St Matthews Church
2 Tolosa Street, Glenorchy
Fencing Discussion
Paper
Brad Williams
Glenorchy City Council
July 2006.
Purpose of document
The purpose of this document is to provide a pictorial history of fencing styles which once surround
St Matthews Church, 2 Tolosa Street, Glenorchy, Tasmania (1841). Glenorchy City Council
(owners of the site) are currently planning a redevelopment of the site, to better present and
interpret its heritage values. The seventeen original headstones (which had been placed
elsewhere on the site) are to be reinstated to a more historically accurate position, in the forecourt
of the church. As the area is in the CBD of the city, adjacent the busy bus interchange, security of
the site is a prime consideration, therefore some form of fencing will be required for the site.
This document aims to give an overview of what style of fence may be appropriate, and to debate
whether an historic re-creation should be considered, given the security needs of the site. It will
examine public consultation to-date and develop conservation policy to guide fence proposals. A
broad suggestion for fence styling will be made.
Evolution of fencing styles at St Matthews
All available pictorial evidence of the fencing styles at St Matthews date from the first half of the
twentieth-century. Although evidence is scant, and the dates of images may not be exact, these
images give a good range of the fencing styles of St Matthews between 1900 and the 1940s.
The earliest photograph dates from around 1900, which shows a very simple picket fence. The
field of view does not give any indication as to the type of gates, or whether the arch (see below)
was erected before this date. This photograph shows that the fence was looking somewhat
decrepit by 1900, suggesting that it was of some age by that time.
Photograph 1 – c1900 photograph of St Matthews.
Photograph 2 demonstrates that by c1910, the wrought iron arch spanning the front gates had
been erected, and that the fence still comprised of pickets. These pickets appear to be slightly
more substantial than those in Photograph 1, and the fence appears to be in better condition,
suggesting an early twentieth-century rebuild, although the obscure angle of Photograph 1 may
give the appearance of poor condition. The wrought iron arch was simple, yet had minor
adornment which provided a sense of unpretentious style. A spirit lantern was mounted on the
arch, which bears the name St Matthews Church (see Photograph 3). A simple, wrought iron gate
has a subtle scroll on the opening end and iron cross-brace.
St Matthews Church Fencing Discussion Paper
2
Photograph 2 – C1910 photograph of St Matthews.
Figure 3 – Detail view (from Photograph 2) of the lantern above the gates of St Matthews c1910.
By 1920, the fence had been more gentrified, with festooning pickets giving a further sense of
ornament to the front of the church. The posts were pointed, and every second picket was thinner
(see Photograph 4). The gate and lamp survived unchanged.
St Matthews Church Fencing Discussion Paper
3
Photograph 4 – C1920 photograph of St Matthews.
By 1941, the ornate 1920s fence had been replaced by a less grand variation. Photograph 5 (a
screen capture from a 1941 film of the church) shows a single thickness of picket, still slightly
festooned at the top, with posts similar to those previous. Photograph 5 shows a similar
arrangement of pickets and rails adjacent to the gate (as shown in Photograph 4). It is possible
that these posts were remnants of the 1920s posts.
Photograph 5 demonstrates that the arch had survived to 1941, however the spirit lamp (as shown
in Photographs 2-3) had been replaced by a lamp which hung below the arch (possibly electric).
St Matthews Church Fencing Discussion Paper
4
Photograph 5 – 1941 photograph of St Matthews.
It is interesting to note, that although the front boundary of the St Matthews allotment has always
been angular (as it remains today), the fences always seemed to have followed a straight path (i.e.
squaring the obscure shape of the block). This suggests that there has always been a triangular
area between the front fence and footpath, possibly a nature-strip, garden bed or widening of the
footpath. This is consistent with current plans to maintain a buffer between the fence and the
footpath.
Apart from the headstones and cemetery layout, which are discussed in the document St Matthews
Church, 2 Tolosa Street Glenorchy, Archaeological Survey and Works Mitigation Strategy (Williams
2006), early photographs show other features which once stood in the churchyard. For instance,
the 1941 film of St Matthews shows the church noticeboard which once stood in front (see
Photograph 6). It is items like this, the arch and the lantern, which lend themselves to interpretation
in the modern St Matthews Church Yard.
St Matthews Church Fencing Discussion Paper
5
Photograph 6 – Church notice signboard which once stood in front of St Matthews.
Community and professional consultation
There has been several conservation management documents produced as part of the restoration
of St Matthews. The only document, however, which addresses the fence issues is the
Conservation Management Plan, The Former St Matthews Church, 2 Tolosa Street, Glenorchy
(Davies 2002) hereinafter referred to as the CMP. Pages 46-9 of this document makes general
policy statements for the maintenance and redevelopment of the exterior spaces of the church
yard. This suggests that a fence, based on historically known styles, be reinstated to the perimeter
of the forecourt.
Council’s Heritage Officer (the author of the current document) believes that whilst it would involve
recreating part of a site, it is considered that there is sufficient detailed evidence of early fences for
this to be feasibly done, within the parameters of Burra Charter principles. Aesthetically, the
reinstatement of an historically accurate fence style (albeit probably not consistent with any original
designs) would be the most preferred option. It would be a strong juxtaposition against the modern
form of the city’s CBD – hence a definite reminder of the city’s colonial heritage.
Nonetheless, the proposal to re-create an historically accurate front fence presents serious
problems for the overall security of the site.
Currently, the St Matthews Hall (at the rear of the church) is tenanted by the Glenorchy History
Group. At a recent forum convened by that group, a proposed perimeter fence was discussed, and
a report presented to Council’s Heritage Officer. An excerpt from this report states:
There have been a number of fencing styles around the Church over the years. We have viewed photographs
of at least three types of picket fences, which, whilst stereotypical, don’t necessarily reflect the original
streetscape.
In coming to a conclusion about fencing we need to restate one of the aims of the Glenorchy History Group
St Matthews Church Fencing Discussion Paper
6
i.e. to ensure that the heritage values are preserved and protected in any development.
A picket style perimeter fence would not provide security, especially after hours, to the site. Given the times
adequate protection needs to be provided in order to attempt to guard against vandalism and other criminal
activity.
It is our opinion that the fence should be a perimeter type, of a height, design, and material of the type that is
currently in use on the Tolosa Street side of the site.
We recommend that there be lockable offset double opening gates facing Main Road with an arch and
suspended light over the opening.
Aesthetically it would seem appropriate that the Main Road fence be in line with the buildings along Main
Road to the North.
This clearly states the groups’ belief that security of the church and cemetery are a paramount
consideration. This sentiment is echoed by Council’s property management department, whose
experience with fences in the Glenorchy CBD dictates that these must be vandal proof, and provide
a strong barrier to sites that should not have all-hours access. The Glenorchy History Group’s
submission demonstrates that the findings of this document are consistent with the desires of the
Glenorchy History Group, and as prospective long-term tenants of the site, their views must be
given close consideration.
Whatever the decision by site managers in terms of proposed fencing, this will require a planning
permit under the Glenorchy Planning Scheme 1992, and will be the subject of a works application
to the Tasmanian Heritage Council, therefore there will be a statutory period of public consultation
and professional review of the proposed design.
Conservation policy and proposed fence style
The above demonstrates that the proposed fence around St Matthews should be planned with the
following points in-mind:
- The available historic photographs do not give any indication as to the original (or
nineteenth century) fence styles of St Matthews, therefore to re-create a fence style based
on these photographs may not be historically accurate if attempting to match the
architectural style of the place.
- Although not necessarily historically accurate, a low, timber, picket fence would be
aesthetically pleasing, both in its style and proportions, however would not offer the
security required for the site.
- Should the proposal to reinstate the headstones to the forecourt be implemented, then
these will need security measures. Not fencing the forecourt is therefore not an option.
- The only feasible alternative for fencing the site is a high, metal fence, which cannot be
climbed or have pickets easily removed.
- Features such as the signboard, arch and lantern should be incorporated into the overall
design of any fence or forecourt, provided that security and anti-vandalism requirements
are met.
St Matthews Church Fencing Discussion Paper
7
The following conservation policies are drawn from the CMP and are relevant to the reinstatement
of the fence (with policy numbers included):
6.2.2 – The site should be treated in accordance with the guidelines and principles established by the ICOMOS
Burra Charter of Australia.
6.2.9 – New fixtures and fitting should be designed or selected to respect the existing building fabric and visual
qualities
6.7.3 – The site should be enhanced and landscaped to recover the context and setting of the place and
treated in a manner which is sympathetic to the history, visual qualities and architectural composition of the
church.
It could be debated that policies 6.2.9 and 6.7.3 would override the proposal of erecting a fence of
incorrect proportions and fabric to the forecourt of the church. 6.2.2, however states the site should
be treated according to that Burra Charter principles.
Article 7.2 of the Burra Charter states that a place must have a compatible use.
- To restore the church and cemetery for appropriate community access and use is therefore
a priority.
Article 3.2 states that changes to a place should not be based on conjecture.
- We do not know what the original (or pre late 19th century) fences looked like.
Article 2.4 states that places of cultural significance should be safeguarded and not put at risk or
left in a vulnerable state.
- A secure fence around the site is deemed absolutely necessary to ensure the survival of
significant site elements.
Nonetheless, Article 8 states that new construction which would adversely affect the setting or
relationship of a place is not appropriate.
- Any new fence should not dominate or detract from the aesthetic values of the place.
To support this, Article 22.1, states that new work such as additions to the place may be
acceptable where it does not obscure or distort the cultural significance of the place or detract from
its interpretation or appreciation.
Therefore, the policy which should guide the reinstatement of the fence to the forecourt of St
Matthews might be summarised as:
The fence should provide adequate security for the site and not attempt to blatantly
imitate any unknown historical form. It should be sympathetic to the aesthetic values
of the site and possibly have subtle interpretive features incorporated.
The following photographs are examples of high iron fences, which might be considered for St
Matthews. Individual comments will address how well these examples would fit the above policy:
St Matthews Church Fencing Discussion Paper
8
Example 1 – The current fence at the side of St Matthews. This fence provides adequate security due to its height and
absence of a horizontal bar in the middle, however the curve at the top of the pickets is not in keeping with any heritage
style and does not integrate any interpretive benefit. The posts are appropriate as their capitals may be interpreted as
reminiscent of the church tower. The cement plinth is entirely inappropriate
Example 2 – Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery. Whilst this fence is appropriate in front of an ornate mid-nineteenth
century building, its overall styling is far too grandiose for a modest country church (as St Matthews once was). It
would detract attention from the building and be historically inaccurate in its presumption. The sandstone plinth,
however might be a good option for St Matthews.
St Matthews Church Fencing Discussion Paper
9
Example 3 – Ingle Hall, Hobart. This is a very aesthetically pleasing fence which does not detract from the architecture
which it surrounds. Although of too lower proportions to offer adequate security, it’s styling is deemed appropriate for
the St Matthews scenario. It is simple, yet integrates subtle adornment (which could be modified to add an
interpretation of St Matthews styling or reminiscent of the former archway).
Example 4 – St David’s Park, Hobart. This fence is a modern alternative to fence an historic cemetery/park, and is
successful in the way it unpretentiously serves a purpose without being too visually detractive. The low row of pickets
could interpret a former lower fence, whilst the higher pickets provide security. An overall heightening so that the
horizontal bars were spaced far enough apart to deter climbing could see this a viable option for St Matthews. The
cement plinth would be inappropriate, with sandstone offering more consistency with the architectural value of the
building.
St Matthews Church Fencing Discussion Paper
10
Example 5 – Former Masonic Centre, Hobart. Similar to example 4, this fence incorporates simple dual-height pickets,
with slightly more ornate posts, with a sandstone plinth, to provide a fence which is almost high enough for security
purposes, open enough to not be visually detractive, and has the ability to incorporate subtle interpretation into its
detailing (i.e. post capitals reflecting the architecture of the building).
Based on the above commentary, a fence similar to that shown in example 5, with posts similar to
those already integrated into the current St Matthews side fence, could be deemed an appropriate
solution. The low row of pickets would interpret the former lower fences, and an overall
heightening (consistent with the current side fence) would offer security. Thought should be given
to designing the picket tops to interpret some aesthetic (or former aesthetic) value of the site (i.e.
the former arch, or the geometric motifs above the door). Certainly, a sandstone plinth would be
most appropriate (cement should be avoided).
The front gates would require a similar approach. Although the style of the gate for much of the
early twentieth century is known, the policy guiding the fence should also be applied here which
would tend to avoid this re-creation. Again, the gate would need to offer security, yet not obstruct
pedestrian flow through the site when open. Double gates of the same styling as the forecourt
fence should be considered.
Whilst the Glenorchy History Group submission makes reference to the desire to re-create the arch
and lantern, this may not be a practical consideration. The overall height of the new fence plus
arch would be deemed to detract from the architectural values of the site, and draw too much
attention to the fence. It is likely that a lantern would be the target for vandals. Consideration
should be given to interpreting an arch and lantern motif in the design of the front gates, i.e. rather
St Matthews Church Fencing Discussion Paper
11
than angular cross-bracing, perhaps the cross-brace could be arched, with a lantern motif at top.
This requires further consideration and concept designs to develop this idea.
As part of the Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) study being undertaken
on the St Matthews Master Plan, recommendations will also be made as to how the fence should
act to prevent crime and provide greatest security for the site. Advice from this study is pending,
however preliminary advice has bee consistent with the findings of this discussion paper
St Matthews Church Fencing Discussion Paper
12