Relocating heritage

Ravensworth homestead, a historic house in the Hunter Valley, has been the subject of an ongoing heritage saga. The land on which the homestead sits is owned by coal mining company Glencore, which wants to expand its mining activities into the area. Some Traditional Owners oppose the destruction of the site for mining because it has been theorised that Ravensworth was the location of atrocities against Indigenous people committed in the early 1800s and so has particular heritage significance. In the latest development it was announced that the Heritage Council of New South Wales has recommended that the homestead be given state heritage listing.

Glencore had proposed one solution: moving the entire homestead, brick by brick, to another location. State listing would certainly protect the building from relocation, but even without this listing, is moving a heritage building ever a good idea? I recall that about twenty years ago a similar thing was done to a farmhouse building under GML’s supervision. At the time, I remember how outraged the community was. The heritage community was especially angered because the Burra Charter specifically states under Article 9.1 that:

The physical location of a place is part of its cultural significance. A building, work or other element of a place should remain in its historical location. Relocation is generally unacceptable unless this is the sole practical means of ensuring its survival.

The question is: is relocation the sole means of ensuring the Ravensworth homestead’s survival? Not being furnished with any of the heritage reports that were produced by the applicant, Glencore, I cannot say whether or not a persuasive argument has been advanced by them in this case, or what interpretive measures would be undertaken to commemorate the existing building and its setting.

What take home message would this case represent if relocation were permitted? At the one end of the spectrum, it would basically say to all future applicants that it may be possible to move a heritage building if it gets in the way of a development. At the other end of the spectrum, it would provide a loophole for applicants who have no respect for cultural built heritage.

It must be noted that Willow Grove in Parramatta has already been taken down brick by brick for the NSW Government in order to make way for the new Powerhouse Museum. Willow Grove represented one of the last remaining riverside cottages built in the late nineteenth century along the Parramatta River. The salvaged materials were put into storage to await relocation. But many community members opposed “fake” reconstruction of the house, just as they had opposed the demolition in the first place. It was recently announced that the original plans to relocate the house will not go ahead.

One could say that our own government, whose role it is to protect heritage, has already led the way on this. Only the future will tell whether such action is justified. Glencore stands to profit if they can prove the site does not have sufficient heritage value to warrant its protection in situ. Thus we see the political uses of heritage in action: battles fought on the on the fringes of accepted history aim to serve the interests of the powerful. This being the case, I cannot imagine an ordinary punter getting the same treatment. Sadly, heritage has become commodified in this fashion because the rules apply to some, but not others.