• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

Why it matters (practical effects)

• Preservation obligation: The plan creates a binding management framework (within AMSA) to conserve the Commonwealth heritage values of the lighthouse (fabric, lantern, timber staircase, setting) and to document any interventions so values are retained and reported. This means heritage impact assessment and approvals are required for significant works. (See Sections 5 & 7, and 6.8.)

• Operational constraint and balance: Cape Wickham remains a live Aid to Navigation (AtoN). The plan explicitly balances navigational function (safety and international performance targets) with heritage conservation. AMSA must design upgrades or maintenance to minimise harm to heritage fabric. That produces an operational trade‑off: equipment changes must both meet IALA performance (99% availability Category 2) and the conservation policies. (See 6.4, 6.5, Policy 2.)

• Budget and contracting impacts: AMSA bears the cost of routine and corrective maintenance (annual servicing, biennial heritage condition reports, scheduled paint/reseal/LED replacement dates). Contractors will face heritage‑compliance obligations and training requirements, which can raise project costs and require specialist suppliers. (See 4.1, 6.6, Policy 9, Policy 10, 8.1.)

• Approvals and timing risk: Major works or anything that could significantly affect heritage values require Heritage Impact Statements, and referral to state and federal heritage bodies. That creates approval steps that can delay projects and impose additional study costs. (See 6.8 — ‘Major project/maintenance works proposed’.)

How the plan achieves its aims (concrete mechanisms)

• Detailed fabric register and significance ratings for each element of the lighthouse to guide what can or cannot be changed (Section 4).
• A set of 18 policies covering fabric protection, operational equipment, access, interpretation, management responsibilities, consultation, training, contractor requirements and discovery procedures (Section 7.1).
• An implementation schedule with named responsibilities, priorities and timelines (Section 8.1).
• Monitoring and reporting: biennial Heritage Asset Condition Reports and five‑year plan reviews (Sections 5.3, 7.1 Policy 7, 8.2).
• Statutory cross‑checks: the plan lists all relevant Commonwealth and Tasmanian statutes and codes to be considered (e.g. EPBC Act/Regs, Navigation Act 2012, Tasmanian heritage and parks legislation, Building Code, WHS Act) and requires approvals where appropriate (Section 6.3).

Benefits, costs and incentives — short assessment

• Who pays: maintenance, monitoring and compliance costs are borne by AMSA (Commonwealth funds). Contractors supply labour and materials under AMSA contracts. (See 1.5, 8.1.)
• Who decides: AMSA (Asset Management and Preparedness, AtoN Heritage Coordinator) controls day‑to‑day decisions; major changes require heritage approvals from Commonwealth and/or State authorities and the Minister’s delegate where the EPBC Act applies. (See 7.1 and 6.3–6.8.)
• Behaviour changes imposed: contractors and AMSA staff must document works, obtain heritage advice for significant works, follow discovery procedures for Aboriginal artefacts, and undertake heritage training; adjacent landowners are to be consulted where setting is affected. (See Policy 9, 12, 15, 17.)

Trade‑offs, opportunity costs and implementation risks

• Trade‑off between navigational effectiveness and fabric preservation: the plan foregrounds continued AtoN performance (Category 2 reliability) while limiting how equipment and structural interventions are made. This can increase the cost or complexity of upgrades (see Policy 2; Appendix 3 for AtoN specs).
• Opportunity cost: money and contractor time devoted to heritage‑compliant methods reduces resources available for other AMSA priorities (e.g. other network assets). The plan fixes recurring expenditure (annual servicing; scheduled repaint/LED replacement dates in 6.6 / Appendix 8.1), which competes with other uses of AMSA’s budget.
• Implementation risks: remote location and weather, access constraints, and potential for unforeseen Aboriginal or environmental discoveries can delay works and increase cost (Decision procedures in 6.8; discovery protocols in Policy 12).

Compliance burden and bureaucratic discretion

• Compliance: the plan imposes recurring administrative tasks (biennial condition reports, five‑year plan review, recordkeeping of interventions) and requires Heritage Impact Statements for major works (Sections 7.1 Policies 7 and 8; 6.8). That is a measurable, ongoing compliance cost.
• Discretion: AMSA retains discretion over routine maintenance and the scheduling of minor works, but must seek external approvals for major changes that could materially affect Commonwealth or state heritage values. The plan centralises decision authority inside AMSA while layering in external checks for significant interventions (see Policy 5; 6.8 ‘Process for decision‑making’).

Effects on private enterprise and competition

• Contractors: the requirement to use contractors with appropriate heritage experience (Policy 10) and specialised materials conservation advisers (Policy 1 & 11) will concentrate demand toward specialist suppliers and raise barriers to entry for general contractors, likely increasing prices for work on the site.
• Tourism and local business: the plan keeps public access around the site but restricts tower access to authorised personnel (2.4, Policy 3). That preserves the site for visitors but limits commercial tour operators’ ability to offer internal lighthouse experiences without AMSA authorization or additional investment in safety and induction.
• Divestment: if AMSA ceases use, a prescribed transfer process seeks to preserve heritage values (Policy 16; 6.8). That constrains future owners/lessees by embedding heritage obligations in any transfer arrangement.

Concentrated benefits and diffuse costs

• Concentrated benefits: heritage preservation accrues to local communities, historians, visitors and cultural stakeholders.
• Diffuse costs: the Commonwealth (AMSA budget) shoulders ongoing maintenance and compliance costs, spread across taxpayers. Contractors face concentrated compliance-cost impacts when bidding for lighthouse work. (See 7.1 and 8.1.)

Capture, rent‑seeking or substitution effects — what to watch for

• Specialist contractor rents: mandating specialist heritage expertise (Policy 10) can raise prices and create opportunities for incumbent contractors with relevant credentials.
• Substitution: if heritage constraints make AMSA upgrades slow or expensive, AMSA may substitute by investing more in non‑physical navigational technologies (e.g. electronic aids) elsewhere, but the plan preserves the lighthouse as a visual/daymark (6.4, Policy 14).

Bottom line — practical summary

• The plan is a conventional, detailed heritage management instrument that binds AMSA operations at Cape Wickham to specified conservation, monitoring and reporting practices while preserving the lighthouse’s navigational role. It creates predictable processes (condition reports, approvals, contractor requirements, consultation) that protect heritage values but add measurable costs, specialist procurement requirements and potential timing delays for major works. It also clarifies who decides, who pays, and what procedural steps to take if heritage values are threatened (see Sections 6–8).

Website: www.amsa.gov.au

Attribution

AMSA’s preference is that you attribute this publication (and any material sourced from it) using the following wording:

Source: Australian Maritime Safety Authority Cape Wickham Lighthouse Heritage Management Plan – 2022

Front cover image

Figure 1. Cover photo of Cape Wickham lighthouse ( ©AMSA, 2018)

More information

For enquiries regarding copyright including requests to use material in a way that is beyond the scope of the terms of use that apply to it, please contact us through our website: www.amsa.gov.au

Cape Wickham Lighthouse

Heritage Management Plan

2022

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

1. Introduction

   1. Background and purpose
   2. Heritage management plan objectives
   3. Methodology
   4. Status
   5. Authorship
   6. Acknowledgements
   7. Language
   8. Previous reports
   9. Sources of information and images

2. Cape Wickham Lightstation site

2.1 Location

2.2 Setting and landscape

2.3 Lease and ownership

2.4 Access

2.5 Listings

3. History

3.1 General history of lighthouses in Australia

3.2 Tasmanian Lighthouse Administration

3.3 King Island: a history

3.4 Building a lighthouse

3.5 Lighthouse keeping

3.6 Chronology of major events

3.7 Changes and conservation over time

3.8 Summary of current and former uses

3.9 Summary of past and present community associations

3.10 Unresolved questions or historical conflicts

3.11 Recommendations for further research

4. Fabric register

4.1 Register

4.2 Related object and associated AMSA artefact

4.3 Comparative analysis

5. Heritage significance

5.1 Commonwealth heritage listing – Cape Wickham Lighthouse

5.2 Tasmanian State heritage register – Cape Wickham Lighthouse

5.3 Condition and integrity of the Commonwealth heritage values

5.4 Gain/loss of heritage values

6. Opportunities and constraints

6.1 Implications arising from significance

6.2 Framework: sensitivity to change

6.3 Statutory and legislative requirements

6.4 Operational requirements

6.5 Occupier needs

6.6 Proposals for change

6.7 Potential pressures

6.8 Process for decision-making

7. Conservation management principles and policies

7.1 Policies

8. Policy implementation plan

8.1 Plan and schedule

8.2 Monitoring and reporting

9. Appendices

Appendix 1. Glossary of heritage conservation terms

Appendix 2. Glossary of historic lighthouse terms relevant to Cape Wickham

Appendix 3. Cape Wickham current light details

Appendix 4. Table demonstrating compliance with the EPBC Regulations

Reference list

Endnotes

List of Figures

Figure 1. Cover photo of Cape Wickham Lighthouse (© AMSA, 2018)

Figure 2. Planning process applied for heritage management (Source: ICOMOS Australia, 1999)

Figure 3. View of King Island within Bass Strait (Map data ©2021 Google, TerraMetrics)

Figure 4. View of King Island coastline from Cape Wickham Lighthouse tower (© AMSA, 2017)

Figure 5. Cape Wickham AMSA map of lease (Map data: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, GIS User Community)

Figure 6. View of surrounding rural landscape from Cape Wickham Lighthouse tower (© AMSA, 2017)

Figure 7. Incandescent oil vapour lamp by Chance Brothers (Source: AMSA)

Figure 8. Dioptric lens on display at Narooma (Source: AMSA)

Figure 9. Dalén’s system – sun valve, mixer and flasher (Source: AMSA)

Figure 10. Blueprints for Cape Wickham lantern house, c.1861 Image courtesy of the National Archives of Australia. NAA: A9568, 5/4/1 (© Commonwealth of Australia, National Archives of Australia)

Figure 11. Blueprint of Cape Wickham Lighthouse tower, 1861. Image courtesy of the National Archives of Australia. NAA: A10182, CN 01 131 (© Commonwealth of Australia, National Archives of Australia)

Figure 12. Cape Wickham Lightstation prior to demolition of cottages, 1917. Image courtesy of the National Archives of Australia. NAA: A6247, B10/2. (© Commonwealth of Australia, National Archives of Australia)

Figure 13. Design for Cape Wickham’s conversion to automatic operation, 1918. Image courtesy of the National Archives of Australia. NAA: A9568, 5/4/3 (© Commonwealth of Australia, National Archives of Australia)

Figure 14. Cape Wickham Lighthouse balcony replacement blueprints, 1918. Image courtesy of the National Archives of Australia. NAA: A10182, CN 01 133 (© Commonwealth of Australia, National Archives of Australia)

Figure 15. 150th anniversary opening, Cape Wickham Lighthouse (Source: AMSA, 2011)

Figure 16. From left to right: Swan Island Lighthouse (1845), Goose Island Lighthouse (1846), and Cape Wickham Lighthouse (1861) (Source: AMSA)

Executive summary

Cape Wickham Lighthouse is a historic site recognised by both Commonwealth and State Governments for its heritage significance. The lighthouse was placed on the Commonwealth Heritage List in 2004 for its contribution to the network of lighthouses established in Bass Strait in the 19th century. It is renowned as the tallest Australian lighthouse, for its aesthetic appeal in the rural landscape, and for the retention of its original Wilkins & Co lantern house and timber staircase.

Cape Wickham Lighthouse was placed on the Tasmanian heritage register for its historical, informative and aesthetic significance, in addition to its significant rarity and community associations.

Situated on the northern shore of King Island (Tas), the lighthouse overlooks Bass Strait, a treacherous stretch of water which separates the Australian State of Tasmania from the mainland. Built in 1861, the lighthouse was constructed to increase safety within Bass Strait following the boom of coastal shipping along the mainland’s south-east corner. The masonry tower was designed by Tasmanian-based engineer, WB Falconer, and the lightstation originally comprised of a tower, three keeper residences, and a superintendent’s house.

Although the Cape Wickham Lighthouse orignally housed a 1st Order Chance Bros catadioptric lens, the tower now exhibits a light-emitting diode (LED) source through a 1946 Chance Bros six panel catadioptric lens. The light now runs on an automated mechanism as part of AMSA’s network of Aids to Navigation (AtoN). The equipment is serviced by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority’s (AMSA) maintenance contractor who visits at least once each year. AMSA officers visit on an ad hoc basis for auditing, projects and community liaison purposes.

The larger part of the lightstation lies outside of the AMSA lease and is managed by Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service (TAS PWS). Although visitors are able to access the site, the light tower maintains restricted access.

This heritage management plan is concerned mainly with the lighthouse tower, but also addresses the management of the surrounding precinct and land. The plan is intended to guide decisions and actions. This plan has been prepared to integrate the heritage values of the lighthouse in accordance with the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC Act) and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Regulations 2000 (Cth) (EPBC Regulations).

Well-built and generally well-maintained, Cape Wickham Lighthouse precinct is in relatively good, stable condition. The policies and management guidelines set out in this heritage management plan strive to ensure that the Commonwealth heritage values of the Cape Wickham Lighthouse are recognised, maintained, and preserved for future generations.

1. Introduction

1.1 Background and purpose

The Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) is the Commonwealth agency responsible for coastal AtoN. AMSA’s network includes Cape Wickham Lighthouse built in 1861.

Section 341S of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC Act) requires AMSA to prepare a management plan for Cape Wickham Lighthouse that addresses the matters prescribed in Schedules 7A and 7B of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Regulations 2000 (Cth) (EPBC Regulations). The principal features of this management plan are:

• a description of the place, its heritage values, their condition and the method used to assess its significance
• an administrative management framework
• a description of any proposals for change
• an array of conservation policies that protect and manage the place
• an implementation plan
• ways the policies will be monitored and how the management plan will be reviewed.

AMSA has prepared this heritage management plan to guide the future conservation of the place. This plan provides the framework and basis for the conservation and best practice management of Cape Wickham Lighthouse in recognition of its heritage values. The policies in this plan indicate the objectives for identification, protection, conservation and presentation of the Commonwealth heritage values of the place. Figure 2 shows the basic planning process applied.

Figure 2. Planning process applied for heritage management (Source: Australia ICOMOS, 1999)

1.2 Heritage management plan objectives

The objectives of this heritage management plan are to:

• protect, conserve and manage the Commonwealth heritage values of Cape Wickham Lighthouse
• interpret and promote the Commonwealth heritage values of Cape Wickham Lighthouse
• manage use of the lighthouse
• use best practice standards, including ongoing technical and community input, and apply best available knowledge and expertise when considering actions likely to have a substantial impact on Commonwealth heritage values.

In undertaking these objectives, this plan aims to:

• Provide for the protection and conservation of the heritage values of the place while minimising any impacts on the environment by applying the relevant environmental management requirements in a manner consistent with Commonwealth heritage management principles.
• Take into account the significance of King Island as a cultural landscape to Aboriginal people over many thousands of years.
• Recognise that the site has been occupied by lease holders since the early 20th century.
• Encourage site use compatible with the historical fabric, infrastructure and general environment.
• Record and document maintenance works, and changes to the fabric, in the Cape Wickham Lighthouse fabric register (see 4.1 Fabric).

The organisational planning cycle and associated budgeting process is used to confirm requirements, allocate funding and manage delivery of maintenance activities. Detailed planning for the AtoN network is managed through AMSA’s internal planning processes.

An interactive map showing many of AMSA’s heritage sites, including Cape Wickham Lighthouse, can be found on AMSA’s Interactive Lighthouse Map[1].

1.3 Methodology

The methodology used in the preparation of this plan is consistent with the recommendations of The Burra Charter and with the requirements of Chapter 5, Part 15 Division 1A of the EPBC Act. In particular, the plan:

details a history of the site based on information sourced from archival research, expert knowledge, and documentary resources,
provides a description of the site based on information sourced from site inspection reports and fabric registers, and;
details the Commonwealth heritage criteria satisfied by Cape Wickham Lighthouse as set out by schedule 7A of the EPBC Regulations.

The criterion set out at Schedule 7A (h) (i-xiii) informed the development of the required policies for the management of Cape Wickham Lighthouse, in conjunction with input from the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment on best practice management.

Consultation

In the process of preparing the plan, AMSA sought engagement with the Aboriginal Land Council of Tasmania (ALCT) in July 2020 under direction from the Office of Aboriginal Affairs (Tas). AMSA has yet to receive a response and future plans will outline the progress of this consultation.

AMSA also consulted with Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania (Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, Tas) and were provided with information on Aboriginal heritage in the vicinity of the lighthouse. This information was included in the plan.

In preparation of the plan, AMSA consulted with TAS PWS who provided valuable information and feedback on land management. This information was included within the plan.

The draft management plan was advertised in accordance with the EPBC Act and the EPBC Regulations. On the 22 December 2021 a notice was placed in The Australian newspaper publication which invited the general public to review the draft plan and provide feedback. Public consultation closed on the 20 January 2022. No submissions were received from the general public.

AMSA submitted the draft plan to the Heritage Branch of the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment who provided feedback on the draft. These comments were incorporated into the final document. A developed draft was submitted to the Federal Minister through the Heritage Branch and in that process the Minister’s delegate sought advice from the Australian

This is an opening excerpt, not the complete document.