Historical Records Now Available

Response to Conservation Management Plan for Fletcher Jones factory and gardens

Part 2 - Response to Specific Recommendations contained in the Draft CDP

Original buildings¹⁰

Comments:

1. The upper level of the tower can only be reinstated (rebuilt) after the demolition of the Executive office extension 1974 (photo 14 & 15 – Part 1 b) together with the passageway connecting this extension to the main office (photo 15).
2. The reinstatement of the Fletcher Jones sign as shown in Figure 2 can only occur with the removal of all or most of the face of the first floor extension done in 1959. (Photo 8 – Part 1 b). The boxed sign could then be rebuilt.
3. The reinstatement of the original cutting room façade can only occur after the demolition of the Executive office extension referred to in 1. above. The cutting room windows have been rearranged and relocated as part of the 1958 extensions (photo 7 – Part 1 b). The current arrangement is shown in the Photo 18.

The recommendations do not make it clear that the above reinstatements are only possible after significant demolition of the existing structure. Very little of the original structure is in existence. The construction of a new staircase in the tower and the removal of the tall window fundamentally altered the structure.

Underneath the Executive offices

Photo 18

The original 1948 parapet above the windows of the cutting room is probably still in existence but the windows have been moved as detailed above as a result of the 1958 extensions (photo 7 – Part 1 b).

Photo 19

Adaptations to sections of primary significance¹¹

Original Canteen – front façade

Photo 20

Photo 21

In 1960 the louvre treatment that had been previously introduced on the factory extensions to the east was added to the new façade of the main building. The colour was navy blue, later called ‘FJ blue’ by Dulux.

Original Canteen Interior

It is recommended that the interior is available for alteration/adaptation but the original cornice and architrave detailing should be retained.

Photo 24

Round Room

The round room can be seen in Photo 21. It was originally the canteen annex built in 1951. (Part 1 a). Thought should be given to the access to the two levels as current staircases are unsatisfactory. The internal staircase to the lower level is non-compliant. The external condition of this 55 year old timber structure is very poor. Consideration should be given to the refitting of the horizontal sun shades that were shown in Photo 4 – Part 1 a. The room is a hot house!

Quonset hut

I agree that the walkway should be removed and the building restored to is original appearance. Photo 2 – Part 1 a. The roundel on the front is still in existence.

Photo 25

I would favour removing the extension to the Quonset hut at the west end which was added in 1954 making the building free standing as shown in Photo 2. This building on the edge of the gardens would make an excellent site for a FJ museum/interpretive centre.

Sewing/cutting room

1947 Plan

The suggestion to retain a representative portion (two bays) of the original sewing room does not have my support. It is ‘tokenism’ at its worst! The original sewing room is not in any way representative of any sewing room in any of the FJ factories. It was without a doubt our most inefficient and to keep it would be a travesty.

Here are some more representative images of the Pleasant Hill sewing rooms. Those in other factories were even better.

Sewing Room 1962

Sewing Room 1985

Sewing Room 1985

Bristol Hut and Staircase and Balustrading

Photo 26

Photo 27

This whole area is very depressing. Photo 26 shows the deteriorated state of the Round Room and Photo 27 the Bristol Hut. If the first floor canteen north face is to be preserved then I accept the recommendation.

First Floor canteen

Photo 28

Photo 29

Photo 28 shows the northern end of the canteen overlooking the gardens and the door leading to the external staircase shown in Photo 26.
Photo 29 shows the eastern side of the canteen looking south showing the awkward levels referred to in Part 1 a with regard to toilet facilities.

I do not agree that the southern elevation is of any significance. The view of the sea from these windows is not notable for anyone living in Warrnambool. The buildings in the foreground do nothing to enhance this view.

Age Small Homes

I do not agree that these homes should be preserved on this site. They are located on land designated for factory expansion¹² and this land should be still available for appropriate development. The gardens on the northern section should be retained.

There were three homes. One was moved in 1973 to make room for the Women’s Wear factory. The only reason the other two houses remain on site is that expansion of Pleasant Hill was limited by our inability to get staff in Warrnambool in the early 70’s and all manufacturing expansion was taking place in Mt Gambier. Staff numbers at PH in 1973 were 404 male and 632 female - total 1036!

The Age Small Homes were commonplace. See footnote on page 6. If the ‘heritage’ value of these houses is such that they should be preserved then that could take place on another site and not on land covenanted as available for development.

Age small homes today

Photo 30

Photo 31

Gardens at the rear of the Age Small Homes

Much has been made of the fact that Fig 1 on Page 6 shows gardens to the south of the three houses. The reality was that each house had back yards with fences, sheds, hill’s hoists, vegetable gardens, and woodheaps! See Photo 32 taken in 1962.

Note the garden umbrellas – they were made by the plumbers and painted by the painters.

The fences on the western and southern boundaries were constructed from recycled army hardwood tent poles set between top and bottom rails.

Photo 32

The Peacockery - 1965

Photo 33

Photo 34

This building (Photo 33) was built in December 1965 after two peacocks (donated in 1964) repeatedly escaped and caused nuisance to the SEC and locals.
After the peacocks departed in 1967 the ‘peacockery’ was converted into a glass house (Photo 34) and then became the gardeners shed after the original shed burnt down. In my opinion there is no reason why this building should be retained and nor is any reason given.

The Gardens

Although the gardens were derided by Robin Boyd¹³ in his book ‘Australian Ugliness’, the gardens are, and have been, admired by many, and officially recognised as is acknowledged in the CMP.

The gardens have their detractors in the local community mainly from those who share Boyd’s view or those who believe that the existence of the quarries should not be a hindrance for those who might wish to develop the entire site for other purposes.

I support the retention of the gardens but reject the notion that they ‘should be restored to their original design’ simply because there was no such design!

I believe the gardens should remain in the ownership of the Warrnambool City Council and be maintained by them with the same curatorial control that is exercised over the Warrnambool Botanic gardens – even though they are very different.

¹⁰See CMP page 43
¹¹See CMP - Page 44
¹²See Figure 1 - Page 6
¹³Robin Boyd was Director of the RVIA small Homes Service (the source of the Age Small Homes designs). It is ironic that, in a garden derided by Boyd, that the CMP should recommend that the Age Small Homes, in that garden, be retained, because of the garden setting!