Lemon, Andrew & Morgan, Marjorie, Buried by the Sea ........................................................................ 35

Figure 26: Portion of Parish Plan of Cut Paw Paw showing the cemetery reserve. The reserve for Railway purposes wassubsequently expanded to all of the area above Champion Road to house the railway workshops and train yards bydeleting all the proposed housing on the north side. The council under Mayor Thomas Mason had proposed this wholearea as a large parkland surrounded by housing until the railways took control of half of the reserved land in 1882 for arailway workshop. Source: SLV .................................................................................................................................... 36

Figure 27: Plan of the site in 1894 with original layout by Assistant Surveyor William Martin. Source: MMBW ..................... 37


Figure 28: Plan of the site in 1912 with original layout and extended master plan layout but also showing new buildings andbarely visible is the north half portion of the brick toilets not included in the previous iteration. To the north the railwayworkshops show an expansion with new facilities and buildings. Source MMBW (SLV collection) .............................. 37

Figure 29: A 1930 aerial of the cemetery from the north-west corner showing a near empty 1905 extension, a ring ofEucalypts around the extension site and what appear to Cypress and Pine in the lower and older part of the site. ParkCrescent has not been formed in this view but its alignment can just be seen. Source: Charles Daniel Prattphotographer, SLV......................................................................................................................................................... 38

Figure 30: The cemetery layout today entrance along bottom, mausoleum to rhs. Source: Signage at WilliamstownCemetery, Heritage ALLIANCE 2015 ............................................................................................................................ 38

Figure 31: The cemetery showing the Heritage Registered area. (Outlined in red). Source: Signage at WilliamstownCemetery, Heritage ALLIANCE 2015 ............................................................................................................................ 38

Figure 32: Expansion of the Williamstown Cemetery as shown in the Conservation Plan by Nigel Lewis Richard Aitkin 1994....................................................................................................................................................................................... 39

Figure 33: Loudon, ‘Design for Laying Out and Planting a Cemetery on Hilly Ground’, 1843.................................................. 46

Map 1: Boundaries within the cemetery. ......................................................................................................................... 79Map 2: Areas of significance within the cemetery. ......................................................................................................... 80Map 3: Heritage Victoria Registration map of the Cemetery. .......................................................................................... 81


EXECUTIVE SUMMARYOverview

What is this document:

This document is a conservation management plan which consists of an historical analysis of the cemeteryand a management section based on the site’s underlying determined heritage significance.In completing the analysis the document attempts to assemble all the known information bearing on the useand history of the place by reviewing early archived documents such as plans and gazettes and localnewspapers. Government records where available are also examined and it is here (particularly Dept. ofHealth Cemetery files) that most information can be found.The management section is designed to identify the importance of individual built elements of the site anddetermine what might be done to them over the long term. Some elements are of high significance andshould be retained (at least) with consideration given to repair and restoration. At the opposite end of thescale are elements of No or Intrusive on significance and these might be demolished or removed or in thecase of Intrusive (on significance), the element should be removed when the opportunity presents.These management actions have a bearing on buildings, structures, paths, infrastructure and trees. Insome cases permits must be sought to alter or sometimes repair infrastructure elements.

What this document doesn’t do:

The document does not set out to find EVERY piece of historical information about the place as the taskwould be never ending. Some information (such as burial certificates) will also never have any bearing onthe management of the site. The CMP does not identify all the graves within the site but does makecomment on their styles, the general state of the graves and identifies those of importance for historical oraesthetic reasons.

Summary of Recommendations

While there is no requirement for the Cemetery trust to maintain graves or their memorials, clearly there area number of memorials of state importance particularly the Gellibrand Vault, the Victorian Naval memorial,the Ellery family grave, the memorial to the three Japanese navy sailors and the memorials to the HMVSCerberus and yacht Queenie disasters. These are all of high historical significance and everything shouldbe done to prevent damage to them. It could also be argued that the Gellibrand vault is the property of theTrustees as it was when built, a memorial paid for by the State (via the Railways). Once completed thisVault was to be cared for by the Williamstown Cemetery trustees.The site has many trees of importance (and listed on the Victorian Heritage Register) and the health of theCypress and the various Pines in particular require checking from time to time as these are the oldestplanted elements in the cemetery and impart an antigue and aesthetic importance to the site.The office-chapel and the central fountain are both listed on the Victorian Heritage Register and both are inneed of repair. The roof of the Office building is in need of urgent attention to prevent further water damageto the interior. Some repair documentation has already been completed on this work and the repairs shouldbe undertaken without delay. The fountain also has leakage problems and this affects the very fabric of thestructure and repairs should be carried out immediately or the water turned off until this is carried out.


The need to obtain permits: Heritage Victoria, the City of Hobson’s Bay.

This Cemetery is listed as a heritage place on the Victorian Heritage Register (as H1837) and in the City ofHobson’s Bay Planning Scheme (as HO 69). Permits are required for developmental works, primarily theconstruction of new buildings, structures and road works but not for the normal burial processes by holdersof burial rights. This is outlined in section 4.5The Heritage Register is also specific as to the large number of trees and monuments considered to be ofstate importance. A recent survey of the trees has identified that a number of these heritage registeredplants have been removed because of senescence and a more up to date planting register is included inthis report.The Hobson’s Bay planning scheme does NOT include an incorporated document covering what does anddoes not require a permit but defers consideration of these issues to Heritage Victoria.The Victorian Heritage Registration does not include any permit exemptions although certain actions arenormally considered permit exempt (e.g. replacing like for like taking into consideration colour, materialsand manufacturing process).For matters relating to works, development, tree pruning, resurfacing and works to the listed heritagemonuments Heritage Victoria (Permits and Consents) must be consulted.

Summary of Significance

There is a detailed statement of the cultural heritage significance of the cemetery provided with theHeritage Registration. While this statement is detailed it has had a minor updating in this CMP. Therevised statement can be found in Section 3.5 and includes additional information as to graves ofimportance and particularly four naval accidents from 1881 to 1940. As a result the memorials registeredunder the Heritage Act should be increased from 4 to 6 by including the Cerberus, and Queenie disisterswith the Japanese sailors memorial mentioned in the Statement of Significance. These additional itemshave no known “owners” the latter is maintained by the Japanese Government but as it was erected asrecently as 1996, GMCT will have accurate records of ownership.

Funding for works

Much of the Cemetery is in reasonable condition and many graves maintained. It is primarily the treeswhich need attention (particularly those in the south east corner) along with the office building whichrequires immediate roof works and the fountain which also requires repairs and the water turned off as soonas possible to prevent damage to the fabric of the fountain.The cemetery graves cannot (in accordance with the Cemeteries and Crematoria Act 2003) be cared for byCemeteries Trusts. The Act however does allow Trusts to carry out minimal work to prevent graves beingdamaged or being a source of danger to the public.Some graves within Williamstown Cemetery are however of great public interest and the grave of the threeJapanese sailors is visited by the Japanese consulate on occasions.

If money is to be raised for some of the important graves, it is the Ellery grave, the Victorian Navalmemorial and some of the earliest headstones which require attention through simple righting or temporarypropping. In this regard there are a limited number of headstones that should be simply righted before theyoverturn and smash.Some limited funding for capital repair works is available through the Heritage Councils restoration fund.


Heritage Victoria should be contacted for details and the frequency of loans and grants being offered andthe circumstance of those grants and loans.


1.0 INTRODUCTION1.1 Background, Brief and Methodology

This Conservation Management Plan (CMP) was prepared to document the history and cultural significanceof the Williamstown Cemetery to better inform the decision-making process prior to further work andalterations to the site’s structures and significant features. This conservation management plan wascommissioned by The Greater Metropolitan Cemeteries Trust (GMCT) in 2015.The Greater MetropolitanCemeteries Trust recognise historic value in the Williamstown Cemetery and have commissioned this CMPdespite the fact the site has no formal heritage protections.The report has been compiled with reference to key cultural heritage documents used by heritage andcollections management practitioners in Australia:

The Australia ICOMOS charter for the conservation of places of cultural significance: The BurraCharter 2013. (See Appendix C.)Peter Marquis-Kyle and Meredith Walker, The Illustrated Burra Charter, Australia ICOMOS,Sydney 1992.James Semple Kerr, The Conservation Plan: A guide to the preparation of conservation plans forplaces of European cultural significance, National Trust of Australia (NSW), Sydney 1990.Australian Heritage Commission, Australian Historic Themes: A Framework for use in HeritageAssessment and Management, Canberra 2001.

The report also takes into account two documents produced by Heritage Victoria:‘Conservation Management Plans: Managing Heritage Places – A Guide’ (June 2010); and

‘Criteria for assessing cultural heritage significance’ (adopted 7 August 2008).

Conservation Analysis

This Conservation Management Plan aims to become a guide for the future management of thiscemetery. This plan describes the history of the cemetery, its significance, its current condition andrecommendations for future maintenance. By implementing these recommendations, the cemeteryshould remain in a good condition for future years and retain its significance.

Methodology and Process

This Conservation Management Plan follows two steps. Firstly, the cemetery and all of its features areaccurately described and recorded. This allows us to understand the character of the place, itssignificance, the available resources and its constraints. Secondly, we can determine what works needto be carried out when and by whom.

The process in preparing the Conservation Management Plan is:

Assessing the cultural significance of the cemetery through the current physical condition ofthe cemetery and researching its history.

Produce a conservation policy for all significant elements of the cemetery. Develop conservation strategies to support policies, considering the resources available. Implement these conservation strategies.

All of these steps are to be written and agreed upon before any works begin.


1.2 Site OwnershipThe site was originally a small 15 acre reserve known as Rs 5440 set aside for the establishment of apublic cemetery under the control of Trustees. This reserve was extended in 1905 by a further 12 acres.The original Trustees were formed from nominated denominational representatives and then augmented byWilliamstown Councillors. Subsequently the cemetery trustees were all Councillors and in 1994 the Councilwas amalgamated with the City of Altona to become the City of Hobsons Bay. From 1st June 1996 thecontrol of the site passed to the Management of the Altona Cemetery Trust. This arrangement wasreplaced when the Greater Metropolitan Cemetery Trust came into being in 2010.

1.3 Study TeamThe study team who prepared this report comprised:

David Wixted Principal Architect, heritage ALLIANCE

Ellen Ogborne Graduate Architect, heritage ALLIANCE

Steve Fitzgerald Steve Fitzgerald Arboriculture.

1.4 CopyrightCopyright is held jointly by heritage ALLIANCE, Stephen Fitzgerald Arboriculture and the GreaterMetropolitan Cemeteries Trust.

1.5 Acknowledgments

We would like to thank those who assisted the study and particularly:Noela Bajjali (Manager Corporate Information and Records), Ian Robertson (Manager Planning &Design) and Richard Thomas (Landscape Architect) of GMCT.

1.6 Definitions

1.6.1 Place means site, area, building or other work, group of buildings or other works together withassociated contents and surrounds.

1.6.2 Cultural significance means aesthetic, historic, scientific or social value for past, present or futuregenerations.

1.6.3 Social value embraces the qualities for which a place has become a focus of spiritual, political,national or other cultural sentiment to a majority or minority group.

1.6.4 Fabric means all the physical material of the place.1.6.5 Conservation means all the processes of looking after a place so as to retain its cultural

significance. It includes maintenance and may according to circumstance include preservation,restoration, reconstruction and adaptation and will be commonly a combination of more than oneof these.

1.6.6 Maintenance means the continuous protective care of the fabric, contents and setting of a place,and is to be distinguished from repair. Repair involves restoration or reconstruction and it shouldbe treated accordingly.

1.6.7 Preservation means maintaining the fabric of a place in its existing state and retardingdeterioration.

1.6.8 Restoration means returning the EXISTING fabric of a place to a known earlier state by removingaccretions or by reassembling existing components without the introduction of new material.


1.6.9 Reconstruction means returning a Place as nearly as possible to a known earlier state and isdistinguished by the introduction of materials (new or old) into the fabric. This is not to beconfused with either recreation or conjectural reconstruction which are outside the scope of thisCharter.

1.6.10 Adaptation means modifying a place to suit proposed compatible uses.1.6.11 Compatible use means a use which involves no change to the culturally significant fabric,

changes which are substantially reversible, or changes which require a minimal impact.1.7 Abbreviations

The following are used:GG Government GazetteGMCT Greater Metropolitan Cemeteries TrustHV Heritage VictoriaICOMOS International Council on Monuments and SitesMMBW Melbourne Metropolitan Board of WorksNTV National Trust VictoriaPROV Public Records Office VictoriaRNE Register of National EstateSLV State Library of Victoria


2.0 PHYSICAL SURVEY2.1 The Site

The cemetery is otherwise known as Crown Allotment 205A & 205B of Section 2 of the Parish of Cut PawPaw. It is also Crown Reserve Rs 5440.

The site is essentially a long rectangle of 11 hectares (27 acres) with a curved north western end. Its majorentry side is on Champion Road where there are three entrances with the original formal entry flanked byornamental gates and pillars. The remaining two entries are just simply cyclone wire gates. The land ismade up of two reserves dated 1857 of 15 acres and an extension of 1905 containing 12 acres above that.This took the cemetery up to Park Crescent but it is only now in 2015 that this upper end is starting to fill up.About half of the cemetery reserve is taken up with historic graves (those in the south east) thenapproximately one-quarter of the site with graves after about 1930 and then in the upper area toward ParkCrescent there are graves of more recent decades (particularly after 1970) along with a largish mausoleumconstructed from early 1997 – mid 1998 as stage I. Stage II of the mausoleum was constructed from late2006 and completed in mid- 2008. Both stages were designed by Con Bahramis of CBG Architects ofFitzroy. Stage III is to be on the south side of the complex and has also been documented by Bahramis butconstruction has not commenced.

The land is generally flat and runs up to a low height diamond wire fence surrounding three sides (southeast, south west, and north west). On the southwest side is a sports ground (the K.C. White Reserve) anda group of ‘Winteringham’ houses. The sports reserve was set aside in 1863 and was part of a greater planfor parkland or gardens surrounding a cemetery which had been promoted by Mayor Thomas Mason in1859.

Champion Street is fronted by a long low diamond wire fence, and then a picket fence flanking the entrygates. Behind the fence is a small set back and path before an alignment of trees and then the graveyardarea proper. The Melbourne Metropolitan Board of Works (MMBW) maps show a fenced setback behindChampion Road to allow for ornamental planting along the frontage of the original 15 acre reserve.

The lower half of the site (the original reserve) contains most of the historic trees as well as the two majorhistoric structures being a fountain of circa 1892 and the brick office and chapel just inside the cemeteryentrance of 1937.

In the early 1930s the Council carried out a beautification programme by planting Canary Island andWashingtonia palm trees most of which remain today. Newspaper reports in 1941 indicated that these“beautification works” i.e. tree planting were continuing and palms had already been planted.1

The larger plantings (mostly the Cypress and Pines) in the lower part of the site are probably from the 19th

century but there is little documentation on this.

1 The Williamstown Chronicle, 28 November 1941. p. 1


Figure 1 Location of the cemetery on Champion Road opposite the Victorian Railway Workshops. Source: Whereis

Figure 2: The cemetery entry with from opposite at Champion Road showing the former St Kilda Town Hall gates andgate posts from the Exhibition buildings. Dominant Canary Island palms trees are in the background. These are the

major feature of the site. Source: Heritage ALLIANCE 2015


Figure 3: Inside the cemetery, lower south side gravel path with pine and cypress trees in the oldest part of thecemetery. Source: Heritage ALLIANCE 2015

Figure 4: The major historic building on site (office, safe room, manager and chapel) of 1937 designed by architect FrederickMorsby. Source: Heritage ALLIANCE 2015

2.2 BuildingsOffice and Chapel

The office and chapel building of 1937 is partially dilapidated and presently unused. It actually contains anoffice and fire safe room, a manager’s room, a change room and a chapel accessed from the rear west.


The style is Tudor revival and is of a domestic scale. An inspection of 2014 identified a series of problemswith the building including the poor condition of the roof, the rain damaged ceilings, poor condition ofdownpipes, render coping losses and glazing damage and no services (electrical and telephone) of currentday standards. It has (in the change room) a minor amount of plumbing in reasonable order. A separatereport was completed by this office in 2014 on the required repairs.

Outdoor toilets

There is one set of these toilets in a brick structure approximately 60m north west of the entry gates. Thetoilets are now closed and in decaying condition although the structure is not structurally dilapidated. Thedate of their construction is not known but was probably constructed once sewerage reached theWilliamstown area in the 1904-05 period. Their built appearance is of the early 20th century and wereprobably erected in anticipation of the sewerage connection being made. They also appear on a Board ofWorks Survey plan of 1911 although the sewerage had not reached here at this time (possibly because thearea was populated only by a scattering of industries). The northern half of the block appears to beoriginal with the southern half added on not long after. According to Aitken and Lewis new latrines werebuilt in 1917. It is possible that 1917 is the date of the second half of the building shown below.

Figure 5: The brick toilet block on Champion Road with the north half built prior to 1911. One portion of the building(northern) appears on a MMBW map of 1912. The building appears to have been built as two near identical halves-one prior to 1912, the other probably just after once sewerage reached the site. Source: Heritage ALLIANCE 2015


House and garage including Workshop

The caretaker’s house, a brick residence of three bedrooms was erected in circa 1966-67 to the design ofAV Jennings with oversight by architects Gawler and Boardman of Melbourne2. It is a single storey brickveneer structure (known as The Arundel style) with a tiled multi hipped roof and lies just inside the originalreserve area. Its architecture is domestic and there is no obvious frontage to the building.

The attached works building and toilets were erected in 1967 in brick with metal roof. It is actually a garageworkshop, meals room - office and change area. The structure replaced an earlier toilet block in the samelocation. It is not a particularly attractive building.

Figure 6: The house and workshops (circa 1966-67) in brick viewed from the north side. All trees in this view areCanary Island Palms. Source: heritage ALLIANCE 2015.

2.3 The FountainThe fountain is reported as having been installed in 18923. It is made of a hard pressed cement to a designby Wardrop & Scurry architectural modellers and is one of three erected in Victoria. It is in a decayingcondition with water leakages and a missing upper bowl. An inner benching has been installed beside theinner side of the outer wall and the whole bowl area covered in white fibreglass. It remains in operationwhich is problematic as it allows continued decay of the cement construction. The surrounding road hasbeen built up with brick paving which makes the outer wall into a low kerbing rather than exposing some ofthis walling as is done elsewhere. The road should be resurfaced to allow more wall to be exposed.

2.4 PathsThe drivable paths are part asphalted (date unknown) and part bricked around the central fountain. Thereare driveable gravel paths (along the south west side) and gravel walking paths along the lower south eastedged by timber. The road paths have brick spoon drains and this is reasonably attractive.

2 File on the building contract with drawings held by GMCT.3 Richard Aitken, Nigel Lewis, Williamstown Cemetery Conservation Plan, Part One: Conservation Analysis, 1994


Figure 7:Lower cul-de-sac of the main path with asphalt surface and brick spoon drains. The roads are generally in goodrepair although there is some loss of asphalt in some small areas. Source: Heritage ALLIANCE 2015

Figure 8: The Wardrop & Scurry Fountain of1892. Source: Heritage ALLIANCE 2015

2.5 FencesThe entry is made of large cast and wrought ornamental metal gates previously removed to the cemeteryfrom St Kilda Town Hall with the support posts obtained from the Carlton Gardens (see also figure 2). Theyare in good condition.


The front fence is composed of two sections: a low height (approx 900mm) cyclone wire fence runningalmost the length of the site with lcar gates and pedestrian gates and a picketed section of approximately22m either side of the entrance. The picketed section is approx. 1.3m high.

Figure 9: Front picket fence (non historic) between 1930s gates and the cyclone fence. Source: Heritage ALLIANCE2015

2.6 The memorials and monumentsThere are a substantial number of memorial tablets and larger monuments within the cemetery, the mostimportant and elaborate of which is the Point Gellibrand memorial vault which contains the interred remainsof the Point Gellibrand burials removed to this site by September 1899. This vault might be considered tobelong to the Cemetery Trustees as it was established by the Government to allow reburials. Thus it is arare situation where there is a Government erected memorial vault. It is not known if it was funded byRailway appropriations or via the Health Department but the cost of all removals and construction wasorganised through the Railways. A year earlier the Trustees of the cemetery had put aside an area of “say20 x 16 feet” for the vault.4 More information on this vault is in the history section of this document.

Other substantial monuments include:

The Victorian Navy memorial occasionally maintained by the Navy League of Australia (Williamstownbranch). This plinth structure allows for a plaque containing the names and deaths of the sailors who madeup the Victorian Navy and is topped with an anchor from a sailing ship. There is a surround made of chainand cast iron posts.

The Robert Lewis John Ellery (1827-1908) memorial to the astronomer and public servant. Ellery was alsoa surgeon who arrived in Victoria in 1852 and contributed to the colony through the establishment of a timestandard as well as undertaking a collection of weather records.

The Sarah Liley monument (wife of a ship’s captain) is included in the Victorian Heritage Register but thismay be considered as a typical and aesthetic monument. There appears to be no particular historicinformation as to the importance of the Liley memorial.

4 Letter, secretary of Williamstown Cemetery Trust to Secretary, Victorian Railways. 31 August 1898.


The 1996 memorial to three Japanese sailors from the naval vessel Tsukuba which arrived in Melbourne inearly June 1882. The sailors died of beri-beri almost as soon as the ship arrived in Melbourne. The‘cenotaph’ has been restored by Victorian Alan Davidson and his wife Sachiko Noguchi with assistancefrom the Japanese Naval Association. The monument itself is a large granite plinth augmented by a largeblack granite slab with text and a photo-plate of the ship.

Many other memorials trace the names of captains and sea-farers such as the sandstone headstone toCapt Thos-Halk-Sutton the first Pilot of Port Phillip. Similar nautical connections and events can be found atalmost every turn from the death of a humble sailor through to drownings and accidents at sea. Notableincidents are the HMVS Cerberus tragedy of 1881 when seven sailors lost their lives in an explosion of atorpedo. The memorial is an obelisk located in Church of England compartment –L and lists five of thesailors involved. Similarly the yacht Queenie lost several sailors off Werribee in late 1899 and the event ismarked by a red granite column monument located west of Office building. This lists seven drowning withfive from the Clark family being the father John Clark and his four sons. The one wartime disaster was theHMAS Goorangi collision which caused the loss of 24 sailors with only seven bodies recovered in 1940.5These are located in Church of England –U. The sailors are buried in individual graves.

There are several other monuments and memorials of interest including a sandstone chest vault containingthe Hall family and constructed for William Hall when his daughter died aged 24 in 1871. This intermentwas followed not long after by his son who was the victim of a shooting accident and then his wife. WhenWilliam died in 1889 his obituary described him as an early Colonist of Victoria who arrived in 1840 with hisfamily on the barque Andromache and who eventually settled at what he called Hobson’s River Farm justwest of Yarraville6.

Figure 10: Monument to 5 sailors lost in anexplosion on the HMVS Cerberus in 1881.Source: Heritage ALLIANCE 2015

5 A description of the Queenie monument is given in the Williamstown Chronicle 7th April 1900 p.26 The Age, Melbourne. 6 May 1889, p. 5


Figure 11: Monument to 7 lost in a boating accident inPort Phillip Bay (the yacht Queenie) in 1899. Five ofthe deaths were of the same family. Source: Heritage

ALLIANCE 2015

Figure 12: The Point Gellibrand Vault erected from 1899 containing on its top bench obeliskmonuments and headstones surviving from the old cemetery. The fence is a combination ofcast metal and gas pipe. This is the most important monument in the cemetery. Source:Heritage ALLIANCE 2015


Figure 13: Chest Vaultfor the Hall family1871-circa 1890.Source: HeritageALLIANCE 2015

Figure 14: RobertEllery and family grave

(in disrepair). Thisimportant grave

requires repair to thelower basalt walling

and rail.Source: HeritageALLIANCE 2015


Figure 15: Memorial tothree Japanese sailors

from the naval ship“Tsukuba’ who died ofberi-beri in 1882, partrestored and improvedby Alan Davidson andSachiko Noguchi andthe Japanese Naval

Association.

Source: HeritageALLIANCE 2015

Figure 16: Sarah Liley memorial, wife of Captain Liley died 1899.

2.7 Other structuresThe only other structures worth mentioning is the two thirds complete mausoleum and the timber and metalshelter in the upper part of the site.

Miscellaneous items: Taps, Bins, Seating, Drain covers

There is no standard applied to the cemetery furniture. Many cemeteries do not have standard elementssuch as bins or seats and many of the auxiliary features (such as taps) are off the shelf.

Some taps are located at low levels and there appears to be no logical locations applied to them. They spillonto open ground which is unfortunate as they could be used to provide water for shade trees. At some


cemeteries water is provided by obvious stand-pipes with adjacent drains for spillage. Others provide tapsassociated with shade trees which are watered by spillage.

At Williamstown the location and style of taps could be described as a free for all… i.e. there is noconsistency amongst them.

Many of the heritage registered compartment labels are in reasonable condition but a number of them havebroken at the stem and could be or should be sent for specialist re-welding. The number of identifiedbroken compartment signs is low. Compartment labels were ordered in 1889 (five) but more ordered inFebruary 1925. A careful examination might be able to determine if some of the labels are early but it isjust as likely that the 1925 pattern was simply the same as in 1889.

Figure 17: A tap in lower portion of cemetery. Source:Heritage ALLIANCE 2015

Figure 18: Denominational Section Label in cast iron(listed as a registered element within the cemetery).Source: Heritage ALLIANCE 2015

Seating

There remains a wrought metal seat embedded in the ground just to the west of the 1937 Office building underthe tall Norfolk Hibiscus. This appears too simple a design for a 19th century item and is more likely of the 20th

Century.According to Aitken and Lewis, seats were supposed to be purchased in 1891 and placed “under rustic bowerswhere visitors might rest”. The one remaining seat could be one of the early seats but its date is unknown. It isof importance if it is an early purchase.2.8 TreesThe most obvious trees on site are the palms (Phoenix Canariensis and Washingtonia) along the mainpaths said to have been planted after 1931. In an aerial of 1930, the paths have other trees of unknownvariety alongside but these must have all been removed as part of a new beautification scheme with palmtrees. The pines and cypress are older and may have been planted in the period prior to 1900 and they


are just visible in the 1930 aerial in the older part of the site. Today there are several self-seeded palmsgrowing out of graves none of which are listed in the Heritage Council Registration.

The southern end of the site is dominated by Aleppo Pines (Pinus halepensis) Stone Pine (Pinus pinea)and Mediterranean Pines (Cupressus sempervirens). In the 1930 aerial, the whole perimeter of the originalarea plus the 1905 extension is ringed by what appear to be Eucalypts in the area of the extension and pinetrees in the original cemetery and these may have been planted in the latter quarter of the 19th century inthe original cemetery where they appear well established and then after 1905 in the upper reserve wherethe trees appear less established and not as large.

One of the most unusual trees is the Black Pine (Pinus nigra) near opposite the public toilets on the westside of the main north south path. This is a good example of the species and is reasonably rare as anexotic planting. Similarly the two Osage Orange (Maclura Pomifera) on the middle west boundary areuncommon trees but neither is a good example of the species.

Many of the original boundary trees have been removed and replaced with closely spaced Bhutan Cypressalong most of the southwest boundary with the sports oval.

Figure 19: New Bhutan Cypress along the southwest boundary (of approx. 15 years old) where once there were largerolder pines which show up in a 1930 aerial of the site. Source: Heritage ALLIANCE 2015


Figure 20: A self-seeded palm in the foreground with Heritage listed palms to the rear along the entry way. The self-seeded tree has lifted the ground around graves in the foreground. It is not a tree listed as part of the heritage

Registration although the pathway trees are. Some palms within graves may however be deliberate plantings. Source:Heritage ALLIANCE 2015


3.0 ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE3.1 History of Williamstown

Before the arrival of Europeans, two large Aborigine groups, the Bunerong and the Woiworung, inhabitedthe areas surrounding Port Phillip Bay. Within these two groups were sub-groups consisting of up to thirtyfamilies. Two of the sub-groups identified with the Williamstown and Footscray area. The Yalukit-williamgroup (sub-group of the Bunerong tribe) lived along a five kilometre strip at the top of Port Phillip Bay,including the areas of Williamstown and Footscray. They referred to the Williamstown area as “koort-boork-boork” translating to “clump of she-oaks”. The other sub-group, Marin-balluk (sub-group of the Woiworungtribe), lived between the Kororoit Creek and the Maribyrnong River7.The 1802 exploratory voyage by the schooner Cumberland was the fourth naval exploration of the northerncoast of Bass Strait, and the most extensive yet. On board were Lieutenant Charles Robbins and ActingSurveyor-General Charles Grimes who travelled for five weeks from Point Nepean to the BellarinePeninsula. From their travels, they reported swamps, a lack of trees, stony soil and a lack of fresh water.The Yarra Yarra freshwater river site was seen as suitable for settlement and the Williamstown area wasrejected for having ‘very bad soil8’.

In May 1835, John Batman travelled across the Bass Strait on the schooner Rebecca. Batman arrived atIndented Head and had intended to meet with the natives in anticipation of securing land. However, due toicy conditions he did not explore by land, instead he disembarked at Gellibrand’s Point before travelling upthe Maribyrnong River. Batman’s comments of his expedition were positive and he noted that the land was“equal to any in the world…[the] Most beautiful sheep pasturage I ever saw in my life9.” Batman detectedsmoke and travelled in the direction, soon finding representatives of the natives. He was seeking land inexchange for goods such as blankets, mirrors, handkerchiefs, shirts, knives and flour. Batman met witheight chiefs and a deal was made. In return for the goods offered, Batman received 600,000 acres ofAboriginal land. Batman returned to the Rebecca and travelled up the Yarra, declaring ‘This will be theplace for a village’, referring to what is now the City of Melbourne.

An associate of Batman, John Helder Wedge, agreed to survey the land and set sail for Indented Head.Wedge undertook the tremendous survey work and he divided the area into seventeen allotments.However, the land expanding from Williamstown to Footscray was excluded as Wedge did not find the areapromising. Gellibrand’s Point became an important place for the collection point for ships unloading storesand stock. Wedge’s map (Figure 21) marks ‘Point Harwood’ (red rectangle) which is now called Gellibrand’sPoint.

7 Hobsons Bay City Coucil, Williamstown Neighbourhood Profile, October 20098 Strahan, Lynne, At the Edge of the Centre: A History of Williamstown, 1994, p139 Strahan, Lynne, At the Edge of the Centre, p14


Figure 21: Map of Port Phillip from the survey of Mr. Wedge and others c1835. Point Harwood (now Point Gellibrand)marked in red. Source: SLV

Within months, news had spread of the empty lands across the Bass Strait. Ships began offloadingthousands of sheep from Van Diemen’s Land and men began claiming their own territories, disregardingprevious claims. Batman’s deal with the Aborigines in acquiring land was rejected by Governor RichardBourke in Sydney “who wanted to contain and regulate such bold entrepreneurial activity10.” In September1836, Bourke sent a team under the direction of Captain William Lonsdale to find a suitable area for anofficial settlement. Captain Lonsdale originally chose the Gellibrand’s Point site, however, soon decidedupon the Yarra site.

A census for the year 1836 found that the population for Gellibrand’s Point was very small (excluding theAborigine population). However, the sheep population and the land being used for pastoralism wasimmense. This saw the expansion of farming land out to Geelong and beyond.

On the 10th of April 1837, sections of land were named and officially recognized by New South Wales;Hobson’s Bay after Captain William Hobson of HMS Rattlesnake, William’s Town after King William IV andMelbourne after Prime Minister Lord Melbourne. The first land sale of William’s Town occurred on the 1st ofJune 1837, allotments selling for an average of £10 more than Melbourne sites. William’s Town hadbecome an important and a desirable place to live.

Melbourne and Williams Town had both been opened for survey, sale and settlement in adjacent notices inthe NSW Government Gazette of 1837 under the auspices of the New South Wales Government. Thediscoveries of gold in the slowly developing Port Phillip District quickened the pace of migration from a

10 Strahan, Lynne, At the Edge of the Centre, p15


trickle to a flood by 1851 and by the time the rush had subsided the Australian population had nearly tripled.The small outpost of Melbourne saw ships abandoned in harbour, government offices deserted andgovernment officials left their posts in the boom years until the would-be fortune hunters returned.Government was forced to restart services to a much newer and denser population in new towns andvillages which were springing up as returning gold-seekers looked for places to settle.

In 1851, Victoria emerged as an independent colony and this was celebrated with the naming of ‘SeparationDay’. William’s Town was no longer a contender for the title of capital of Victoria. This was due to its areaonly being 2,775 acres, the land being bordered by stony plains and no fresh water supply. Its vastamounts of bluestone made the area more suitable for a quarry. With the loss of title of capital, William’sTown became ‘Williamstown’11.

3.2 History of the Williamstown General CemeteryWhere the Williamstown Cemetery is now sited, is an area part of the traditional tribal lands of theWurundjeri people. In 1837, surveyor Robert Hoddle was assigned the task of assigning ‘each parish aname founded on native appellations of any hill or place therein’. The area in which Williamstown Cemeterywas later assigned, was named the Parish of Cut-Paw-Paw12.

The arrival of the plague ship Manlius in February 1842 saw the opening of the first official cemetery inWilliamstown. The Manlius sailed into Port Phillip Bay and immediately raised fear. As the Manlius sailedinto view, the feared yellow flag symbolizing disease appeared. A fatal fever had spread on the four monthvoyage. The Manlius was overcrowded with assisted emigrants, whose fares were covered by thegovernment, travelling predominately from Scotland and Ireland. The news of the raised yellow flag reachedthe Superintendent of the area, Charles La Trobe. All passengers were ordered to remain in isolation at aquarantine camp on shore. Passengers who were ill, disembarked the ship at the public jetty and weretransported in carts through the streets of Williamstown to reach the camp. Forty four people had died alongthe voyage, eighteen of whom were children. At least seventeen more people died soon after landing atGellibrand Point and were buried nearby. Williamstown had now become a temporary place of quarantine.An article written at the time from the Port Phillip Patriot reads:

“We find now, however, that though William’s Town has as yet escaped the infection, the diseaseis spreading rapidly among the unfortunate emigrants in the camp; several deaths have takenplace since they were landed, and the surgeon superintendent of the ship being laid up with thefever, it has been found necessary to send Dr. Watson down to take charge of the sick. Thequarantine regulations, as will be seen from a notice in our advertising columns of today, are to berigidly enforced, and it has even been thought necessary to detain the carpenters who were sentdown from Melbourne to erect the tents.13”

11 Strahan, Lynne, At the Edge of the Centre12 Richard Aitken, Nigel Lewis, Williamstown Cemetery Conservation Plan, Part One: Conservation Analysis, 199413 Lemon, Andrew & Morgan, Marjorie, Buried by the Sea: a history of the Williamstown Cemetery, Published by Rivka Frank & Associates,

Melbourne, 1990


Figure 22: Site of Point Gellibrand Cemetery just to the east of the Williamstown Railway Station and just above thepresent day Fort Gellibrand. Source: Parish Plan 1842

It was over two months before the passengers in quarantine were released14. On the 26th of April 1842,Doctor Henry Watson, and John Patterson, officer in charge of immigration, made their final report on thehealth of the Manlius passengers. They reported that ‘after their long ordeal are all restored to health andlook very well.’ Passengers were now allowed to leave the quarantine camp. For those who hadunfortunately passed away at the camp, their bodies were buried at a site a short distance away, known as‘fever cemetery’. At this time, Williamstown had no cemetery or church. The closest cemetery was locatedin Melbourne. In 1842, Melbourne was a young town of seven years and had a population of four thousand.Residents lived by the banks of the River Yarra, only a few miles upstream from Port Phillip Bay. It wasconsidered unsafe to transfer the deceased from the Williamstown camp to Melbourne due to the fear ofspreading the fever further. Upon advice from Charles La Trobe, the Survey Department were instructed tosource a suitable space close by the camp for a cemetery. An area was found approximately half a milefrom the camp towards the south of the town. The area measured 4 chains by 10 (under half an acre).

14 Strahan, Lynne, At the Edge of the Centre


Figure 23: The Point Gellibrand cemetery in the 19th Century, photograph JH Harvey circa 1875. The obelisk in view isprobably one of those on the present day Point Gellibrand vault. The stone wall in the foreground was convict built.

Source: SLV picture collection

A description of the area at this time written by W.A. Hall from his father’s writings, illustrates the area:

“The foreshore from the jetty towards Point Gellibrand was then studded with a kind of scrub or bush called‘salt bush’, while northwards…a fringe of mangrove flourished. On the verge of the bay there was a largemud-flat, on which numbers of wild fowl would sometimes assemble. Along where Nelson Parade is, therewas a bank or ridge of black sand and shell, which was covered with fine grass. Immediately behind thisbank a depression extended from the site of Cole Street to near Point Gellibrand. In these depressionsstagnant water would lie for several months. Inland was a sort of clay soil, thickly studded with she-oak,some native cherry and Blackwood, but no gums.15”

It is possible that Williamstown had previously been used as a quarantine camp when the ship John Barrytravelling from Sydney was detained at the mouth of the river at Williamstown. Four families were sufferingfrom typhoid and two people had died. It is unknown where they were buried, but is quite possible that theywere interred at Gellibrand’s Point. Another ship, Agricola, was also quarantined at this site with ill


immigrant passengers. Government expenditure records from this time show that £4 was spent on thesupply of one coffin and fifteen shillings for the labour of a grave to be dug. Hall and others were sure thatGellibrand’s Point was not previously used as a burial ground and that it was the deceased from the shipManlius that originated the burial ground. Hall remarked “It was simply the accident of the passengers fromthe Manlius being buried there that led to the reservation of the place as a burial ground, although a moreunsuitable spot could not have been chosen.16”

The ‘fever cemetery’ also became the site of burials for the general public of Williamstown. It was only afterfifteen years that a more suitable site for the local public cemetery was chosen.

Gellibrand’s Point cemetery was notoriously also known as the ‘convict cemetery’ by the public. This wasbecause convicts had built the bluestone graveyard wall (in Figure 19) and convicts and their famousvictims were buried in this cemetery. Due to the gold rush boom, the colony’s population had grownimmensely. A growth in wealth meant a growth in crime. The prisons were bursting at the seams. In thepast, convicts were sent to help with public labour works in chain gangs. However, prison guards were nowlured to the goldfields and a reduced guard presence meant that the convicts had to remain predominatelylocked up in gaol. The number of prisoners grew from sixty in 1850 to nearly one thousand in 1853.Temporary gaols were needed quickly, thus a system of floating hulks of old ships anchored out to seawere used. Many prisoners’ bodies were buried at Gellibrand’s Point cemetery.

The Gellibrand’s Point cemetery was used from 1842 until 1857 by which time it had become clear that anew cemetery was needed. The Gellibrand’s Point burial ground was never gazetted as a cemetery nor hadformal trustees although The Argus of 1854 suggests there were Trustees or Church Wardens17.. . Norecord can be found of the people who were buried at this site. There were several hundred graves at thecemetery, however only thirty three had headstones. The oldest surviving headstone found was of DonaldSmith who was a passenger upon the Manlius. Smith passed away at the quarantine camp on the 10th ofMarch 1842.

By 1856, Gellibrand’s Point cemetery was overcrowded, unsanitary and untidy. An article from theMelbourne Argus reported in 1854 “We hear statements respecting the burial ground at Williamstown,which, if correct, are anything but creditable to the trustees or church wardens who are in charge of it. Weare informed that the ground is shallow and graves are made at so little depth that bodies of Lascars andCoolies buried without a coffin, have become exposed…”18

Petitions were sent to the government, stating that the cemetery was full and unsatisfactory. In 1853, thepetitions were realised and a grant was made for approximately two acres of land by the northern end ofWilliamstown away from the ocean. A Board of Trustees were gazetted; Pasco, Dr William Storey, CaptainCharles Ferguson (the first Chief Harbour Master), John O’Neill, Robert McKay, George Thomas, JamesConroy and Thomas Mason (who was the first Mayor of Williamstown in 1856). It took four years beforethis site was ready to use as a cemetery. The trustees were inactive during these four years and decisionswere left up to the municipal council of Williamstown19. The Municipality of Williamstown was established in1856. New trustees were appointed from the Williamstown council. The area of the new cemetery site was

15 Lemon, Andrew & Morgan, Marjorie, Buried by the Sea16 Lemon, Andrew & Morgan, Marjorie, Buried by the Sea17 The Argus (Melbourne), 12 July 1854,p4.18 Ibid.19 Lemon, Andrew & Morgan, Marjorie, Buried by the Sea


then enlarged to fifteen acres. In 1857 a plan was developed for the site. The Surveyor’s plan saw a mainpathway in the shape of a cross, with four quadrants subdivided into compartments. The assistantSurveyor, William Martin, made a note in his plan of ‘Subdivisions of Cemetery at Williamstown’:

“As a consequence of the uncertain nature of the population resident at and visiting Williamstown ithas been deemed advisable to subdivide the portion of ground set apart at that place for cemeterypurposes so as to meet the requirements of an approximate average of the general population ofVictoria, leaving sufficient ground as reserves for extension so marked that a portion may beappropriated to meet the requirements of any denomination for which an extended area may befound necessary.”20

On 1st of December 1857, the plan for the cemetery was approved by the Assistant Surveyor General ofMelbourne and His Excellency the Governor in Council. In 1858 the town clerk reported that ‘laborers havebeen constantly employed in laying out the ground in accordance with the plan prepared by the municipalsurveyor’. By 1860 the Central Board of Health inspector stated that the cemetery ‘has been tastefully laidout by the town surveyor’21.

In 1858, £340 saw the enclosure of the cemetery and laying the plan out. The new cemetery trusteesappointed in 1889 were; Councillors Moxham, Fyfe, La Roche and Jones, Frank Tattersall (Town Clerk)and Cr Thomas Stewart (Chairman)22. At the first meetings of the new trustees, it was decided that ‘a newfence be erected at once to Cemetery frontage, the old fencing to be stacked as directed to serve forrepairs’. The new timber picket fence was erected in August 1889.

The first burial, 22nd March 1859, was of Master Mariner Captain Lawrence Lawson. By the end of April,there had been six burials23. With the fees being brought in from burials and a small amount from theCouncillor’s funds, the new cemetery was maintained to a good condition. Unlike the original Gellibrand’sPoint cemetery, the new cemetery set out areas according to religion and all burials were regulated.

Williamstown continued to grow in size. New piers offered better facilities and the 1859 railway gave accessfor freight and passengers could travel to Melbourne.

Early burials in the new cemetery were predominately of young males and children. This reflects thecomposition of the population at this time, the low average death age and the high rate of infant mortality.

The new cemetery was relatively isolated as there was no road to connect the cemetery to the township atWilliamstown. Tenders were called for the development of a road to connect the railway crossing to thecemetery and in October 1858 a road was established. In the council’s half yearly report, the town clerkreported that:

“Considerable progress has been made towards the improvement of the cemetery, the fencing hasbeen completed and labourers have been constantly employed in laying out the ground inaccordance with the plan prepared by the municipal surveyor, and contracts have been enteredwith for shell to metal the paths…Thirty-nine interments have been made24.”

20 Richard Aitken, Nigel Lewis, Williamstown Cemetery Conservation Plan21 Richard Aitken, Nigel Lewis, Williamstown Cemetery Conservation Plan22 Lemon, Andrew & Morgan, Marjorie, Buried by the Sea23 Richard Aitken, Nigel Lewis, Williamstown Cemetery Conservation Plan24 Richard Aitken, Nigel Lewis, Williamstown Cemetery Conservation Plan


In early 1861, the Superintending Inspector of the Central Board of Health wrote of the cemetery:

“…has been tastefully laid out by the town surveyor, and is kept in very good order, contrastingwidely with the rude and neglected appearance of the old burial ground…the soil is described asbeing of very stiff clay, and the ground during heavy falls of rain is apt to get temporarily flooded.25”

In 1885 however the Council saw the need to extend the cemetery and ion 1 June 1885 the WilliamstownCouncil sent a letter to the Lands department about extending the cemetery in a south east direction but bythe end of the month there were concerns raised about this proposal because of the population increaseswrought on the area by the newish North Williamstown Railway Station and the large Railway Workshopsopposite.

An enquiry as to the proposal found that there was stone within 2ft of the surface on the west and thecouncil suggested planting a double belt of timber between the cemetery and Park Road. In early August1885 the proposal was refused. The whole idea was to be revived about 18 years later with an extension tothe north west of 12 acres. It was also not possible to go west as the recreation reserve on that side hadbeen declared years earlier.26

By 1888 the new cemetery was thirty years old and contained approximately four thousand graves. Due tothe overwhelming responsibility of the cemetery administration and maintenance, the Williamstown Councildecided to appoint a new set of trustees. Each of the religious denominations were allowed to nominate onetrustee. On the 14th of June 1889, the new trustees were appointed; Andrew English (Church of England),James Rice (Roman Catholics), Edward McRobert (Presbyterians), Laurence Worthington(Congregationalists), A.W. Hick (Wesleyan) and Mayor John Craig acted as Chairman. The new trusteeswere diligent in maintaining cemetery records and even created their own office seal, featuring an anchor.They created new rules, regulations and timesheets for the three employees. The cemetery began toprosper. In 1890 a new fence was constructed, staff began wearing identity badges, signage was installedand a program of beautification commenced.

Due to the depleting nature of the old Gellibrand’s Point cemetery, and its location adjacent to their newrail-line to the railway pier, the Victorian Railways suggested to the Williamstown Cemetery Trustees thatthey transfer the bodies from the old cemetery to the new cemetery. The Williamstown Trustees vigorouslydisagreed as to who should pay for the reburials, proposing all costs must be carried by the Railwaysalthough they would make land available and bodies began to be transferred over to the new cemetery inAugust 189927. There were no means of identifying some of the graves, the Cemetery Trust declaring “norecord was kept of the burials in the old graveyard”. William Elsum described the transferring of graves of1899 in the History of Williamstown “Wearing respiratory masks, the workmen trenched the whole of thearea containing the graves. Immediately a body was disclosed a call was made, and a common deal coffinhurried to the scene. The remains were shovelled in with as much respect as was possible under thecircumstances.” Some graves were uncovered of assumed prisoners who had been buried with iron fettersaround their limbs. Workers used five hundred and fifty four coffins in the exhumation process and twohundred and sixty three small coffins. Eight hundred and eight bodies were transferred in the exhumationprocess but some bodies were reburied by family in the cemetery proper and these can be found even

25 Richard Aitken, Nigel Lewis, Williamstown Cemetery Conservation Plan26 Reserve File R1204767 Held by Crown Land section, Victorian Dept. of Primary Industries.27 There is an interesting article on this transfer and the debate in the Williamstown Chronicle, Saturday 15 July 1899, p. 3


today. A Memo of 1899 by railways employee C A Mitchell identifies 920 exhumations in all28. There werea small amount of cases where identification could be made and these were re-buried at WilliamstownCemetery in private graves. Mr J McFarlane whose wife had died in 1852, complained of having to reburyher nearly 50 years later. 29 A Gellibrand Point memorial was created by closing in the vault and topping itwith headstones and obelisks from the old cemetery. Draftsman J H Fraser drew up an arrangementinvolving iron rails with a cement topping overlain with stone and a cast and wrought iron railing around it30.In July 1902 the cemetery trustees reminded the Railways department about providing a memorial stonewhich was completed by Chambers and Clutten of Lonsdale and Exhibition Streets by the end of 1902.31

Figure 24: The first notice in WilliamstownChronicle identifying the proposal totransfer bodies from Pt Gellibrand. Source:Williamstown Chronicle 8 July 1899, p3.

28 Memo by railways employee C A Mitchell, 4 August 1899. Cited in Allom Lovell 1997.29 Letter J. McFarlane, letter to Secretary for Railways, cited in Allom Lovell 1997.30 Lemon, Andrew & Morgan, Marjorie, Buried by the Sea31 Note to file (?) cited in Allom Lovell 1997.


Figure 25: Sketch of Gellibrand’s Point Cemetery, shortly before the reclamation of the site by the railways departmentin 1898. Source: Lemon, Andrew & Morgan, Marjorie, Buried by the Sea

The first building constructed in the cemetery is thought to have been the timber Mortuary chapel (alsoused as a rest house). The date of construction is unknown, however, this building was completed by thetime of the new cemetery administration which formed in 1889.

In late 1892 a fountain was introduced and was located at the intersection of the main roadways in thecemetery. The fountain was designed by architectural modellers Wardrop & Scurry who responded to thetender and proposed ‘to erect a water fountain in the cemetery and to design submitted for £55 with thetrustees undertaking to do the concrete and plumbing work’. Wardrop & Scurry’s fountain was constructed.The fountain, designed in a neo-baroque fashion, was adorned with garlands, cherubs, griffins, masks andbaroque style dolphins. A photograph of the fountain in 1906 showed a cherub holding a small basin at thetop of the fountain, however, this feature is now missing. This may be attributed to a report of ‘that the top ofthe fountain had been damaged by a recent gale of wind’ in November 190732.

In 1903 a new drainage plan was implemented where water was carried away from the cemetery to theKororoit Creek. Burials continued at a steady rate, with approximately two hundred each year. This led tothe expansion of the cemetery. In September 1905 an extension of nearly fifteen acres at the north westernend of the cemetery was gazetted. A new layout was designed in this extension; new roads and paths wereestablished and facilities were upgraded.

In 1909 the board decided upon the construction of a residence at the cemetery for the cemetery keeper. Ared brick building with a slate roof was built by local builder F. Marks for £600. The board described the newresidence as ‘the handsome building’. Some improvements were made throughout the years – a telephoneconnection was made in 1916, the sewering of the cottage and public toilet in 1917 and electricity wasintroduced. In 1936-7 a new building consisting of a chapel, secretary’s quarters, manager’s room, strongroom and boardroom was constructed. The older timber building which was previously used for thesepurposes was repainted and repurposed as the ‘rest house’ which was used as a public shelter33. In 1961,

32 Richard Aitken, Nigel Lewis, Williamstown Cemetery Conservation Plan33 Lemon, Andrew & Morgan, Marjorie, Buried by the Sea


the public shelter or rest house was relocated to Westall Methodist Church, Westall. It was later relocatedagain to Campaspe Downs Country Resort, Kyneton.

Another major change to the layout of the cemetery was in 1966 when the caretaker’s residence wasdemolished and a new brick residence was constructed mid site. New work shops were also constructedadjacent just off the main north-south path. The land which was left vacant was grassed.

The most recent changes were the creation of an Orthodox section in the mid-1980s and the extension ofthe road to the western boundary of the cemetery in 199334.

From 1997 the first stage of the Mausoleum got underway. The second stage has been completed but athird stage is yet to commence.

In 2007 there were proposals by Altona Cemetery Trust to add land from the Park Crescent road reserve asthe reserve was seen as unusually wide and not fully occupied by the road. This proposal was howeverrejected by the Council.

Figure 26: Portion of Parish Plan of Cut Paw Paw showing the cemetery reserve. The reserve for Railway purposeswas subsequently expanded to all of the area above Champion Road to house the railway workshops and train yardsby deleting all the proposed housing on the north side. The council under Mayor Thomas Mason had proposed thiswhole area as a large parkland surrounded by housing until the railways took control of half of the reserved land in

1882 for a railway workshop35. Source: SLV

34 Richard Aitken, Nigel Lewis, Williamstown Cemetery Conservation Plan35 Victorian Government Gazette, 1882, p. 1570


Figure 27: Plan of the site in 1894 with original layout by Assistant Surveyor William Martin. Source: MMBW

Figure 28: Plan of the site in 1912 with original layout and extended master plan layout but also showing new buildingsand barely visible is the north half portion of the brick toilets not included in the previous iteration. To the north the

railway workshops show an expansion with new facilities and buildings. Source MMBW (SLV collection)


Figure 29: A 1930 aerial of the cemetery from the north-west corner showing a near empty 1905 extension, a ring ofEucalypts around the extension site and what appear to Cypress and Pine in the lower and older part of the site. Park

Crescent has not been formed in this view but its alignment can just be seen. Source: Charles Daniel Prattphotographer, SLV.

Figure 30: The cemetery layout today entrance along bottom, mausoleum to rhs. Source: Signage at WilliamstownCemetery, Heritage ALLIANCE 2015

Figure 31: The cemetery showing the Heritage Registered area. (Outlined in red). Source: Signage at WilliamstownCemetery, Heritage ALLIANCE 2015


Figure 32: Expansion ofthe WilliamstownCemetery as shown inthe Conservation Plan byNigel Lewis Richard Aitkin1994


Chronology

DATE ACTION REF

1837 Melbourne and Williams Town are declared open to survey and settlement as towns tobe established in Port Phillip district.

GG1837,

1842 February - Disease ship Manlius lands dead and sick to Williamstown; quarantinecamp established on shore close to Williamstown.

April – quarantine camp closed

Lemon, A &Morgan, M

1842 Burial ground set up at Point Gellibrand Lemon, A &Morgan, M

1850 Post Office established in Williamstown in April GG 1842

1853 Area of land granted for new cemetery site of approximately 2 acres at WilliamstonNorth

Aitken,Lewis

1854 Trustees for the new cemetery appointed (Lt. Crawford Pasco, Dr. William Storey,Captain Charles Ferguson, John O’Neil, Robert McKay, George Thomas, JamesConroy, Thomas Mason but do little to cemetery.

Aitken,Lewis

1856 Municipality of Williamstown established GG1856

1857 Point Gellibrand Burial ground closed Lemon, A &Morgan, M

1857 Cemetery set aside at Williamstown North

A plan was developed for the site. The plan saw a main pathway in the shape of across, with four quadrants subdivided into compartments. This area to be 15 acresbeing 10 chain deep x 15 chains long (201m x 302m)

MMBWPlan, CPOPlan

1858 Cemetery Trustees: Councillors Moxham, Fyfe, La Roche, and Jones, Town ClerkFrank Tattersall and Cr Thomas Stewart as Chairman; first burial at new cemetery 22nd

March

Aitken,Lewis

1858 Enclosure of the cemetery Lemon, A &Morgan, M

1858 A road is established connecting the railway crossing to the cemetery Aitken,Lewis

1859 First burial at Williamstown cemetery Lemon, A &Morgan, M

1885 Mayor and Petitioners write to Lands Dept. to seek an extension preferably to south ofexisting reserve but this is eventually refused. Land to west already a Recreationreserve and to the south is vacant.

CrownLands File(DEPI)

1888 Cemetery administration transferred from the Minister for Lands and Survey to theCentral Board of Health on 1st September 1888

Aitken,Lewis/ CEMfiles

1889 New Trustees – Mayor of Williamstown, two councillors and representatives fromreligious denominations, Andrew English (Church of England), J. Rice (RomanCatholic), E. McRobert (Presbyterian), L. Worthington (Congregational), A.W. Hick(Wesleyan)

Aitken,Lewis

1890 New fence constructed Lemon, A &


Morgan, M

1892 A fountain by Wardrop and Scurry architectural modellers created for £55

Railways take over reserve assigned across old Gellibrand cemetery.

1899 In August and Sept 1899 last of Point Gellibrand burials moved to a Vault atWilliamstown Cemetery. A total of 920 bodies were exhumed not all being reinterredin the vault36. Some were reburied in the Cemetery proper with new or existingheadstones.

Newspaperreports

1901 Memorial established over the vault where Point Gellibrand bodies were transferredand re-buried with surviving headstones and obelisks.

Aitken,Lewis

1903 New drainage system introduced which carried water away from the cemetery to theKororoit Creek, designed by Town Surveyor, H.V. Champion.

Aitken,Lewis

1905 Reserve extension gazetted (approximately 13 acres) which takes the cemetery up tothe Park Crescent boundary. This required revocation of part of the sports andrecreation reserve.

GG1905

1909 Caretaker’s residence constructed. Aitken,Lewis

1916 Telephone connection introduced. Lemon, A &Morgan, M

1917 New sewered public toilets and cottage. Electricity introduced. Aitken,Lewis

1931 Road constructed in the cemetery extension. Palm trees planted either side of the roadextension.

Aitken,Lewis

1937 New gatehouse –office, chapel, secretary’s quarters, manager’s room, and boardroombuilt Mr Morsby architect. Original building (office and rest house) becomes a publicshelter and re-painted and ‘Rest House’ written on the front.

Aitken,Lewis

1939 The entrance gates from St Kilda Council and six iron posts are sourced fromExhibition Gardens fence and erected as the cemetery’s front fence

Aitken,Lewis

1946 A crematorium proposed by the Cemetery Trust is approved by the Health Dept. butthe Dept. is unable to allow the release of materials (due to War shortages).Discussions with the Trustees indicate that a new area in the vicinity of Geelong Roadand Kororoit Creek should be considered and this eventuates as the Altona MemorialPark.

Aitken,Lewis

1961 The Memorial Park is opened at Altona North and includes the crematorium. AltonaMemorial Park management take over running of Williamstown Cemetery.

Aitken,Lewis

1966 Caretaker’s residence demolished and a new brick residence is constructed to thesouth west of the cemetery site. New workshops are constructed.

Aitken,Lewis

1980 After Williamstown Cemetery is ranked A in a survey of Victoria’s cemeteries, the Trustdecide to restore the cemetery

Aitken,Lewis

1985 Orthodox section opened Aitken,Lewis

36 The 920 figure is in a Memo to Railways Dept of 4 August 1899 (cited in Allom Lovell & Assoc Existing Conditions Survey … PointGellibrand Vault “, Melbourne 1997). Other numbers reported were 808 reburials.


1996 The Altona cemetery takes over Management from 1 June 1996 GG1996

1997-98 Stage one of mausoleum built to design of Bahramis Architects

2006-08 Mausoleum Stage II to design of Bahramis Architects completed

2007 Manager of Altona Memorial Park writes to Crown Lands re acquiring part of roadreserve at north west end of site as an area the cemetery might extend on to (possiblyfor parking and Mausoleum extensions). In 2008, this request is refused.

CrownLands File(DEPI)

2010 GMCT takes over control of Williamstown cemetery.

Post 2010 Small pavilion constructed in upper area.Sources: GG= Government Gazette, GMCT= files, minute books and papers held by GMCT PROV= Heath Dept fileheld by PROV, Aitken Lewis = Conservation management Plan 1995 authors Richard Aitken, Nigel Lewis.

3.3 Contextual HistoryThe Cemetery Movement

Planning for the disposal of the dead as well as attitudes to death were major concerns of Britain’s VictorianAge and accompanied the century’s legacy of great sanitary reforms. With phenomenal shifts in thepopulation from rural to town-and-city concentrations, Britain’s urban graveyards quickly becameovercrowded leading to consequences injurious to health and offensive to decency. Graves, particularlythose of the poor, had never been secure in graveyards, and increasingly burials were not possible withoutdigging up other bodily remains. J.C. Loudon (1783-1843), landscape gardener and writer, knew of agraveyard in which 45 coffins were packed into one plot. It is little wonder that bodies were taken tograveyards at night and buried the next morning with little or no ceremony, and few relatives going to thegraveside for committal.37 As reaction to the gruesome horrors of urban graveyards set in, the movementtowards establishing large metropolitan garden cemeteries gained momentum, and the cemetery, as weknow it became a phenomenon of cities and towns.

Other factors were also propelling the establishment of cemeteries. The nineteenth century was an agewhen Governments increasingly reacted to the concerns of its citizens for greater religious tolerance andthe increasing dissent towards the established (Church of England) church and the rise of theindependence of other denominations. Those who were not Anglicans felt they should not have to beburied in Church of England parish churchyards or burial grounds attached to churches. The newcemeteries provided for all religious persuasions and some had their own Anglican, Roman Catholic andNonconformist chapels. The grounds were divided into two areas; one consecrated by the Church ofEngland Bishop in whose diocese the ground lay, the other comprising un-consecrated and non-denominational burial land.38

The patterns that shaped Britain’s emergent middle-class life also shaped its commemoration of death.The values of individualism and bourgeois respectability associated with everyday life in the nineteenthcentury metropolis also found expression in a new funeral culture that accompanied the advent ofcemeteries. There were standards of mourning to maintain, and the display of a funeral marked one’sgentility ‘or at least of a hankering after gentility’.39 Undertaking became a commercial enterprise. The rich

37 Curl, The Victorian Celebration of Death, p38.38 Ibid. p101.39 Ibid. p195.


could afford an elaborate rite of passage, and the less wealthy were expected to make a show with ‘a goodsend-off’ often with the body displayed in an open coffin in the front parlour of the stricken household.

The latter also often held their own services in the home but both culminated in the committal of the body ata graveside burial. Funerary monuments proliferated; built to stand in perpetuity, they defined one’s socialplace but also allowed those of uncertain social position to posthumously advertise their success.Monuments were like a sculpture gallery, a lesson in styles and taste and many of the more spectacularexamples were architecturally designed.

The choicest jobs for architects however were for designs of complete cemeteries. Ensembles of Gothic orRenaissance chapels, handsome gatehouses and monumental entrance gates became the norm for newcemeteries, with the whole providing cleverly designed paths within an enclosed ‘world where nature,architecture, art, and landscape gardening combined in an illusion of quiet, peaceful, permanent rest for themiddle-class dead’.40 While rendering the grounds more beautiful, trees and shrubs could also beeducational, with their varieties attractively labelled for the enlightenment of those who walked there. Manyof the new cemeteries in the English provinces were an attempt at civic improvement by private enterprise,often much needed in towns of rapid industrial development.

Père-Lachaise and the Glasgow Necropolis

The prototype for the nineteenth century cemetery as a landscaped funerary garden emerged in 1804 inPère-Lachaise Cemetery, established in Paris on a hill to the east of the city. Instead of being buried in achurch or malodorous churchyard, the dead could be fashionably interred in ‘a terrestrial Paradise, anElysium, and an Arcady, where the enchantments of landscape-gardening, nature, art, and architecturealleviated the gloom of the grave’.41 Owing much to the English landscaped garden of the eighteenthcentury, Père-Lachaise soon became world-famous with its influence shaping an entirely new funeraryculture in the western world. Plans for a spectacular Scottish version of the cemetery followed in 1831, witha proposal for converting a rocky hillside park into an ornamental cemetery, to be known as the GlasgowNecropolis. A cemetery of such beauty and awe-affecting melancholy would ‘extend religious feelings’,benefit public morals, improve manners, extend virtuous and generous feelings and convincingly express ‘anation’s progress’ in civilisation and the arts, claimed promoter John Strang (1795-1863).42 Many of thebuildings and monuments were architect-designed, including the bridge, façade, lodge, and Egyptianvaults.

English Cemeteries: Kensal Green, Nunhead, Highgate, Abney Park and Brompton

Improving the system of burial in the London metropolis began to gain momentum by the late 1820s andearly 1830s generating a great deal of discussion in publications, meetings and parliamentary debate. InApril 1830, an exhibition of proposals by architect Francis Goodwin (1784-1835) was held for a ‘GrandNational Cemetery’, with buildings constructed in the Greek Revival style.43 However the scheme failed togain backing. J.C. Loudon, who, in 1843 published a comprehensive book on designing, planting andmanaging cemeteries, wrote to the Morning Advertiser, proposing a scheme for several cemeteries

40 Ibid. pp 88-89.41 Ibid. p 26.42 Ibid. pp 46-47.43 Ibid. p 49.


equidistant from each other and from the centre of London.44 They were laid out more formally than Père-Lachaise, which Loudon thought to be too difficult to administer. Only a month later, in May 1830, a petitionwas presented to the House of Commons seeking the removal of metropolitan burial grounds to placeswhere they would be less ‘prejudicial to the health of the inhabitants’.45

Several of the more influential promoters of new cemeteries formed the General Cemetery Company, andin July 1831 their purchase of 32 hectares (77 acres) of land at Kensal Green was approved. In November,when a competition was announced for designs for a chapel, gateway, and lodge, there was no shortage ofarchitects able and willing to submit designs. The quite radical concept of the modern cemetery was fastbecoming a fashionable design proposition, and Kensal Green attracted some 46 submissions. AlthoughHenry Edward Kendall (1776-1875) won the competition, his Gothic designs never eventuated. Gothic, in1832, was considered florid, and still had associations with pre-Reformation England. Greek Revival, theprevailing style of the day, would have held more attraction to the Company’s ‘polite society’ clientele.

The General Cemetery of All Souls at Kensal Green opened in 1833, and in the same year classicaldesigns were prepared for two chapels, one for Anglicans (built 1836-37), one for Dissenters (built 1833-34), a colonnade over catacombs, and an entrance gate and lodge (both 1833-34). Beneath the chapelswere brick catacombs comprising shelves for the placement of coffins. More expensive than burial plots,the catacomb became a feature of the contemporary cemetery and in the 1850s there were even plans tobuild catacombs at two cemeteries in the Victorian goldfields towns of Back Creek (Bendigo) andCampbell’s Creek (Castlemaine). Planted and laid out in walks, with parterres and borders of flowers,Kensal Green’s attractive grounds and handsome Greek buildings soon proved to be enormously popular,its fashionable status elevated by the graves of several aristocrats, members of the royal family andmonuments of rare or imposing architectural quality.

In 1938 the cemetery was extended and a crematorium was built in a simplified Scandinavian Classicalstyle. Many cemetery companies followed on from Kensal Green, but this cemetery company remains theonly private cemetery company in London from this period still in existence.

More commercial cemeteries formed in rapid succession in provinces like Leeds and Birmingham, as wellas around London. Stephen Geary (1797-1854) architect, entrepreneur, and member of the LondonCemetery Company, is associated with the founding of the Cemeteries of Highgate, Nunhead, Peckham,Westminster, Gravesend and Brighton. He may have undertaken the initial surveys and plans for northLondon’s Cemetery of St James, Highgate, including designs for its spectacular ring of Egyptian-stylecatacombs around an existing Cedar of Lebanon, as well as the cemetery’s perimeter walls and the twochapels on either side of the Tudor gatehouse. Like Kensal Green, it had two chapels, one for Anglicans,and the other for Dissenters with parts of the cemetery ground reserved for unconsecrated and consecratedburials (the Anglican section was consecrated on 20 May 1839). Highgate ‘became the definitive cemeteryof the London bourgeoisie’.46 Less formal than Kensal Green, Curl writes:

“It is certainly one of the most remarkable creations of the Victorian Age, one of the mostunashamedly Romantic: the spooky Egyptianising architecture is unforgettably wonderful, and the

44 Ibid. p 49; John Claudius Loudon (1783-1843), On the Laying Out, Planting, and Managing Cemeteries; and On the Improvementof Churchyards, London, Longmans 1843.

45 Ibid. p 50.46 Christopher Brooks (1989), quoted from Curl, p 92.


catacomb complex, with its climax at the Upper Terrace, is unquestionably a brilliant piece ofscenographic design47.”

The London Cemetery Company proceeded with a second enterprise in 1840 at Nunhead, south of theriver. By now, A.W.N. Pugin’s views on the moral superiority of Gothic architecture (promoted in hispublication, Contrasts, of 1836) were gaining currency, and from 1837 the Houses of Parliament atWestminster were arising beside the Thames as the prime example of the new Gothic fashion, so it was nosurprise that the cemetery’s Anglican and Dissenters’ Chapels were designed in the Gothic style of thefourteenth century. Neoclassicism however, was still employed for the entrance-gate piers and twosymmetrical lodge gates.

The Abney Park Cemetery of 32 acres was also founded in 1840 in London. Established by the AbneyPark Cemetery Company, it differed from its predecessors by being open to all religions, with noseparations into denominational divisions and with no consecration of the burial ground ever occurring.The structures included an oecumenical Gothic Chapel built in brick with stone dressings, a small catacombin an underground chamber separated from the Chapel, and Portland stone Egyptian Revival entrance-gates and lodges. The grounds inherited a landscape of lush planting, which was retained and enhanced byadding some 2,500 varieties of trees and shrubs and over 1000 roses, forming an arboretum and rosarium,with many of the species labelled. The Cemetery catered for the more modest burials of workers andaccordingly lacks the grand monuments of Highgate or Kensal Green. It was taken over by the LondonBorough of Hackney Council in 1978.

Stephen Geary was also involved in establishing Brompton Cemetery, which was opened on 39 acres bythe West of London and Westminster Cemetery Company in 1840.48 Comprising an Anglican Chapelinspired by the Italian Renaissance, circular colonnade, catacombs and gateway in the form of a triumphalarch, it was also to include Roman Catholic and Dissenters’ Chapels, but due to financial problems theywere never built. The Cemetery suffered financial ruin and in 1851 the government acquired it from thecompany. It was becoming evident that the business of cemetery planning, construction and managementdid not marry well with the interests of a speculative company.

The Cemeteries Clauses Act of 1847 had enacted general powers to regulate commercial cemeteries andwas based on the Acts under which many of the earlier company-formed cemeteries were established. Theproblem with the majority of the new cemeteries was that they were dedicated to those who were able toafford a grave site and monument. There was little interest shown in attracting the poor, and problemswere mounting on how to dispose of the masses of working-class dead, many of whom ended up in thesmall, overcrowded burial grounds still open in urban centres. The situation was compounded by outbreaksof cholera throughout 1848 and 1849. In 1850 the General Board of Health proposed to close all urbanburial-grounds and purchase all existing cemeteries founded by joint-stock companies, some of whichwould be closed. Kensal Green was retained and expanded, and huge, new public cemeteries werecreated, providing the means for a civilised burial to be available to people of all classes. The BetterProvision for the Interment of the Dead Act was passed in 1850,49 followed by the Metropolitan Burial Act of

47 Ibid. p 92.48 Ibid. p 95.49 Ibid. p 137.


1852, which remained the principal legislation on the subject until largely repealed in 1972.50 Theseenactments effectively ended the burial crisis and set up a workable system of affordable public interment.

Figure 33: Loudon,‘Design for Laying Out

and Planting a Cemeteryon Hilly Ground’, 1843.

Source: J.C. Loudon, Onthe Laying Out, Planting,

and Managing ofCemeteries and on the

Improvement ofChurchyards, Ivelet

Books, A Facsimile ofthe edition of 1843,

published 1981.

Old Melbourne Cemetery

Melbourne’s earliest burials occurred informally on Burial Hill, now the Flagstaff Gardens, from May 1836when the small Port Phillip settlement of squatters was still illegal. The location of Melbourne wasconfirmed for official settlement with the arrival of Captain Lonsdale as commandant, on 1 October thatyear. NSW Governor Richard Bourke followed him in March 1837 along with surveyor, Robert Hoddle whocommenced surveying and planning Melbourne on a rectangular grid within a town reserve ofapproximately three miles by one mile, parallel with the river. Hoddle (1794-1881) included a cemeterysurveyed to the north-west just within the town reserve area, bounded by Victoria Street. The four-hectarecemetery is now covered by the car park of the Queen Victoria Market.51 Apparently in response to arequest by the Presbyterians, who objected to mixed burials, he divided the cemetery into denominationalsections, making it the first denominationally sectioned cemetery in Australia.52 Other denominationsrepresented were Episcopalian (Church of England) and Roman Catholic, with Wesleyans, Independents,Jews and Quakers occupying smaller sections. An additional portion was also set aside for Aboriginal

50 May, p 25.51 Lewis, p 27.52 Spicer, ‘Old Melbourne’ in Sagazio (ed.), p 32.


burials. The Church of England Bishop of Australia, William Grant Broughton (1788-1853),53 consecratedthe cemetery in April 1838, although burials had commenced in 1837.54

Hoddle’s cemetery illustrated the new shift in burial practice away from church graveyards (a characteristicof early Sydney) to the public cemetery, but it was still a world away from the design of London’s KensalGreen, which had opened just four years previously in 1833. Functionally planned and laid out,Melbourne’s public cemetery displayed little ornamentation, and was initially enclosed by a wooden fence.This was replaced by iron railings on bluestone footings, built by public subscription in 1869, well after thecemetery had closed. The monuments, many carved from soft sandstone, were largely of rudimentarytablet form, and iron railings enclosed some graves. Seventy historically significant headstones weretransferred to the Fawkner Cemetery to form the Pioneer Section in the 1920s after the cemetery had longremained neglected since its closure in the early 1850s. Some 914 remains were also exhumed andreburied in Fawkner as well as in Melbourne General, Boroondara (Kew), St Kilda and Cheltenhamcemeteries.

Melbourne General Cemetery

On 25 June 1847, Melbourne was created a city by letters patent of Queen Victoria.55 The town had grownrapidly, and with it emerged the same concerns about urban burial and public health that had gainedmomentum in England. By 1849 the Council of the Corporation of Melbourne was claiming that theovercrowded 1837 cemetery was ‘in dangerous proximity to the inhabited portions of the city’.56 Theyapproached the NSW Government and in 1850 plans were drawn up for a new cemetery, following thepassing of a NSW act of parliament. Invitations to five cemetery trustees went out in early 1851, and inSeptember 1852, the position of architect and surveyor for the new Melbourne cemetery was advertised inthe Government Gazette, and Albert Purchas (1825-1909) was appointed.57 Born in Chepstowe, in thecounty of Monmouthshire, Wales, Purchas had only been in the colony a year, and had been working as acivil engineer, surveyor and architect in contract jobs for Surveyor-General Robert Hoddle, one of them tosurvey the new village of Hawthorn. In addition to the position advertised for the cemetery he was alsoappointed as secretary to the trustees and provided with a salary of £450 a year. By contrast a cemeterykeeper and sexton was earning £156 a year.58

A map of Melbourne drawn by Purchas in 1853 or 1854 shows the 33½ acre reserve for the new cemeterywell beyond the town grid drawn by Hoddle.59 Carved from the swathe of public parkland to the north of thecity just beyond the university, the Melbourne General Cemetery was Victoria’s first modern cemetery.Designed on the principals of England’s large metropolitan garden cemeteries, it displayed elements ofRomantic and formal styles, combining serpentine roadways within which paths defined burials anddenominational sections. Whereas each religious denomination represented at the Old Cemetery held itsallotted land under a separate government grant and was responsible for managing its own portion, the newMelbourne General comprised one land grant and one management body of denominational

53 K. J. Cable, 'Broughton, William Grant (1788-1853)', Australian Dictionary of Biography, Online Edition, 2006.54 Spicer, ‘Old Melbourne’, in Sagazio (ed.), p32.55 Melbourne was created a Bishop’s See of the Church of England, to which Dr Charles Perry was appointed bishop, and by virtue

of this, the town of Melbourne was elevated to the status of city.56 Dunstan, p149; it is estimated that as many as 10,000 burials may have occurred at the Old Melbourne Cemetery (see Cannon,

p129).57 Government Gazette, 1 September 1852.58 Friends of Brighton Cemetery website, chapter 3.59 Albert Purchas, ‘Map of the Settled Districts around Melbourne in the Colony of Victoria’, 1854, National Library of Australia.


representatives.60 This system would guard against the haphazard arrangement and neglectfulmanagement that characterized the old cemetery.

The old cemetery was declared officially closed, and the new Melbourne General Cemetery opened in June1853, the same year that the University of Melbourne was established. Designed to function not only as aplace of burial but also as a modern civic amenity, this cemetery was to be just as important as alandscaped park, gallery, library or museum for decorous recreation and education. It accorded with thesuggestion of the Argus newspaper a year earlier, that Melbourne’s new burial ground should be acemetery and public garden combined, thereby providing an opportunity for the education of popular tastein a society ‘destitute as it is, of almost every means of popular education in art and taste’.61 Botanist BaronSir Ferdinand von Mueller (1825-1896) provided advice on the ornamental plantings from 1860, and thegrounds went on to be ornamented with a number of gate-keeper’s lodges (north gate of 1867 by CharlesWebb), Jewish chapel (1854), iron gates (1869 Charles Webb), Roman Catholic Chapel (1871 and 1888 byWilliam Wardell), iron fence (1876, by Morgan Jageurs), rockeries, several shade pavilions, denominationaliron markers and many distinguished monuments. The Melbourne General Cemetery predates Sydney’sRookwood Cemetery of 1867, which is the largest nineteenth century cemetery in the world.62

Suburban and Regional Cemeteries

The speed with which Melbourne passed from a relatively small community to a metropolis distinguished byelaborate urban and city needs soon necessitated further action to accommodate its burial requirements. Anumber of suburban public cemeteries followed Melbourne General Cemetery in quick successionthroughout the 1850s and 1860s including St Kilda (1855), Brighton (1855), Williamstown (1857),Boroondara (1858), Box Hill (1858), Templestowe (1858), Oakleigh (1859), Coburg (1860) and Footscray(1860). Growing country centres also applied to the government for grants of Crown Land to be reservedfor cemetery purposes or sought to have Crown land surveyed for cemetery purposes. Some examplesinclude Back Creek (later known as Bendigo Cemetery) (1854-57); Wangaratta (c.1857), Dandenong(1857), Keilor (1857), Daylesford (1857), Belfast (later known as Port Fairy) (1857); Avoca (1857),Heathcote (1857), Ballarat (1857), Murgheboluc (1857), Epping (1858) and Smythesdale (1859). Many ofthese cemeteries were set up as a result of public meetings of concerned citizens and local church groups,and the legislation governing their establishment was influenced by the English legislation of the early1850s, which saw public cemeteries administered by trustees.

In 1854 the Victorian government passed an Act for the Establishment and Management of Cemeteries inthe Colony of Victoria. It empowered the government to appoint and dismiss trustees and to approve therules and regulations for a cemetery’s administration, and a scale of fees and charges for graves, asrecommended by the trustees.63 It also stated that a ‘burial ground must be distant one mile at least fromany town’.64 Initially local councils were to have the responsibility for the management and trusteeship ofcemeteries, under the Municipal Institutions Act and the Public Health Act, both of 1854. The initial work ofsetting up the cemetery (its reservation from sale, dimensions and access and gazettals) were handled bythe Department of Crown Lands and Survey. However by the 1860s Victoria’s public cemeteries wereunder the Public Works Department, followed by the Department of Crown Lands and Survey from 1873 to

60 Chambers, p99.61 Argus, 7 February 1852, p 2.62 Mackay et al., p 8.63 Sagazio, p 13.


1888, and the Chief Secretary’s Department from 1888 to 1890. In 1890 responsibility passed to theDepartment of Health (Public Health Act 1889). A new act governing Victoria’s 600 cemeteries wasproclaimed in the Cemeteries Act 1958. This was superseded by the Cemeteries and Crematoria Act 2003,which is administered by the Department of Human Services.

3.4 Comparative AnalysisVictorian 19th Century Cemeteries

A number of extant Victorian metropolitan cemeteries were established in, or prior to, the 1850s, in Victoria,including: Brighton (1854) Eastern Cemetery, Geelong (1829); Boroondara Cemetery Kew (1855); GeelongWest Cemetery (1856); Williamstown Cemetery (1857).

Many of these are in a gardenesque layout (Melbourne General, Brighton) and this design also translatedto country cemeteries (Bendigo’s Carpenter Street and White Hills). A number of these cemeteries appearto have been influenced by (or were a copy of) the original gardenesque designs for Melbourne General byAlbert Purchas.

Comparative sites: metropolitan cemeteries of State importance are:

St Kilda

A small scale cemetery of 8 hectares with the first internment in 1855. The site has a layout influenced bythe gardenesque and a surrounding high brick wall on three sides with a metal palisade fence on the mainfrontage.

No large monuments but a site with many graves of people of state and national significance. Thecemetery also contains a number of graves with significance for aesthetic and rarity reasons. The originalgatehouse was demolished in the 1970s.

Williamstown Cemetery

Williamstown Cemetery was established in 1857, to replace a makeshift cemetery at Point Gellibrand. Amaster plan was developed c.1912 to extend the original 6 hectare site but this was never fully executed.

According to the CMP, there were several structures associated with the cemetery. These included atimber mortuary chapel, which doubled as a rest-house, and office (c1858-89, demolished); propagatingyard and fernery; a central fountain (c1892); and a gatekeeper’s sentinel’s box (c.1896, demolished). Otherlandscape features included seating, compartment markers, finger posts to toilets (c1879), toilets andrubbish baskets (c1889). In 1913 the rubbish bins were replaced by ‘sugar baskets’, and then bygalvanised drums in 1937. Several work sheds have been located around the cemetery at various times.

The new chapel was opened in 1937 and designed in a Tudor-revival style. In 1939, entrance gates fromthe St Kilda Town Hall and posts from the Exhibition Gardens were relocated to the cemetery. Theresidence was demolished c1966 and the current residence erected. New sheds were erected to replaceearlier sheds around this time.

Melbourne General Cemetery

Established in 1850 this is a large metropolitan cemetery of 45 hectares. As the largest inner metropolitancemetery, the site is of national significance for the graves and monuments of historical and aesthetic

64 Quoted from ‘Self Guided Tour of the Bendigo Cemetery, 145 Years of History 1858-1993’.


importance. The design is directly comparable to the gardenesque style of Boroondara and features suchas the rotundas are identical as Albert Purchas was responsible for a number of works at both Boroondaraand Melbourne General.

Brighton

A moderately scaled cemetery of established in 1854 with the first burial the following year. The site has abrick surrounding wall and gatehouse lodge of 1892. Comparative to Boroondara in scale, design andcontent. A number of interesting monuments of aesthetic significance such as the Egyptian style tomb.

Coburg

A smaller scale cemetery established in 1859. There are no surviving early structures although cottagesand offices were built in the 1880s-1910s period. The surrounding fence is wire and nothing of the originalremains. The original remnants are really the layout as well as cypress trees most probably planted around1914-15. Few monuments of aesthetic importance but a number of people of local importance.

Victorian era comparative national sites: metropolitan cemeteries.

Toowong (Brisbane) Queensland

A large and undulating site of 43 hectares, established in 1866 covering a number of small foothills at thebase of Mt Cootha. This unfenced site holds a number of monuments of similar scale and diversity and hasgraves of historical, aesthetic and rarity significance at the State level.

In this cemetery there are also many monuments of aesthetic significance and a number of excellentexamples of stone sculpting.

There is a substantial collection of trees and the whole has the feel of undulating parkland. The cemetery isutilized to nowhere near its capacity.

West Terrace (Adelaide) South Australia

The City of Adelaide’s earliest cemetery and reputed to be the oldest continuous cemetery in Australiahaving been provided for in Colonel Light’s plan of Adelaide of 1837. The cemetery is a flat piece ofground, of 20 hectares, on the edge of the city CBD. There are however others in the Sydney area whichpredate the Adelaide cemetery which commenced as church yard cemeteries.

Cornelian Bay (Hobart), Tasmania

Some distance from Hobart on the upper estuary of the Derwent River, this moderate sized cemetery wasestablished in 1872 and contains graves or aesthetic, historical and rarity significance. It was recentlyfound to contain graves with monuments to the design of the noted English Gothicism architect AWN Pugin.

Rookwood Cemetery (Western Sydney) New South Wales

Established in 1866 with the first burial in 1867, this is a cemetery of immense scale and the largest in theworld at 284 hectares and in excess of 1 million burials. There are sections of the cemetery which areunfilled. The cemetery contains early relocated burials, the site has a gardenesque layout, is simply fencedand contains a number of denominational chapels (some very large) and gatehouses. The whole of thecemetery is divided into a number of trusteeships on a denominational arrangement.


Waverley Cemetery (Bronte), New South Wales

A municipal cemetery of medium scale and comparable at 16 hectares, with a spectacular settingoverlooking the Pacific Ocean. The site contains a small number of large monuments and is unfenced. Theentrance is marked by an office and lodge.

The cemetery plan is partly irregular but substantially on a grid iron pattern.

3.5 Assessment of Significance

The Burra Charter (the Australia ICOMOS Charter for the conservation of places of cultural significance)sets out guidelines for the assessment of significant places. According to the Charter, a place is a site,area, building or other work, group of buildings or other works together with associated contents andsurrounds. Four criteria are defined by the Charter to aid the assessment of the cultural significance of aplace, these being: Aesthetic, Historic, Scientific and Social.Aesthetic ValueThe Burra Charter defines aesthetic value as follows:

A place may have aesthetic value because of the form, scale, colour, texture and material of thefabric; and smells and sounds associated with the place and its use.

Williamstown Cemetery has aesthetic value for its layout of paths which were lined with Palm Treesfrom the 1930s. This unusual planting pattern gives a strong sense of verticality and progressionthrough the older portion of the site. The trees along the south side being pines and cypress of earlydate give the site an antique aesthetic in part due to the size and lean on some of the plantings.The 1892 Wardrop and Scurry fountain gives the site an attractive focus and is one of three identicalsculptural fountains they created in Victoria. The fountains contains various mythical creatures andclassical motifs such as the spouting fish which can be found albeit in larger scale in Italian baroquefountains.

Historic ValueThe Burra Charter defines historic value as follows:

Historic value encompasses the history of aesthetics, science and society, and therefore to a largeextent underlies aesthetic, social and scientific value. A place may have historic value because ithas influenced, or been influenced by, and historic figure, event, phase or activity. It may also havehistoric value as the site of an important event. For any given place the significance will be greaterwhere evidence of the association or events survives in situ, or where settings are substantiallyintact, than where it has been changed or evidence does not survive. However, some events orassociations may be so important that the place retains significance regardless of subsequenttreatment.

The site has historic vales as an early Cemetery in Victoria and one associated with a number ofmaritime incidents as well as a local burial place for the pioneers and residents of Williamstownincluding many sailors and ships masters. The site also contains the burials from the PointGellibrand graveyard, one of the earliest burial places in Victoria and one that included many victimsof illness and disease on the voyages to Australia. Williamstown was the first port of call in the PortPhillip district and one of the few places where medical assistance could be sought in the region.The cemetery also has memorials to the sailors of the Victorian Navy, Japanese merchant navy


sailors, as well as local retired sailors, captains and their wives exemplified by the Sarah Lileymemorial.

Scientific ValueThe Burra Charter defines scientific value as follows:

The scientific or research value of a place will depend upon the importance of the data involved, onits rarity, quality or representativeness, and on the degree to which the place may contribute furthersubstantial information.

N/A

Social ValueThe Burra Charter defines social value as follows:

Social value embraces the qualities for which a place has become a focus of spiritual, political,national or other cultural sentiment to a majority or minority group.

The site has social value for the long period of its development totalling nearly 160 years duringwhich time it was the official burial ground in the district hosting the most common religiousdenominations as well as pauper and plague burials. There are also a number of persons ofhistorical interest who were socially important for their contributions to the development of the area.

The Cemetery is registered on the Victorian Heritage Register and has a statement of significancewhich appears to require revision particularly as to its full layout which occurred sometime after 1905 ratherthan the 19th Century, and the somewhat neo-baroque fountain. The undated pine and cypress on thesouth side give the site an antique appearance. Quoted verbatim the Statement from Heritage Councilreads:

What is significant?

Williamstown Cemetery was established in 1857 after the inadequacies of the unofficial cemetery at PointGellibrand were repeatedly brought to the attention of the government. Located at North Williamstown, inlandfrom the old graveyard, the Crown grant of 15 acres was laid out into equal quadrants and subdivided intodenominational sections by Assistant Surveyor, William Martin. It was expanded in 1905. The sea was themain focus of the township, and the first burial on 22 March 1858, that of Captain Lawrence Lawson, aMaster Mariner and long-term resident of Williamstown, is just one of many which document this strongmaritime association. In 1899 some 808 bodies were exhumed from Point Gellibrand and re-interred atWilliamstown cemetery in a mass grave, with the surviving gravestones mounted on a vault built in 1901. Theold burial ground served from at least 1842 until 1856 and had contained the graves of ships' fever victims,sailors, and other men of the sea as well as convicts, and local pioneers. Other important features include therecently restored fountain dating from 1892, the intact layout of the early part of the cemetery, ironcompartment markers, and numerous trees, notably the nineteenth century pines, and avenue of palmsplanted in 1931.

How is it significant?

The Williamstown Cemetery is of historical, social, aesthetic, and architectural significance to the State ofVictoria.

Why is it significant?

The Cemetery is historically important as an index to the township history of Williamstown and the earlymaritime activities of Melbourne. The gravestones, memorials and monuments commemorate the lives of


pioneers, naval and military men, sailors, prominent Melbourne citizens and everyday men, women, andchildren, recording their contribution to the settlement of the colony, and charting many a life and deathrelationship with the sea. The Point Gellibrand vault is historically important as an early memorial toMelbourne's pioneers, and its associated gravestones are significant for being among the State's earliestfunerary artefacts. The Victorian Navy monument is of historical significance as it commemorates the longassociation Williamstown had with the Victorian Navy until Federation. The Robert Ellery memorial hashistorical importance for its associations with one of Victoria's earliest scientists who was the officialGovernment Astronomer from 1853-95.

Williamstown Cemetery is socially important for its representation of burial practices, religious affiliations,values and tastes from the pre-gold rush years to the twentieth century. It has further social importance as afocus of sentiment, and for the insight it provides into a community whose fortunes were once inextricablytied to the sea.

The Cemetery is aesthetically important for its mid-nineteenth century layout which demonstrates prevailingPicturesque ideas about cemetery design. This value is significantly enhanced by the central focus of theornate fountain, the avenue of palms along the main axial paths, mature conifers, two uncommon Maclurapomifera marking the original boundary and the large collection of gravestones and other examples offunerary art which dominate as the major visual element. The Sarah Liley monument with its statue of awoman holding an anchor is one of the most prominent memorials in the cemetery, adding considerably to itsaesthetic significance. The entrance gates and Tudor-revival office are contributory aesthetic features.

The cemetery is of architectural importance for its rare nineteenth century fountain designed by architecturalmodellers, Wardrop & Scurry. The gravestones and memorials are important for displaying the craftsmanshipand prevailing design characteristics of various periods. The cast iron denominational markers are also ofnote.

As altered the new statement would read: (alterations bolded)What is significant?

Williamstown Cemetery was established in 1857 after the inadequacies of the unofficial cemetery at PointGellibrand were repeatedly brought to the attention of the government. Located at North Williamstown, inlandfrom the old graveyard, the Crown grant of 15 acres was laid out into equal quadrants and subdivided intodenominational sections by Assistant Surveyor, William Martin. It was expanded in 1905 by a further 12acres north-westward to Park Crescent and a large mausoleum built there in several stages from1997. The sea was the main focus of the township, and the first burial on 22 March 1858, that of CaptainLawrence Lawson, a Master Mariner and long-term resident of Williamstown, is just one of many whichdocument this strong maritime association. In 1899 some 808 bodies were exhumed from Point Gellibrandand re-interred at Williamstown cemetery in a mass grave, with the surviving gravestones mounted on a vaultbuilt by the Railways Department in 1899 -1901. The old burial ground served from at least 1842 until 1856and had contained the graves of ships' fever victims, sailors, and other men of the sea as well as convicts,and local pioneers. Other important features include the recently restored fountain dating from 1892, theintact layout of the early part of the cemetery, iron compartment markers, and numerous trees, notably thenineteenth century pines, and avenue of palms planted in 1931.

How is it significant?

The Williamstown Cemetery is of historical, social, aesthetic, and architectural significance to the State ofVictoria.

Why is it significant?


The Cemetery is historically important as an index to the township history of Williamstown and the earlymaritime activities of Melbourne. The gravestones, memorials and monuments commemorate the lives ofpioneers, naval and military men, sailors, prominent Melbourne citizens and everyday men, women, andchildren, recording their contribution to the settlement of the colony, and charting many a life and deathrelationship with the sea. The Point Gellibrand vault is historically important as an early memorial toMelbourne's pioneers, and its associated gravestones are significant for being among the State's earliestfunerary artefacts. The Victorian Navy monument is of historical significance as it commemorates the longassociation Williamstown had with the Victorian Navy until Federation. The Robert Ellery memorial hashistorical importance for its associations with one of Victoria's earliest scientists who was the officialGovernment Astronomer from 1853-95. Rare amongst the graves is a memorial to three Japanesesailors from the corvette H.M.I.J.S. Tsukuba who died of beriberi in June 1882. There are alsomemorials to other naval mishaps particularly the HMVS Cerberus torpedo accident in 1881 (6burials), the memorial for the yacht Queenie (erected 1900) commemorating seven drownings, theHMAS Goorangi collision in 1940 (6 burials) plus twenty one burials of World War One servicemen.

Williamstown Cemetery is socially important for its representation of burial practices, religious affiliations,values and tastes from the pre-gold rush years to the twentieth century. It has further social importance as afocus of sentiment, and for the insight it provides into a community whose fortunes were once inextricablytied to the sea.

The Cemetery is aesthetically important for its mid-nineteenth century layout which demonstrates prevailingpicturesque ideas about cemetery design. This value is significantly enhanced by the central focus of theornate fountain, the avenue of palms along the main axial paths, mature conifers, two uncommon Maclurapomifera marking the original boundary and the large collection of gravestones and other examples offunerary art which dominate as the major visual element. The Sarah Liley monument with its statue of awoman holding an anchor is one of the most prominent memorials in the cemetery, adding considerably to itsaesthetic significance. The non-original entrance gates and Tudor-revival office are contributory aestheticfeatures.

The cemetery is of architectural importance for its rare nineteenth century fountain designed by architecturalmodellers, Wardrop & Scurry. The gravestones and memorials are important for displaying the craftsmanshipand prevailing design characteristics of various periods. The cast iron denominational markers are also ofnote as rare survivors in Victorian cemeteries.

3.6 Further ResearchFurther research should be undertaken by cataloguing any documents held by the trustees. This would beinvaluable for confirming issues raised in this Conservation Plan, for site planning and for repair of themonuments. It is presumed some of these documents may be original submissions to the trustees for theconstruction of various memorials on the site. Of particular importance would be a clearer idea of when thepines and cypress were planted in the original cemetery as no record has been found on this.

The construction and ownership of the Gellibrand Vault might be also investigated in more detail as itsownership may rest solely with the Cemetery trustees. Similarly it would be of interest to identify the owner(by succession) of the HMVS Cerberus tragedy memorial.

Translation of the minute books into a searchable document would also be useful as would be a translationof official Trustee returns on the PROV file. This would allow a more accurate record of burial numbers.

Possibly the most difficult information which needs unearthing is the date of planting of the major trees inthe 1857 section of the site. Most information leads only to the conclusion that they were planted before1900 but no actual date has been ascertained.


4.0 CONSERVATION POLICY STATEMENT4.1 Constraints and Requirements

Development of buildings and spaces and their reuse depends to a large extent on the importance of thebuilding or structure as a whole and the relative importance of the spaces contained within.The surrounding landscape and views to the sites features of primary importance are also primeconsiderations in retaining the cultural significance of the place.

Development involving a greater degree of alteration may occur in areas of lesser or no significance, minoralterations may occur in areas of contributory significance while areas, structures and built fabric of primarysignificance should be subjected only to minimal and easily reversible changes. Primary spaces andstructures should also be considered for restoration and reconstruction of missing features as fundingpermits.

Such restoration and reconstruction work should be based on documentary and physical evidence such asphotographs, oral histories and as-built drawings.

The following tables indicate the relative significance of the building exteriors, the spaces between buildingsand the interior spaces.

4.2 Site Significance (precis)The site is significant

For its layout planning although this is essentially a grid iron pattern with the occasional spike of ataller monument and important trees particularly the palms and pines

For the monuments to persons of historic note and particularly Robert Ellery, the seamen of theVictorian Navy and the re-internments from Point Gellibrand as well as other unusual burialmonuments such as the chest vault of the Hall family.

For the aesthetically important landscape views across the site from the gateway entrance andalso from the northwest toward the southeast along the main pathway past the 1892 fountain.These views capture many palm trees and graves and many of the taller monuments.

As a result of this the components of the site have been assessed for the relative contribution each makesto the overall heritage significance of the place. Policies in regard to works can then be established whichwhile retaining the overall cultural significance of the place, discriminate between areas, structures andobjects of relatively little importance, and those of moderate and greatest importance.

4.3 Elements of Primary, Contributory, Lesser and No SignificancePrimary Significance:

The elements which contribute to the understanding of the cemetery in a highly significant manner are:

The cemetery entrance, its location, gates and pillars.

The main asphalted paths that define the denomination areas.

The Palm trees along the roads and the pines and cypress primarily in the original 15 acre portionof the cemetery.


The graves of the earliest phases of the cemetery from 1857 to approximately 1940 but particularlythe Ellery grave, the Point Gellibrand Vault, the Victorian Navy monument , the Queenie memorial,the HMVS Cerberus memorial, the HMAS Goorangi graves, the HMIJS Tsukuba graves, the Hallfamily vault and the Sarah Liley monument as these latterstructures are of interest for their typeand aesthetic characteristics.

Contributory Significance

The elements which contribute to the understanding of the site in a secondary manner and which alsosupport the elements of primary significance are:

The memorials and monuments to persons of local historical significance for their contribution tothe development of Williamstown and district, or who were involved in important historical events.

The monuments containing Victorian symbols of death (clasped hands, pointing fingers, birds etc.)as found. The numbers of these monuments is however surprisingly very low compared tocemeteries at Boroondara and Brighton.

The monuments and graves to seafarers and their families.

The entrance office and chapel of 1937 by architect Morsby.

Original or early metal seating

The cast iron compartment labels which are rare in the context of Victorian cemeteries.

Lesser or No significance

Lesser or No significance indicates that the place or structure does not contribute in any substantivemanner to understanding the Significance of a heritage place.

The toilets, work sheds and caretakers house of the 1960s

The disused brick toilets of the circa 1910s

The lawn graves

The cyclone fence surrounding the site apart from the main entrance ingo gates and pillars

Many of the self-seeded trees and shrubs some of which are protruding through graves unless it isestablished that the trees were deliberately planted..

Much of the cemetery infrastructure including minor gravel paths, bins, taps, signs etc. Note thatsigns mentioned in the Lewis Aitken CMP 1994, no longer exist.

The graves and gazebo in the upper portion of the cemetery which are not on heritage registeredland.

The mausoleum which is not on heritage registered land.

4.4 Site Specific PoliciesThe policies are based on an understanding of the relative contribution of each component of the site.

Future Development general policies

Future development for structures such as public and works buildings should account for the following indetermining form and location:


A Location that is not dominant in the views from the primary site entrance

A height that does not dominate the surrounding structures

A design that is compatible in form and scale to the 19th Century structures at the site (i.e. the primaryuse of bricks is encouraged as are visible roof forms depending on the circumstance). Single storeyconstruction is mandatory.

A location which minimises damage to infrastructure and monuments of primary significance.

This is not to suggest that an identifiably new structure would be inappropriate, it depends on design anddominance and the ability to blend it into the landscape of the cemetery.

Suggested locations and forms would be:

In the sites frontage as part of an integrated arrangement of arbor, niche walls, entrance structureand toilets all designed as garden form structures i.e. structures which contain planting or allowplanting to grow on or with-in it. A location for such a structure would be on the rear side of theoffice-chapel building.

In the area of the works garage and office.

Constructed with primary surfaces of masonry with roofs which have a low reflectivity value. Thismasonry should be substantially brick with some integrated local stone for paving, part walls,cladding to columns and base walls.

Grounds

The grounds of the cemetery are of primary significance and are substantially developed. Manyundeveloped sites have been sold and will be used, possibly within the next two decades.Policy

New development for burial vaults and ashes structures (not individual graves) may be undertaken wherethere is available space and its placement, height and materials will not disturb the visual connectionbetween the various historic features of the site or be seen as detracting elements of the landscapeparticularly in the view across the site from the west toward the east. Clusters of these structures should beavoided in favour of spreading the structures out in the landscape. In the upper area of the cemetery whichis not registered under the Heritage Act almost any arrangement could be constructed but the GMCTshould have an integrated management strategy for that area.

Recommended Actions

Any new development will most probably have to be in the vicinity of the mausoleum given that all groundspace in the earliest part of the cemetery is already taken up. There are however occasional spaces forsmaller scale buildings on the site such as in the area of the old brick toilets

Location of new developments should be considered in terms of the relationship between buildings andimportant trees (particularly their root zone) and pathways and the long views of the site from the oppositeside of Champion Road.

The Pathways

The major paths (as illustrated on all the cemetery maps) are of primary significance while the minor paths(gravel are of little significance). There are no defined paths between graves or compartments.


Policy

As the main paths are important elements in understanding the style of landscape introduced to thecemetery, it is important to maintain the existing pattern of paths in the oldest area. Deviations from thepaths in the upper area (not heritage registered land) should be downplayed to allow the main pathway todominate.

Recommended Actions

Implement a programme of repair to the asphalt roads. Retain the brick drains which while not original arein good order and lend an appropriate visual appearance to the road edges.

The caretakers house, works garage, toilets and office.

These are of No historic significance

Policy

As elements of no significance (and are intrusive on the heritage significance of the site), these elementsmay be removed and the GMCT is encouraged to remove them at their earliest opportunity and replacethem with better planned and architecturally integrated structures which disguise their presence. The useof screens, pergolas and battens would be helpful in this respect.

Recommended Actions

Redesign this area with the demolition of the toilets and relocate if possible some of the activity spaceswhich could be integrated with the new mausoleum stage III.

The Drainage System

There is no exposed historic drain system.

Policy

Where required introduce a system to prevent flooding.

Recommended Actions

Ensure brick drains operate correctly. At roadways the GMCT should develop new gratings as standardtypes across their cemeteries. Many cemeteries have grates which are either ugly or just ordinary.Councils such as Melbourne and Port Phillip now use gratings that have some modicum of design and areattractive as objects.

The Plantings

The major exotic Cemetery Plantings (trees) are of primary significance to the site and these arethe Palms, Pines and Cypress

Policy

Maintenance of the major significant (exotic) plantings is essential to the site. They must be maintained tohigh standards and should not be removed unless there is good reason to do so.

Where senescence sets in, the trees should be carefully managed, and if removed, a tree of the samespecies (or a species of similar qualities) of minimum 2m high should be planted and regularly maintainedfor a minimum of two years. Replacement like for like is important for the rarer species but some trees such


as the Cypress may have to be reconsidered in terms of their ability to resist climate change and theirresistance to cankers.The various rows of trees should be managed although they may be replaced from time to time where lossof limbs and senescence makes replacement necessary. Rows must be replaced in a sequenced mannerrather than removing all trees at the same time. Unbalanced trees should have removable crutchesintroduced as soon as possible if there are signs of failing and then be trimmed as soon as possible to takeout dead weight (i.e. remove dead limbs immediately and select some further limbs to remove but with ahigh consideration given to aesthetics). The use of steel cable bracing should then be considered.Recommended Actions

Implement a management programme which causes the trees to be inspected every year, along withchipping and mulching of branches and regular watering particularly during summer. The cemetery mayhave to install substantive rain-water tanks in the area of the works compound to feed the trees during thedrought periods now being experienced. These tanks could collect rainwater from the works building andtoilets once rebuilt and the water distributed in drip barrels.On at least two major Pines in the south west corner major limbs might be supported with higher limbs anddeadwood removed to check the manner in which they have become unbalanced. Consideration MUST begiven to the aesthetics of each case. The decisions made must result from an agreed approach and not leftto one person alone to determine as the trees are major elements in the site’s aesthetics.Lesser MonumentsThere are numerous monuments in this category. They are contributory to the overall significance of theplace.Policy

The bulk of the cemetery monuments make up the social, aesthetic and historic body of the cemetery. It isimportant that monuments to persons of historic significance or events, monuments of aestheticsignificance, monuments of rarity value are not destroyed through the actions of the Trustees in a searchfor new burial space and are prevented where ever possible from collapse. Prevention must take on awhole of cemetery approach starting with slowing soil heave and desiccation. Prevention may also involvesmall quantities of stabilised gravel placed on some sinking graves to prevent inward collapse.Recommended Actions

Carry out consultation with the local historical society, Friends of the Cemetery and National Trust if thereare proposals to create new burial plots within the older areas of historical importance or near thegatehouse.Elements of Lesser or No significanceThese elements on the site have no intrinsic historic, architectural, or aesthetic significance. They includeall fencing, all buildings and some of the infrastructure (excluding paths).Policy

These elements may be altered in a contemporary manner provided that the alterations do not impact onthe overall significance of the heritage place.Recommended Actions

There are presently no recommended actions related to this category.


General Policy: Minor Works Recommended and Not Recommended for the groundsWorks which may and should be done Works which should not be done

Paths & Brick Drains

Continue a system of repairing the asphalt paths in asphalt.

Do not extent the asphalt areas without specific reason to do so inthe heritage registered area.

Consider enhancement of grassed pathways. If new paths arerequired consider gravel paths with timber edging. Reset and alignbrick drains where they contribute to movement of heavy rainwater.Redirect drains where they will be useful to assist the health ofplantings.

Paths

Changing the paths to concrete, changingthe edging of the asphalted driveways frombrick to concrete. There is no requirement touse bluestone edging.

The Monuments

Carrying out repairs to the important monuments in association withan approved plan.

Use of stainless steel dowels and epoxy resin to join broken stonepieces (no resin or mortar to be on the joint edge)

Use of lime mortars and white cement mortars for repointing to becarried out by experienced mason.

Propping and chocking up of leaning monuments as preventativeaction along with filling and consolidating holes and areasundermined by animals or tree roots. Fill areas outside graveswhere filling will prevent collapse of the grave. Some graves havebeen undermined by burrows and these should be filled as apreventative to collapse.

Weeding of graves

Removal of invasive plants by poisoning them.

A selected area should be allowed to grow out over two years todetermine if there are plantings of significance being repressed bya spraying regime.

The Monuments

Allowing owners or the public to carry outrepairs on unstable monuments, cleaning ofthe monuments with any chemicals otherthan mild detergent, painting of copperelements, setting monuments in cement(such as headstones),or using ferrouscramps instead of stainless steel.

Grounds

Mulching on site of all plant material and distributed in a plan drawnup by landscape architects. This may be distributed amongstexisting important plantings and areas where it is intended to retainsoil moisture or slow washaway areas.

Planting of ground covers

Backfilling areas near graves where collapse can be prevented bysmall amounts of soils.

Grounds

Leaving mounds of soils which collectrainwater and rubbish.

Trees

Management of trees as part of a programme established with a

Trees

Lopping of trees leading to mis-shaping or


horticulturalist/arboriculturalist.

Severing tree roots that are buckling walls or graves WITH the aidof a Tree surgeon. Do not sever the root ball of the tree.

unbalancing of limbs.

Arbitrary removal of trees without consultingan arborist (unless they have fully blowndown)

Other Infrastructure

Run cables and pipework underground.

Develop a suite of hard landscape elements e.g. taps, seating,signage, lighting that runs to a standard across all GMCT sites.

Install fencing to a standard in-house design (to be developed)rather than off the shelf items obtained at a local hardware.

Infrastructure

Discontinue the practice of having standarditems installed by local council or allowingworks to be carried out by local councilwithout oversight of standards by GMCT.

4.5 Future Use and DevelopmentThe site is unlikely to ever be used for anything more than a cemetery, so future USE is essentially not anissue.

The site is on the Victorian Heritage Register as H1837 which creates statutory obligations in regard tomaintenance and works to a site.

The site is also listed in the City of Hobson’s Bay Planning Scheme as H069. Issues related todevelopment of the site (building works and landscaping) within the heritage registered area are thestatutory provenance of Heritage Victoria and a permit must be sought from and issued by Heritage Victoriaprior to works being undertaken.

Issues related to USE are dealt with by the City of Hobson’s Bay. Issues related to development of the areaoutside the area registered under the Heritage Act (i.e. the northern end of the site) MUST be referred tothe City of Hobson’s Bay) and advice obtained about the need or otherwise for a permit.

Extent of Registration under the Heritage Act:

1. All of the buildings and structures marked as follows on Diagram 1837 held by the Executive Director: B1 Entrancegates and associated pillars B2 Fountain B3 Office

2. The trees and plantings marked as follows on Diagram 1837 held by the Executive Director: T1 Pinus halepensisx23 T2 Pinus pinea x2 T3 Cupressus sempervirens x4 T4 Phoenix canariensis x7 T5 Phoenix reclinata x2 T6 Pinusradiata T7 Phoenix canariensis x96 T8 Washingtonia robusta x12 T9 Pinus nigra var. corsicana T10 Cupressusmacrocarpa (now Hesperocyparis Macrocarpa) x3 T11 Maclura pomifera x2

3. All of the gravel paths, roadways and gutters marked P1 on Diagram 1837 held by the Executive Director.

4. All of the monuments and memorials as follows on Diagram 1837 held by the Executive Director: M1 PointGellibrand Vault M2 Victorian Navy M3 Robert L. J. Ellery M4 Sarah Liley

5. All of the cast iron compartment markers indicated as S1-S35 on Diagram 1837 held by the Executive Director:

6. All of the land known as the original 1857 Cemetery Reserve and part of the 1905 Cemetery Extension beingCrown Land Reserve Rs 5440 marked L1 on Diagram 1837.


Proposed additions of items to the Register under Item 4 above to read M5: The HMVS Cerberus memorial, M6:The Yacht Queenie memorial M7 The Japanese sailors memorial

Permit Exemptions

Heritage Victoria has issued a set of permit exemptions which are general in nature and cover the arearegistered. This CMP does not suggest a new suite of Permit Exemptions be developed.

Heritage Victoria: Permit Exemptions as at June 2015

General Conditions:1. All exempted alterations are to be planned and carried out in a manner which prevents damage to the fabric of theregistered place or object.2. Should it become apparent during further inspection or the carrying out of alterations that original or previouslyhidden or inaccessible details of the place or object are revealed which relate to the significance of the place orobject, then the exemption covering such alteration shall cease and the Executive Director shall be notified as soonas possible3. If there is a conservation policy and plan approved by the Executive Director, all works shall be in accordance withit.4. Nothing in this declaration prevents the Executive Director from amending or rescinding all or any of the permitexemptions.Nothing in this declaration exempts owners or their agents from the responsibility to seek relevant planning or buildingpermits from the responsible authority where applicable.

General:* Interments, burials and erection of monuments, reuse of graves, burial of cremated remains, and exhumation ofremains in accordance with the Cemeteries Act 1958, and amendments.* Stabilisation, restoration, and repair of monuments.* Emergency and safety works to secure the site, and prevent damage and injury to property and the public.* Monument works undertaken in accordance with Australian Standard, Headstones and Cemetery Monuments AS4204.* Demolition, alteration or removal of buildings and monuments not specified in the extent of registration.* Painting of previously painted structures provided that preparation or painting does not remove evidence of theoriginal paint or other decorative scheme.

Fountain* Minor repairs and maintenance.

Entrance gates* Minor repairs and maintenance.* Painting of gates and pillars in appropriate heritage colours.

Exterior of office building:* Minor repairs and maintenance which replace like with like.* Painting of previously painted surfaces in the same colour.

Interior of office building:* Painting of previously painted surfaces provided that preparation or painting does not remove evidence of theoriginal paint or other decorative scheme.* Removal of paint from originally unpainted or oiled joinery, doors, architraves, skirtings and decorative strapping.


* Installation, removal or replacement of carpets and/or flexible floor coverings.* Installation, removal or replacement of curtain track, rods, blinds and other window dressings.* Installation, removal or replacement of hooks, nails and other devices for the hanging of mirrors, paintings and otherwall mounted artworks.* Installation, removal or replacement of electrical wiring provided that all new wiring is fully concealed and anyoriginal light switches, pull cords, push buttons or power outlets are retained in-situ. Note: if wiring original to the placewas carried in timber conduits then the conduits should remain in-situ.* Installation, removal or replacement of bulk insulation in the roof space.* Installation, removal or replacement of smoke detectors.

Layout* Repairs, conservation and maintenance to hard landscape elements, buildings and structures, ornaments, roadsand paths, fences and gates, drainage and irrigation systems.* Maintenance of roads and paths and gutters to retain their existing layout.

Landscape* The process of gardening and maintenance to care for the cemetery landscape, planting themes, bulbs and shrubs,and removal of dead plants.* Management of plants in accordance with Australian Standard, Pruning of amenity trees AS 4373.* Removal of vegetation to maintain fire safety and to protect monuments, paths, registered buildings and structures.* Removal of plants listed as Prohibited and Controlled Weeds in the Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994.* Replanting to retain the existing landscape themes and character. -

Permit requirements Under the Heritage Act.

Permit applications are required for development, subdivision and works unless otherwise declared aspermit exempt.

A fee must be paid in accordance with the fee schedule.

An application for substantive works MUST be accompanied by a Heritage Impact Statement. This shouldbe written by a heritage architect.

Heritage Victoria should be contacted for Application forms, fee schedule and other requirements.

There are statutory fines for undertaking works without a permit. Retrospective applications cannot bemade under the Act.

Other Listings

The cemetery is not on:

The National Heritage List

But

IS listed on the closed Register of the National Estate

And IS listed by the National Trust Victoria.


The role of the National Trust

The National Trust of Victoria has a NON statutory listing of the Cemetery. No permits are required fromthe Trust.

Williamstown Cemetery is listed on the National Trust’s database. It is considered to be of Statesignificance. The National Trust statement of significance reads:

“Williamstown Cemetery, laid out to a design of surveyor William Martin in 1857, extended in 1905,its layout and major planting in place by 1931, and in continual use since 1858, is of statesignificance for the following reasons: -its importance in the course of Australia's cultural history asa substantially intact example of a mid nineteenth century cemetery demonstrating prevailingideas about layout and planting of the garden cemetery movement. * It exhibits unusual culturalfeatures associated with the development of mid nineteenth century garden cemeteries. -itspossession of uncommon aspects of Australia's cultural history as a mid nineteenth centurygarden cemetery. * Its importance in demonstrating a distinctive way of life, custom, and design nolonger practised and in danger of being lost. It is of exceptional interest as most mid nineteenthcentury garden cemeteries no longer demonstrate their characteristic design as twentieth centuryovercrowding and neglect have generally resulted in the loss of earlier schemes. WilliamstownCemetery developed in the twentieth century in a manner which both respects the early section ofthe site and expresses contemporary ideas. -its potential to yield information that will contribute toan understanding of Australia's cultural history. * Its importance for information contributing to awider understanding of Australian history, by virtue of its use as a research and reference site. * Itsimportance for information contributing to a wider understanding of the history of humanoccupation of Australia. For example by providing information about the patterns of deaths in thecolonial city by age, religion and family; and sometimes giving causes, occupations and otherinformation. By illustrating the importance of homelands in epitaphs and also by demonstrating therange of technical and craft skills and materials available. * Its strong links with the township ofWilliamstown and Melbourne's maritime history. * For trees planted within the first decades of thedevelopment of the city, and therefore of some botanical interest as being amongst the earliestsurviving tree plantings in the metropolis. * For its value as a historical record, a collection ofindividual memorials, its continuity as security, for the manner in which it inspires respect for thedead, as a social document, and for its role in education and recreation. -its importance indemonstrating the principal characteristics of: (1) A class of Australia's cultural places, being midnineteenth century garden cemeteries. * Its importance in demonstrating the principal attributeswhich are characteristic of the class. These are: the road and path layout with a cruciform plan,separate denominational compartments based on census figures, and a picturesque layout withcurving roads despite the flat site and formality in the 1857 section. * Its importance indemonstrating the principal characteristics of the range of human activities in the Australianenvironment (including way of life, custom, process, land use, function, design or technique). Itdemonstrates the Victorian approach of seeing burial grounds also as a public park. The cemeterywas a focus for William Bull's ambitious 1859 plan for a large public park in Williamstown. It alsodemonstrates that, although this was a secular cemetery, religion was very important with theallocation of land based on religious census figures. * For its collection of trees and plants thatassist in defining two major phases of development: mid nineteenth century and c1905-31,including a fine avenue planting of Phonix canariensis (Canary Island Date Palm) and earlyboundary plantings of Pinus halepensis (Aleppo Pine), crataigus monogyna (English Hawthorn)


and two Maclura pomifera.. -its importance in exhibiting Victorian aesthetic characteristics valuedby the colonial community. * Its importance in demonstrating a high degree of creative or technicalachievement of the Victorian period. * importance for technical, creative, design or artisticexcellence, innovation or achievement, including the substantially intact 1892 fountain which is afocal point in the design, the Tudor revival chapel, and the cemetery's collection of memorials,tombstones and other funerary art. -its strong or special associations with a particular communityor cultural group for social, cultural or spiritual reason. * Its importance as a place highly valued bya community for reasons of religious, spiritual, symbolic, cultural, educational and socialassociations. Williamstown Cemetery has special associations for the local community because ofits continual use since 1858 but is also of special importance to post war migrants with familymonuments at the cemetery. -its special association with the life or works of a person, or group ofpersons, of importance in Australia’s natural or cultural history. *Its importance for closeassociations with Melbourne's maritime history, demonstrated in its diverse range of memorialswhich reflect naval and civilian shipping accidents. See also F.N. 3189 Williamstown Cemetery &Mass Grave.”

4.6 The Impact of Climate Change on the Historic Environment“Climate change is one of the most important and urgent problems facing us today.65” - English Heritage. In2007, the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change published its fourth assessment report on climatechange. The panel reported that the global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane andnitrous oxide have significantly increased as a result of human activities since 1750. The panel alsoreported that “the linear warming trend over the last 50 years is nearly twice that for the last 100 years”, and“widespread changes in extreme temperatures have been observed over the last 50 years.” Much of thehistoric environment has already experienced and survived this climatic change and therefore may showresilience to future climate changes. However, there are many historic sites and objects that are at risk fromfuture climate change. Without action limiting further decay, the historic environment may becomeirreparably damaged and cultural, social and economic benefits will be lost. This may significantly impairfuture generations in understanding and enjoying their cultural heritage. The “non-renewable character” ofhistoric sites needs to be considered and any amendments and adaptations should be well planned. Someof the direct impacts of climate change on the historic environment are: rising sea levels endangeringhistoric landscapes, structures, buildings and archaeology; an increase in the extremes in wetting anddrying accelerating stone decay; increase in intense rainfall accelerating erosion and damaging flooding;changes in vegetation patterns altering the visibility and integrity of historic landscapes; a warming climatewhich leads to difficulty in conserving historically significant trees; and changes in the distribution of peststhreatening the integrity of historic buildings and landscapes.

“Historic assets are a fragile and non-renewable resource, the significance of which can be reduced or lostas a result of poorly conceived changes. Decisions on how, when or whether to make adaptive changes tohistoric assets in order to enhance their resilience to climate change should be based on a goodunderstanding of the pressures they are likely to face. It is important therefore that decision makers

65 English Heritage, Climate Change and the Historic Environment, January 2008, p1


understand the uncertainties inherent in current climate change predictions and the timescales over whichchanges are likely to occur.66”

According to the Victorian Climate Change Adaptation Program 2008 Summary, the state of Victoria isexpected to warm at a slightly faster rate than the global average. It is estimated that by 2030, the annualaverage temperatures will increase by approximately 0.8°C and by 2070 the average annual temperaturecould increase by 1.4°C. This predicted warming weather will also likely increase the chance and intensityof bushfires. It is estimated that the number of “extreme” fire danger days will increase by 5 to 40% by202067.

The significant potential climate change impacts on historic sites that can cause damage in a singleincident are floods, rising sea levels, fire and severe storms. Other potential impacts are temperature rise,increased solar radiation, decreasing humidity and the movement of unstable clay sub soils, whichgenerally cause damage over a period of time.

Cemetery sites are directly affected by the impacts of climate change, and particularly in Victoria. Somerecommendations to reduce the vulnerabilities of cemeteries to climate change are:

Trees, gardens and landscapes: Identify vulnerable trees, gardens and landscapes of historicand cultural significance and implement watering regimes and conservation. Particularlyvulnerable will be some of the pines and cypress which cannot withstand severe drought.

Movable objects: Identify movable objects which are or could be vulnerable to extremetemperatures, humidity and solar radiation. Develop strategies for their protection and providing astable environment68.

Graves: Memorials or graves made of stone are particularly at risk of decay due to the climaticeffect of acid rain. Acid rain, where pollutants such as sulphur dioxide are absorbed into the airand deposited back to the land or on structures through rainfall, has a damaging effect on stoneparticularly marble and limestones. These traditional materials contains calcium carbonate, andwhen combined with sulphur dioxide a hard gypsum is created on the surface. This hard layerdeprives the naturally occurring ‘breathing’ process of water absorbing into the stone and dryingout again which is imperative in maintaining the materials structural stability. When this ‘breathing’process is blocked, moisture in the stone cannot dry out and crystals form behind the hard layer.The crystals consequently multiply and ‘shatter’ the face of the stone. This process is known as‘spalling’. This problem can initially seem insignificant and merely an aesthetic issue, however, ifleft untreated the spalling process increases and exposes the stone further to weathering andultimately weakens its structural stability69. Many outdoor marbles are already showing signs of

66 English Heritage, Climate Change and the Historic Environment, January 2008, p1367 The Victorian Climate Change Adaptation Program, Climate Change in Victoria 2008 Summary, p968 Climate Change and Non Indigenous Heritage, Draft Discussion Paper, 18 March 2009, p8-969 Redden, R, Greening Historic Buildings: A Study of Heritage Protection and Environmental Sustainability, published by InternationalSpecialised Skills Institute, Melbourne, December 2014


“sugaring” where they are affected by pollutant affected.

Buildings: Historic buildings are at risk from the impacts brought on by climate change such asfloods and flash flooding, rising sea levels, fire and severe storms. These climatic events cancause severe damage to historic buildings in one event. Other potential impacts are temperaturerise, increased solar radiation, decreasing humidity and the movement of unstable clay sub soils,which generally cause slow damage over a period of time. The maintenance of historic buildings isimportant as vulnerable buildings can be severely and irreparably damaged as a consequence of aclimatic event.Catastrophic flash flooding and severe hailstorms are becoming increasing problems in Australiaparticularly along the heavily populated east coast.

Coastal places: Identify coastal sites that are vulnerable to rising sea levels and severe storms.Develop strategies for their protection and create a method of recording if loss is anticipated.

Overall, it is highly recommended to regularly maintain historic sites. Well maintained sites will becomemore resilient to the impacts of climate change. Severe climatic events will cause more damage to sitesthat are already vulnerable due to a lack of maintenance. For any unoccupied buildings or structures onsite, it is beneficial to find a use for the building or structure as to not lead it into disrepair70.

70 Climate Change and Non Indigenous Heritage, Draft Discussion Paper, 18 March 2009, p8-9


5.0 CONSERVATION WORKS5.1 Maintenance and repair works to the site by priority

Following an inspection of the buildings and infrastructure the recommended external repairs arecategorised as: High Priority (within 1 year), Medium Priority (1 to 3 years) & low priority (3-5 years).URGENT matters should be addressed without delay.

Many of these areas such as the fence work involves underpinning or wall dismantling and the final costsare near impossible to determine.

Area Works Priority Cost

Early Cypress &Pine Trees

Trimming and balancing of trees, removal of deadwood

Providing temporary crutches as an immediate short termsolution to long branches to alleviate weight of limbs (minoramount of work) then carry out trimming as soon as possible –introduce cable bracing where found appropriate.

High- Urgent $50,000

Palms Removal of self-seeded trees (an assessment should be madeas to whether some of these could be left to continue wherethey are)

Medium $7500

Soils Scientific Assessment of why soils are sinking and drying Medium -High

$15,000

Soils Repair of soils: possible use of granules, mulching material High $50,000

Chapel, Offices(1937)

Repair of roof, (H) ceilings, new electrics, windows,(M)painting, flooring, plumbing (L)

High (roof)

Medium(other)

$20,000

$100,000

Fountain Repair to render and water pipes High $100,000

Paths (gravel) Levelling, edging (Mtce) Low $5,000

Headstones Prop 6-10 headstones with timber shoring to prevent suddencollapse/overturning

High $1200

Roadways Surface, drainage Low $5000

Fences Minor repairs Low $1200

Taps and otherminor furniture

Remove old pipes and taps Install new taps and posts ofstandard designs. Extend existing water lines.

Medium $50,000

5.2 Maintenance WorksThese works are essential maintenance and repairs to bring the site up to good condition and maintain it atthat level.

Some items are overdue maintenance, some are maintenance repair as a result of a damage event (e.g.leaking downpipes) and some are items of development required for the ongoing use of the site.


Inspections:

Location Item Interval

Paths Cracking up, invasive planting, heave, potholes Half yearly inspections

Drains Clogging of storm drain boxes Quarterly or after heavyrains

Drains Clogging of surface drains Monthly

Paths Brick surfaces As required

Exteriors ofbuildings

After restoration. Unclog drains, ensure doors are operating, noleaks in ceilings and roof.

Yearly inspectionparticularly of roofingarea

Paint touch up every 5yrs externally

Trees Inspect for damage, failing limbs, dying trees. Yearly duringsummertime.

Monuments Inspect for lean / imminent collapse requiring simple shoring(consider wrighting gravestones where simple to do so as partof maintenance.)

Half Yearly


Maintenance of Monuments: Not the responsibility of the GMCT

Metals:

Type Character Maintenance

Cast Iron Historically Long period of use: High carboncontent 3-5%

Used for decorative components, non-structural uses (e.g. cast posts, marker platesfinials)

Low tensile strength

Use steel wool, steel metal brushes

Remove surface corrosion

Treat with rust converter

Where material is to be overpainted, paintwith red lead (if available)

Where metal is to be retained unpainted:use fish oil

Wrought Iron Historically Long period of use: peak use in1850s.

Low carbon content < 1%

Used for gates railings, fences, chains, bolts

Tensile strength properties

As for cast work

Brass Made of a Copper and Zinc alloy

Decorative uses (plaques)

Clean with brass brush (care not to scratchsurface)

Use

Cleaning, patination & Hot waxing

Bronze Made of a Copper and Tin alloy

Decorative uses (doors, railings, posts)

Leave as is (should not rust and developsnatural patination). Clean only with non-acidic, non-caustic detergent.

Stone:

Type Character Maintenance

Marble Marble has a hard surface when cured in airbut will sugar (i.e. crystallize) when attackedby pollutants.

Can curl where excessively exposed tosunlight

Wash off pollutants with distilled waterfrom time to time (from mostly horizontalsurfaces such as on top of heads, flatmarble slabs)

Sandstone Easily worked but some sandstone friableand will crumble.

Known poor sources have been used forbuilding in Victoria (e.g. Barabool)

May need replacing if it is an un-decoratedelement that is failing or crumbling.

Retain where the element is decorated orhas historic text, consider replacement ifsome other simpler block form of stone ifthe stone is decayed beyond is structuralcapacity

Where stone required pinning, use


stainless steel metal dowels or cramps (donot use iron bindings or pins as thesecorrode)

Bluestone Dark dense stone, long lasting often used onearly gravestones.

Generally durable, may need cleaning withsimple detergents, steam clean lowpressure wash. Do not use blasting unlesstested (e.g. peanut shell blasting)

Granite Variety of colours (grey, red etc.) Generally durable and may just requiresimple washing with soft detergent

Limestone Off white colour, soft when freshly cut,hardens over time

Can decay in contact with sandstones.Determine correct vertical layering (e.g.limestone above sandstone with a simpleisolation layer)

Slate Dark appearance, layered material

Some slate is of local origin

Can delaminate from rain or exposure toharsh sunlight on one side of the stone(differential heating). Long termdelamination.

Mortars Mortars vary in hardness from soft (19th C) tomedium hardness in the earlier parts of the20th century to hard in the second half of the20th century

Hardness should be considered inconjunction with the material it is being usedwith.

Soft mortar:

1 lime 3 sand (used 19th C and 1st quarter20th C)

2 lime 1 cement 9 sand (used in early 20th C)

Medium Hardness

2 cement 1 lime 9 sand

Hard mortar

1 cement 3 sand

Most structures in the cemetery will befrom the 19th and early 20th century anduse of soft and medium hardness mortarsare appropriate.

Some structures will use white cementwhere the pointing is required to bedistinctive.

Hard mortars are likely to have beenemployed on structures post 1950s.

Maintenance of mortars should considerhardness, sand colour and method ofraking the joint (, flush, raked horizontal, vjointed, semicircular, etc.).

The method of jointing will define theaesthetic qualities of a masonry structure.New work should follow the best availableadjacent sample of original work.

Where a structure is tuck-pointed (i.e. usesfine lime markings set out like joints) aspecialist tuck pointer should be employed.


5.3 Risk Management of the SiteThese risk management tables are a predictive indicator for the ongoing management of the site andattempts to identify where likely detriment will arise.

N- Nil to Negligible impact, L- low impact, M – medium impact, H – high impact

Building / feature Risk Presentimpact

Futureimpact

Comments

Grave Monuments Fire M M Medium Potential for grass fires in thearea of the monuments.

Could be spread to trees particularlyduring longer and dryer summer periods.

Vandalism & theft M-H M-H Risk of vandalism and theft is related toits slightly isolated location and to metalprices. Few reported incidents ofracially/religious related vandalism, buttheft related to price of copper, bronzeand brass has seen removal of graverailings.

Structural Adequacy H H Undermining of monuments remains aproblem (due to rabbits, and particularlysubsidence and collapse of graves)

Environmental Factors

Weathering

Moisture/drainage

Vermin

InvasiveVegetation

M-H

H

H

M

M-H

M-H

M-H

M

Risk of vermin (rats) and uncontrolledinvasive plant damage

Weathering is a problem, vermin nestingunder graves is a problem (cats, rabbits,foxes etc.). Rabbits ARE a problem at thesite.

The site is also being drained ofcontaminated water and this has potentialto create desiccation and have an impacton ground water available to the trees.

Invasive vegetation is a problem

Visitor Use M M Damage by visitors to the moreinteresting monuments (see alsovandalism) is low to medium risk,however there is potential for injury tovisitors (subsidence, falling andoverturning masonry) which needs to bearrested by GMCT or at least GMCTneeds to undertake occasionalpreventative measures.

Lack of Use M M This is the prime cause of all cemeteries


declining and damage to monuments.

Maintenance &management risks

M-H M-H Monuments are not really managed apartfrom occasional care by descendantowners who are often unskilled when itcomes to care of heritage places and thescience of materials.

ASSESSMENT Monuments are subject to the greatest risk of all in part dueto the present Cemeteries Act which does not allow work tomonuments by the Trustees where they are owned by others.The Act therefore is the creator of some of the issues whicharise with all monuments at a cemetery.


Futureimpact

Comments

Trees Fire M-L M-L Low Potential for fire spread within thetree rows (Pines and Cypress are highlyflammable). This would either be as theresult of a grass fire or deliberately lit.The major row of Cypress is however ofrecent origin.

Vandalism & theft L L The trees are the least likely to bevandalised.

Structural Adequacy H H Undermining of trees remains a problemdue to High winds, limited root space,lack of tree management andsenescence.


Weathering

Moisture/drainage

Vermin

InvasiveVegetation

M-H

M-H

M-H

M-H

M-H

M-H

M-H

M-H

Risk of vermin (rats) in tree burrows androot area

Visitor Use N L Not applicable

Lack of Use L Not applicable


M-H M-H Currently no real strategy dealing withhealth of trees and this now a particularproblem which needs resolution given theextreme dry conditions in Victoria.

Strategy should include removal andreplacement of senescent trees, treemanagement and watering.


ASSESSMENT Trees need trimming, feeding and a watering plan to ensurethey continue to thrive. The Trustees would be advised toemploy a horticulturalist to care for all trees within itsCemeteries.

Watering strategies will also need to be devised.

This should be given some urgency.


Futureimpact

Comments

Entry OfficeChapel

Fire L-M L-M The brick exterior and rendered walls onthe interior mean that there is little fuel forfire. The electrics remain connected butshould have any external ceramic mainfuse removed.

Fire would be brought on by arson.

Vandalism & theft L L There is some prospect of vandalism asthe building is disused but this is loweredby the caretaker living on site.

Structural Adequacy L L The building has structural adequacyalthough this is compromised a little byroof problems.


Weathering

Moisture/drainage

Vermin

InvasiveVegetation

M

M

M

M

M

M-H

M-H

M-H

Subsidence is a problem with somecracking in walls

Visitor Use N L Not applicable

Lack of Use H L Not applicable


H L Currently there is no usage of thebuilding and no monitoring of interiorproblems such as roof leakage which isseriously damaging ceilings.

ASSESSMENT Repairs to roofing, gutters and downpipes and ceilings needto be undertaken within the next 6 months. The roof needsattention as soon as possible.


5.4 Future Management Issues for the siteThe site is currently professionally managed (as would be expected) after a long period in whichmanagement resources were placed elsewhere although there are issues which will increasingly face thetrustees in a manner not previously conceivable. Some of these are brought about by climate change:

Subsidence below structures, drying of the earth and the death of trees are becoming problematic not justat this site but across Victoria. This site however appears to be particularly problematic and may besubstantially drying out.

Along with this are other confounding weather issues such as the lower average rainfalls combined withsudden heavy and catastrophic downpours and increased lightning activity. Sudden downpours willincrease the risk of heave in soils.

Lack of rain will also lead to greater tree losses which may also be the cause of loss of monuments andbuilding structures. Violent storms will also contribute to the loss of important trees in the cemetery.

In order to prevent the GMCT should manage root survival, watering and water retention techniques, treebranch losses, shaping and tree balance and any replacement planting programme.

The trustees should attend to the stabilisation of a number of graves each year to prevent their collapseand simple preventative measures such as part filling with gravels and propping of headstones will assistwith loss prevention.

The Trustees should also investigate water retention in soils through water retaining ceramic pebbles alongwith re-grassing and adding topsoils and the growing of low height shade trees and ground covers. There isalso the issue of the number of graves standing clear of the ground and this may have to be addressed bybuilding up the soils (introducing top soils) particularly in the southern area of the site. Attention will have tobe paid to the new soil levels and drainage.

5.5 Priority List

Priority should be given to Office building repairs, fountain repairs, tree maintenance and roadway and pathmaintenance. Propping should occur to approx. 10-15 monuments as soon as possible.Temporary propping with timber crutches should be instigated as soon as possible to the unbalanced pine treesin the south east corner of the site until some weight can be removed higher up in the tree canopies.


6.0 BIBLIOGRAPHYArchival MaterialPublic Records Office of Victoria: Williamstown Cemetery: Department of Health File (incorporating material from

Office of Crown Lands and Survey). File CEM 532.

GMCT: loose material held at Fawkner Offices including original minute books, loose certificates, plans andphotographs.

Reserve File R1204767 Held by Crown Land section, Victorian Dept. of Primary Industries

Maps and Plans

State Library of Victoria:

Wedge, John Helder, [Map of Port Phillip from the survey of Mr. Wedge and others] [cartographicmaterial], Melbourne, 1835 (not confirmed).

CPO Parish Plan of Cut Paw Paw 1864, 1865, 1884, 1894, 1912. Victorian Office of lands andSurvey and Victorian Dept. of Crown Lands and Survey, State Library of Victoria.

Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works, Plan of the site with original layout, 1894

Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works, Plan no. 13 Williamstown, 1912

Parish Plan, Site of Point Gellibrand Cemetery, 1842, SLV

Purchas, Albert, ‘Map of the Settled Districts around Melbourne in the Colony of Victoria’, 1854, National Library ofAustralia.

Whereis, Maps of Australia, Street Directory, Driving Directions & Aerial Map, http://www.whereis.com

Harvey, J.H., State Library of Victoria, Point Gellibrand cemetery in the 19th Century, 1875 (image)

Newspapers, Gazettes, Reports and Articles

Heritage ALLIANCE in association with Historica, ‘Bendigo Cemetery Conservation Management Plan’, 2002.

The Argus:

The Argus, (Melbourne) various dates

Governement Gazette:

Government Gazette NSW, 1837, p303

Government Gazette, 1 September 1852

Government Gazette, 23 June 1882

The Williamstown Chronicle:

The Williamstown Chronicle, 28 November 1941. p. 1Bibliography for history section

Garrie Hutchinson, In Memoriam: A Guide to the History and Heritage of Victoria’s Cemeteries, Hardie Grant Books inconjunction with the State of Victoria, Department of Health, 2014

Secondary Sources

Aitken, Richard & Lewis, Nigel, Williamstown Cemetery Conservation Plan, Part One: Conservation Analysis, 1994

Arnold, Catharine, Necropolis: London and its Dead, Simon & Schuster, London, 2006.


Brown-May, Andrew, Melbourne Street Life: The Itinerary of Our Days, Australian Scholarly/Arcadia and MuseumVictoria, Kew, 1998.

Brown-May, Andrew, and Shurlee Swain (eds.), The Encyclopaedia of Melbourne, Cambridge University Press, PortMelbourne, 2005.

Cable, K.J, 'Broughton, William Grant (1788-1853)', Australian Dictionary of Biography, Online Edition, 2006.

Chambers, Don, The Melbourne General Cemetery: 150 Years, Hyland House Publishing, Flemington, 2003.

ICOMOS: Climate Change and Non Indigenous Heritage, Draft Discussion Paper, 2009

Curl, James Stevens, The Victorian Celebration of Death, Sutton Publishing, Phoenix Mill, 2000.

David Jones, ‘Grottoes, Rockeries and Ferneries: The Creations of Charles Robinette’, in Georgina Whitehead (Ed.),Planting the Nation, Australian Garden History Society, Melbourne, 2001, pp136-158.

English Heritage, Climate Change and the Historic Environment, January 2008

Hobsons Bay City Coucil, Williamstown Neighbourhood 3Profile, October 2009

Lay, Max, Melbourne Miles: The Story of Melbourne’s Roads, Australian Scholarly Publishing, Melbourne, 2003

Lemon, Andrew & Morgan, Marjorie, Buried by the Sea: a history of the Williamstown Cemetery, Published by RivkaFrank & Associates, Melbourne, 1990

Loudon, J.C., On the Laying Out, Planting, and Managing of Cemeteries and On the Improvement of Churchyards, newedition, Ivelet Books, Redhill, 1981. Originally published by Longman, London, 1843.

Phillips, Walter, ‘The Denominations’, in Miles Lewis (ed.), Victorian Churches: Their Origins, their story & theirarchitecture, National Trust of Australia (Vic), East Melbourne, 1991, pp8-19. .

May, Trevor, The Victorian Undertaker, Shire Album 330, Shire Publications, Princes Risborough, 2000.

Pearson, Lynn F., Mausoleums, Shire Publications, Princes Risborough, 2002.

Sagazio, Celestina (ed.), Cemeteries: Our Heritage, National Trust of Australia (Victoria), East Melbourne, 1992.

Spicer, ‘Old Melbourne’ in Sagazio (ed.), p 32.

Strahan, Lynne, At the Edge of the Centre: A History of Williamstown, 1994, p13

Redden, R, Greening Historic Buildings: A Study of Heritage Protection and Environmental Sustainability, published byInternational Specialised Skills Institute, Melbourne, December 2014

The Victorian Climate Change Adaptation Program, Climate Change in Victoria 2008 Summary, p9

Websites

Australian Dictionary of Biography, Online Edition, Copyright 2006-2015, updated continuously, published by AustralianNational University, http://www.adb.online.anu.edu.au/biogs/A010146b.htmFriends of Brighton Cemetery website, chapter 3.


APPENDIX A PLANS OF THE CEMETERY

Map 1: Boundaries within the cemetery.


Map 2: Areas of significance within the cemetery.


Map 3: Heritage Victoria Registration map of the Cemetery.


APPENDIX B CEMETERY LEGISLATION VICTORIA

Cemeteries and Crematoria Act 2003

Cemeteries Act 1958 - Act No. 6217

Cemeteries (Financial) Act 1957 - Act No. 6076

Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages Act 1952 - Act No. 5263 - section 4(2)






Coroners Act 1911 - Act No. 2343 - section 32


Northern Suburbs Cemetery Act 1904 - Act No. 1952

Cremation Act 1903 - Act No. 1876

Necropolis, Spring Vale, Act 1903 - Act No. 1843

Health Act 1890 - Act No. 1098 - section 278


The Public Health Act 1889 - 53 Victoria No. 1044 - section 14

The Cemeteries Statute Amendment Act 1880 - 44 Victoria No. 677

(1867) An act to amend the laws relating to or affecting public health - 31 Victoria No. 310

The Cemeteries Statute 1864 - 27 Victoria No. 201

(1854) An act for the establishment and management of cemeteries in the colony of Victoria -

17 Victoria No. 12

(1853) An Act for registering Births deaths and Marriages in the Colony of Victoria 16 Vic, No 26

(1850) An act for the establishment and regulation by trustees of a general cemetery near the

City of Melbourne - 14 Victoria No. 19


APPENDIX C THE BURRA CHARTERThe Australia ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance

Steps in planning for and managing a place of cultural significanceThe Burra Charter should be read as a whole.Key articles relevant to each step are shown in the boxes. Article 6 summarises the Burra Charter Process.

PreambleConsidering the International Charter for the Conservationand Restoration of Monuments and Sites (Venice 1964), andthe Resolutions of the 5th General Assembly of theInternational Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS)(Moscow 1978), the Burra Charter was adopted by AustraliaICOMOS (the Australian National Committee of ICOMOS)on 19 August 1979 at Burra, South Australia. Revisions wereadopted on 23 February 1981, 23 April 1988, 26 November1999 and 31 October 2013.

The Burra Charter provides guidance for theconservation and management of places of culturalsignificance (cultural heritage places), and is basedon the knowledge and experience of AustraliaICOMOS members. Conservation is an integral part of themanagement of places of cultural significance and is anongoing responsibility.

Who is the Charter for?The Charter sets a standard of practice for those whoprovide advice, make decisions about, or undertake works toplaces of cultural significance, including owners, managersand custodians. Using the CharterThe Charter should be read as a whole. Manyarticles are interdependent.

The Charter consists of:• Definitions Article 1• Conservation Principles Articles 2–13• Conservation Processes Articles 14–25• Conservation Practices Articles 26–34• The Burra Charter Process flow chart.The key concepts are included in the ConservationPrinciples section and these are further developed in theConservation Processes and Conservation Practicesections. The flow chart explains the Burra Charter Process(Article 6) and is an integral part of the Charter. ExplanatoryNotes also form part of the Charter

.The Charter is self-contained, but aspects of its useand application are further explained, in a series of AustraliaICOMOS Practice Notes, in The Illustrated Burra Charter,and in other guiding documents available from the AustraliaICOMOS web site: australia.icomos.org.

What places does the Charter apply to?The Charter can be applied to all types of places of culturalsignificance including natural, Indigenous and historic placeswith cultural values.The standards of other organisations may also be relevant.These include the Australian Natural Heritage Charter, AskFirst: a guide to respecting Indigenous heritage places andvalues and Significance 2.0: a guide to assessing thesignificance of collections. National and internationalcharters and other doctrine may be relevant. Seeaustralia.icomos.org.

Why conserve?Places of cultural significance enrich people’s lives, oftenproviding a deep and inspirational sense of connection tocommunity and landscape, to the past and to livedexperiences. They are historical records, that are importantexpressions of Australian identity and experience. Places ofcultural significance reflect the diversity of our communities,telling us about who we are and the past that has formed usand the Australian landscape. They are irreplaceable andprecious.These places of cultural significance must be conserved forpresent and future generations in accordance with theprinciple of inter-generational equity.The Burra Charter advocates a cautious approachto change: do as much as necessary to care for theplace and to make it useable, but otherwise changeit as little as possible so that its cultural significanceis retained.

ArticlesArticle 1. DefinitionsFor the purposes of this Charter:1.1 Place means a geographically defined area. It may include elements, objects, spaces and views. Place may havetangible and intangible dimensions.1.2 Cultural significance means aesthetic, historic, scientific, social or spiritual value for past, present or future generations.Cultural significance is embodied in the place itself, its fabric, setting, use, associations, meanings, records, related places

and related objects.


Places may have a range of values for different individuals or groups.1.3 Fabric means all the physical material of the place including elements, fixtures, contents and objects.1.4 Conservation means all the processes of looking after a place so as to retain its cultural significance1.5 Maintenance means the continuous protective care of a place, and its setting. Maintenance is to be distinguished fromrepair which involves restoration or reconstruction.1.6 Preservation means maintaining a place in its existing state and retarding deterioration.1.7 Restoration means returning a place to a known earlier state by removing accretions or by reassembling existingelements without the introduction of new material.1.8 Reconstruction means returning a place to a known earlier state and is distinguished from restoration by the introductionof new material.1.9 Adaptation means changing a place to suit the existing use or a proposed use.1.10 Use means the functions of a place, including the activities and traditional and customary practices that may occur atthe place or are dependent on the place.1.11 Compatible use means a use which respects the cultural significance of a place. Such a use involves no, or minimal,impact on cultural significance.1.12 Setting means the immediate and extended environment of a place that is part of or contributes to its culturalsignificance and distinctive character.1.13 Related place means a place that contributes to the cultural significance of another place.1.14 Related object means an object that contributes to the cultural significance of a place but is not at the place.1.15 Associations mean the connections that exist between people and a place.1.16 Meanings denote what a place signifies, indicates, evokes or expresses to people.1.17 Interpretation means all the ways of presenting the cultural significance of a place.1.11 Compatible use means a use which respects the cultural significance of a place. Such a use involves no, or minimal,impact on cultural significance.1.12 Setting means the immediate and extended environment of a place that is part of or contributes to its culturalsignificance and distinctive character.1.13 Related place means a place that contributes to the cultural significance of another place.1.14 Related object means an object that contributes to the cultural significance of a place but is not at the place.1.15 Associations mean the connections that exist between people and a place.1.16 Meanings denote what a place signifies, indicates, evokes or expresses to people.1.17 Interpretation means all the ways of presenting the cultural significance of a place.

Conservation PrinciplesArticle 2. Conservation and management2.1 Places of cultural significance should be conserved.2.2 The aim of conservation is to retain the cultural significance of a place.

2.3 Conservation is an integral part of good management of places of cultural significance.2.4 Places of cultural significance should be safeguarded and not put at risk or left in a vulnerable state.

Article 3. Cautious approach3.1 Conservation is based on a respect for the existing fabric, use, associations and meanings. It requires a cautious

approach of changing as much as necessary but as little as possible.3.2 Changes to a place should not distort the physical or other evidence it provides, nor be based on conjecture.

Article 4. Knowledge, skills and techniques


4.1 Conservation should make use of all the knowledge, skills and disciplines which can contribute to the study and care ofthe place.4.2 Traditional techniques and materials are preferred for the conservation of significant fabric. In some circumstancesmodern techniques and materials which offer substantial conservation benefits may be appropriate.

Article 5. Values5.1 Conservation of a place should identify and take into consideration all aspects of cultural and natural significance withoutunwarranted emphasis on any one value at the expense of others.5.2 Relative degrees of cultural significance may lead to different conservation actions at a place.

Article 6. Burra Charter Process

6.1 The cultural significance of a place and other issues affecting its future are best understood by a sequence of collectingand analysing information before making decisions. Understanding cultural significance comes first, then development ofpolicy and finally management of the place in accordance with the policy. This is the Burra Charter Process.6.2 Policy for managing a place must be based on an understanding of its cultural significance.6.3 Policy development should also include consideration of other factors affecting the future of a place such as the owner’sneeds, resources, external constraints and its physical condition.6.4 In developing an effective policy, different ways to retain cultural significance and address other factors may need to beExplored6.5 Changes in circumstances, or new information or perspectives, may require reiteration of part or all of the Burra Charter

Process.Article 7. Use7.1 Where the use of a place is of cultural significance it should be retained.7.2 A place should have a compatible use.

Article 8. SettingConservation requires the retention of an appropriate setting. This includes retention of the visual and sensory setting, aswell as the retention of spiritual and other cultural relationships that contribute to the cultural significance of the place.New construction, demolition, intrusions or other changes which would adversely affect the setting or relationships are notappropriate.

Article 9. Location9.1 The physical location of a place is part of its cultural significance.A building, work or other element of a place shouldremain in its historical location. Relocation is generally unacceptable unless this is the sole practical means of ensuring itssurvival.9.2 Some buildings, works or other elements of places were designed to be readily removable or already have a history ofrelocation. Provided such buildings, works or other elements do not have significant links with their present location, removalmay be appropriate.9.3 If any building, work or other element is moved, it should be moved to an appropriate location and given an appropriateuse. Such action should not be to the detriment of any place of cultural significance.

Article 10. ContentsContents, fixtures and objects which contribute to the cultural significance of a place should be retained at that place. Theirremoval is unacceptable unless it is: the sole means of ensuring their security and preservation; on a temporary basis for


treatment or exhibition; for cultural reasons; for health and safety; or to protect the place. Such contents, fixtures and objectsshould be returned where circumstances permit and it is culturally appropriate.

Article 11. Related places and objectsThe contribution which related places and related objects make to the cultural significance of the place should be retained.

Article 12. ParticipationConservation, interpretation and management of a place should provide for the participation of people for whom the placehas significant associations and meanings, or who have social, spiritual or other cultural responsibilities for the place.

Article 13. Co-existence of cultural valuesCo-existence of cultural values should always be recognised, respected and encouraged. This is especially important incases where they conflict.

Article 14. Conservation processesConservation may, according to circumstance, include the processes of: retention or reintroduction of a use; retention ofassociations and meanings; maintenance, preservation, restoration, reconstruction, adaptation and interpretation; and willcommonly include a combination of more than one of these. Conservation may also include retention of the contribution thatrelated places and related objects make to the cultural significance of a place.

Article 15. Change15.1 Change may be necessary to retain cultural significance, but is undesirable where it reduces cultural significance. Theamountof change to a place and its use should be guided by the cultural significance of the place and its appropriateinterpretation.15.2 Changes which reduce cultural significance should be reversibleand be reversed when circumstances permit.15.3 Demolition of significant fabric of a place is generally not acceptable. However, in some cases minor demolition may beappropriate as part of conservation. Removed significant fabric should be reinstated when circumstances permit.15.4 The contributions of all aspects of cultural significance of a place should be respected. If a place includes fabric, uses,associations or meanings of different periods, or different aspects of cultural significance, emphasising or interpreting oneperiod or aspect at the expense of another can only be justified when what is left out, removed or diminished is of slightcultural significance anthat which is emphasised or interpreted is of much greater cultural significance.

Article 16. MaintenanceMaintenance is fundamental to conservation. Maintenance should be undertaken where fabric is of cultural significance andits maintenance is necessary to retain that cultural significance.

Article 17. PreservationPreservation is appropriate where the existing fabric or its condition constitutes evidence of cultural significance, or whereinsufficient evidence is available to allow other conservation processes to be carried out.

Article 18. Restoration and reconstructionRestoration and reconstruction should reveal culturally significant aspects of the place.

Article 19. RestorationRestoration is appropriate only if there is sufficient evidence of an earlier state of the fabric.

Article 20. Reconstruction


20.1 Reconstruction is appropriate only where a place is incomplete through damage or alteration, and only where there issufficient evidence to reproduce an earlier state of the fabric. In some cases, reconstruction may also be appropriate as partof a use or practice that retains the cultural significance of the place.20.2 Reconstruction should be identifiable on close inspection or through additional interpretation.

Article 21. Adaptation21.1 Adaptation is acceptable only where the adaptation has minimalimpact on the cultural significance of the place.21.2 Adaptation should involve minimal change to significant fabric, achieved only after considering alternatives.

Article 22. New work22.1 New work such as additions or other changes to the place may be acceptable where it respects and does not distort orobscure the cultural significance of the place, or detract from its interpretation and appreciation.22.2 New work should be readily identifiable as such, but must respect and have minimal impact on the cultural significanceof the place.

Article 23. Retaining or reintroducing useRetaining, modifying or reintroducing a significant use may be appropriate and preferred forms of conservation.

Article 24. Retaining associations and meanings24.1 Significant associations between people and a place should be respected, retained and not obscured. Opportunities forthe interpretation, commemoration and celebration of these associations should be investigated and implemented.24.2 Significant meanings, including spiritual values, of a place should be respected. Opportunities for the continuation orrevival of these meanings should be investigated and implemented.

Article 25. InterpretationThe cultural significance of many places is not readily apparent, and should be explained by interpretation. Interpretationshould enhance understanding and engagement, and be culturally appropriate.

Conservation PracticeArticle 26. Applying the Burra Charter Process26.1 Work on a place should be preceded by studies to understand the place which should include analysis of physical,documentary, oral and other evidence, drawing on appropriate knowledge, skills and disciplines.26.2 Written statements of cultural significance and policy for the placeshould be prepared, justified and accompanied by supporting evidence. The statements of significance and policy should beincorporated into a management plan for the place.26.3 Groups and individuals with associations with the place as well as those involved in its management should be providedwith opportunities to contribute to and participate in identifying and understanding the cultural significance of the place.Where appropriate they should also have opportunities to participate in its conservation and management.26.4 Statements of cultural significance and policy for the place should be periodically reviewed, and actions and theirconsequences monitored to ensure continuing appropriateness and effectiveness.

Article 27. Managing change27.1 The impact of proposed changes, including incremental changes, on the cultural significance of a place should beassessed with reference to the statement of significance and the policy for managing the place. It may be necessary tomodify proposed changes to better retain cultural significance.


27.2 Existing fabric, use, associations and meanings should be adequately recorded before and after any changes are madeto the place.

Article 28. Disturbance of fabric28.1 Disturbance of significant fabric for study, or to obtain evidence, should be minimised. Study of a place by anydisturbance of the fabric, including archaeological excavation, should only be undertaken to provide data essential fordecisions on the conservation of the place, or to obtain important evidence about to be lost or made inaccessible.28.2 Investigation of a place which requires disturbance of the fabric, apart from that necessary to make decisions, may be

appropriate provided that it is consistent with the policy for the place. Such investigation should be based on importantresearch questions which have potential to substantially add to knowledge, which cannot be answered in other ways andwhich minimises disturbance of significant fabric.

Article 29. ResponsibilityThe organisations and individuals responsible for management and decisions should be named and specific responsibilitytaken for each decision.

Article 30. Direction, supervision and implementationCompetent direction and supervision should be maintained at all stages, and any changes should be implemented by peoplewith appropriate knowledge and skills.

Article 31. Keeping a logNew evidence may come to light while implementing policy or a plan for a place. Other factors may arise and require newdecisions. A log of new evidence and additional decisions should be kept.

Article 32. Records32.1 The records associated with the conservation of a place should be placed in a permanent archive and made publiclyavailable, subject to requirements of security and privacy, and where this is culturally appropriate.32.2 Records about the history of a place should be protected and made publicly available, subject to requirements ofsecurity and privacy, and where this is culturally appropriate.

Article 33. Removed fabricSignificant fabric which has been removed from a place including contents, fixtures and objects, should be catalogued, andprotected in accordance with its cultural significance. Where possible and culturally appropriate, removed significantfabric including contents, fixtures and objects, should be kept at the place.

Article 34. ResourcesAdequate resources should be provided for conservation.

Words in italics are defined in Article 1.


The Burra Charter ProcessSteps in planning for and managing a place of cultural significance

The Burra Charter should be read as a whole.Key articles relevant to each step are shown in the boxes. Article 6 summarises the Burra Charter

Process.


APPENDIX D LIST OF PLANTS SUITABLE FOR USE IN 19th AND EARLY 20thCENTURY CEMETERIESBOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAMELARGE TREES

Abies nordmanniana Caucasian Fir

Abies pinsapo Spanish Fir

Acmena smithii, Syzygium smithii Lilly Pilly

Agonis flexuosa Weeping Myrtle

Araucaria bidwillii Bunya Bunya Pine

Araucaria cunninghamii Hoop Pine

Araucaria heterophylla Norfolk Island Pine

Brachychiton populneus Kurrajong

Calocedrus decurrens Incense Cedar

Cedrus atlantica Atlas Cedar

Cedrus atlantica f. glauca Blue Atlas Cedar

Cedrus deodara Deodar

Chamaecyparis funebris Funeral Cypress

Chamaecyparis lawsoniana Lawson Cypress

Cinnamomum cainphora Camphor Laurel

Cupressus glabra Smooth Arizona Cypress

Cupressus lusitanica Mexican Cypress

Cupressus sempervirens Italian Cypress

Cupressus torulosa Bhutan Cypress

Cupressus macrocarpa Monterey Cypress

Cupressus macrocarpa 'Horizontalis Aurea' Golden Monterey Cypress

Eucalyptus spp. (indigenous species)

Eucalyptus ficifolia Red Flowering Gum

Ficus macrophylla Moreton Bay Fig

Ficus platypoda Rock fig

Ficus rubiginiosa Port Jackson Fig

Juniperus chinensis Chinese Juniper

Juniperus virginiana Pencil Juniper

Lagunaria patersonia Norfolk Island Hibiscus

Magnolia grandiflora Southern Magnolia


Picea abies Norway Spruce

Picea sitchensis Sitka Spruce

Picea smithiana West Himalayan Spruce

Pinus canarienisis Canary Island Pine

Pinus halepensis Aleppo Pine

Pinus nigra var. Corsicana Corsican Pine

Pinus pinea Stone Pine

Pinus ponderosa Western Yellow Pine

Pinus radiata Monterey Pine

Pinus roxburghii Long-leaved Indian Pine

Quercus canariensis Algerian Oak

Quercus cerris Turkey Oak

Quercus ilex Holly Oak

Quercus robur English Oak

Quercus suber Cork Oak

Salix babylonica Weeping Willow

Schinus molle var. areira Pepper Tree

Sequoia sempervirens Coast Redwood

Sequoiadendron giganteum Sierra Redwood

Syzygium paniculatum Brush Cherry

Thuja plicata Western Red Cedar

Lophostemon confertus Brush Box

Ulmus parvifolia Chinese Elm

Ulmus procera English Elm

Ulmus x hollandica Dutch Elm

Ulmus glabra Wych Elm

Waterhousea floribunda Weeping Lilly Pilly

SMALL TO MEDIUM TREES

Arbutus unedo Irish Strawberry

Arbutus x andrachnoides Hybrid Strawberry

Ilex aquifolium English Holly

Laurus nobilis Bay Tree

Morus alba White Mulberry

Photinia serrulata Chinese Hawthorn

Platycladus orientalis Chinese Arbor-Vitae


Prunus laurocerasus Cherry Laurel

Prunus lusitanica Portuguese Laurel

Taxus baccata Yew

Taxus baccata 'Fastigiata' Irish Yew

PALMS

Chamaerops humilis Dwarf Fan Palm

Livistona australis Cabbage Palm

Phoenix canariensis Canary Island Date Palm

Trachycarpus fortunei Chinese Windmill Palm

Washingtonia filifera Desert Fan Palm

Washingtonia robusta Washington Palm

SHRUBS

Buxus sempervirens English Box

Camellia japonica (old cultivars) Camellia

Ceratonia siliqua Carob

Choisya ternata Mexican Orange

Cordyline australis New Zealand Cabbage Tree

Duranta erecta Sky Flower

Elaeagnus pungens Thorny Elaeagnus

Euonymus europaea European Spindle Tree

Euonymus japonica (and cultivars) Japanese Spindle Tree

Juniperus communis Common Juniper

Lonicera fragrantissima Winter Honeysuckle

Malvaviscus arboreus Scarlet Wax-mallow

Michelia figo Port Wine Magnolia

Myrtus communis Common Myrtle

Nerium oleander (and cultivars) Oleander

Philadelphus coronarius Mock Orange

Photinia glabra Japanese Photini

Pittosporum crassifolium Karo

Pittosporum eugenioides Lemonwood

Pittosporum tenuifolium Kohuhu

Rhaphiolepis indica Indian Hawthorn

Rhaphiolepis umbellata Yedda Hawthorn

Spiraea species Mayflower


Viburnum tinus Cape Honeysuckle

Tecomaria capensis Laurustinus

Viburnum x burkwoodii

LOW SHRUBS AND HERBACEOUS PLANTS

Agapanthus praecox subsp. orientalis Blue Agapanthus

Agapanthus praecox subsp. orientalis ‘Albidus’ White Agapanthus

Centranthus ruber Red Valerian

Coleonema album White Diosma

Coleonema pulchrum Pink Diosma

Crassula species

Dietes bicolor Butterfly Flag

Dietes iridioides African Iris

Echeveria species

Hebe species

Indigofera incarnata Chinese Indigo

Lavandula augustifolia subsp. augustifolia English Lavender

Lavandula dentata French Lavender

Ligustrum ovalifolium Californian Privet

Ligustrum japonicum Wax-leaf Privet

Pelargonium x domesticum cultivars Pelargonium

Pelargonium x hortorum cultivars Geranium

Rosa species and cultivars Rose

Rosmarinus officinalis Rosemary

Yucca filamentosa Thread-bearing Mound-lily

GROUND COVERS, BULBS AND GRASSES

Amaryllis belladonna Belladonna Lily

Canna x generalis and cultivars Canna

Freesia species

Hedera helix and cultivars Ivy (may be invasive)

Hyacinthoides hispanicus Bluebell

Iris species and cultivars Flag Iris

Iris unguicularis Winter Iris

Ixia species

Leucojum vernum Snowflake

Narcissus species and cultivars Jonquil, Daffodil


Oxalis hirta

Oxalis purpurea

Polygonatum multiflorum Solomon's Seal

Scilla peruviana Cuban Lily

Sparaxis species

Themeda australis (and other native grasses:Danthonia, Poa, Stipa, etc)

Kangaroo Grass

Tritonia lineata

Vinca major Periwinkle (may be invasive)

Vinca minor

Viola odorata Violet

Viola hederacea Austral Violet

Zantedeschia aethiopica Arum Lily

Note: Species indigenous to the area: trees,shrubs, grasses and ground covers should beconserved where possible. They often contributeto the landscape character of the cemetery andits setting. They should, however, be removed ifthey are causing damage to structures orinterfering with planted species.

Highlight Colouring Indicates planting is found onthis site.


APPENDIX E ARBORICULTURALIST REPORTThis report is reproduced as a separate appendix and contains information for the most important treespecies on the site.

A number of Phoenix Canieriensis (Canary Island Palms) appear as if they are not original planting andthey may be replacements for earlier plantings of Washingtonia Palms. It is suspected that the Palms wereplanted as an alternating sequence i.e. Canieriensis – Washingtonia – Canieriesis etc. but this is not theway they appear now and some trees show signs of regrafting onto existing bases.

Some trees are not identified in the Heritage Victoria registration but could be considered important such asthe Norfolk Hibiscus near the entry office which is a particularly tall example. Some others (particularly thetwo Maclura) which are included in the Heritage Registration are very poor specimens and may not beparticularly old.

Consideration should be given to removing some of the weight from the two large unbalanced pines in thevery south east corner of the site. Much deadwood could be taken out without aesthetically altering theappearance of the trees.

Both trees have great historical and amenity values and must be retained but they both have substantial im-balances. Any branches removed should also be considered against the aesthetic values of the trees, notjust their dead weight.

The E’ Globulus (blue gum) north of the entry gates also could be relieved of some branches and deadwood. It is not a tree of great aesthetic importance.

Note:

Since the Heritage Act registration in 1999, a number of trees have been removed under permits issuedby Heritage Victoria

The trees removed had either died or were in poor health.

They include;

5 x Phoenix Caneriensis (June 2015). These were growing out of graves in the south east portion of thesite.

2 x Pinus Halepensis + 2 x Hesperocyparis Macrocarpa (February 2015)

4 x Pinus Halepensis (December 2013)

conservation management plan. - gmct · this conservation management plan has been undertaken in...

Documents