The following formal submission have been made public
Submitter: Medical Association for Prevention of War (Australia) - Sue WarehamNew Southern Entrance
7 September, 2021
Submission of MAPW (Australia) to the National Capital Authority, regarding
the Australian War Memorial application for “main works”
SUMMARY
The proposed “main works” at the AWM should be categorically rejected. They would violate important National Capital Plan heritage, environmental and other principles.
PURPOSE OF THIS INQUIRY
The purpose of this inquiry is obscure. The NCA has already authorised destructive actions at the AWM, having ignored every one of nearly 600 community submissions which opposed these actions. It is impossible to believe that such destruction would have been allowed without the NCA having a clear idea of what was to follow. It is that “what’s to follow” that we are now asked to comment on, when the decision has almost certainly been made, possibly barring small details yet to be finalised. The irreversible nature of the AWM’s “early works” should have had the NCA insisting that they would not be considered separately from the “main works”.
It is disappointing that, yet again, the NCA appears not to want to hear the views of community members on the proposed redevelopment as a whole, and still makes anything but a piecemeal approach difficult. The requirement for submitters to choose which part of the main works proposals they wish to comment on is the reason for any repetitions in this submission, as our comments apply to most aspects of the proposal.
ANZAC HALL AND GLAZED LINK
The “main works” proposal violates the National Capital Plan (NCP) in multiple ways.
• The NCP states (on page 17) that “Substantial works of architecture, engineering and landscape within the Territory should be designed to contribute positively to the overall composition, symbolism and dignity of the National Capital.”
Geographically, the Memorial lies within the heart of our national capital, rendering not only its outward appearance, but also the purposes which its architecture is intended to serve, extremely important.
The vast scale of the proposed Anzac Hall and glazed link are designed significantly to feature weapons of war. The grandiose style of the proposal would overshadow the time-honoured simplicity and beauty of the Memorial's commemorative areas. The AWM would become less of a memorial to our war dead and more of a glorification of war itself.
This would greatly undermine the Memorial’s symbolism and dignity, from representing a nation that strives for and honours peace, towards one for whom war is the defining activity. It would be hard to find anything that stands in more stark contrast to the symbolism of a peace-loving nation than a showplace for expensive weaponry in the heart of the nation’s capital.
• The importance of preserving heritage is the subject of multiple references in the NCP.
MAPW notes that both the government’s own heritage advisers, the Australian Heritage Council, and the heritage section within the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment advised of significant heritage impacts from the proposed redevelopment. The experts within the Department indicated that it would reduce the importance of the original iconic stone commemorative building and pull the focus away from commemoration.
The Australian Heritage Council wrote on 12 December 2019 (emphasis added):
“The works to the Southern Entrance of the War Memorial as currently conceived will detrimentally impact both the original fabric of the building and the experience of visitors who now enter the building through the inspiring entrance to the memorial spaces, as designed by the original architects. The addition of the rear glass atrium will also impact on the original fabric of the building, although unfortunately the design progression in the referral documentation is not sufficiently detailed to allow a clear understanding of the extent of their impact on listed heritage values. The demolition of Anzac Hall will remove a significant contributory element of the identified heritage values. In combination, and as acknowledged in the referral documentation, there is likely to be a significant negative impact on the heritage values of this outstanding Australian heritage place.”
• The NCP states (on page 16) that “The natural environment of Canberra and the Territory will be protected and improved by reducing resource consumption and waste”
This NCP provision has already been violated by the destruction of the award-winning 20-year-old Anzac Hall. It is unsustainable for the AWM to grow to accommodate every new war at the rate of around 24,000 square metres (the current proposed addition) every 20 years. Will Anzac Hall’s proposed replacement also be up for demolition in 20 years’ time? Is the NCA considering such future possibilities?
• The NCP includes the following requirements:
(Page 15): “Retain the distinct urban form for which Canberra is well known, of a city within bush surrounds”
(Page 16): “Protect the nationally significant open-space network, visual backdrop and landscape setting of the National Capital”
(Page 16) “Ensure the development of a city that both respects environmental values and reflects national concerns with the sustainability of Australia’s urban areas”
These requirements have already been violated by the removal of a large number of mature eucalypts, and they will be violated even further if the redevelopment “main works” proceed.
A virtually denuded landscape at the top of Anzac Parade, with, at best, immature plantings for many years to come, will be a far cry from the previous vista and bush surrounds by which the AWM is linked with the base of Mount Ainslie. The new façade of the Memorial, and the likely visibility of the glazed link behind and above the main building, will further detract from the iconic current vista. An enlarged parade ground at the front of the Memorial will drastically encroach on the bush setting.
The proposed new Anzac Hall and glazed link should be rejected because, on all the above grounds, they are not consistent with the National Capital Plan.
NEW SOUTHERN ENTRANCE
• The NCP states (on page 17) that “Substantial works of architecture, engineering and landscape within the Territory should be designed to contribute positively to the overall composition, symbolism and dignity of the National Capital.”
The proposed shift of the AWM’s main entrance - from one that leads directly to the Memorial’s main commemorative area to an entrance into a huge museum-like foyer - would represent a dramatic change to the experience of visiting the Memorial. Like the proposed new Anzac Hall and glazed link, it would instantly draw the visitor’s mind not to commemoration of our war dead but to notions of grandeur and glory in relation to Australia’s war.
As with the proposed new Anzac Hall and glazed link, this would severely undermine the symbolism and dignity of one of our most important national institutions. Notions of human loss would be marginalised by a layout that directs people initially away from the commemorative space, and they would be dwarfed by the creation of vast and imposing non- commemorative spaces.
• The NCP states (on page 16) that “The natural environment of Canberra and the Territory will be protected and improved by reducing resource consumption and waste”
The proposed replacement of the current symbolically appropriate entrance to the Memorial by one that is vastly inferior in symbolic terms, would – apart from that overwhelming concern – use vast resources, disproportionate in quantity to any benefit that might be gained. This violates the National Capital Plan.
The proposed new southern entrance should be rejected because it is not consistent with the National Capital Plan.
Submission of MAPW (Australia) to the National Capital Authority, regarding
the Australian War Memorial application for “main works”
SUMMARY
The proposed “main works” at the AWM should be categorically rejected. They would violate important National Capital Plan heritage, environmental and other principles.
PURPOSE OF THIS INQUIRY
The purpose of this inquiry is obscure. The NCA has already authorised destructive actions at the AWM, having ignored every one of nearly 600 community submissions which opposed these actions. It is impossible to believe that such destruction would have been allowed without the NCA having a clear idea of what was to follow. It is that “what’s to follow” that we are now asked to comment on, when the decision has almost certainly been made, possibly barring small details yet to be finalised. The irreversible nature of the AWM’s “early works” should have had the NCA insisting that they would not be considered separately from the “main works”.
It is disappointing that, yet again, the NCA appears not to want to hear the views of community members on the proposed redevelopment as a whole, and still makes anything but a piecemeal approach difficult. The requirement for submitters to choose which part of the main works proposals they wish to comment on is the reason for any repetitions in this submission, as our comments apply to most aspects of the proposal.
ANZAC HALL AND GLAZED LINK
The “main works” proposal violates the National Capital Plan (NCP) in multiple ways.
• The NCP states (on page 17) that “Substantial works of architecture, engineering and landscape within the Territory should be designed to contribute positively to the overall composition, symbolism and dignity of the National Capital.”
Geographically, the Memorial lies within the heart of our national capital, rendering not only its outward appearance, but also the purposes which its architecture is intended to serve, extremely important.
The vast scale of the proposed Anzac Hall and glazed link are designed significantly to feature weapons of war. The grandiose style of the proposal would overshadow the time-honoured simplicity and beauty of the Memorial's commemorative areas. The AWM would become less of a memorial to our war dead and more of a glorification of war itself.
This would greatly undermine the Memorial’s symbolism and dignity, from representing a nation that strives for and honours peace, towards one for whom war is the defining activity. It would be hard to find anything that stands in more stark contrast to the symbolism of a peace-loving nation than a showplace for expensive weaponry in the heart of the nation’s capital.
• The importance of preserving heritage is the subject of multiple references in the NCP.
MAPW notes that both the government’s own heritage advisers, the Australian Heritage Council, and the heritage section within the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment advised of significant heritage impacts from the proposed redevelopment. The experts within the Department indicated that it would reduce the importance of the original iconic stone commemorative building and pull the focus away from commemoration.
The Australian Heritage Council wrote on 12 December 2019 (emphasis added):
“The works to the Southern Entrance of the War Memorial as currently conceived will detrimentally impact both the original fabric of the building and the experience of visitors who now enter the building through the inspiring entrance to the memorial spaces, as designed by the original architects. The addition of the rear glass atrium will also impact on the original fabric of the building, although unfortunately the design progression in the referral documentation is not sufficiently detailed to allow a clear understanding of the extent of their impact on listed heritage values. The demolition of Anzac Hall will remove a significant contributory element of the identified heritage values. In combination, and as acknowledged in the referral documentation, there is likely to be a significant negative impact on the heritage values of this outstanding Australian heritage place.”
• The NCP states (on page 16) that “The natural environment of Canberra and the Territory will be protected and improved by reducing resource consumption and waste”
This NCP provision has already been violated by the destruction of the award-winning 20-year-old Anzac Hall. It is unsustainable for the AWM to grow to accommodate every new war at the rate of around 24,000 square metres (the current proposed addition) every 20 years. Will Anzac Hall’s proposed replacement also be up for demolition in 20 years’ time? Is the NCA considering such future possibilities?
• The NCP includes the following requirements:
(Page 15): “Retain the distinct urban form for which Canberra is well known, of a city within bush surrounds”
(Page 16): “Protect the nationally significant open-space network, visual backdrop and landscape setting of the National Capital”
(Page 16) “Ensure the development of a city that both respects environmental values and reflects national concerns with the sustainability of Australia’s urban areas”
These requirements have already been violated by the removal of a large number of mature eucalypts, and they will be violated even further if the redevelopment “main works” proceed.
A virtually denuded landscape at the top of Anzac Parade, with, at best, immature plantings for many years to come, will be a far cry from the previous vista and bush surrounds by which the AWM is linked with the base of Mount Ainslie. The new façade of the Memorial, and the likely visibility of the glazed link behind and above the main building, will further detract from the iconic current vista. An enlarged parade ground at the front of the Memorial will drastically encroach on the bush setting.
The proposed new Anzac Hall and glazed link should be rejected because, on all the above grounds, they are not consistent with the National Capital Plan.
NEW SOUTHERN ENTRANCE
• The NCP states (on page 17) that “Substantial works of architecture, engineering and landscape within the Territory should be designed to contribute positively to the overall composition, symbolism and dignity of the National Capital.”
The proposed shift of the AWM’s main entrance - from one that leads directly to the Memorial’s main commemorative area to an entrance into a huge museum-like foyer - would represent a dramatic change to the experience of visiting the Memorial. Like the proposed new Anzac Hall and glazed link, it would instantly draw the visitor’s mind not to commemoration of our war dead but to notions of grandeur and glory in relation to Australia’s war.
As with the proposed new Anzac Hall and glazed link, this would severely undermine the symbolism and dignity of one of our most important national institutions. Notions of human loss would be marginalised by a layout that directs people initially away from the commemorative space, and they would be dwarfed by the creation of vast and imposing non- commemorative spaces.
• The NCP states (on page 16) that “The natural environment of Canberra and the Territory will be protected and improved by reducing resource consumption and waste”
The proposed replacement of the current symbolically appropriate entrance to the Memorial by one that is vastly inferior in symbolic terms, would – apart from that overwhelming concern – use vast resources, disproportionate in quantity to any benefit that might be gained. This violates the National Capital Plan.
The proposed new southern entrance should be rejected because it is not consistent with the National Capital Plan.
Anzac Hall and Glazed Link
7 September, 2021
Submission of MAPW (Australia) to the National Capital Authority, regarding
the Australian War Memorial application for “main works”
SUMMARY
The proposed “main works” at the AWM should be categorically rejected. They would violate important National Capital Plan heritage, environmental and other principles.
PURPOSE OF THIS INQUIRY
The purpose of this inquiry is obscure. The NCA has already authorised destructive actions at the AWM, having ignored every one of nearly 600 community submissions which opposed these actions. It is impossible to believe that such destruction would have been allowed without the NCA having a clear idea of what was to follow. It is that “what’s to follow” that we are now asked to comment on, when the decision has almost certainly been made, possibly barring small details yet to be finalised. The irreversible nature of the AWM’s “early works” should have had the NCA insisting that they would not be considered separately from the “main works”.
It is disappointing that, yet again, the NCA appears not to want to hear the views of community members on the proposed redevelopment as a whole, and still makes anything but a piecemeal approach difficult. The requirement for submitters to choose which part of the main works proposals they wish to comment on is the reason for any repetitions in this submission, as our comments apply to most aspects of the proposal.
ANZAC HALL AND GLAZED LINK
The “main works” proposal violates the National Capital Plan (NCP) in multiple ways.
• The NCP states (on page 17) that “Substantial works of architecture, engineering and landscape within the Territory should be designed to contribute positively to the overall composition, symbolism and dignity of the National Capital.”
Geographically, the Memorial lies within the heart of our national capital, rendering not only its outward appearance, but also the purposes which its architecture is intended to serve, extremely important.
The vast scale of the proposed Anzac Hall and glazed link are designed significantly to feature weapons of war. The grandiose style of the proposal would overshadow the time-honoured simplicity and beauty of the Memorial's commemorative areas. The AWM would become less of a memorial to our war dead and more of a glorification of war itself.
This would greatly undermine the Memorial’s symbolism and dignity, from representing a nation that strives for and honours peace, towards one for whom war is the defining activity. It would be hard to find anything that stands in more stark contrast to the symbolism of a peace-loving nation than a showplace for expensive weaponry in the heart of the nation’s capital.
• The importance of preserving heritage is the subject of multiple references in the NCP.
MAPW notes that both the government’s own heritage advisers, the Australian Heritage Council, and the heritage section within the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment advised of significant heritage impacts from the proposed redevelopment. The experts within the Department indicated that it would reduce the importance of the original iconic stone commemorative building and pull the focus away from commemoration.
The Australian Heritage Council wrote on 12 December 2019 (emphasis added):
“The works to the Southern Entrance of the War Memorial as currently conceived will detrimentally impact both the original fabric of the building and the experience of visitors who now enter the building through the inspiring entrance to the memorial spaces, as designed by the original architects. The addition of the rear glass atrium will also impact on the original fabric of the building, although unfortunately the design progression in the referral documentation is not sufficiently detailed to allow a clear understanding of the extent of their impact on listed heritage values. The demolition of Anzac Hall will remove a significant contributory element of the identified heritage values. In combination, and as acknowledged in the referral documentation, there is likely to be a significant negative impact on the heritage values of this outstanding Australian heritage place.”
• The NCP states (on page 16) that “The natural environment of Canberra and the Territory will be protected and improved by reducing resource consumption and waste”
This NCP provision has already been violated by the destruction of the award-winning 20-year-old Anzac Hall. It is unsustainable for the AWM to grow to accommodate every new war at the rate of around 24,000 square metres (the current proposed addition) every 20 years. Will Anzac Hall’s proposed replacement also be up for demolition in 20 years’ time? Is the NCA considering such future possibilities?
• The NCP includes the following requirements:
(Page 15): “Retain the distinct urban form for which Canberra is well known, of a city within bush surrounds”
(Page 16): “Protect the nationally significant open-space network, visual backdrop and landscape setting of the National Capital”
(Page 16) “Ensure the development of a city that both respects environmental values and reflects national concerns with the sustainability of Australia’s urban areas”
These requirements have already been violated by the removal of a large number of mature eucalypts, and they will be violated even further if the redevelopment “main works” proceed.
A virtually denuded landscape at the top of Anzac Parade, with, at best, immature plantings for many years to come, will be a far cry from the previous vista and bush surrounds by which the AWM is linked with the base of Mount Ainslie. The new façade of the Memorial, and the likely visibility of the glazed link behind and above the main building, will further detract from the iconic current vista. An enlarged parade ground at the front of the Memorial will drastically encroach on the bush setting.
The proposed new Anzac Hall and glazed link should be rejected because, on all the above grounds, they are not consistent with the National Capital Plan.
NEW SOUTHERN ENTRANCE
• The NCP states (on page 17) that “Substantial works of architecture, engineering and landscape within the Territory should be designed to contribute positively to the overall composition, symbolism and dignity of the National Capital.”
The proposed shift of the AWM’s main entrance - from one that leads directly to the Memorial’s main commemorative area to an entrance into a huge museum-like foyer - would represent a dramatic change to the experience of visiting the Memorial. Like the proposed new Anzac Hall and glazed link, it would instantly draw the visitor’s mind not to commemoration of our war dead but to notions of grandeur and glory in relation to Australia’s war.
As with the proposed new Anzac Hall and glazed link, this would severely undermine the symbolism and dignity of one of our most important national institutions. Notions of human loss would be marginalised by a layout that directs people initially away from the commemorative space, and they would be dwarfed by the creation of vast and imposing non- commemorative spaces.
• The NCP states (on page 16) that “The natural environment of Canberra and the Territory will be protected and improved by reducing resource consumption and waste”
The proposed replacement of the current symbolically appropriate entrance to the Memorial by one that is vastly inferior in symbolic terms, would – apart from that overwhelming concern – use vast resources, disproportionate in quantity to any benefit that might be gained. This violates the National Capital Plan.
The proposed new southern entrance should be rejected because it is not consistent with the National Capital Plan.
Submission of MAPW (Australia) to the National Capital Authority, regarding
the Australian War Memorial application for “main works”
SUMMARY
The proposed “main works” at the AWM should be categorically rejected. They would violate important National Capital Plan heritage, environmental and other principles.
PURPOSE OF THIS INQUIRY
The purpose of this inquiry is obscure. The NCA has already authorised destructive actions at the AWM, having ignored every one of nearly 600 community submissions which opposed these actions. It is impossible to believe that such destruction would have been allowed without the NCA having a clear idea of what was to follow. It is that “what’s to follow” that we are now asked to comment on, when the decision has almost certainly been made, possibly barring small details yet to be finalised. The irreversible nature of the AWM’s “early works” should have had the NCA insisting that they would not be considered separately from the “main works”.
It is disappointing that, yet again, the NCA appears not to want to hear the views of community members on the proposed redevelopment as a whole, and still makes anything but a piecemeal approach difficult. The requirement for submitters to choose which part of the main works proposals they wish to comment on is the reason for any repetitions in this submission, as our comments apply to most aspects of the proposal.
ANZAC HALL AND GLAZED LINK
The “main works” proposal violates the National Capital Plan (NCP) in multiple ways.
• The NCP states (on page 17) that “Substantial works of architecture, engineering and landscape within the Territory should be designed to contribute positively to the overall composition, symbolism and dignity of the National Capital.”
Geographically, the Memorial lies within the heart of our national capital, rendering not only its outward appearance, but also the purposes which its architecture is intended to serve, extremely important.
The vast scale of the proposed Anzac Hall and glazed link are designed significantly to feature weapons of war. The grandiose style of the proposal would overshadow the time-honoured simplicity and beauty of the Memorial's commemorative areas. The AWM would become less of a memorial to our war dead and more of a glorification of war itself.
This would greatly undermine the Memorial’s symbolism and dignity, from representing a nation that strives for and honours peace, towards one for whom war is the defining activity. It would be hard to find anything that stands in more stark contrast to the symbolism of a peace-loving nation than a showplace for expensive weaponry in the heart of the nation’s capital.
• The importance of preserving heritage is the subject of multiple references in the NCP.
MAPW notes that both the government’s own heritage advisers, the Australian Heritage Council, and the heritage section within the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment advised of significant heritage impacts from the proposed redevelopment. The experts within the Department indicated that it would reduce the importance of the original iconic stone commemorative building and pull the focus away from commemoration.
The Australian Heritage Council wrote on 12 December 2019 (emphasis added):
“The works to the Southern Entrance of the War Memorial as currently conceived will detrimentally impact both the original fabric of the building and the experience of visitors who now enter the building through the inspiring entrance to the memorial spaces, as designed by the original architects. The addition of the rear glass atrium will also impact on the original fabric of the building, although unfortunately the design progression in the referral documentation is not sufficiently detailed to allow a clear understanding of the extent of their impact on listed heritage values. The demolition of Anzac Hall will remove a significant contributory element of the identified heritage values. In combination, and as acknowledged in the referral documentation, there is likely to be a significant negative impact on the heritage values of this outstanding Australian heritage place.”
• The NCP states (on page 16) that “The natural environment of Canberra and the Territory will be protected and improved by reducing resource consumption and waste”
This NCP provision has already been violated by the destruction of the award-winning 20-year-old Anzac Hall. It is unsustainable for the AWM to grow to accommodate every new war at the rate of around 24,000 square metres (the current proposed addition) every 20 years. Will Anzac Hall’s proposed replacement also be up for demolition in 20 years’ time? Is the NCA considering such future possibilities?
• The NCP includes the following requirements:
(Page 15): “Retain the distinct urban form for which Canberra is well known, of a city within bush surrounds”
(Page 16): “Protect the nationally significant open-space network, visual backdrop and landscape setting of the National Capital”
(Page 16) “Ensure the development of a city that both respects environmental values and reflects national concerns with the sustainability of Australia’s urban areas”
These requirements have already been violated by the removal of a large number of mature eucalypts, and they will be violated even further if the redevelopment “main works” proceed.
A virtually denuded landscape at the top of Anzac Parade, with, at best, immature plantings for many years to come, will be a far cry from the previous vista and bush surrounds by which the AWM is linked with the base of Mount Ainslie. The new façade of the Memorial, and the likely visibility of the glazed link behind and above the main building, will further detract from the iconic current vista. An enlarged parade ground at the front of the Memorial will drastically encroach on the bush setting.
The proposed new Anzac Hall and glazed link should be rejected because, on all the above grounds, they are not consistent with the National Capital Plan.
NEW SOUTHERN ENTRANCE
• The NCP states (on page 17) that “Substantial works of architecture, engineering and landscape within the Territory should be designed to contribute positively to the overall composition, symbolism and dignity of the National Capital.”
The proposed shift of the AWM’s main entrance - from one that leads directly to the Memorial’s main commemorative area to an entrance into a huge museum-like foyer - would represent a dramatic change to the experience of visiting the Memorial. Like the proposed new Anzac Hall and glazed link, it would instantly draw the visitor’s mind not to commemoration of our war dead but to notions of grandeur and glory in relation to Australia’s war.
As with the proposed new Anzac Hall and glazed link, this would severely undermine the symbolism and dignity of one of our most important national institutions. Notions of human loss would be marginalised by a layout that directs people initially away from the commemorative space, and they would be dwarfed by the creation of vast and imposing non- commemorative spaces.
• The NCP states (on page 16) that “The natural environment of Canberra and the Territory will be protected and improved by reducing resource consumption and waste”
The proposed replacement of the current symbolically appropriate entrance to the Memorial by one that is vastly inferior in symbolic terms, would – apart from that overwhelming concern – use vast resources, disproportionate in quantity to any benefit that might be gained. This violates the National Capital Plan.
The proposed new southern entrance should be rejected because it is not consistent with the National Capital Plan.