the former sugar wharf - city of cairns · the former sugar wharf contents ii 4.3 historical...

THE FORMER SUGAR WHARF PORT DOUGLAS

THE FORMER SUGAR WHARF A Conservation Management Plan for the Cairns Regional Council

© COPYRIGHT Allom Lovell Pty Ltd, 22 July 2008 G:\Projects\07005 PortDouglasWharf\Reports\r01a.doc

THE FORMER SUGAR WHARF

CONTENTS

i

1 INTRODUCTION 5

1.1 BACKGROUND 5

1.2 THIS STUDY 5

1.3 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 7

2 HISTORY 8

EXPLORATION BY SEA 8 EARLY SETTLEMENT 8 A SUITABLE PORT 9 A NEW TOWN 10 SUGAR CANE: A SECOND CHANCE 13 THE PORT DOUGLAS RAIL LINK 14 PORT DOUGLAS AND THE SUGAR WHARF 17 BEN CROPP AND THE SHIPWRECK MUSEUM 25

3 THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE 29

3.1 THE SUGAR WHARF 29

THE STORE BUILDING 29 THE PLATFORM AND SUB-STRUCTURE 32

3.2 THE WHARF 33

3.3 THE WATERFRONT 34

4 UNDERSTANDING THE SIGNIFICANCE 40

4.1 CRITERIA OF ASSESSMENT 40

4.2 THE FORMER SUGAR WHARF 41


CONTENTS

ii

4.3 HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE 41

4.4 THE SURVIVING FABRIC 42

4.5 THE SETTING 42

4.6 AESTHETIC SIGNIFICANCE 43

4.7 A RARE EXAMPLE 43

4.8 SUMMARY STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE 44

4.9 TABLE OF SIGNFICANT ELEMENTS 44

5 A VISION 47

5.1 CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE 47

5.2 OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS 47

5.3 EXPECTATIONS 48

5.4 LEARNING FROM OTHER PLACES 48

5.5 THE VISION 49

6 CONSERVATION POLICIES 54

6.1 APPROACH 54

ACTION INFORMED BY SIGNIFICANCE 55

6.2 MANAGEMENT 55


CONTENTS

iii

SINGLE ENTITY IN CONTROL 55 CONTINUITY OF ADVICE 55 APPROPRIATE SKILLS 56 BURRA CHARTER 56 ENDORSEMENT OF POLICIES 56 RELATIONSHIP OF CONSERVATION PLAN TO WHAT COMES AFTER 57 POLICY REVIEW 57

6.3 A CONSERVATION APPROACH 57

USE 58 MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR 59 PATINATION 59 PRESERVATION 59 RECONSTRUCTION 60

6.4 SITE AND SETTING 60

CURTILAGE 61 A SINGLE BUILT OBJECT 62 DICKSON INLET 62 THE TOWN OF PORT DOUGLAS 63 THE SENSE OF A WORKING PORT 63 VEGETATION 64

6.5 THE SUGAR WHARF BUILDING 65

PRESERVATION 65 REMOVAL OF INTRUSIVE ELEMENTS 66 ADAPTATION OF THE BUILDING 66

6.6 SUB-STRUCTURE 67

6.7 PLATFORM 68

6.8 WHARF 68

6.9 INTERPRETATION 69

7 ASSET MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES 70

7.1 APPOINTMENT OF A MANAGER 70


CONTENTS

iv

7.2 ESTABLISHMENT OF A SUGAR WHARF MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

7.3 HERITAGE APPROVAL 71

7.4 USE OF THE BUILDING 71

7.5 SECURITY OF THE BUILDING 71

7.6 MAINTENANCE PLAN 71

7.7 URGENT MAINTENANCE WORKS 71

7.8 DETAILED MASTER PLAN 72

7.9 PREPARATION OF SCHEMATIC DESIGNS 72

7.10 DOCUMENTATION OF WORK 72

7.11 CONSTRUCTION WORKS 72

8 APPENDIX 73

8.1 PORT DOUGLAS TIMELINE 73

8.2 STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT 82

8.3 NOTES 84

THE FORMER SUGAR WHARF 1

INTRODUCTION

5

1 INTRODUCTION

The wharf at Port Douglas was built in 1905 by the Douglas Shire Council to load sugar for export to southern markets. It remained in

operation until the 1950s and has, since that time, had a variety of uses. It remains a central part of history and the identity of Port Douglas.

1 . 1 B A C K G R O U N D

The former Sugar Wharf has been part of the history of Port Douglas for more than one hundred years. During that time it has seen the town change from a thriving port to a sleepy fishing village and now to a major tourist destination. It was listed by the National Trust of Queensland in 1983 and entered in the Queensland Heritage Register in 1992 as a place of cultural heritage significance. In more recent years the wharf has lain empty and underutilised. While substantial sums have been spent to ensure the integrity of the wharf structure maintenance work has been carried out without a clear understanding of the intrinsic value of the place and importantly how the building might be used in a manner which recognised those special qualities. The Sugar Wharf is located on the edge

Dickson Inlet and at the end of Warner Stre[Allom Lov

In 2007 Council embarked upon a program to plan for the redevelopment of the Port Douglas Waterfront. As part of that program there has been acknowledgement of the particular value of the former Sugar Wharf in heritage terms and of the potential to integrate the future conservation and management of this asset as part of the Waterfront Master Plan.

1 . 2 T H I S S T U D Y

In early 2008 the former Douglas Shire Council issued Terms of Reference for the preparation of a Conservation Management Plan for the former Sugar Wharf. The objectives of the plan were to:

Understand the heritage item through the investigation of its historical and geographical context, its history, fabric, research potential, and importance to the community;

Prepare a statement of significance, the plan will analyse documentary and physical evidence to determine the nature, extent and degree of significance of the heritage item;

Develop a conservation policy, arising out of the statement of heritage significance, to guide current and future owners of the item on the development potential of the item and its ongoing maintenance. Constraints and opportunities are to be examined.

Consider options for re-use or development, and how they can best be achieved in accordance with the conservation policy.

1 of et.

ell]


INTRODUCTION

6

Where proposals may have an adverse impact on the heritage significance of the item, the need for such work must be justified;

Recommend how the heritage item can best be managed bearing in mind those responsible and interested in its ongoing conservation. It is to include proposals to review the Douglas Shire Council Conservation Management Plan – Sugar Wharf, Port Douglas and the item’s maintenance.

2The study area established in the brief.

[Douglas Shire Council]

This study reports on the work carried out in April and May 2008. The study was carried out by Richard Allom and Desley Campbell-Stewart who visited the site over four days in early May. Structural engineer Ashley Moller of Moller Consulting also attended during that period and assisted in the assessment of the structural condition of the place. Historian, Helen Lucas spent time in Port Douglas and Mossman in researching and preparing a history of the place. Discussions were held with Council officers Jim Allen, Kelly Favas and Peter Boyd and in Port Douglas with Pam Willis-Burden representing the Douglas Shire Historical Society, with historian Noel Weare, with Jennifer Hill and Tony Purves of the Port Douglas Waterfront Protection Association Inc and Ed Green, the Chair of the Waterfront Management Committee and the President of the Low Isles Preservation Society. The study has been carried out generally in accordance with The Australia ICOMOS Charter for the conservation of places of cultural significance (The Burra Charter) and with the guidelines to that document.


INTRODUCTION

7

It begins by establishing the historical context in which the wharf was constructed, identifies from documentary sources the subsequent changes to the place, reports on an examination of the physical fabric of the wharf in which evidence of those changes is apparent and upon the general condition of the place. It examines the accepted criteria for assessing cultural significance and develops more precisely an understanding of the significance of the wharf and its context on the Port Douglas Waterfront. Based on that significance and on other relevant information the authors examine options for conservation, use and management, present a ‘vision’ for how the former Sugar Wharf might be conserved, used and managed and propose a number of conservation policies to achieve that objective. The policies are presented in a manner in which issues are identified and policies related to each clearly stated. Where appropriate further exploration or consequential action for each is attached. Finally the study gives some guidance as to the next steps to be taken in the management of this asset.

1 . 3 S U M M A R Y O F F I N D I N G S

The former Sugar Wharf at Port Douglas is a place of cultural significance as defined in the Queensland Heritage Act. The study finds that the place is significant for a number of reasons and satisfies more than the single criterion for heritage significance that the listing citation ascribes to it. Indeed the study finds that the listing boundary should be extended to include those parts of the foreshore which give the former Sugar Wharf context. The study recommends that any planning for the Port Douglas Waterfront Master Plan take into account those aspects of cultural significance at the wharf and foreshore identified here. While other historical elements in the wider site also have cultural significance it is clear that the former Sugar Wharf is first amongst these. Its survival since 1905 and its dominant position on the waterfront represents both the history and subsequent development of the town and indeed the region. Policies to conserve, adapt and re-use the building derive from the cultural significance of the place and include those that require the preservation of early fabric, the retention of evidence of use or patination, and the repair or reconstruction of some missing elements such as sliding timber doors and the exposure of the stone pitched causeway. Use of the building should be one in which the community has ready access to the place and one in which adaptation to the building fabric is limited. The study concludes with a section setting out a draft scheme to follow this study in the management of this asset.


HISTORY

8

2 HISTORY

The former Port Douglas Sugar Wharf was constructed, not for the shipping of sugar but as a community asset to ensure the regular

movement of general cargo into and out of Port Douglas. It represents a long history of the town as a port for the hinterland and of far North Queensland, its exploration, its initial development as a result of gold deposits in the hinterland, and its later development especially in the role of sugar production. Secondary themes including the development and changing role of local government, of changes in maritime and shipping practice, of economic boom and bust and more recently of tourism are also represented in this modest building. In all of these the historical role of Port Douglas as a port or gateway is a central theme and the importance of the wharf and the waterfront as the visual, historical and centre around which the town continues to evolve is paramount. EXPLORATION BY SEA Aboriginal paintings portraying ships sailing along the coastline of far North Queensland supports the supposition that Chinese and Japanese craft and Malacca dhows were visiting the north east of Australia for centuries before the first European exploration to the east coast of the continent in 1770 by Lieutenant James Cook who, during his 1770 voyage of exploration to search for the “Great South Land” reported sailing to the east of Low Isle.1 In 1802 Matthew Flinders was commissioned by the British Government to make “a complete examination and survey” of Australia’s coastline. Flinders reached the far north coast in 1802 where he had difficulty navigating through the Great Barrier Reef. He later warned “… that only those with strong nerves should approach this part of New South Wales”.2 Captain Phillip Parker King RN carried out the next survey in the cutter Mermaid. He officially named Cook’s Low Isles and Cooktown. In a further survey, carried out by Captain Owen Stanley in HMS Rattlesnake in 1848, the area from Dunk Island to Torres Strait was surveyed. 3 It was to be several decades more before however before settlement of the area took place. EARLY SETTLEMENT At the time of separation in 1859 Queensland was rich in land but Treasury was without funds. The introduction of the Land Act of 1860 saw the spread of settlement north as pastoralists took up their leases and stocked their runs. By 1864 the most northern colonial settlements in Australia were Cardwell, established to provide a port for pastoralists west of the Great Dividing Range and Somerset, established on the tip of Cape York in 1863.4


HISTORY

9

The coffers of Treasury were augmented with the discovery of gold at Gympie in October 1867, then at Cape River in North Queensland in 1867, at Ravenswood in 1868, at the Etheridge [Georgetown] in 1870 and Charters Towers in 1871. William Hann, influenced by squatting partner Richard Daintree who, as government geologist, was responsible for the gold discoveries on the Cape River and the Etheridge, set out to explore north of Maryvale Station on the Burdekin River. Hann and his party travelled two hundred miles north of Georgetown where they came upon a tributary of the Mitchell River they called the Palmer.5 On 5 August 1872 Frederick Warner, surveyor with the Hann Party, found specks of gold along the banks of that River. Hann and his men moved on to the coast at the mouth of the Endeavour River before turning back. 6 In June 1873, following the release of Hann’s report, James Venture Mulligan, with five others left Georgetown in search of gold on the Palmer River. He returned with four kilograms of gold. 30,000 miners, of which more than half were Chinese, quickly travelled to the Palmer to work the field. The other north Queensland gold fields became deserted and provisioning the remote field on the Palmer River became a priority. The need for a port closer to the field than the Endeavour River, 400 kms away, became essential.7 A SUITABLE PORT The Queensland Government realized that a more thorough search of the northern coastline in an attempt to find a suitable port to service the new gold field was a priority. In September 1873 George Elphinstone Dalrymple was instructed by the government to explore all rivers and inlets between Cardwell and the Endeavour River, and to ascertain the suitability of the surrounding soil for agricultural purposes and to collect botanical specimens. He sailed from Cardwell on 20 September 1873.8 While charting the North Queensland river systems Dalrymple found a coastal basin which was suited to agriculture and sugar growing and a fine harbour and river estuary. Dalrymple named Island Point (Port Douglas) and the nearby Mossman River which he named after Hugh Mosman, one of the finders of gold at Charters Towers. Continuing north to the Endeavour River and Cooktown he was surprised to find goldfield officials, engineers and road makers already at work. The choice of Cooktown as the port for the northern goldfields proved short sighted. In 1876 James Mulligan found gold on the Hodgkinson River, another tributary of the Mitchell. This was a reef gold field which required large scale machinery that needed to be brought to the field via the easiest and shortest road possible. While there was a track to Cooktown the cost of haulage increased the cost of mining enormously.9 In response to this difficulty two tracks to the coast were opened in September 1876.10 John Smith, miner and publican, blazed a 140km track


HISTORY

10

from the gold field to his settlement, Smithfield.11 At the same time Sub Inspector Douglas opened a track from Smithfield through to Trinity Bay where the settlement of Cairns had been established. This new track from the Hodgkinson Goldfield to Cairns was shorter but so difficult and so steep that the carriers and miners still looked for an easier road.12 In April 1877 explorers, Christie Palmerston and William Little, seeking easier access to the coast, opened a track through from the Hodgkinson Goldfield to a site a few miles south east of Island Point.13 Once on the coast Palmerston and Little travelled beside a river Palmerston named the Mowbray after his friend and warden of the Hodgkinson Goldfield.14 Support for the Island Point site to be used as a port came from Captain Daniel Owen, master of the SS Corea out of Cooktown who reported good anchorage at Island Point. 15 Following Owen’s lead Cooktown merchants, led by Callaghan Walsh, chartered the SS Corea to take them to Island Point in June 1877 laden with stores and timber. They were joined in July by parties from Cairns who had landed by mistake at White Cliffs on the Mowbray River.16 Crown Land Ranger Morgan arriving on WB Ingham’s boat Fitzroy found a tent town of prospectors there and in 16 June 1877 set out a street on the river bank for a new township. The Fitzroy later moved north to Island Point where they found the ketch Terrigal at anchor and which had also brought up a load of timber and about sixty passengers from Cairns.17 Morgan named the anchorage Port Terrigal. A NEW TOWN Surveyor Frederick Horatio Warner surveyed the site of the town at Port Terrigal or Island Point and by October 1877 the settlement was already flourishing with wharves, warehouses and hotels. An early visitor described the settlement at Island Point:

Commercial Street extends from beach to beach and lies at the foot of a beautiful hill. The street is lined with structures composed of calico, iron and brandy cases. All beautifully blended and resulting in the rummiest looking dwellings imaginable. About 100 of them are grog shanties.18

On 1 December 1877, Queensland Treasurer JR Dickson, Postmaster General CS Mein and John Macrossan MLA brought official notification from the Queensland Government proclaiming the port as a Port of Entry for Dutiable Goods and named it Port Douglas in honour of the Premier John Douglas.19 The inlet on which the new port was located was called Dickson Inlet and Commercial Street was renamed Macrossan Street.20


HISTORY

11

The town was laid out in typical structure of the day with a primary thoroughfare running beside the waterfront with secondary or cross streets following the contours of the land. Both Macrossan and Warner Streets extended beyond Wharf Street to an Esplanade along Dickson Inlet. This was clearly intended as a recreation reserve for the new town. Wharf Street ran toward the early wharf at the tip of Island Point and the landing area. Government reserves for police and customs were created at the intersection of Macrossan and Wharf Streets with another for a pilot station east of the Island Point jetty.

The Custom’s Office was located in WhStreet. [Douglas Shire Historical Socie

The first town plan in 1878 showed the layouthe Esplanade and Wharf Street. [Doug

Shire Historical Socie

4t of las ty]

3arf ty]


HISTORY

12

To assist the development of the town as a business centre for the goldfields the Queensland Government allocated ₤2000 for the construction of roads and buildings. Prospectors and pack horse teams soon opened Palmerston’s track, which became known as the Bump Road, from Island Point to Thornborough and Kingsborough on the Hodgkinson Goldfield. The road, however, was very poor. A public meeting of miners and merchants raised ₤600 to widen the track but, the terrain through the range was terrible. Names, such as Slatey Pinch, the Blackguard, the Glue Pot and the Landing, which were given to key spots along the track, illustrated the difficulty of the terrain.21 However, despite the difficulty of traversing the track the first wagon ascended the range from Island Point on 4 October 1877.22 The government also established a regular mail service between Port Douglas and Thornborough and the first mail was carried up the Bump Road on 12 December 1877.23 Port Douglas quickly developed as a multicultural place with English, Irish, Europeans and Asians passing through the town to the goldfield or seeking agricultural land. 24 Willmett’s Northern Queensland Almanac for 1878 reported that there were four hundred people in Port Douglas 25 and 8,000 in the district.26 The spread of settlement to the far northern areas the state created difficulties. The diverse nature of settlement from pastoral properties to agriculture, mining to trade and shipping made it difficult for a state government 2000 kms away to manage. To overcome the problems associated with governing the Queensland Government introduced an act of parliament in 1878 which established a system of local government under the auspices of divisional boards. Port Douglas became the administrative centre of the Douglas Divisional Board which extended from Cape Tribulation to Cape Grafton and west to the Hodgkinson Goldfield.27 With the establishment of the Douglas Divisional Board a number of government offices and banks transferred from Cairns to Port Douglas as road traffic on the Thornborough to Cairns road declined in favour of the easier road to Port Douglas. The easier road also influenced the decision to transfer the Gold Escort from Cairns to Port Douglas. The significance of good road construction along the easiest and shortest route from the goldfields also influenced the government to establish a branch of the Queensland Roads Board at Port Douglas in February 1878.28 By 1878 several small settlements had been established along the Bump road to support the teamsters and travellers.29 At one time 42 horse teams, 44 bullock teams and 29 packers were operating along the Road. To cope with the great increase in passenger traffic from the tablelands to Port Douglas Messrs. Murphy and McDonald established a coaching service which soon after sold out to Cobb & Co.30 The Cobb and Co


HISTORY

13

coach service, travelling as it did over the Bump Road, became infamous as the most difficult coach service in the north.31 The increase in travellers to and from the mining fields saw the rapid development of Port Douglas. By 1880 there were fourteen hotels in Port Douglas plus two at Craiglie and one at Mowbray. There were two newspapers and a number of shanty pubs and boarding houses.32 The early stone pitched jetty at Island Point was extended during 1888/89 to a total length of 60 metres and remained the principal point of entry for the town. The first jetty at the end of Wharf Str

[Douglas Shire Historical Socie

The extension to the first jetty. [Douglas Sh

Historical Socie

Despite the prosperity of the region the boom was short lived. Cairns, which initially relied on the Chinese fruit trade to survive prospered during the sugar boom of the 1880s and then gained regional prominence by being chosen ahead of Mourilyn and Port Douglas as the port for the mining fields in the hinterland. This meant that Cairns would also be the terminus for the long awaited rail link. The first sod of the track from Cairns to Mareeba was turned on 10 May 1886. The line, constructed up the beautiful but difficult Barron Gorge, reached Mareeba in 1893.33 Port Douglas began to decline as goods and passenger traffic was redirected to Cairns by rail rather than through Port Douglas. Access to the Mossman District and Port Douglas was only by the Bump Road or by Sea.34 SUGAR CANE: A SECOND CHANCE In order to encourage small farmers into the Queensland agricultural industry, John Douglas, Secretary for Lands in the Thorn Government introduced the Crown Lands Alienation Act 1876 and the Settled Districts Pastoral Leases Act 1876 causing a minor land rush to the northern

3eet. ty]

4ire ty]


HISTORY

14

districts of Queensland. Land sales were brisk on the Mowbray and Mossman Rivers and during 1882 -83 ninety seven thousand hectares of sugar land was sold. By 1881 the sugar industry was entering its second stage of development leaving behind the big plantations and plantation mills. Smaller family cane farmers were planting cane which was being processes in central mills. 35 In this flourishing economic climate the McIlwraith Government encouraged large southern companies to invest in the industry.36 Companies such as the Colonial Sugar Refining Company (CSR) invested ₤200,000 in sugar cultivation.37 In 1880 John Spiller from the Pioneer Plantation at Mackay visited Port Douglas and was impressed with the potential of the district for cane growing. He sent 14 varieties of cane to the Mowbray River for the local planters to test.38 While the Mowbray Valley was being planted in cane, WO Hodgkinson found the Mossman River Valley much more suitable for cane growing when he visited in 1886 looking for a location for a central sugar mill. The development of central milling as a separate entity to farming was brought about by agitation by the growers who were in dispute with the companies and larger planters and who, it was claimed, dictated cane prices. Following the introduction of the Sugar Works Guarantee Act 1893 half a million pounds was advanced under the Act for the erection of mills which, after fifteen years were to be handed to the growers. By 1901 four mills had been erected including one Mossman River.39 Sugar from the Mossman Mill was to prove a boon to Port Douglas. THE PORT DOUGLAS RAIL LINK Approval for the construction of a central mill on the Mossman River was made with funds raised from the mortgage of cane farms to the government. 40 After considerable debate about the location of the new mill and the extent of land required, tenders for its construction were called and that of A & W Smith of Glasgow was accepted after a price of ₤34,000 was negotiated. CAS Andrews, a surveyor and later cane grower, was commissioned to survey tramlines. Work began on tramlines in September 1895 although a site on the Mossman River from which to ship the processed sugar had not at that time been selected. In October of that year the mill board decided to locate a wharf at Rose’s Landing on Bonnie Doon beside the Mossman River. Plans were ready by January 1896 when tenders were called for the construction of the wharf and tramline to the mill.41 W Sunderland of Cairns, tendered ₤2987.2.8 and won the contract to construct the tramline from the Rose’s Landing wharf to the mill.42 Work began on 27 April 1896 and was completed by September that year and the line was immediately put to use to haul machinery from the wharf to the mill.43 Because the river was too shallow for shipping the machinery


HISTORY

15

was brought by lighters Bee and Maggie Logan, to the Westfield anchored in the channel off Island Point, down river from Rose’s Landing.44 It was a herald of things to come. By 1900 there was approximately 10 miles of permanent cane tram tracks in the Mossman area but there was no link to Port Douglas from the Mossman Valley. Sugar from the mill was loaded to lighters in the river and taken to Port Douglas for storage in sugar storage sheds thought to have been built by the Divisional Board in 1896. From there it was loaded onto coastal shipping for conveyance to southern ports. The Boards wharf at port Douglas was flanked by Jack and Newell’s wharf to the immediate north and Walsh and Company’s wharf to the south.45 The community was anxious that a passenger rail link between Mossman and Port Douglas be established but found no support from the mill board when it requested an extension of the mill tramway to Port Douglas. The mill was not in a position to spend money not needed for cane transport. The community petitioned the government for funds to build a passenger rail link connected to the Mossman Mill’s rail line and the government, in due course, approved a loan of ₤22,000 to build the line.46 The new rail link from Mossman to Port Douglas, which opened on 1 August 1900, belonged to the Douglas Divisional Board47 but connected with the Mill’s line at South Mossman. At Port Douglas it terminated at the small wharf belonging to the Douglas Divisional Board adapted to accommodate the tramway rail. (Part of the building survives in a section of the clubhouse for the Combined Clubs.)48 During the first year of operation there were four tram trips a day on the Mossman to Port Douglas line carrying 23,062 passengers. 49 In July 1901 the Douglas Divisional Board provided a dedicated locomotive and two passenger cars for the new rail service. A depot and workshop were built at Port Douglas near the Divisional Board building to provide maintenance for the rolling stock. Later, branch tramway services were installed at Mowbray and Cassowary, necessitating the acquisition of additional locomotives and rolling stock and workshop facilities were enlarged to meet the demand for maintenance.50


HISTORY

16

An early plan of the western end of the toshowing the wharves and tram layouts includ

the railway station. [Douglas Shire HistoriSocie

The line and the depot were located on the Esplanade facing Dickson Inlet. With this development the shipping centre of Port Douglas was firmly re-established from Island Point and the early jetty there. Despite the major work on linking the railway to the port and the construction of maintenance support facilities the population of Port Douglas began to decline. As a result of the loss of passenger and goods traffic to the mining fields the population, by 1901, had fallen to 331 in Port Douglas and 6000 in the district.51

The Port Douglas Railway Station on the riand the railway workshop on the left. [Doug

Shire Historical Socie

On 30 March 1903 the Douglas Divisional Board became the Douglas Shire Council52 when the Queensland Government introduced the Local Authorities Act 1902 abolishing divisional boards and creating city, town and shire councils. Although no longer a port for the mining fields and tableland area, Port Douglas was still the port of the Douglas Shire and particularly the sugar industry which was growing in importance and in the amount of production.53 The location of the shire office in Port Douglas and the rail maintenance workshops in the town helped maintain the population and thus supported the growth of a range of commercial enterprises.54 Disaster struck however when Port Douglas was damaged by a cyclone on 10 February 1911 and again a month later. The town was largely destroyed during a second cyclone.55 Some State and Local government offices and businesses repaired or rebuilt their properties after the cyclone, but many others left town.56 By 1914 Pugh’s Almanac recorded that the population had further declined to about 250.57 Mossman began to grow as a result of the growth in sugar production but Port Douglas continued to decline. By the 1920s the business centre

5wn ing cal ty]

6ght las ty]


HISTORY

17

for the Douglas Shire had moved to Mossman. The Post Office moved to a location opposite the Mossman Mill. The Douglas Shire Council moved to Mill Street, and the Court House and banks followed.58 PORT DOUGLAS AND THE SUGAR WHARF The anchorage at Port Douglas was never ideal. Protected from the north to south- south east it was open to the east and to the south east there was an open stretch of water 35 miles long which exposed the area to strong seas. Outside the harbour the dangerous Alexandra and Morey Reefs were marked by buoys by 1879 and Island Point was marked by a small red light.59 In August 1878 a lighthouse was constructed on Low Island to mark the shipping channel past Port Douglas which, in the 1880s, became an important shipping channel for ships from Europe.60 Trade through Port Douglas was increasing even at the end of the 1870s, and the Admiralty commissioned a survey of the area in 1878 because the early landing at Island Point was inconvenient and at times dangerous. To overcome some of the difficulties of landing goods and passengers at the port a pilot, John Ralston, was appointed on the 30 December 1878 and on 22 July 1879 the first Harbour Master, ERN MacCarthy, was appointed. By 1883 there was a Harbour Master, a Boatman and two boatmen at Port Douglas. But, as the rush to the goldfield waned by 1892 the staff at the port had declined to two, with the boatman being responsible for the lights, powder magazine and to act as pilot for both Port Douglas and the Daintree River. 61

7A plan showing dredging of Dickson Inlet.

[Douglas Shire Historical Society]

In 1880 a decision was made to deepen the creek and inlet near the township and to erect a jetty at the end of Macrossan Street adjoining the Customs House. While it was shallow close to shore within 20 ft the level dropped steeply. In the roadstead and in Dickson Inlet, once across the bar, the water level fell to a depth of 9 ft. The dredging cleared the creek to a depth of 16ft but the proposed jetty was never built.62

8A sketch showing the proposed jetty at the end

of Macrossan Street. It sat at right angles to the foreshore. [Douglas Shire Historical Society]


HISTORY

18

Dredging through the river bar at Port Douglas in 1885 by the Bremer at a cost of ₤23,659.13.5 failed as the channel soon silted up again. Further work in 1898 also failed because the depth of the dredge’s draught and the strong winds in the Inlet.63 Despite the dredging and construction of the first Divisional Board Wharf further along the inlet, the process of landing remained difficult and the community requested that the mouth of the creek be further dredged to enable the coastal steamers to berth at another proposed wharf at the end of Wharf Street. However, no further work took place. The town was advised that a suitable dredge was unavailable.

9The Divisional Board Wharf in the 1930s.

[Douglas Shire Historical Society]

Before 1893 the government had control over the ports of Queensland. It provided pilots and navigational aids, carried out dredging and constructed a few wharves, although, as in the case of the Port Douglas jetty off Island Point, some wharves were owned by local divisional boards.64 By the 1890s the need for dredging at most ports along the Queensland coast was a major financial impost for the Queensland Government. The need for more efficient administration of ports led to the introduction of the Harbour Boards Act 1892. The bill was introduced at a time when the McIlwraith Government was being affected by the 1890s Depression and funds were limited. The issue became significant by 1892 when most of the Queensland dredging fleet was laid up.65 For ports where no harbour board was set up, the Act provided for the Governor in Council, through the appropriate government department, to manage ports. As the Marine Department and later the Harbours and Rivers Department were sub departments of Treasury, the administrating


HISTORY

19

authority for Port Douglas port became The Corporation of the Treasurer.66 By 1904 the conditions at Port Douglas were still unsatisfactory and made the handling of the large output of sugar from Mossman almost impossible. The sugar stored at the Divisional Board Wharf and all other imports and exports had to be carried in and out in small craft, and shipping could only move at high water and were frequently grounded.67 To overcome the problem the Platypus commenced dredging but, due to the difficult weather conditions in Dickson Inlet work was not completed until September 1904. Once completed the entrance channel had been cleared to a depth of 10 ft and was 200 ft wide. The basin was 300 ft wide and 10 ft deep.68

10A photograph taken by Muntz of the Sugar

Wharf when first built. [Douglas Shire Historical Society]

With this work at last completed a new wharf was proposed which would allow ships to berth alongside without the use of lighters. It would be built well out into the channel and would be designed to allow rail lines to travel right along the wharf itself. The new wharf, for which the Treasury allocated ₤3,000 in 1904 for salaries and contingencies, was constructed of timber near the mouth of the creek in Dickson Inlet.69 Located at the end of Wharf Street and using day labour it was completed in October 1905 and handed, under agreement, to the Douglas Shire Council to manage.70

11A plan showing the tram layout including the

stone pitched causeway and the tram track. [Douglas Shire Historical Society]


HISTORY

20

It was 105 ft by 15 ft. Set well out into the channel it was reached by an approach from a rock causeway and timber trestle bridge.71 A jib crane was located on the northern end of the wharf and a walkway was constructed on the northern, eastern and southern outer walls of the storage shed on the wharf.72 The roof trusses were constructed from 12 inches by 6 inch sections, mainly Oregon.73

A photograph of the Sugar Wharf showwalkway around all sides. [Douglas S

Historical Soc

Despite the apparent difficulties in despatching sugar from the port the new wharf was designed, not as a sugar wharf but as an inwards goods wharf. It was built with a decline from the wharf to ease the transfer of loaded rail trucks to the shore.

The new wharf and approaches were welcomed by the local community. General cargo could now be loaded at any tide and in most conditions with a minimum of handling.74 Prior to this all general cargo handling was carried out at the private wharfing facilities such as Walsh and Co,

A conjectural plan of the Sugar Wharf wconstructed. [Allom Lo

13hen

vell]

12s the hire

iety]


HISTORY

21

Davidson’s, Jack & Newell and probably others, either by direct berthing for smaller vessels or for larger vessels by lighter from the general anchorage 600m off the western end of Island Point.75 Bagged sugar continued to be loaded in this fashion from the Council wharf further up the inlet. Difficulties with silting continued and in 1909 the dredge Platypus again cleared the entrance channel and the swing basin to increase the swing basins’ width by 50 ft. The wider basin allowed vessels such as the 220 ft passenger ship SS Mourilyan to berth.

14A conjectural plan of the Sugar Wharf ca 1910

with a new lunch room to the south. [Allom Lovell]

In 1916 the Commonwealth Government appointed a board of inquiry to report into the sugar industry in Australia, to look at over supply and to investigate the need for further mills. A second Royal Commission in 1919 recommended that the Commonwealth Government take control of the industry and increase the price of sugar. By 1921, a good season, together with the improved price for sugar and the continuing markets in Britain and Canada gave impetus to the industry. 76 In 1923 the berth at the wharf was cleared to a depth of 10 ft 6 ins at low water77 and in 1924 the Council wharf was eventually extended and adapted to handle bagged sugar. An additional row of piles were driven about 3 metres to the east along the length of the wharf and a new deck laid. The storage shed was then relocated by sliding the structure over the new decking.78 By this action the wharf itself was widened by the width of the shed. It is probable that the shed was extended at the same time to increase its length on the southern end by some 12 metres and that it was lined on the eastern wall to facilitate the storage of bagged sugar. The new extension was canted toward the south east so as not to interfere with the trestle bridge and the single rail track doubled. The lunch room building, originally located on the shore end of the shed was relocated to the same relative position on the extension.79 The wharf became known as the Sugar wharf from this time 15

Top is the Faugh-a-Ballagh on the causeway in the 1920s and below a view showing the single

track.[ Douglas Shire Historical Society]


HISTORY

22

Dredging continued in 1929, 1937, 1946 and 1954 but with limited or short lived success. With the use of larger ships by 1955 the port at Port Douglas was used exclusively for lightering sugar to Cairns and, by 1958 all sugar trade through Port Douglas had ceased and the port was deprived of all trade and revenue.80 The last load of sugar left the wharf on the MV Konanda in April that year.

The floor plan in 1927 following the extenof 3 bays and a lunch room. The shaded

shows the location of the shed prior to bslid. [Allom Lo

The SS Mourilyan c 1920 berthed at the Su

Wharf. [Douglas Shire Historical Soc

18sion area eing vell]

19gar

iety]


HISTORY

23

16The final sugar being load onto MV Konanda in

1958.[Douglas Shire Historical Society]

The Port Douglas Wharf remained empty. In about the mid 1960s a small boat servicing business and ship’s chandlery was started by Lyell “Pop” Henry. A fuel bowser on the wharf pumped fuel from a storage tank on the shoreline. 81 In 1968 local identity Tommy Lawley and Ivan Ashton opened the Wharf Seafood Restaurant. It became well known but closed in 1972 when the Council requested improvements to the restaurant.82 The Cairns office of MacDonald, Wagner & Priddle, Engineering Consultants prepared a measured drawing and structural survey of the wharf and piers in 1977. The work was apparently part of preliminary assessment of large scale changes proposed for the port Douglas waterfront and foreshadowed a harbour development in this area. A bund wall part of the reclamation plan for the new harbour proposal, in line with the edge of the wharf, had been constructed by 1977 and it was reported at the time that the “stone pitched wall (the causeway) which forms the approach to the jetty is now enclosed by reclamation works”.83 The wharf again stood empty and unused and it was suggested that the Douglas Shire Council had resolved to remove it from the waterfront to incorporate the area it occupied behind a further bund wall and to construct a caravan park and an improved approach road to the reclaimed land. 84

17Top is the wharf being used for recreation

purposes in the 1970s and below is The Wharf Café in the northern end of the building in the

1960s.[Douglas Shire Historical Society]


HISTORY

24

18The construction of the Bund wall.[Douglas

Shire Historical Society]

The proposal did not eventuate but a small marina was built further along the creek and extensive reclamation certainly took place. The foreshore was extended and landscaped and new buildings constructed close to the approach to the Sugar Wharf. A new concrete wharf was constructed to the south and abutting the early wharf soon after. The loss of the stone causeway and the timber trestle bridge linking the wharf with the foreshore alarmed sections of the Port Douglas community and when it became known that the Douglas Shire proposed the destruction of the wharf itself local identity Noel Weare alerted the National Trust of Queensland85 who in turn commissioned Heritage Consultant, Meredith Walker, to carry out a study of the historic buildings of Port Douglas and of the townscape. In her report, published in 1977, Walker acknowledges the importance of the wharf and its setting and reported that: The wharf….is a prominent feature of Port Douglas. With some prescience she also noted that:

All these features…combine to create a town of great charm and unusual character; unmistakably Australian and unmistakably tropical. This charm is threatened by harbour developments, town improvements and an increase in tourism and holiday accommodation. Together, these changes will, bit by bit, reduce the special qualities of the town in the same way that other small towns have been engulfed by tourist development and lost the appeal which first made them attractive to visitors. With careful management by government and the community, the attractions which give Port Douglas its charm can be retained and enhanced. Otherwise, ‘progressive’ change may destroy its appeal and Port Douglas might become just another seaside town. 86


HISTORY

25

Many of the significant historic buildings identified in Walker’s report have disappeared or been severely altered since the study was completed. It was not until February 1983 that the National Trust of Queensland listed the Port Douglas Wharf on their Register and in 1990 the wharf was entered on the Provisional Heritage Register under the Queensland Heritage Buildings Protection Act 1990 and permanently listed on the Queensland Heritage Register under the Queensland Heritage Act 1992 in that year. BEN CROPP AND THE SHIPWRECK MUSEUM International Underwater Photographer Ben Cropp leased the Port Douglas Wharf in 1979 and in 1980 opened the Shipwreck Museum in the former sugar storage shed. In 1962 he gave up his successful spear fishing career to become an underwater photographer. He teamed up with Ron and Valerie Taylor to make “Shark Hunters” which became a world wide hit and in 1964 Ben Cropp became the World Underwater Photographer of the Year.87

19A Shipwreck Museum occupied much of the

building from 1979.[Douglas Shire Historical Society]

In 1979 Cropp arrived in Port Douglas and moored his boat at the derelict Port Douglas Wharf. The building was in poor repair but he prevailed on the Council to carry out some repairs and leased the structure for a term twenty years. He established a Shipwreck Museum on the wharf in the following year with artifacts from the some of the wrecks he had discovered in the previous twenty years. One of Cropp’s passions had


HISTORY

26

been shipwrecks and he is reputed to have discovered over 100 and has collected material from many of them. The Pandora, one of Australia’s most significant, was first located by him in 1977.88 Some of the artifacts were displayed in the water under the wharf where visitors could view them through a hole cut in the wharf decking.89 Amongst those on the ocean floor was ballast from Lieutenant Cook’s ship Endeavour and cannon balls from Matthew Flinders’ ship Investigator. 90 Cropp made some modifications and additions to the building mostly at the northern end where mezzanine floors were added and a section converted for use as a home for he and his wife. A small reception area to the museum was built at the entrance in the south east corner. Ben Cropp’s lease terminated in 1999. New tenders were called on 16 October 2000 and, despite Cropp submitting the only tender, the Douglas Shire Council did not renew his lease.91 Although it had been reported that Cropp had spent $40,000 on repairs to the piles supporting the wharf by 1999 repairs required to maintain the structure were estimated at $230,000.92 The extent of work carried out since then and the cost to Council is not entirely clear. It is reported that Council has spent $550,000 on necessary repairs probably that carried out under the direction of Cairns based structural engineers McPherson Maclean Wargon Chapman in which that part of the wharf structure to the west was demolished and rebuilt and in the repair and reconstruction of the remaining sub-structure of the wharf. In 2006 the Council allocated $6000 towards the restoration project for the Port Douglas Wharf.93


HISTORY

27

20The existing floor plan. [Allom Lovell]

Newspaper reports of recent years indicate that the Council was again preparing to call tenders for the lease of the wharf and that interested parties included the University of Queensland and the Low Isles Preservation Society.94 The Low Isles Preservation society was keen to have its headquarters and interpretive displays in the building but ultimately neither of these organizations was able to meet Councils expectations. Another proposal reported to have been made was led by local entrepreneur John Rumney and the organisation Undersea Explorer which at one time ran diving expeditions from the concrete wharf built adjacent to the former Sugar Wharf. The proposal envisaged the wharf as the centre of an educational precinct as a marine science centre linked with input from both the University of Queensland and James Cook University at Townsville. Concern about the longer term future of the wharf appears to have been at the forefront of many of the various approaches to Council by local community groups. The Low Isles Preservation Society and the Port Douglas Waterfront Protection Association have both expressed concern that the building should be a community resource and indeed the Douglas Shire Historical Society too has worked hard in recent years to see the building appropriately conserved for the benefit of the community. In 2007 Council carried out minor works to the building to allow its use by arts groups within the district. Sheet flooring was fixed over early floor boards to provide a safe and level surface and part of the 1980s


HISTORY

28

residential bathroom was adapted to provide disabled toilet access in the building. Current proposals to develop the Port Douglas Waterfront have clearly focussed wider community attention on the former Sugar Wharf. Studies have been carried out as part of this initiative which acknowledge the cultural significance of this place and opportunity to bring together the wide ranging interest in this place and the skills of consultant advice will, it is understood, be made at an “enquiry by design” as part of the program later this year. At this time however the building remains empty.


THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE

29

3 THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE

The former Port Douglas Sugar Wharf is an asset of the Cairns Regional Council. Built by the Douglas Shire Council in 1905 the

building has had a number of uses during that period and indeed has been extended, adapted and changed to satisfy those circumstances.

3 . 1 T H E S U G A R W H A R F

Very little documentary evidence in the way of early floor plans has been found for the store building. For the purposes of this chapter historic photographs have been used together with a physical inspection of the buildings to understand the condition of the building and the extent to which it has been modified over time.

A diagram of the parts of the building. [ALo

For the purposes of this section the structure has been divided into 4 different elements. They are the Store, the platform, the sub-structure and the wharf. Other elements including the former trestle approach and stone pitched causeway are discussed in other sections.

T H E S T O R E B U I L D I N G

The store building is a single storey timber framed shed with a timber trussed gabled roof. The building sits on a timber floor frame and timber decking. The building is clad externally in hardwood weatherboards. The roof is sheeted with a fairly recent custom orb profile corrugated iron sheeting. The building had two major periods of change. The first was in 1924 when the building was ‘slid’ to the east at this time by a distance of approximately three metres. It was also extended with the addition of three bays of structure to the south. Evidence of that extension is apparent in the structure of the building. The alignment of this section was angled probably to suit the curve of the tramway tracks. A lunch room was relocated to the southern end at this time and the privy to the northern walkway removed. Some evidence of an early doorway to the southern gable end is apparent. It appears that at this time the original goods wharf was adapted for use as a sugar wharf. The internal lining to the eastern walls is thought to date from that time. The second major change occurred post 1979 when the building was leased to Ben Cropp for use as a residence and shipwreck museum. The interior of the building was altered with the addition of two full height internal partitions, the construction of a mezzanine above two of the bays and the installation of kitchen, bathroom and toilet. New openings were made in the building for louvred windows and aluminium framed

21llom vell]



30

sliding doors and windows. One of the original sets of timber doors was probably removed at this time as the opening has certainly been reduced and aluminium sliding doors inserted. The original timber floors were covered with timber floorboards and the walls and roof sheeting were lined. The building was also extended at this time with the construction of an entrance and lobby to the south east corner of the building. This adaptation of the building as a house remains at the site together with some evidence of the use of the balance as a museum. Most recently the building has been altered by the Douglas Shire Council with the installation of a sheet floor on top of the original timber decking. New services for emergency lighting were installed and the 1979 bathroom modified to become a disabled accessible toilet. The 1979 glazed openings fronting the wharf have been temporarily covered with plywood to make the building more secure. Evidence of all these changes is apparent.

The building is in a good condition considering its age and its exposure to the environment. The roof sheeting which is fairly recent is showing some signs of corrosion but that is to be expected in this location.

22The existing floor plan. [Allom Lovell]



31

23The exterior of the building from the concrete

wharf and the south west. [Allom Lovell]

24The exterior of the building from the imber

decking and the north west. Recent alumnium sliding doors and windows can be seen in this

end of the building. [Allom Lovell]

On the left is the exterior of the building the south east and on the right the building

the south with the Cropp gerenation lobbythe concrete wharf and causeway. [A

Lo

On the left is the original hardware ontimber sliding doors. On the right is the inte

of the store with partial wall boardingexposed wall studs. [Allom Lo

On the left is the original timber truss recent sheeting on walls. On the right i

southern wall of the store with evidence of edoor and window openings which connecte

building to several lunch rooms. [ALo

25from from and llom vell]

26 the rior and vell]

27with s the arly

d the llom vell]



32

The southern open space in the buildingconstructed as an extension in 1924.

interior survives with sections of hardwlining and exposed wall studs. The plyw

floor is recent. [Allom Lo

On the left is the framed gable from the origend wall of the building. It is supported

more recent steel post. On the right iscentral open space in the building lined

part of the shipwreck museum. [Allom Lov

On the left is the kitchen installed by Ben Crand on the right is the toilet of the s

generation. [Allom Lov

T H E P L A T F O R M A N D S U B - S T R U C T U R E

The sub-structure of the building consists of timber piles and timber bracing. The vast majority of the piles were removed in 2001 and replaced with new timber piles complete with new steel plates and bolts to fix these elements to the existing timber floor structure. At the same time new timber cross bracing was installed and the structural stability of the structure was reconsidered by attaching to the new steel framed wharf to the west replacing an earlier timber structure. At that time the decay in the sub-floor bearers was considered to be acceptable given the commercial/domestic floor loads and the adequacy of the remaining sections of floor framing. 95 There is evidence of earlier repair work with sub-structure including some iron pilings and evidence of copper collars used to protect original timber piles against insect attack in the trestle bridge which survive in the sand to the south of the building. The present condition of the sub-structure was considered by structural engineers Moller Consulting. They reported in part:

28 was The ood ood

vell]

29inal by a the as a ell ]

30opp ame ell]



33

Whilst we would consider this part of the structure to be stable we believe that no maintenance has been carried out since our remedial work in 2001. Obvious items which require immediate maintenance include:

Some timber cross-bracing and timber piling below the waterline, indicate marine borer activity. These will need to be treated before they affect the member cross sections.

Extensive areas of surface corrosion to steel members requires sandblasting and repainting.

Flashing/capping for weather protection to timber bearers to the eastern side of the wharf to prevent further deterioration to these members.96

31The existing platform and sub-structure

showing some signs of deterioration. [Moller Consulting]

3 . 2 T H E W H A R F

The wharf to the west of the store building was constructed in 2001 following the demolition of sections of wharf and several small jetties. The shape of the jetty was changes at that time to align with the concrete wharf constructed in the late 1970s to the south of the building and wharf. This wharf now consists of steel piles, steel bearers, timber decking and aluminium stairs for access to berthing vessels. This part of the building is in a reasonable condition.



34

32The wharf to the west of the building was constructed in 2001. [Moller Consulting]

3 . 3 T H E W A T E R F R O N T

The broader waterfront is included in the study area because of its close physical and historic relationship with the former Sugar Wharf. The drawing below indicates the extent of the area and indicates evidence of extensive land reclamation which occurred in the late 1970s and the location of many of the historic buildings associated with the 19th century port. They included a Shire Hall, Customs House and Bond Store, Tram station and associated railway buildings and other wharf buildings. All of these have been lost. Also lost has been the original subdivisional pattern of Warner and Macrossan Streets which extended to the water edge in the 19th century to meet an Esplanade.

33

The current waterfront of Port Douglas showing the 1900 foreshore dotted and the extent of the

reclaimed land shaded. [Allom Lovell]



35

Only remnants of this aspect of the town’s history survive. They include not only the Sugar Wharf but part of the former Douglas Divisional Board Sugar Wharf and Dixie’s Hut. Evidence from the early township includes the former Court House and the post World War I Memorial. The original stone jetty is incorporated into the base of the eastern wall of the Rex Smeal Park area.97 Number Building/ Place Description Photograph 1 SES Building A single storey concrete

blockwork building. The building is not culturally significant.

2 Toilet Block A single storey concrete blockwork building. The building is not culturally significant.

3 Shelter Sheds A range of small shelters throughout the parkland. The structures are not culturally significant.

4 Fig Trees One of several substantial fig trees in the park. The trees require further careful mapping and study to understand their cultural significance.

5 Old Court House The former Port Douglas Court House was constructed in 1879 and was relocated back to this site in 1993. The building is an important historic building in Port Douglas and is included in the Queensland Heritage Register.



36

6 Police Residence One of three police residences on this site. The building is of fairly recent construction and is not culturally significant.

7 Police Station The police station is of fairly recent construction. It is not culturally significant.



10 Anzac Memorial & the remnant of Macrossan Street

The Anzac Memorial was erected in 1923. While its location has not changed it was at that time in the middle of Macrossan Street which extended to the edge of the water. This part of Macrossan Street was flanked by a Police Station and a Customs House.

11 St Mary’s by the Sea Originally built as the Catholic Church in 1880 it was moved to this site in 1988 and has since been used for weddings and for community worship. The building is culturally significant.



37

12 Undersea Explorer A two storey masonry building

containing a commercial operator and restaurant, the building was constructed on reclaimed land after 1977. The building is not culturally significant.

13 Building A two storey building containing commercial activities it was constructed on the reclaimed land after 1977. The building is not culturally significant.

14 Building A two storey building containing commercial and residential activity it was constructed on the reclaimed land after 1977. The building is not culturally significant.

15 House A two storey building containing residential activity it was constructed on the reclaimed land after 1977. The building is not culturally significant.

16 House A two storey building containing residential activity. The building was constructed on the reclaimed land. The building is not culturally significant.

17 Boat Ramp The public boat ramp was constructed adjacent to the combined clubs or the former Douglas Divisional Board Sugar Wharf. It gives some idea of the line of the waterfront in 1905. The ramp is not culturally significant but it does allow public access



38

and views of the water. 18 Combined Clubs The Combined Clubs building sits

on the edge of Dickson Inlet. It is constructed in two parts with the northern part being the original Douglas Divisional Board Sugar Wharf. The southern part of the building and the jetty is more recent construction. The early part of the building is culturally significant.

19 Dixie’s Hut The building is thought to have been constructed in 1886. It is now a part of the Department of Fisheries site and has been nominated to the National Trust of Queensland Register. The building is culturally significant.

20 Boating and Fisheries

Patrol District Office (QDPI) Office

A recent single storey masonry office building is not culturally significant.

20a Boating and Fisheries Patrol District Office (QDPI) Shed

A recent steel framed carport is not culturally significant.

21 Aust Volunteer Coastguard

The two storey building containing the volunteer coastguard activity was constructed on the original foreshore and not on reclaimed land. The building is not culturally significant.



39

22 Toilet Block The toilet block is a single storey structure and of fairly recent construction. It is not culturally significant.

23 Stink Tree The stink tree is thought to have been located at the end of the stone pitched causeway to the Sugar Wharf. The tree requires further careful mapping and study to better understand its cultural significance.

24 Fig Trees One of several substantial fig

trees in the park. The trees require further careful mapping and study to understand their cultural significance.

25 Bicentennial Historical Walk

This bicentennial walk was erected in 2001 as part of the centenary of federation. The walk includes an avenue of trees. It is not culturally significant.

26 Port Douglas Sugar Wharf

The subject of this present study and constructed in 1905.

27 Mango Trees These trees line the eastern boundary of the old police reserve along what was originally Wharf Street. The trees are likely to have been planted by police staff when the police inspector’s residence (later the constable’s residence) stood in this vicinity.


UNDERSTANDING THE SIGNIFICANCE

40

4 UNDERSTANDING THE SIGNIFICANCE

C

ultural significance is the term used to embrace the range of qualities that make some places especially important to the

community, over and above their basic utilitarian function. These places are usually those that help understand the past, enrich the present, and that will be of value to future generations. The Burra Charter of Australia ICOMOS defines cultural significance as aesthetic, historic, scientific or social value for past, present, and future generations.98 It is a simple concept, helping to identify and assess the attributes that make a place of value to people and society. An understanding of it is therefore basic to any planning process with historic buildings or places. Once the significance of a place is understood, informed policy decisions can be made which will enable that significance to be retained, revealed, or at least impaired as little as possible. A clear understanding of the nature and level of the significance of a place not only suggests constraints on future action, it also introduces flexibility into the process by identifying areas which can be adapted or developed with greater freedom.99

4 . 1 C R I T E R I A O F A S S E S S M E N T

Section 23 of the Queensland Heritage Act 1992 specifies the criteria of cultural heritage significance used to assess places for entry in the Queensland Heritage Register. A place may be entered in the register if it is of cultural heritage significance and satisfies one or more of these criteria. They are as follows: (a) the place is important in demonstrating the evolution or pattern of

Queensland's history; (b) the place demonstrates rare, uncommon or endangered aspects of

Queensland's cultural heritage; (c) the place has potential to yield information that will contribute to an

understanding of Queensland's history; (d) the place is important in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a

particular class of cultural places; (e) the place is important because of its aesthetic significance; (f) the place is important in demonstrating a high degree of creative or technical

achievement at a particular period;



41

(g) the place has a strong or special association with a particular community or

cultural group for social, cultural or spiritual reasons; and (h) the place has a special association with the life or work of a particular

person, group or organisation of importance in Queensland's history.

4 . 2 T H E F O R M E R S U G A R W H A R F

The cultural significance of the former Sugar Wharf at Port Douglas is not in dispute. Listed in Registers of the Queensland Heritage Council and the National Trust of Queensland and indeed the former Douglas Shire Council Policy No. 4 - Cultural Heritage and Valuable Sites the building is a well known and well loved part of the town appreciated by local residents and visitors alike. Its value cannot be overstated. It represents the historical role of Port Douglas as a town whose origins and very existence depends upon the port. Indeed the history of the region is related to the access to and from the hinterland by sea through this port. Since the first settlement of the town in 1877 much of the history of this place has been centred on the port and on the various changes made necessary to the waterfront by changing demands and expectations. The former Sugar Wharf is the last in a series of wharfs and waterfront building at Port Douglas. It has been modified and changed since its first construction in 1905 and its setting too has been changed in recent years as the industrial and maritime landscape of the foreshore has given way to parkland and tourism related activities. The former Sugar Wharf remains however not only as an early building (one of the few early buildings surviving in the town) but as the most significant historical structure in the town. That significance lies not only in its historical role but in its fabric, in its setting, in its aesthetic value and in a wider context it is a rare example of its type.

4 . 3 H I S T O R I C A L S I G N I F I C A N C E

In a narrow sense the former Sugar Wharf represents a relatively late period of the town. Constructed in 1905 it was an attempt, by the local authority to ensure the continued viability of the town by providing a means of landing goods from southern ports. It was only later adapted for use as a sugar wharf. It is in fact the last of a number of wharves at Port Douglas many of which were constructed to allow the loading of bagged sugar to coastal shipping. In this the Sugar



42

Wharf represents that part of Port Douglas’ history and the earlier wharves constructed when the town was the gateway to the Hodgkinson goldfields and the broader role of the town and the foreshore as a port. It is one of the last and certainly the most important remnant of the Port Douglas waterfront and has cultural significance for that reason.

4 . 4 T H E S U R V I V I N G F A B R I C

The former Sugar Wharf has been modified and changed substantially since its first construction. The wharf was extended and enlarged in about 1924 when the store building was adapted for the storage of bagged sugar. In 1979 it was modified for use as a residence and museum. Major work to secure the substructure and decking was carried out in 2001. Much of the original or early fabric however survives and has some significance for the evidence it offers of early use and of design and construction techniques of the period and for the evidence of later adaptation. Some of the later changes are in themselves significant. Certainly the 1924 extensions are important in demonstrating the response to changing needs and even some aspects of the period in which the building operated as a ‘shipwreck museum’ have value. Certainly the evidence of use of the building, the wear and tear and patination of the fabric are part of the cultural significance of the place.

4 . 5 T H E S E T T I N G

The former Sugar Wharf provides termination to the view from Port Douglas across the now parkland toward Dickson Inlet. The building is similarly dominant in the approach to Port Douglas from the sea. The Sugar Wharf has more importantly an historical connection with its setting. When built it was one of a number of industrial or maritime structures along the waterfront which at that time was the working heart of the town. While little visible evidence survives of that original setting the cultural significance of the wharf relates to that broader site in historical terms. More directly the significance of the former Sugar Wharf extends to that part of the waterfront immediately adjacent to it including the archaeological potential of that part of the site and especially the stone pitched causeway thought to survive beneath the more recent land reclamation.



43

The current waterfront of Port Douglas shothe structures from 1905 dotted and the loca

of the foreshore . [Allom Lovell baseinformation from Douglas Shire Histo

Soc

4 . 6 A E S T H E T I C S I G N I F I C A N C E

The former Sugar Wharf is a picturesque and much photographed aspect of the townscape of Port Douglas. In this respect it is, as one resident has noted, Port Douglas’ ‘Opera House’. While it is in essence only a wharf with a simple gabled shed its scale, linear form and traditional construction sets it apart from other waterfront structures in coastal towns. Remote from the shore and elevated above the water of Dickson Inlet those qualities make a major contribution to the sense of place and to any understanding of cultural significance of this place. The wharf when first constructed was set well away from the foreshore and well out into the water of Dickson Inlet linked to the shore with a stone pitched causeway and trestle bridge. While more recent building on reclaimed land adjacent to the wharf compromises the aesthetic values associated with this place the Sugar Wharf retains aesthetic significance and its romantic associations with the maritime history of the town.

4 . 7 A R A R E E X A M P L E

In Port Douglas the Sugar Wharf is a remnant and rare survivor of the period of the town’s history as a working port before its major decline in the 1950s and 60s.

34wing tiond on ricaliety]



44

On a wider view the wharf is a rare surviving example of an early 20th century maritime structure. The sugar loading wharves at Cairns are built in concrete and cannot be compared. No other sugar wharfs are listed in the Queensland Heritage Register and of other (larger) ports along the Queensland coast little remains that is directly comparable. In its present form the former Port Douglas wharf is not only a survivor but one in which evidence of its early use remains. The difficulties in dredging and in providing access from Dickson Inlet and decisions to transport sugar by road to Cairns from about the 1950s have fortuitously preserved this place as a rare example.

4 . 8 S U M M A R Y S T A T E M E N T O F S I G N I F I C A N C E

The cultural significance of the former Port Douglas Sugar Wharf lies in the evidence it provides of the history of the town as a port and in that history that it represents of the wider history as a port of entry for the North Queensland goldfields and later for sugar from the Mossman Mill. There is also substantial significance in the surviving early fabric at this place and in the setting of the wharf. The extent of the buildings significance extends to the foreshore immediately adjacent to the wharf. The building has aesthetic value and is a rare surviving example of its type.

4 . 9 T A B L E O F S I G N F I C A N T E L E M E N T S

Not every part of the building fabric of the Port Douglas Sugar Wharf site is culturally significant. The following table indicates those parts of the building fabric that contribute to the cultural significance of the place, using a scale where a ranking of 5 denotes aspects of exceptional significance through to a ranking of 1 for aspects which are intrusive to the significance. This section has been arranged to assess the wider precinct before moving to the building and the wharf assessed in turn.

V I S T A S

Views of the site from Macrossan Street and the town 5

Views of the site from the water 5

Key: 1 = intrusive 2 = little significance 3 = moderate significance 4 = high significance 5 = exceptional significance



45

Views of the shed from the wharf 4

L A N D S C A P E A N D P R E C I N C T

Concealed stone pitched causeway 5

reclaimed land 1

concrete wharf 1

Palm trees on reclaimed land 1

Buildings on reclaimed land 1

Early vegetation including fig trees and mango trees and stink tree 4

Archaeological deposits 4

Former Douglas Divisional Board Sugar Wharf (Combined Clubs) 5

Former Dixie’s Shed 5

E X T E R I O R : S H E D

The external form and building envelope 4

The external cladding in timber weatherboard 4

The roof form and structure 4

Early openings in the structure including sliding doors, fastenings and hardware

4

Later doors, windows, modifications to early doors and windows 1

Roof sheeting and rainwater goods except surviving early elements 3

Current paint finishes (except concealed early finishes) 2

Additional lobby ca 1980 2

I N T E R I O R : S H E D S

Timber framed structure including roof trusses, wall framing, platform floor structure and early timber decking

4

Internal volume generally 4

Timber sliding doors including hardware and joinery 4

Evidence of early windows, doors, openings in the timber framed walls 4

Early timber linings in the shed which remain unpainted 4

Covering on top of floor structure including sheet material and timber boards

1

Later walls, partitions and linings including timber shingle, plasterboard, pine boards etc in the northern end of the building

1



46

Later doors, windows, modifications to early doors and windows including aluminium framed windows, louvres and portholes

1

Kitchen, bathroom and toilet fitout 2

Building services generally including recent light fittings 2

Mural painted for the Shipwreck Museum 3

T I M B E R D E C K E D W H A R F

The form and location of the wharf 4

The fabric of the wharf structure including pylons and frame 2

The timber decking on the wharf 3

C O N C R E T E W H A R F

The form and location of the wharf 1

The fabric of the wharf structure 1


A VISION

47

5 A VISION

The parallel study of the Port Douglas Waterfront Master Plan changes proposed to this area as part of the Port Douglas Waterfront Master

Plan offers a rare opportunity to see the former Sugar Wharf incorporated and demands an appropriate vision.

5 . 1 C U L T U R A L S I G N I F I C A N C E

The history of the former Sugar Wharf and the physical evidence surviving clearly indicates that this place is significant as evidence of a busy waterfront which was in turn the raison detre of the town itself. Its cultural significance relates to this evidence and to the broader site of which it is a part. Its significance includes its surviving fabric, its aesthetic value and its scarcity. For these reasons the former Sugar Wharf is the most significant historic building in Port Douglas and arguably in the wider district. This cultural significance will inevitably place some constraint on future use. It is unlikely that major modification involving a loss of its architectural form and detail, its internal volumes, the evidence of use as a sugar store will be acceptable to the Queensland Heritage Council whose approval will need to be obtained for any proposed work.

5 . 2 O P P O R T U N I T I E S A N D C O N S T R A I N T S

The former Sugar Wharf has lain empty since 1999 and despite expressions of interest by local community groups it remains so. The former Douglas Shire Council has, since that time, committed substantial amounts to ensure the security and safety of the building and quite recently has spent further sums in sheeting over floorboards and in the provision of toilets and safety lighting to make the building more readily comply with community expectations for use. Access to the buildings is, however, not easy. Neither is the building itself immediately usable. Part of it has been converted for use as a house by the previous lessee and the remainder is effectively a large open space, with industrial finishes, limited control of ventilation. It is in addition poorly serviced. The floor plan and the building itself, a long thin building with no ceilings and an unlined roof is seen by some to be a constraint to re-use or redevelopment. Some discussion has taken place in which the former museum display or an interpretive centre for the Low Isles Preservation Society might be re-established without major intervention in the building fabric. The most recent work was carried out, it is understood, to allow the building to be used by local arts groups but it is clear that the


A VISION

48

building while loved by most is seen by many to be something of a liability overall. The decision to develop the Port Douglas Waterfront provides an enormous opportunity to make positive decisions about the future of this building as part of a much wider program of development at Port Douglas. Issues such as access, servicing relationship to other facilities, cost planning and use are able to be considered as part of a more comprehensive proposal and to be given functional and economic context. The Waterfront Master Plan also allows any conservation, adaptation or re-use proposals of the Sugar Wharf itself to be extended to include a wider curtilage or historical context and to link the building to that part of the foreshore and to elements to which it is associated historically.

5 . 3 E X P E C T A T I O N S

In discussion with community groups and individuals during the course of the present study one major theme was constant. That the former Sugar Wharf should become part of a community resource in this part of Port Douglas. While different end uses were proposed ranging from museums and interpretive centres to community arts centres all expressed an expectation that the public, both local and visitors, should be allowed access to the building. Lease or sale of the place for commercial or private use was universally opposed. It is probable that the former Douglas Shire Council too, saw the Sugar Wharf as a community resource as the recent work to allow better use of the building by local community arts groups testifies. That this community use and involvement might be carried out with sensible acknowledgement of conservation and ongoing maintenance costs was also clearly in Council’s mind. No one interviewed suggested that some form of commercial activity would be unacceptable and from some came the suggestion of an admission fee or the sale of refreshments and material related to the wharf and the waterfront. Continued public accessibility to the wharf itself for fishing, sightseeing or for access to boats was expected to continue.

5 . 4 L E A R N I N G F R O M O T H E R P L A C E S

Port Douglas is able to point to St Mary’s by the Sea, the former St Augustine’s Catholic Church, as an example of the management of an historic building for community benefit and as one with a financial plan and commercial return.


A VISION

49

It must be recognised however that even the best managed heritage buildings generally fail to return sufficient funds unless there is a clear and commercially viable component associated with the place and that some adaptation may be necessary to achieve that objective. Some places are of such significance that any adaptation will likely compromise that significance while others whose significance is more general, as one of a number of similar places or whose value is largely in the contribution that it makes to a streetscape may be more freely adapted. The former Port Douglas Court House is perhaps in the first category. The later Court House Hotel is in the latter. The former Sugar Wharf lies somewhere between these extremes. While great care will need to be taken to conserve those parts of the building that give it cultural significance there is opportunity to make sensible decisions to adapt some less significance areas to allow new use to take place. Recent examples of intervention to create new uses and commercially viable spaces at historic buildings demonstrate that modern materials and design can add value to listed places. By clearly expressing new work as such the new work allows greater flexibility in design and greater opportunity to maintain cultural significance and, at the same time, to create and maintain viable activities within.

5 . 5 T H E V I S I O N

The former Sugar Wharf at Port Douglas offers an opportunity to recognise the cultural significance of the place, to provide a resource for both the local and the visiting community of North Queensland and to do so in a manner which will establish a point of difference between this and other places in Queensland. The opportunity to be the visual centrepiece of the Port Douglas Waterfront and a community focus and for the town more generally is clear. It is an attractive building and located on the waterfront forms a visual focus for that part of Port Douglas. It is in fair condition and the clear evidence in the wear and tear or patination of its fabric makes an evocative contrast with other places in Port Douglas. Those qualities of age and evidence of use should remain in any re-use proposal. It is not therefore envisaged that the building will be extensively restored and brought to a standard that denies its history as an industrial building. Rather it is proposed that the building be presented with its robust nature intact. To the extent that the place requires adaptation to satisfy any new


A VISION

50

use, issues of amenity and servicing might be dealt with by creating, in selected parts of the Sugar Wharf, separate and clearly expressed functional ‘nodes’ or spaces.

35The Rockhampton Railway Roundhouse

wasadapted for use as modern offices by ‘inserting’ a new glass and steel structure

within the historic building. [John Gollings Photographer]

This approach, previously used in listed buildings such as the Rockhampton Roundhouse and perhaps more pertinently in Brisbane’s Naval Stores (1886) resulted in an architectural solution best expressed as ‘a room within a room’. In each of the above cases the finish and nature of the industrial building was retained and conserved. Within those buildings new spaces were created to provide, at the Roundhouse offices of the Queensland Rail and at the Naval Stores a museum of Brisbane and the Brisbane River.

36The Brisbane Naval Stores were adpated as a museum and interpretive centre by leaving the

decay and patination to sit beside modern glass and steel displays. [Allom Lovell]

This approach allows not only early and significant fabric to be conserved but allows a clustering and simple installation of services including air conditioning. Use of the building should be such that the community is allowed regular and unencumbered access generally and any of the proposals already canvassed, a museum, interpretive centre or an arts centre are three options likely to be acceptable to the Queensland Heritage Council. Other and more commercial activities are not however to be denied provided that community access is maintained. A small restaurant or coffee shop is certainly an option to consider. If food servicing is to be


A VISION

51

part of any new use it is proposed that it be located in the northern section of the wharf building in the area formerly occupied by the former lessee as a house. The wharf deck itself should remain open and accessible and not be the site of additional structure or covering. The use of the wharf by boats and shipping should be encouraged as part of any plan to re-use the building. The setting of the former Sugar Wharf and its relationship to the foreshore is an important part of its cultural significance. There is opportunity as part of the Waterfront Master Planning process to restore some sense of those connections and associations. Certainly the present context in which the wharf sits close to the landfill or reclamation of the late 1970s obscures an important element of the Sugar Wharf when built – its projection beyond the then shoreline along the stone pitched wall and timber trestle. The more recent buildings on the reclaimed land further confuse the historical context of the Sugar Wharf. The proposal by the Douglas Shire Historical Society to excavate and reveal part of the stone wall and to re-establish the setting and context of the former Sugar Wharf has substantial merit. It is suggested that the listing boundary of this place be extended to include that part of the foreshore and certainly that no further major development take place within that curtilage. On the more general and wider issues of the Waterfront Master Plan it is suggested that the proposal of consultants Maunsell Australia Pty Ltd to include the Port Douglas Waterfront Heritage Precinct as a designated character precinct be adopted and that the history of that part of Port Douglas, its wharves, sheds, railways, landscape and historical land use and potential archaeological evidence be central in the formation of any plan. Evidence of early town planning, land use and landscaping is still clearly evident and this historical logic should form the basis of plans to revitalise the waterfront.


A VISION

52

37A diagram showing a vision for the broader site which includes the re-establishment of the early

street patterns (within the parkland) and the removal of some of the land reclamation to

reveal the stone pitched causeway to the Sugar Wharf. [Allom Lovell with base photograph

from the Douglas Shire Council]


A VISION

53

A vison for the adaptation of the Sugar Wincludes the use of ‘pods’ to contain serv

and controlled enviroenments which will athe industrial nature and patination of the

to be conserved. [Allom Lo

38harf ices llow shed vell]


CONSERVATION POLICIES

54

6 CONSERVATION POLICIES

T he purpose of the conservation policies set out in this section is to provide a guide to the development and care of the Port Douglas

Sugar Wharf in ways that retain its significance. The policies aim to:

retain the integrity of the place as a 20th century wharf; identify elements which adversely affect the place and which

may be modified or removed; draw attention to the need for co-ordination of planning and

management; provide an approach to the conservation of the setting and the

architectural fabric; permit adaptation of the existing building within the constraints

of the cultural significance; outline procedures by which these objectives may be achieved.

The policies are set out in italics and are accompanied by information on which they are based and followed by an explanation of likely implications. Policies should be read in conjunction with the associated text. It is understood that a master plan is being prepared for the waterfront area of Port Douglas and that other views about the future of this building may become apparent. It is however important that the cultural significance of the place is acknowledged in any debate. The present document and its policies are aimed at a longer term view and should continue to guide the care and conservation of the Sugar Wharf for years to come.

6 . 1 A P P R O A C H

The cultural significance of the former Port Douglas Sugar Wharf lies primarily in the evidence it presents of the working port and of the central role of maritime activity at Port Douglas. While these historical associations and the visual or aesthetic values inherent in the building and its broader site are the primary values to be conserved recognition of the historical role of the wharf as a public space and the significant early fabric must also be taken into account. Finally, a vision for the future of the building and its context (which includes long term community and political objectives) will play a part in setting policies for the conservation of this place.



55 A C T I O N I N F O R M E D B Y S I G N I F I C A N C E

The significance of the Port Douglas Sugar Wharf is set out in full in earlier sections of this document.

Policy 1: The Sugar Wharf should be conserved, presented and used in a manner which recognises its significance.

The more significant a concept, fabric, relationship, space or vista, the more should care be exercised in preparing proposals that may affect the place – the objective being to ensure that the work will not reduce, and may reinforce, the identified significance.

This understanding of the levels of significance helps introduce the flexibility necessary for the management of change.

6 . 2 M A N A G E M E N T

Management of the Port Douglas Sugar Wharf complex will require a single vision and commitment of resources. The place is an important one in Queensland’s history and has the potential for that significance to be revealed and better understood by the broader community.

S I N G L E E N T I T Y I N C O N T R O L

The present situation in which the entire site is owned by a single entity, the Cairns Regional Council, is the most straightforward in terms of managing the cultural significance of the place.

Policy 2: Regardless of the use and tenure of the various elements of the Port Douglas Sugar Wharf, ultimate decision making and control should be the responsibility of a single group.

The significance of the Port Douglas Sugar Wharf and the value of the place as a resource require a management structure that is focussed and in which decision making is centralised. In the event that parts of the site are not owned by the Cairns Regional Council there is an even greater need for the management of the site to be by a single entity.

C O N T I N U I T Y O F A D V I C E

The Port Douglas Sugar Wharf is a place which is likely to exist in perpetuity. While changes in philosophy, attitude and practice may vary over time it is important that these changes be considered within a long term view. Equally continuity of action is necessary when considering or carrying out capital works at the place.

Policy 3: Particular care should be taken to ensure continuity of staff, professional and trade advice, and supervision of actual work.



56 Any change in the ownership or leasing arrangements at the site in the future will make the need for a continuity of conservation advice even more important to ensure that the values of the place are understood and conserved.

A P P R O P R I A T E S K I L L S

The composition of any group of management should reflect not only the present stakeholders but experts in the care and the management of the resource.

Policy 4: Members of any entity appointed to manage the place should be selected primarily to provide a range of skills and experience relevant to the conservation, development and use of the place.

The management of any historic place will require skills across a wide spectrum including those associated with the conservation of the various elements, management and community interests. The composition of any management group at Port Douglas Sugar Wharf should be structured in a way in which these skills are represented.

B U R R A C H A R T E R

It is essential that work at the Port Douglas Sugar Wharf be of a standard that reflects and is influenced by the cultural significance of the place and of its various parts.

Policy 5: All work at the Port Douglas Sugar Wharf, whether planning or capital works should be carried out in accordance with accepted standards and procedures for the conservation and management of cultural material.

The Port Douglas Sugar Wharf is a place of substantial cultural significance and any work at the place should be of a standard that reflects that significance. The various charters, guidelines and standards of organisations such as the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) should be followed to enable a consistent and professional approach and to serve as a useful bench mark or reference point for work to be carried out.

E N D O R S E M E N T O F P O L I C I E S

The policies and strategies contained in this document are the result of the work of a consultant team. In order to give weight and authority to the various policies and recommendations they will need to be endorsed and procedures set in place to allow appropriate action to follow.

Policy 6: The policies and supporting arguments in this document should be endorsed as an appropriate guide to future development by all bodies



57

involved in planning and approval processes for the Port Douglas Sugar Wharf.

In addition to the entity charged with control and management of the place, the broader community of interest might be a party to the endorsement of this document through making the document publicly accessible.

R E L A T I O N S H I P O F C O N S E R V A T I O N P L A N T O W H A T C O M E S A F T E R

This conservation and management plan is only one step in the ongoing care of Port Douglas Sugar Wharf. Other studies have already been carried out and further studies, plans and recommendations will follow inevitably as the project advances. The present document will however be a key document and it is important that all future studies are related and cross referenced to avoid contradictions and potential conflicts. The process of seeking further advice should be open and transparent.

Policy 7: The conservation and management plan, once endorsed, should be the basis for any further studies or decision making at the place.

Policy 8: Any future studies and decision making should be carried out in an open and public manner to allow direct participation and co-operation of all interested parties.

Proper co-ordination of ongoing studies and of the recommendations that flow from those studies is important and is most likely to be achieved by allowing an open and transparent process in which all interested parties and available expertise is consulted.

P O L I C Y R E V I E W

It is inevitable that circumstances at the Port Douglas Sugar Wharf will change in time and beyond those anticipated in this study. A review of the present document in a structured manner is therefore appropriate within an agreed timeframe.

Policy 9: This document generally and the conservation policies within it should be reviewed every ten years, before any major development work is proposed, or after any event that affects significant fabric such as a fire or some form of natural disaster.

It is important that policies contained in this document and agreed to are not changed or discarded in a random manner.

6 . 3 A C O N S E R V A T I O N A P P R O A C H

A gentle conservation approach is called for in which existing material is conserved and maintained rather than being replaced. Neither is there a



58 need for major restoration or reconstruction. Indeed the sense of patination and gentle deterioration is part of the significance and should be conserved.

U S E

The site was used for the transportation of goods and later sugar from 1905 until 1958. In more recent decades the building was used as a restaurant, a residence and a shipwreck museum. It is currently vacant although the toilets have been upgraded and new floors installed to enable the place to be rented by the community. The wharf is not currently used other than by pedestrians fishing off its edge. The underutilisation of the building is not ideal because of the increased risk to an empty building in this remote location. The risk of fire, vandalism and even unchecked entry of rainwater may well threaten the long life of the place. The cultural significance of the building is such that both the wharf and the building should be accessible to the public. While it is not necessary for the entire building to be accessible to the public the wharf and the majority of the store should be made available.

Policy 10: The Sugar Wharf should be given active uses which will ensure its protection and longevity. Policy 11: Any new use should be tested against the cultural significance and the capacity for the building to be used with minimum modification. Policy 12: Public access should be maintained to the wharf and the store building.

A preferred use for the store and wharves is one in which the building is conserved and interpreted for the community, in which the building is fully utilised, one which retains the industrial sense of the place and one in which the building and wharf is accessible to the public and indeed one in which the wharves are used for vessels. The store building lends itself to a range of uses and this study does not support or prohibit specific uses. Each use must be tested to understand the likely impact it will have on the significance of the place. Commercial use or use from which an income is derived is acceptable within the limitations of its cultural significance. That use should be relevant to its history and its prominent position within the town.



59 M A I N T E N A N C E A N D R E P A I R

The key to the care of the Port Douglas Sugar Wharf lies not in major restoration but in constant and regular maintenance of the existing fabric of the buildings and the grounds. Some elements will require more radical intervention to ensure that structural integrity is addressed but most will require an approach that repairs deterioration or damage as it occurs.

Policy 13: Adequate and intelligent cyclical maintenance and timely major repair should be accepted as a vital part of the conservation program.

The building, the wharf and the sub-structure are in a reasonable condition. However their location in a salt water environment demands a rigorous maintenance plan to be developed to slow deterioration. A maintenance plan should be established where the building is checked on a regular basis to ensure that the risk from these threats is minimised. Repairs to the buildings which may arise from those maintenance inspections should follow the principles of the Burra Charter and in particular should involve the replacement of minimal significant fabric.

P A T I N A T I O N

A part of the significance and pleasure at the Port Douglas Sugar Wharf complex is the evidence of wear and patination, particularly evidenced within the interior of the shed.

Policy 14: Any maintenance or urgent work necessary should retain the evidence of wear and patination of age. The place should not be “tidied up” in any redevelopment.

It is not intended that the conservation of the Port Douglas Sugar Wharf will result in a place in which new fabric and paint finishes deny all evidence of previous use.

P R E S E R V A T I O N

The preservation of early and significant fabric is an important component in the long term care and conservation of this place. This includes not only the store building and its platform and sub-structure which contain this fabric but importantly the original stone causeway which it is believed to be concealed within the more recent land reclamation adjacent to the building.

Policy 15: Significant fabric should be retained and preserved in any conservation work.



60

Policy 16: The original stone causeway should be protected and preserved in any work to the broader site.

The revealing of the original stone causeway has been identified by the Douglas Shire Historical Society as being an important aspect of the conservation of the place and proposals made in which this element would be carefully investigated by archaeologists and other conservation experts before revealing and repairing the structure. It would certainly assist in explaining the connection between the building, the land and the problems of water depth in accessing the building. Of critical importance however is to protect the stone causeway so that it is not disturbed or damaged by any non-related work on this part of the wider site.

R E C O N S T R U C T I O N

Reconstruction of missing parts of the building and site may be appropriate at the Port Douglas Sugar Wharf provided that sufficient physical and documentary evidence exists to enable the accurate reconstruction of missing elements. This action should only be contemplated when it is considered that their reconstruction will assist in explaining or interpreting the cultural significance of the place.

Policy 17: Reconstruction work should be limited to elements for which sufficient physical and documentary evidence survives and for which will assist with the interpretation of the cultural significance.

Elements which may be reconstructed include the missing set of timber sliding doors fronting the wharf, a single door at the end of the building and the ridge vents on the building. The timber trestle bridge which connected the stone causeway with the wharf may also be considered for reconstruction. However, it may be possible to explain the sense of the building sitting at the end of the line in other ways. The reconstruction of the railway tracks to the building is not considered appropriate, however other interpretive devices should be used to explain the connection between the railway and the building.

6 . 4 S I T E A N D S E T T I N G

The survival of this place is in part due to its sitting away from the Port Douglas foreshore. The wider site has changed dramatically with the reclamation work of the late 1970s and the construction of new buildings adjacent to the wharf. The concrete wharf from that period also has an adverse impact upon the site and its setting.



61 C U R T I L A G E

The significance of the place is not limited to the wharf and store building only. A curtilage is proposed which aims to protect the immediate surrounds of the building, to protect any surviving evidence of the stone pitched causeway and to protect the Stink Tree which is located near to and marks the extent of the 19th century waterfront.

Policy 18: Negotiations should be held with the Environmental Protection Agency to vary the listing boundary and citation describing the former Sugar Wharf to include the land immediately adjacent to the wharf. Policy 19: Consideration should be given to the removal of intrusive elements from within the curtilage in any future plan. New structures within the curtilage should be strictly limited so as not to impact on the cultural significance.

The structures within the proposed curtilage include the concrete wharf, the building currently housing a café and Undersea Explorer, a toilet block and the relocated St Mary’s Church. While St Mary’s and the toilet block are visually unobtrusive, the Undersea Explorer building is a dominant building and distorts the historical evidence of the Sugar Wharf sitting at the end of an extended jetty.

39A diagram of the immediate site showing

intrusive elements shaded and a proposed curtilage in pale shading. [Allom Lovell]



62 A S I N G L E B U I L T O B J E C T

The nature of Dickson Inlet and the ability of large vessels to pull up beside a wharf resulted in the design of the Port Douglas Sugar Wharf which projected substantially into the water. The form of the stone pitched causeway was determined by the minimum curve possible for the tramway tracks. These constraints led to a building which was sited as a single built object within a natural landscape of beach, waterways and mountain ranges to the west. The views of the building from the water and from the parkland to the east of the building should be retained to allow this understanding to be appreciated.

Policy 20: The setting of the Sugar Wharf sitting as a single built object within a natural landscape should be reinforced and strengthened. Policy 21: Consideration should be given to the removal of elements which intrude on the setting including the reclaimed land adjacent to the building and the concrete wharf. Policy 22: New structures in the parkland to the east of the building should not block important views of the building.

While this policy may be a part of a long term plan for the site it should be foremost in the minds of planners in designs for the Port Douglas waterfront. A positive recognition of the value of the extended site will greatly assist in making the significance of the place understood.

D I C K S O N I N L E T

The waterway, while not within the site is critical to the cultural significance of the place. The connection and relationship between the wharf and the water is significant.

Policy 23: The water should continue to dominate the place and historical relationships between the wharf, shed and the water should be maintained.

It is important that in any adaptation of the buildings that the relationship with the water is maintained. The western water edge should not be seen as the “service” part of the place but as the front door to the place. Similarly the bay to the east of the building is important and no changes should be made which might diminish the contribution it makes to the listed place.



63

40The water including Dickson Inlet is a dominant

part of the site and this relationship should be protected. [Allom Lovell]

T H E T O W N O F P O R T D O U G L A S

The connection of the place with the township of Port Douglas is an integral one albeit one that is less apparent than it would have been in the early part of the 20th century. In the original survey of the town Macrossan Street continued and intersected with the foreshore in a broad Esplanade. Warner Street to the south marked the angle and direction of the stone pitched causeway. The loss of the marking of Macrossan and Warner Streets in more recent decades has diminished the connection of the wharf with the town. The reclamation of large amounts of land and the loss of the original foreshore line has also changed the connection and historical association of the town and the port.

Policy 24: The connection between the Port Douglas Sugar Wharf and the town of Port Douglas should be re-established in replanning the foreshore parkland.

Given the current planning to redevelop the foreshore of Port Douglas it is an ideal opportunity to investigate the possibility of making the extensions of Warner and Macrossan Street more apparent. Marking the line of the 19th century foreshore will also assist in this objective.

T H E S E N S E O F A W O R K I N G P O R T

The major redevelopment of Port Douglas in the past several decades has included a loss of much evidence of Port Douglas being a working port. There are however some fragments of this aspect of the town’s history which do survive. They include Dixie’s Hut and the former Douglas Divisional Board Sugar Wharf (part of Combined Clubs).

Policy 25: Significant historical elements of the working port identified in this study should be retained and conserved. Policy 26: Archaeological below ground evidence of the industrial foreshore should be mapped and so far as is possible, reserved for future excavation.



64 While very little evidence of the working port survives it may be possible to retain the surviving fragments and to interpret this aspect of its significance.

V E G E T A T I O N

The vegetation in the broader site is located in two main areas. The first is within the original foreshore. These trees include a stink tree, mango trees and fig trees which all provide evidence of earlier structures and land use in this part of the town. The second period planting is located in the reclaimed land and includes palms and other more recent plantings.

Policy 27: The trees within the original foreshore zone should be assessed by a landscape architect with heritage expertise to determine more carefully their cultural significance.

Policy 28: The landscape within the reclaimed land is not significant. Its removal or replanting should be considered. Policy 29: Any new planting adjacent to the Sugar Wharf should reinforce the sense of the place as a working port.

While tourism related activities may encourage the use of soft landscape elements these should be carefully considered so as not to distort the historical evidence.

The landscape of the broader area consisplanting in the reclaimed land such as ptrees and exotics and historic planting otrees and mangoes in other parts of the

[Allom Lo

41ts of alm f fig site. vell]



65 6 . 5 T H E S U G A R W H A R F B U I L D I N G

The Sugar Wharf building was constructed in 1905 as a simple large open structure. The building was extended and moved closer to the land in 1924. Subsequent alterations to the building have included the removal of several generations of lean-to lunch rooms, the removal of an outside toilet and the removal of a walkway which surrounded three sides of the building. Major changes occurred to the building in 1979 when it was adapted for use as a residence and shipwreck museum.

P R E S E R V A T I O N

Despite generations of alterations much early fabric and detail survives both internally and externally.

Policy 30: The Sugar Wharf building should be retained and conserved. Policy 31: The sense of a working timber shed and the evidence of its early use should be maintained. Where sections of early linings have been removed they should not be replaced but left to tell the story of the buildings later adaptation. Policy 32: Significant fabric including wall framing, roof trusses and framing, early timber wall lining, early sliding doors and evidence of other early openings should be retained. Policy 33: A mural from the shipwreck museum should be recorded if the internal partition is to be removed. Policy 34: The roof sheeting and rainwater goods should be replaced using galvanised steel in a profile and detail to match the original roof sheeting. Policy 35: The early fabric inside the building should not be painted but should be left untreated. Policy 36: The trusses and wall framing should not be concealed. Policy 37: The patination of the building should be retained. Policy 38: The buildings should not be cleaned or tidied except where this action is causing the deterioration of the fabric.

An approach is suggested in which the interior of the building is treated gently by removing recent and intrusive elements and revealing the interior as a large single volume.



66 R E M O V A L O F I N T R U S I V E E L E M E N T S

Some elements in the building are intrusive and should be removed. These include most of the adaptation work carried out by Cropp in 1979 and the more recent sheeting over wharf decking to provide a level floor.

Policy 39: Alterations dating from the 1980s including window and door openings, mezzanine, partitions, internal linings, kitchen, bathrooms, services and later floor coverings of timber, tiles and vinyl should be removed. Policy 40: The sheet flooring installed on top of the timber decking should be removed.

Although the sheet flooring in the building is a recent modification by the Council it is concealing a significant part of the building and any options to adapt the building should include at least the partial removal of this element to reveal the original flooring.

42

The instrusive elements in the building and the wharves are shaded and should be removed.

[Allom Lovell]

A D A P T A T I O N O F T H E B U I L D I N G

Some adaptation of the building is likely to be needed in any future use. Where that adaptation involves removal or penetrations in the fabric it should be limited to the area of the building most modified in 1979. An approach should be developed where any structure or services are seen to be a clear insertion into the existing structure. This work should cause minimal intervention into the existing fabric. A consistent language of materials and details should be developed for each future



67 phase of adaptation to enable the existing layering of the site’s history to be continued.

Policy 41: Limited new services for kitchens and bathrooms may be inserted in the building providing they are in the area of the building previously modified and provided they touch the historic building lightly.

Policy 42: The building should not be air conditioned without careful consideration.

Although air conditioning is often seen as a way of making a building more usable, in the case of the Sugar Wharf it has the potential to damage and distort the cultural significance of the place as an industrial building. Creative solutions to the management of the environment inside the building should be sought. They should not include sealing the building at floor and eaves or the insulation of the roof. These would have an unacceptable impact upon its cultural significance.

Policy 43: The building should not be subdivided in such a way that its volume is unable to be read as a large industrial shed.

Policy 44: Services for electrical and lighting supplies should be carefully threaded through the building and concealed behind the structure as much as possible.

Creative design solutions will need to be sought for any adaptation work to ensure that it not only touches the historic building lightly but allows the sense of a working port building to be enjoyed by visitors. A solution in which new facilities such as toilets and kitchen are inserted as small “pods” within the space should be explored.

6 . 6 S U B - S T R U C T U R E

The sub-structure below the store building is constructed of both timber, iron and concrete and is of varying ages reflecting the repair of this element of the building since its first construction. The mix of materials and details does in fact reflect the history of the building and should be retained. Repairs to this element in the future should however be undertaken using traditional materials and details.

Policy 45: Original and early fabric in the sub-structure should be retained.

Policy 46: Repairs to the sub-structure should be undertaken using traditional materials and methods.



68

Policy 47: Evidence of the copper collars in the sand beneath the southern end of the building where the trestle bridge has been removed should be retained.

While it might be easy to replace the structure below the building using modern methods of wharf construction, this would diminish the cultural significance of the place and should be avoided where possible.

6 . 7 P L A T F O R M

The platform is the floor decking and floor framing which survives only below the store building. This element appears to be early and shows evidence of patination and wear. It was concealed in two stages, the first by Cropp in 1979 and most recently by Council.

Policy 48: The early timber floor framing and decking should be retained.

Policy 49: The more recent covering of timber floorboards and compressed sheeting should be removed to reveal the decking.

Policy 50: The decking should be repaired and maintained as a wharf structure. It should not be sanded, filled between the gaps, painted or treated in any way that conceals its industrial past.

This element has the ability to explain the use and patination of the building more than many other parts. Its uneven surface is unlikely to meet current expectations and standards for flooring. Creative solutions will need to be developed such as the use of floating floors in small areas or in walkways for visitors.

6 . 8 W H A R F

The present wharf was constructed in 2001 and while its fabric is of no cultural significance its location which follows generally the size and location of the original is an important part of the cultural significance.

Policy 51: The wharf should be retained in its present location.

Policy 52: The decking of the wharf should be retained in timber.

Policy 53: Public access should be provided to the wharf. Policy 54: The original circulation patterns of the sheds should be maintained with connections from the wharf to the shed via the three large sliding timber doors.



69 The wharf is a critical part of explaining the use of the broader site as a means of moving goods and people into Port Douglas. Its conservation is necessary in maintaining the significance of the place.

6 . 9 I N T E R P R E T A T I O N

The heritage values of the Port Douglas Sugar Wharf complex are not generally understood by the broader community or by visitors to Port Douglas. These values would be much better appreciated if a comprehensive program of interpreting the place is developed.

Policy 55: The history of the place should be explained to visitors.

Policy 56: The continuing use of the wharf for boating related uses will assist with the interpretation of the place.

Policy 57: The interpretive program should include the many different aspects of the history of the place including its more recent history as a shipwreck museum.

Policy 58: The interpretation may include the use of models or diagrams to understand the way goods moved through the site.

Policy 59: In interpreting the building artefacts which do not relate directly to the Port Douglas Sugar Wharf story should be avoided.

The interpretive program will be an interesting one to develop and may include artist in residence programs to interpret the earlier uses of the building and the broader site, including the types of vessels which used the wharves, the types of goods which were shipped, the people who used the wharf and the importance of this building in the history of Port Douglas. The history of the building as a restaurant, as a place of recreation for locals and as a shipwreck museum by Ben Cropp may also be interpreted.


ASSET MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES

70

7 ASSET MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES

Following the completion of the Conservation Management Plan, the Council will be faced with the question of which action is more

urgent in order to bring the Sugar Wharf to a fully utilised building envisaged in this document. There may be some temptation to begin with actions that are visible but restraint will be necessary in order to put in place the necessary management systems and infrastructure to accommodate these initiatives and to ensure that the place is secure against immediate threats. Policy implementation in the short to medium term should therefore include the following actions:

7 . 1 A P P O I N T M E N T O F A M A N A G E R

An individual within Council should be nominated who will have the responsibility of managing the change at this place during this initial period of making decisions about its future use and adaptation and who can also to take responsibility for the future management and maintenance of the building. This person is someone who can become intimately aware of the history of the building and its cultural significance and understand the implications of the policies. Although decisions concerning the management of this important heritage place should be the responsibility of the management committee, a single individual whose responsibility is the day to day management of the place is essential to ensure that decisions of the committee are carried out in an informed and committed manner.

7 . 2 A B R O A D B A S E D T E A M

It is understood that there are several committees which have been established to advise on the redevelopment of the Port Douglas Waterfront. In managing the building in the future Council should not only consult with those groups but with other experts in the field of heritage management. For example a representative from the Cultural Heritage Branch of the EPA, an expert in the conservation of buildings and representatives of the wider community would be appropriate. In particular, the involvement of the EPA will greatly assist with the heritage approval process required under the Queensland Heritage Act.



71

7 . 3 H E R I T A G E A P P R O V A L

While there exists within the Queensland Heritage Act two levels of application and approval it is unlikely that there will be opportunity for application for “Exemption Certificate” during the early stages of work. Indeed it is important that applications for Heritage approval be based on a thoughtful and fully detailed master plan (see below). Random or poorly considered applications are not likely to be well received and will at best result in confusion and delays.

7 . 4 U S E O F T H E B U I L D I N G

One of the first tasks of the Management Advisory Committee should be the preparation of a short list of likely options for the use of the place. Archaeological information may need to be sought on matters of funding or political policy and calls for input from the broader community may raise other alternatives to those already canvassed. Criteria for decision making in heritage terms are clearly set out in the policy section of this document.

7 . 5 S E C U R I T Y O F T H E B U I L D I N G

A program should be set in place to ensure the security of the building. As stated in other parts of the study the threat from fire, vandalism or unapproved entry to an empty building is drastically increased. A system of regularly (weekly at a minimum) inspecting the interior and exterior of the building should be put in place immediately. Consideration may also be given to allowing some temporary use of the building by the community so that it is being used and monitored.

7 . 6 M A I N T E N A N C E P L A N

A maintenance plan should be prepared in which a system of methodically recording the condition of the place is established. This inspection should happen at least every 12 months because of the extreme conditions of the building on the water. The record should cover insect attack, decay, corrosion, condition generally and pertinent other issues. The importance of keeping the material in a single record is that monitoring can be put in place to track the rate of deterioration of elements and to allow budgets to be put in place for their future repair.

7 . 7 U R G E N T M A I N T E N A N C E W O R K S

The structural engineer’s assessment of the building identified three areas of the sub-structure which were in need of urgent maintenance. These items should be attended to by clarifying more precisely the extent



72

of the deterioration and preparing specifications for their repair in accordance with the policies in this study. This work will require the approval of the Queensland Heritage Council. Council consultant PQC Management Systems has identified the presence of asbestos sheeting in the store building and action will be necessary to deal with this in due course. Consultants Howell Facilities Pty Ltd has identified additional urgent work:

Review and install additional fire fighting equipment; Review emergency exit through kitchen – door currently boarded

up; Replace window louvres on door on east elevation; Replace old ceramic fuse holders / switchboard.

7 . 8 D E T A I L E D M A S T E R P L A N

A master plan and architectural concept setting out the use of the building should be prepared. Consideration should be given to the options for any leasing arrangements and the way in which the building fabric will be managed and funded in any use.

7 . 9 P R E P A R A T I O N O F S C H E M A T I C D E S I G N S

A schematic design should be prepared for the building and adjoining area which looks in some detail at the conservation work and the adaptation work required for the preferred use. This should be tested against the conservation plan to ensure it is not damaging or diminishing the significance of the place. The further approval of the Queensland Heritage Council should be sought at this stage.

7 . 1 0 D O C U M E N T A T I O N O F W O R K

Working drawings and specifications should be prepared setting out the necessary works required to the building.

7 . 1 1 C O N S T R U C T I O N W O R K S

The construction of the conservation work and adaptation of the building should then be carried out. This will require the appointment of a builder who is able to understand the nature and the sensitivity of the historic building.


APPENDIX

73

8 APPENDIX

T his chapter contains the chronological history of Port Douglas, a report on the structural integrity of the building by Moller

Consulting Structural Engineers and Project Managers. It also contains information that supports the main findings of the rest of the report. The end notes provide details of the documentary sources used in the research.

8 . 1 P O R T D O U G L A S T I M E L I N E

1770 - Aboriginal paintings portray ships sailing along to coastline of far North Queensland. There is supposition that Chinese and Japanese craft and Malaccan dhows were visiting the north of Australia for centuries before the first European exploration to the east coast of the continent in 1770. 1770 - Lieutenant James Cook, during his 1770 voyage of exploration to search for the “Great South Land” reported sailing to the sea side of Low Isle on Trinity Sunday. 1819 - Captain Phillip Parker King RN carried out the next survey in the cutter Mermaid. He officially name Cook’s Low Isles and Cooktown. 1845 - A further survey was carried out by Captain Owen Stanley on HMS Rattlesnake. He covered the area from Dunk Island to Torres Strait. 1873 - James Ventura Mulligan discovered gold on the Palmer River. 30,000 miners, of which more than half were Chinese, arrived to work the field. A port to service the field became essential. 1873 - Queensland explorer, George Augustus Frederick Elphinstone Dalrymple was commissioned by the Queensland Government to survey rivers and inlets from Cardwell to Cooktown. He sailed from Cardwell on 20 September 1873. 1873 - Dalrymple named Island Point (Port Douglas) and the nearby Mossman River which he named after Hugh Mosman, one of the founders of gold at Charters Towers. 1873 - When Dalrymple reached the Endeavour River and Cooktown he was surprised to find goldfield officials, engineers and road makers at work. The government had chosen the site for a port without waiting for him to complete the survey.


APPENDIX

74 1873 - Dalrymple returned south to explore a major river which he named Daintree after his friend and fellow explorer, Richard Daintree, who was also the Queensland Government Geologist. 1873 - During this period of exploration Dalrymple moved south noting that there was good agricultural land on the coastal side of the Great Dividing Range. He also named the Bloomfield River after a pastoralist he knew at Miriamvale in Central Queensland. 1876 - Discovery of gold on the Hodgkinson River. 1876 - James Mulligan, who found gold deposits on the Hodgkinson River, led a group of miners over the long, unformed and dangerous track from Cooktown to the gold field. It became clear that better access was critical to the survival of the Hodgkinson Goldfield. 1876 - John Smith, miner and publican, blazed a 70 mile track from the Hodgkinson Gold Field to his settlement, Smithfield. 1876 - At the same time Sub Inspector Douglas opened a track from Smithfield through to Trinity Bay where the settlement of Cairns was founded. However, the mines still required a dray road from the Hodgkinson Goldfield to a port. 1876 - The new track from the Hodgkinson Goldfield to Cairns was so difficult and so steep that the carriers and miners asked for an easier road. 1877 - In April 1877 explorers, Christie Palmerston and William Little, opened a track through from the Hodgkinson Goldfield to a site a few miles south west of Island Point. 1877 - Palmerston and Little found a path down the range and travelled through a beautiful valley beside a river he named the Mowbray after his friend and Warden of the Hodgkinson Goldfield. 1877 - Support for the Island Point site to be used as a port came from Captain Daniel Owen, master of the SS Corea out of Cooktown. Owen reported good anchorage at Island Point at the end of Palmerston’s track down the range. 1877 - By June 1877 Cooktown merchants, led by Callaghan Walsh, chartered the SS Corea to take them to Island Point. The ship was loaded with stores and timber. They were joined in July by parties from Cairns who had first landed by mistake at White Cliffs on the Mowbray River.


APPENDIX

75 1877 - Crown Land Ranger Morgan arrived on WB Ingham’s boat Fitzroy. They sailed up the Mowbray River where they found a tent town of prospectors. On 16 June 1877 Morgan set out a street on the river bank for a new township. 1877 - When the Fitzroy arrived at Island Point they found the ketch Terrigal at anchor. Morgan named the anchorage Port Terrigal. The Terrigal had brought up a load of timber and about sixty passengers from Cairns. 1877 - Prospectors and pack horse teams soon opened the road from Island Point to Thornborough and Kingsborough on the Hodgkinson Goldfield. The road, however, was very poor and a public meeting of miners and merchants raised ₤600 to widen the track. 1877 - Despite the money spent on improving the track the terrain through the range was terrible. Names, such as Slatey Pinch, the Blackguard, the Glue Pot and the resting place called the Landing, which were given to key spots along the track, illustrate the difficulty of the terrain. 1877 - Despite the difficulty of traversing the track the first wagon ascended the range from Island Point on 24 October 1877. 1877 - Surveyor Frederick Horatio Warner surveyed the site of the town at Island Point. 1877 - By October the town was already flourishing with wharves, warehouses and hotels. 1877- On 1 December 1877, Queensland Treasurer JR Dickson, Postmaster General CS Mein and John Macrossan MLA brought official notification from the Queensland Government proclaimed the port as a Port of Entry for Dutiable Goods and named it Port Douglas in honour of the Premier John Douglas. 1877 - The inlet on which the new port was located was called Dickson Inlet and Commercial Street was renamed Macrossan Street. 1877 - The Queensland Government allocated ₤2000 for the construction of roads, buildings at the new port. 1877 - The government also established a regular mail service between Port Douglas and Thornborough on 12 December 1877.


APPENDIX

76 1877 - The town developed as a multicultural place with English, Irish, Europeans and Asians passing through the town to the goldfield or seeking agricultural land. The population rose to 8,000. 1878 - The beginning of 1878 saw the transfer of a number of government offices and banks from Cairns to Port Douglas as road traffic on the Thornborough to Cairns road declined in favour of the easier road to Port Douglas. 1878 - The Gold Escort was transferred from Cairns to Port Douglas 1878 - In February 1878 the Queensland Roads Board was established at Port Douglas. 1878 - The road between the Hodgkinson Goldfield and Port Douglas became known as The Bump Road and several small settlements were established along the road to support the teamsters and travellers. 1878 - At one time 42 horse teams, 44 bullock teams, 29 packers were operating along the Bump Road. The feeding and maintenance of these teams led to agricultural settlement close to the road on the coastal plain. A number of teamsters were among the first settlers. 1878 - The first stone jetty at Port Douglas was constructed at the end of Wharf Street by the Queensland Government and extended in c. 1888. 1878 - Willmett’s Northern Queensland Almanac for 1878 reported that there were four hundred people in the town. 1878 - By August 1878 a lighthouse had been constructed on Low Island to mark the shipping channel past Port Douglas. It was an important shipping channel for ships from Europe during the 1880s and 1890s. 1879 - The Queensland Government introduced an act of parliament which set up a system of local government under Divisional Boards. 1879 - The Douglas Divisional Board extended from Cape Tribulation to Cape Grafton and west to the Hodgkinson Goldfield. 1879 - Port Douglas was to be the administrative centre for the Douglas Divisional Board area. 1880 - Tin was discovered at Herberton. A new road from Herberton was constructed from the existing Hodgkinson Road through Granite Creek (Mareeba) to Port Douglas.


APPENDIX

77 1880s - To cope with the great increase in passenger traffic from the tablelands to Port Douglas Messrs. Murphy and McDonald established a coaching service. However, they soon sold out to Cobb & Co. 1880 - The increase in travellers to and from the mining fields saw the rapid development of Port Douglas. By 1880 there were fourteen hotels in Port Douglas plus two at Craiglie and one at Mowbray. There were also a number of shanty pubs and boarding houses. 1880s - The sugar industry began to develop during 1880 and large tracts of land in the Mowbray Valley were taken up during the following years. Land was cleared and experimental plots of sugar cane were grown. The settlers also grew corn, fruit and fodder for the teamsters and ran dairy cattle. 1882 - The Cobb and Co coach service, travelling as it did over the Bump Road, became infamous as the most difficult coach service in the north. 1882 - Around 1882 the miners began agitating for all weather access to a port and to the goldfields. The issue became a hot political debate over where the railway would be located. Eventually it was decided to build the railway through Granite Creek (Mareeba) to Cairns. 1883 - There was a slump in the world price for sugar. Europe was flooded with sugarbeet. The north Queensland sugar industry was also damaged by floods, cane grub and drought. 1887 - The Queensland Department of Agriculture was formed. The department’s role was to develop a more scientific approach to cane growing. 1893 - The railway reached Mareeba on 1 August 1893. 1893 - Port Douglas began to decline as rail transport overtook passenger transport by sea. 1893 - Miners and merchants such as Callaghan Michael Walsh, together with teamsters, saddlers, blacksmiths, butchers and Chinese storekeepers relocated to Mareeba as Port Douglas declined. 1893 - Road transport continued until the railway reached Mareeba on 1 August 1893 1893 – The Queensland Government introduced the Sugar Works Guarantee Act 1893.


APPENDIX

78 1890s - Access to the Mossman District and Port Douglas was only by the Bump Road or by Sea. 1897 - The government gave approval for the construction of a central mill on the Mossman River. The funds were gained from the mortgage of cane farms to the government. 1897 - Machinery for the mill was imported from Scotland on the Westfield. The machinery was landed at Port Douglas and transported to the mill along new cane tram lines from the port to the mill. 1897 - The Mossman Sugar Mill was opened and crushing cane by 23 August 1897. 1900 - By 1900 there were more than 10 miles of cane tram tracks in the Mossman and Port Douglas area. 1900 - The people of Mossman and Port Douglas wanted a passenger rail link to Port Douglas. Such a link would ensure the survival of Port Douglas as a port. 1900 - A petition to the government for funds to build a rail link connected to the Mossman Mill’s rail line. The government approved a loan of ₤22,000 to build the line. 1900 - The new rail link from Mossman to Port Douglas, which opened on 1 August 1900, belonged to the Douglas Divisional Board. 1900 - The new line connected with the Mill’s line at South Mossman and at Port Douglas it terminated at a small wharf provided by the Douglas Divisional Board. 1900 - The Divisional Board Wharf on Dickson Inlet had been built for storage and shipment of bagged sugar about 1896 and was adapted to suit rail transport. Part of the building and rail track still remain as a clubhouse for the Combined Clubs. 1900 - There were four tram trips a day on the Mossman to Port Douglas line with the line carrying 23,062 passengers during 1900. 1901 - In July 1901 the Douglas Divisional Board provided a locomotive and two passenger cars for the new rail service. A depot and workshop were built at Port Douglas near the Divisional Board building to provide maintenance for the rolling stock. Later, branch tramway services were installed at Mowbray and Cassowary, necessitating the acquisition of


APPENDIX

79 additional locomotives and rolling stock. The workshop facilities were increased to meet the demand for maintenance. 1901 - The population began to decline as a result of the loss of passenger and goods traffic to the mining fields. The 1901 Census gave the population as 331 in Port Douglas, with 6000 in the district. 1903 - On 30 March 1903 the Douglas Divisional Board became the Douglas Shire Council. 1904 - Although no longer a port for the mining fields and tableland area, Port Douglas was still the port of the Douglas Shire and particularly the sugar industry which was growing in importance and in the amount of production. 1904 - The location of the shire office in Port Douglas and the rail maintenance workshops in the town helped maintain the population in town and thus supported the growth of a wide range of commercial enterprises. 1904 - The Council obtained a government loan to build a new wharf at a location on the harbour which was more suitable for the berthing of ships. 1905 - The new wharf was of wooden construction. It was 200 feet long and 28 feet wide with the deck 15 feet above water at mean low water spring tide. The dry stone jetty approach to the wharf was constructed using sand fill surrounded by stone. 1909 - A swing basin was constructed at the Port Douglas Wharf to enable larger ships and passenger boats to use the wharf. 1911 - Port Douglas was damaged by a cyclone on 10 February 1911 and a month later on 16 March 1911 the town was mostly destroyed during a second cyclone. 1911 - State and Local government repaired or rebuilt their properties after the cyclone, but others left town. 1914 - By 1914 Pugh’s Almanac recorded that the population of the town was about 250. 1920 - Port Douglas began to decline as Mossman began to grow as a result of the growth in sugar production. By the 1920s the business centre for the Douglas Shire had moved to Mossman. The Post Office


APPENDIX

80 moved to a location opposite the Mossman Mill. The Douglas Shire Council moved to Mill Street, and the Court House and banks followed. 1924 - The Douglas Shire Council shifted the 1905 inward goods wharf onto new piles on the landward side of the building. 1924 - The shift created a wider landing on the sea side of the building 1924 - The wharf was used as a sugar loading wharf after 1924. 1958 - The Mossman Sugar Mill commenced road transport of their sugar. The use of the wharf began to decline after that time. 1958 - Use of the tramways declined after 1958 as farms went to motor transport to shift their cane to the mill. 1960 - The Mill took over the rolling stock and tramway easements under a special Act of Parliament in 1960 1960s - The Port Douglas Wharf stood empty for some time. 1963 - The wharf was leased by Lyell “Pop” Henry to store fuel and as a service centre for small boats and as a ship’s chandlery. 1968 - A fish restaurant was established on the Wharf. 1972 – The restaurant closed. 1977 - The dry stone jetty approach to the wharf was covered with asphalt and the area to the left of the stone approach was filled with sand to create the reclaimed land on which a restaurant is now located. 1977 - The Port Douglas Shire Council announced that they planned to destroy the wharf because it was standing empty. 1977 - Local historian, Noel Weare, alerted the Queensland National Trust to the issue of the proposed destruction of the Wharf. The National Trust of Queensland in consultation with the Douglas Shire Council employed Heritage Consultant, Meredith Walker, to prepare a Townscape Study of Port Douglas. 1977 - Meredith Walker’s report identified the surviving heritage places in Port Douglas and strongly recommended their protection. Unfortunately, most significant buildings have been destroyed since 1977 as a result of the growth of Port Douglas as a major tourist destination.


APPENDIX

81 1980 - Film maker and undersea photographer Ben Cropp, took a twenty year lease on the wharf. He and his wife lived on the wharf and they set up the Shipwreck Museum in part of the building. 1980 - The Council lease with Ben Cropp set a number of conditions, one of which was that he renewed the piles of the wharf. 1980s - Christopher Skase constructed the major Mirage Resort during the 1980s. 1980s - Port Douglas became a significant tourist resort. 1983 – The Port Douglas Wharf was entered on the Queensland National Trust Register. 1990 – The Port Douglas Wharf was listed on the Provisional Heritage Register. 1992 – The Port Douglas Wharf was permanently listed on the Queensland Heritage Register. 1999 - Ben Cropp’s lease was not renewed. 2001 – The Douglas Shire carried out major work on the sub-structure. 2001 – The Douglas Shire carried out further work on the structure. 2008 – Douglas Shire Council commissioned Allom Lovell Architects to prepare a Conservation Management Plan for the Port Douglas Wharf. 2008 – Douglas Shire and Cairns Council amalgamate.


APPENDIX

82 8 . 2 S T R U C T U R A L A S S E S S M E N T


APPENDIX

83


APPENDIX

84

8 . 3 N O T E S

1 Billie Lloyd (ed.), 2000, Reflecting On The Past A Pictorial History

Of The Douglas Shire, Douglas Shire Historical Society, Port Douglas, p. iii

2 Ross Fitzgerald, 1982, From the Dreaming to 1915 A History of

Queensland, University of Queensland Press, Brisbane, p.p. 57-58 3 Billie Lloyd (ed.), 2000, Reflecting On The Past A Pictorial History



Queensland, University of Queensland Press, Brisbane, p.125 5 Ross Fitzgerald, 1982, From the Dreaming to 1915 A History of

Queensland, University of Queensland Press, Brisbane, p. 161 6 Ross Fitzgerald, 1982, From the Dreaming to 1915 A History of

Queensland, University of Queensland Press, Brisbane, p. 161 7 Billie Lloyd (ed.), 2000, Reflecting On The Past A Pictorial History


8 Meredith Walker, 1977, “Port Douglas, A Study of its Historic

Buildings and Townscape”, The National Trust of Queensland, Brisbane, p.4


Queensland, University of Queensland Press, Brisbane, p. 165 10 Ross Fitzgerald, 1982, From the Dreaming to 1915 A History of

Queensland, University of Queensland Press, Brisbane, p. 165 11 Meredith Walker, 1977, “Port Douglas, A Study of its Historic





APPENDIX

85


Of The Douglas Shire, Douglas Shire Historical Society, Port Douglas, p. iv









18 The Australian Handbook and Almanac and Shippers and Importers’

Directory for 1879, Gordon and Gotch, London Melbourne Sydney Brisbane 1879, p.329




Of The Douglas Shire, Douglas Shire Historical Society, Port Douglas, p. v








APPENDIX

86







Noel Weare questions whether the Port Douglas township

reached this figure suggesting that it probably includes the wider area including the Hodgkinson Goldfield.


Buildings and Townscape”, The National Trust of Queensland, Brisbane, p.p. 6-7












Queensland, Queensland University Press, St Lucia, p. 282


APPENDIX

87




Queensland, Queensland University Press, St Lucia, p. p.180 36 Ross Fitzgerald, 1982, From the Dreaming to 1915 A History of

Queensland, Queensland University Press, St Lucia, p. p.180 & 182 37 Ross Fitzgerald, 1982, From the Dreaming to 1915 A History of

Queensland, Queensland University Press, St Lucia, p. 183 38 John Kerr, 1995, Northern Outpost, Mossman Central Mill, 2nd

edition, Mossman, p.12 39 Ross Fitzgerald, 1982, From the Dreaming to 1915 A History of

Queensland, Queensland University Press, St Lucia, p. 187 40 Meredith Walker, 1977, “Port Douglas, A Study of its Historic


41 John Kerr, 1995, Northern Outpost, Mossman Central Mill, 2nd

edition, Mossman, p. 38. 42 John Kerr, 1995, Northern Outpost, Mossman Central Mill, 2nd

edition, Mossman, p.39 43 John Kerr, 1995, Northern Outpost, Mossman Central Mill, 2nd

edition, Mossman, p.40 44 John Kerr, 1995, Northern Outpost, Mossman Central Mill, 2nd

edition, Mossman, p.41 45 Meredith Walker, 1977, “Port Douglas, A Study of its Historic




47 Noel Weare, Oral Interview, Port Douglas, 27 March 2008


APPENDIX

88



49 Noel Weare, Oral Interview, Port Douglas, 27 March 2008 50 Meredith Walker, 1977, “Port Douglas, A Study of its Historic


51 Meredith Walker, 1977, “Port Douglas A Study Of Its Historic

Buildings And Townscape”, National Trust of Queensland, National Estate Programme for Queensland, p. 12

52 Pam Willis Burden, 2008, Remembering the Douglas Shire, Douglas

Shire Council, Mossman, p.vii 53 Meredith Walker, 1977, “Port Douglas, A Study of its Historic












59 Harbours & Marine, Port and Harbour Development in Queensland

from 1824 to 1985, Department of Harbours & Marine Queensland, Brisbane, 1986, p. 155.


APPENDIX

89



61 Harbours & Marine Port and Harbour Development in Queensland

from 1824 to 1985, Department of Harbours & Marine Queensland, Brisbane, 1986, p. 235.

62 Harbours & Marine Port and Harbour Development In Queensland

From 1824 to 1985, Department of Harbours & Marine Queensland, Brisbane, 1986, p.412

63 Harbours & Marine Port and Harbour Development in Queensland

from 1824 to 1985, Department of Harbours & Marine Queensland, Brisbane, 1986, p.412.


From 1824 to 1985, Department of Harbours & Marine Queensland, Brisbane, 1986, p. 251


From 1824 to 1985, Department of Harbours & Marine Queensland, Brisbane, 1986, p.p. 251 - 252







69 Queensland Parliamentary Papers, Auditor General’s Report

1904 – 1905, “Harbour Improvements”, p.90 70 Meredith Walker, 1977, “Port Douglas, A Study of its Historic



APPENDIX

90











76 Dorothy Jones, Cardwell Shire Story, Jacaranda Press, 1961,

Brisbane, p.p. 325 - 327 77 Harbours & Marine Port and Harbour Development In Queensland


78 Noel Weare, Oral Interview, Port Douglas, 23 April, 2008 79 Meredith Walker, 1977, “Port Douglas, A Study of its Historic




81 Noel Weare, Oral Interview, Port Douglas, 27 March, 2008 82 Pam Willis-Burden (ed.), 2005, “Tommy & Jene” in Ports People

Local Stories of Port Douglas from a ‘sleepy fishing village ‘to 5 star resort, Douglas Shire Historical Society, Port Douglas, p.63




APPENDIX

91

84 Noel Weare, Oral Interview, Port Douglas, 27 March, 2008 85 Noel Weare, Oral Interview, Port Douglas, 27 March, 2008 86 Meredith Walker, 1977, “Port Douglas, A Study of its Historic


87 “Talking Heads” with Peter Thompson, Transcripts, Ben Cropp,

ABC 1, 9.4.2007 88 “Talking Heads” with Peter Thompson, Transcripts, Ben Cropp,

ABC 1, 9.4.2007 89 Pam Willis-Burden (ed.), 2005, “Ben Cropp” in Ports People Local

Stories of Port Douglas from a ‘sleepy fishing village ‘to 5 star resort, Douglas Shire Historical Society, Port Douglas, p.99

90 The Cairns Post, “Weekend Extra”, 27 February, 1999, p.39 91 Cairns Post, 16 October 2000 92 Port Douglas and Mossman Gazette, Thursday, 4 February 1999 93 Port Douglas and Mossman Gazette, Thursday, 20 November 2006 94 Cairns Post, Friday 26 October 2007 95 Refer to letter dated 23 May 2008 to Allom Lovell Architects from

Moller Consulting included in the Appendix to this report. 96 Ibid. 97 Noel Weare, personal comment, 28 May 2008 98 ‘The Australia ICOMOS Charter for the conservation of places of

cultural significance (the Burra Charter)’, reprinted in Peter Marquis-Kyle and Meredith Walker, The illustrated Burra Charter: making good decisions about the care of important places (Sydney: Australia ICOMOS, 1994) p. 69.

99 James Semple Kerr, The conservation plan: a guide to the preparation of conservation plans for places of European cultural significance (Sydney: National Trust of Australia (NSW), 1996) p. 4.

the former sugar wharf - city of cairns · the former sugar wharf contents ii 4.3 historical...

Documents