Campus Management

Heritage and conservation

The Crawley Campus is renowned for its heritage architecture and landscaped grounds.

  1. Principles
  2. Recommendations

Planning for the physical development of the campus while retaining its heritage significance is one challenge facing the University. The Crawley Campus Conservation Management Plan (CCCMP)2008 identifies all buildings, places and artworks of significance on campus and is to be considered as the definitive conservation manual for the campus. The CCCMP makes recommendations for their conservation where necessary, and indicates sensitive areas, which future development should acknowledge.

The various architectural styles present on the campus have been named in the CCCMP and it is accepted that diversity, rather than uniformity, will govern the future built environment.  Where possible, examples of different styles will be retained to show the evolution of the campus over the past 100 years.

Some the University’s off-campus properties have heritage significance and examples of these styles will be retained where practicable. The Nedlands Park Masonic Hall in Broadway is one example.

All buildings and landscaped areas on the campus have been listed according to their heritage significance. The higher the degree of significance, the more care must be taken when alterations, extensions or refurbishments are carried out.  Significance does not imply a building cannot be demolished or substantially altered. Procedures for monitoring such works are now in place and a conservation manual is being prepared for the guidance of University staff, consultants and contractors.  Where necessary, guidance will be sought from a consulting heritage architect, landscape historian or art historian.

Significant vistas across the campus, which should be retained, have also been identified.  For example, distant views of the campus and Winthrop Tower, and campus engagement with the river, should be maintained and enhanced.

As UWA’s Centenary approaches, there is continued support for the qualities of the campus and the value of its ongoing preservation. Many of the heritage features, such as Somerville Auditorium and the Sunken Garden , were bold developments for their time and were not part of any defined campus plan. It should always be possible to allow for the innovative, the accidental and the unexpected. 

Back to top


  1. The University’s major cultural heritage significance is the University itself, not the buildings or landscape; that is, its ethos to educate, carry out research and engage with the community.
  2. The Crawley Campus is effectively a series of ‘buildings within a park’ and courtyard buildings which enclose space, with equal importance given to landscape and architecture.
  3. The campus is more than the sum of its parts with individual elements evaluated in relation to the overall setting – heritage places can be demolished or altered but only where there is to be a development of greater significance.
  4. The orientation of the campus towards the river should be encouraged where possible.
  5. Buildings, landscaped areas and artworks with a high level of heritage significance are to be conserved, whilst appreciating the necessity for flexible development in places which do not have heritage implications.

Back to top


  • Consider the campus to be a single place, not a collection of individual buildings.
  • Acknowledge that the campus will change to meet different requirements and must constantly review campus assets.
  • Contextual excellence is to be pursued in any new development to provide a sense of continuity between generations.
  • Alternative innovative methods of interpreting the heritage of the campus are to be explored, in preference to external visual interpretation (such as plaques).
  • Delegation of heritage matters is to be negotiated with Heritage Council, so as to minimise undue scrutiny by Council (and others) and to maintain the University’s development options.
  • Retention of a limited number of representative architectural examples is to be negotiated with the Heritage Council, and a constructive approach is to be taken by submitting selected University-owned properties for heritage listing (for example, Love House).

Back to top