23 May 2019

General Manager City of Hobart online portal

Dear Mr Heath

ARCHAEOLOGICAL TESTING –234-250 ELIZABETH STREET I am writing on behalf of our client Fragrance Hobart-Tas (Elizabeth) Pty. Ltd., to submit this application for preliminary works for archaeological investigations at 234-250 Elizabeth Street.

This application will inform both, ongoing matters related to the previous application for use and development of the site (PLN-17-430), and any future development on the site to adequately respond to any significant archaeology heritage matters.

Attached is an Archaeological Test Trenching Proposal prepared by Praxis Environment, in which the proposal responds to the requirements of the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme 2015. The relevant scheme requirement is the Historic Heritage Code, specifically standards that relate to places of archaeological potential: E13.10.1 Building, Works & Demolition. As test trenching is proposed, standard A1 cannot be met and compliance is reliant on the performance criteria P1.

The attached proposal expands on the requirements, and the proposal is compliant.

If you would like any further information please do not hesitate to contact our office on 62349281.

Yours sincerely

Irene Duckett Director IRENEINC PLANNING & URBAN DESIGN

Archaeological Test Trenching Proposal

234-250 Elizabeth Street HOBART TASMANIA

Brad Williams Historical Archaeologist

On behalf of Fragrance Hobart-Tas (Elizabeth) Pty. Ltd.

May 2019

Contents:

1. INTRODUCTION AND RATIONALE 1

2. STATUTORY HERITAGE REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO ARCHAEOLOGY 2

2.1. HOBART INTERIM PLANNING SCHEME 2015 2 PLACE OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL 2 2.2. HISTORIC CULTURAL HERITAGE ACT 1995 3

3. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE – HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 4

SOURCE MATERIAL - METHODOLOGY 4 PREVIOUS HERITAGE STUDIES & ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS 5 HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUBJECT SITE 5 PRE 1804: 5 1810S-20S – SETTLEMENT, STREET GRIDDING AND SUBDIVISION: 5 ALIENATION FRON THE CROWN 6 PART ONE – GEORGE AUGUSTUS ROBINSON’S GRANT 6 SALE OF ROBINSON’S GRANT, SUBDIVISION AND SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT 24 PART TWO – JOSEPH BOWDEN’S GRANT 37 LATER NINETEENTH-CENTURY DEPICTIONS OF THE OVERALL SUBJECT SITE 39 TWENTIETH-CENTURY DEPICTIONS OF THE OVERALL SUBJECT SITE 50

4. STATEMENT OF HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL 66

4.1. ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHODOLOGY 66 4.2. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF SITE DEVELOPMENT 68 4.3. POSSIBLE ARCHAEOLOGICAL REMAINS AND THEIR SIGNIFICANCE AND RESEARCH POTENTIAL 75 REMAINS FROM THE ROBINSON PERIOD 75 REMAINS OF THE EARLY BOWDEN BUILDINGS 87 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH FRAMEWORK AND QUESTIONS 89 4.4. LIKELY DISTURBANCE EVENTS 92 THE CONSTRUCTION OF KELSO TERRACE AND REGENT HOUSE (EARLY 1850S) 92 THE DEMOLITION OF THE ‘REGENCY-STYLE COTTAGES’ (PROBABLY C1880S). 92 THE DEMOLITION OF ROBINSON’S HOUSE (1894). 93 THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE THREE TERRACE HOUSES (LATE 1890S) AND THEIR DEMOLTION C1970S. 94 THE DEMOLITION OF THE BOWDEN BLOCK BUILDINGS AND MID-C20TH DEVELOPMENT 95 DISTURBANCE FROM MODERN SERVICE TRENCHES 96 4.5. CURRENT SITE OBSERVATIONS 96 4.6. ARCHAEOLOGICAL ZONING PLAN AND POLICIES 99

5. TEST TRENCHING PROGRAM 105

5.1. PROPOSED TEST TRENCH LOCATIONS 105 5.2. ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT 107 IMPLEMENTATION TIMEFRAME 107 APPROACH TO WORKS 107

RECORDING 108 ARTIFACTS 109 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 109 PUBLIC BENEFIT 110 ABORIGINAL HERITAGE 110 SITE CONTAMINATION 111

APPENDIX A 112

This document was written by Brad Williams (BA.Hons Archaeology, MA Cultural Heritage Management) Director – Praxis Environment, with historical research part of Section 3 authored by and Alan Townsend, Consultant Historian. Praxis Environment (ABN 93 918 955 735) is a division of Praxis Synergy Pty. Ltd. (ACN 623 700 818).

Unless otherwise stated, all photographs were taken by Brad Williams, 2016-17.

Unless otherwise stated, the north point (or approximate) of maps and plans is to the top of the page – project north is designated as the Elizabeth Street frontage.

Cadastral information depicted in this document must not be relied upon without verification by a Surveyor. Rectified aerial imagery has not been used; therefore, the actual location as depicted in aerial images may differ to that of actual survey. Floor and roof plans are not necessarily to scale and indicative only. Unless expressly stated, measurements are only indicative.

This document has been prepared by Praxis Environment for Fragrance Tas Hobart (Elizabeth) Pty. Ltd. (the Client), and may only be reproduced, used or distributed by the Client (or nominee), and for purposes by which the Client is bound by law to allow distribution, unless permission is granted by the client, or unless the document is solely used for bona-fide historical or architectural/archaeological research. The Praxis Environment otherwise expressly disclaims responsibility to any person other than the Clients arising from or in connection with this document.

To the maximum extent permitted by law, all implied warranties and conditions in relation to the services provided by Praxis Environment and the document are excluded unless they are expressly stated to apply in this document.

Praxis Environment expressly disclaims responsibility for any error in, or omission from, this document arising from or in connection with any assumptions being incorrect.

The opinions, conclusions and any recommendations in this document are based on conditions encountered and information available at the time of preparation. Praxis Environment reserves the right to retract or review any opinion, conclusion or recommendation should further relevant information come to hand at any time in the future; otherwise Praxis Environment expressly disclaims responsibility for any error in, or omission from, this document arising from any such further information.

1. INTRODUCTION AND RATIONALE

This document has been produced by Praxis Environment, on behalf of Fragrance Hobart-Tas (Elizabeth) Pty. Ltd. as the basis for a development application to Hobart City Council (as Planning Authority) and the Tasmanian Heritage Council, for an archaeological test-trenching program at 234-250 Elizabeth Street, Hobart.

Section 3 of this document details the significant history of the site and Section 4 describes that the site is likely to have a high degree of archaeological potential that may contribute to our knowledge of a range of key heritage themes relating to early Tasmania, in particular the association with the notable character George Augustus Robinson.

Accordingly, this proposal seeks to excavate four archaeological test trenches across the site to calibrate the desktop assessment of archaeological potential and in particular to gain a more refined understanding of the nature, location and depth of archaeological structure, deposits and disturbance so as a more refined archaeological impact assessment and archaeological method statement may be formulated for any future development of the site. This enhanced knowledge will also allow a more refined planning process for any in-situ retention of remains, interpretation initiatives and public benefit that may be yielded in any future development process.

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 1

2. STATUTORY HERITAGE REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO ARCHAEOLOGY

2.1. HOBART INTERIM PLANNING SCHEME 2015

PLACE OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL The subject site is included in Table E.13.4 (Places of Archaeological Potential), as defined by Figure E.13.4.1 of the scheme, therefore Clause E.13.10.1 of the scheme applies:

Acceptable Solution Performance Criteria A1. Building and works do not involve excavation or P1. Buildings, works and demolition must not unnecessarily

ground disturbance. impact on archaeological resources at places of archaeological

potential, having regard to: a) the nature of the archaeological evidence, either known or predicted; b) measures proposed to investigate the archaeological evidence to confirm predictive statements of potential; c) strategies to avoid, minimise and/or control impacts arising from building, works and demolition; d) where it is demonstrated there is no prudent and feasible alternative to impacts arising from building,

works and demolition, measures proposed to realise Building and Worksother thanDemolition

both the research potential in the archaeological – evidence and a meaningful public benefit from any archaeological investigation;

E.13.10.1 (a) measures proposed to preserve significant archaeological evidence ‘in situ’.

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 2

A1. Subdivision provides for building restriction P1. Subdivision must not impact on archaeological resources at envelopes on titles over land defined as the Place of Places of Archaeological Potential through demonstrating either

Archaeological Potential in Table E13.4. of the following: Subdivision

– (a) that no archaeological evidence exists on the land; (b) that there is no significant impact upon

E.13.10.2 archaeological potential.

2.2. HISTORIC CULTURAL HERITAGE ACT 1995

Kelso Terrace (242-250 Elizabeth Street) is listed on the Tasmanian Heritage Register; therefore, the place is subject to the provisions of the Historic Cultural Heritage Act 1995 (HCHA). The Tasmanian Heritage Council would assess any proposed development of the place against Part 6 of the HCHA, via the provisions of a range of Practice Notes and the Tasmanian Heritage Council’s Works Guidelines for Historic Heritage Places.1

This listing covers the entire street address and both titles comprising 242-250 Elizabeth Street, therefore includes the car sales office, rear building and bakehouse at what was formerly 242 Elizabeth Street. Whether or not the intent of the listing was to include those buildings would need to be further investigated and debated upon the merits of the findings of a significance assessment of that building.

Note that only Test Trench 3 as detailed here in Section 5.1 is included in an area affected by the Historic Cultural Heritage Act 1995.

1 http://heritage.tas.gov.au/Documents/Works_Guidelines_FINAL_Nov2015.pdf

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 3

3. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE – HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

As outlined in the methodology in Section 1.3, the key to assessing historic heritage significance is to gain an understanding of the history of the place, the context of it within its surrounds, associated thematic contexts, and other intangible values (e.g. community value, value associated with people, events etc.). To enable this assessment, this research will focus on the physical development of the subject area, in order to provide the most detailed possible account of the structures erected on this site, their purposes, and their fate since European settlement in 1804.

SOURCE MATERIAL - METHODOLOGY

Wherever possible, primary source material has been consulted for the development of the historical background. However, it should be noted that the majority of the subject area was granted to George Augustus Robinson, one of the most significant, and most divisive, figures in Australian history. Robinson himself left behind a great deal of primary source material (such as his extensive papers and journals). Also, the Tasmanian Archive and Heritage Office hold the correspondence files of the Colonial Secretary’s Office, some 17 volumes of which record the government’s dealings with Aborigines between roughly 1824-1836. Some of this material (and more elsewhere in the TAHO collection) relates directly to Robinson’s occupation of his Elizabeth Street grant. On top of this, there is a wealth of documents held by external institutions such as the Mitchell Library in Sydney. Given the sheer weight of available primary material, it is absolutely beyond the scope of this research to fully check all of these documents for material relating to Elizabeth Street. Therefore, an approach has been adopted which prioritised searches of the documents most likely to yield results within a reasonable timeframe.

Secondary material has also been extremely useful and is noted where used. One of the most useful resources was Plomley’s Friendly Mission, a very carefully annotated and researched transcription of Robinson’s journals and papers between 1829-1834, a period critical to Robinson’s establishment of the ‘Aboriginal Asylum’ on his Elizabeth Street grant (see below). Details of Robinson’s life before and after emigration to Van Diemen’s Land are sourced from a combination of primary sources and publications such as the Australian Dictionary of Biography as well as the numerous publications about Robinson.

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 4

Finally, it should be absolutely clear that this research does not in any way attempt to describe or analyse Robinson’s role in the ‘conciliation’ of the Aboriginal peoples of Tasmania. Instead, this is only referred to where it is directly relevant to the development of the subject area. This approach has been taken for two reasons. Firstly, as mentioned above, there are already a number of publications which study this period in Tasmanian history. And secondly, the vast quantity of source material would provide any historian with a lifetime’s work to research and analyse.

PREVIOUS HERITAGE STUDIES & ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS

There are no known studies or archaeological investigations of the subject area.

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUBJECT SITE

PRE 1804:

The land was the home of the Mouheneener people, who utilised and managed the land for tens of thousands of years, prior to displacement by European settlers in 1804.

1810S-20S – SETTLEMENT, STREET GRIDDING AND SUBDIVISION:

Subsequent to the settlement of Sullivan’s Cove in 1804, following the disbandment of the initial European settlement of Risdon Cove, the settlement of Hobart Town began to grow in a somewhat organic matter. However, following Governor Macquarie’s inspection of 1811, Surveyor James Meehan was engaged to rationalise the layout of the settlement and install a grid-pattern of streets, as seen on his 1811 survey plan (DPIPWE Hobart 131), which set the basis for the centre of Hobart in its current form.

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 5

ALIENATION FRON THE CROWN The subject area (now on 4 titles) comprises part of a 1 acre 2 rood 36 perch grant to George Augustus Robinson and the bulk of a 1 rood 30 perches grant to Joseph Bowden. The evolution of built structures on the subject area is highly complex; therefore, for the sake of simplicity, this research will provide separate histories for Robinson’s and Bowden’s grants.

PART ONE – GEORGE AUGUSTUS ROBINSON’S GRANT

ROBINSON’S EARLIER YEARS

Three titles in the subject area (Title references 49030/1, 49030/2 & 49030/3 – Lots 1, 2 & 3 on DPIPWE Diagram 49030) comprise part of land originally granted to George Augustus Robinson. Robinson was born 22 March 1791 to William and Susannah Robinson in Boston, Lincolnshire. Most of his youth was spent at Islington, where he educated himself by reading widely. Robinson followed his father into the building trade, and in 1814 married Maria Amelia Evans.2

2 'Robinson, George Augustus (1791–1866)', Australian Dictionary of Biography, National Centre of Biography, Australian National University, http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/robinson-george-augustus-2596/text3565, published first in hardcopy 1967, accessed online 21 November 2016.

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 6

Figure 3.1 - George Augustus Robinson, by Bernardino Giarni, 1853. State Library of NSW (ML27).

According to one of several ‘memorials’ from Robinson to the Van Diemen’s Land Governor, Robinson was ‘initiated into the profession of bricklayer and builder’ by his father, who had 20 years experience in the trade. Robinson later accepted a position with a ‘Mr Hobson, the Government Contractor’ to superintend the erection of ‘Martello towers’ in Kent and Suffolk (Martello towers were part of the coastal defence system built during the Peninsular Wars and intended to repulse French armies attempting a land invasion of England). Robinson was later involved in the re-building of Drury Lane Theatre in 1812, and the construction of Blackwater College. By 1820, he was in business for himself, manufacturing bricks and tiles, when a ‘reversal of fortune’ and a large family

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 7

with five children led him to consider emigrating to Van Diemen’s Land3, presumably tempted by the free land grants, and hoping for an open field in which to practice as an architect/builder.

ROBINSON’S DEVELOPMENT IN HOBART TOWN

Robinson arrived in Hobart Town aboard the Triton on 20th January 18244, leaving wife Maria and five children in England. He wasted absolutely no time in setting about to improve his circumstances, making his first application for a town allotment just ten days after his arrival.5 In this application, Robinson asked for:

An allotment of ground in the town so that he [Robinson] may be enabled to build a substantial dwelling house thereon and to commence business as a builder6.

The Town Surveyor was instructed to measure a town allotment for Robinson, then, less than a month later, Robinson followed this up with a request for another town allotment,

so that he may be able to convert the same into a builders’ yard to erect workshops for artificers etc.

Again, his request was approved, but only “on condition of building immediately”7. These two allotments, together with land purchased from a M.A.Bentley8, formed Robinson’s grant in Elizabeth Street9.

Having successfully attained two allotments (despite failing to show that he had any capital to improve them), Robinson proceeded to apply for a third allotment of 30 acres ‘contiguous to the town’ on which to build a brick and tile manufactory. This application was denied, but as part of his application Robinson claimed that he had already (in just six months) manufactured 60,000 bricks and erected 8 buildings including a small store and two 6- room cottages, ‘the principle of which I am willing to submit to the inspection of the Colonial Architect’. As a bricklayer, his bent to Regency architecture and adornment of these buildings suggests he was using the site as a ‘showroom’ of his building skills. Writing at the end of July 1824, Robinson also noted:

3 Tasmanian Archive & Heritage Office (TAHO) Colonial Secretary’s Office (CSO) 1/1/86/1939 pp201-204 4 NJB Plomley (Ed.), Friendly Mission – The Tasmanian Journals and Papers of George Augustus Robinson 1829-1824 (Hobart, 1966) p.13 5 TAHO Land Survey Department (LSD) 1/1/73 pp58-59 6 TAHO Land Survey Department (LSD) 1/1/73 pp58-59 7 TAHO Land Survey Department (LSD) 1/1/73 pp58-59 8 Launceston Examiner 22 September 1849 p.8 9 NJB Plomley (Ed.), Friendly Mission – The Tasmanian Journals and Papers of George Augustus Robinson 1829-1824 (Hobart, 1966) p.13

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 8

I have already expended considerable sums in establishing myself a builder and am preparing to open a yard and premises on New Town Road [i.e. Elizabeth Street], and have prepared 50,000 bricks for that purpose10

Although his proposed brick manufactory did not go ahead, Robinson did continue with construction of his new premises. As noted above, the aim of constructing these premises – i.e., Robinson’s house and the requisite builders workshop – was to promote his reputation as a builder and bring in new business. The available evidence suggests he moved very quickly to do this; in particular, Robinson mortgaged his Elizabeth Street allotment in February 1828 to solicitor Gamaliel Butler for ₤109, together with the messuage or tenement or Dwelling Houses erections and buildings thereon standing11. Thus, we can see that a number of buildings were in existence on Robinson’s block by February 1828. Comparing the documentation already mentioned, in combination with documents relating to the use of Robinson’s house as an ‘Aborigines Asylum’ (see below) in conjunction with historic maps12, it is possible to posit the physical evolution of the site.

Analysis of historic maps from the early 1830s through to a very detailed plan drawn up in 1851 (see below) suggest that, bearing in mind the dubious accuracy of some early maps, Robinson’s very distinctive house facing Warwick Street was erected by February 1828. An 1836 lease advertisement for Robinson’s house describes it as follows:

To be Let, With immediate possession, ALL those valuable Premises on the New Town Road, the property of G. A. Robinson, Esq., being a substantial well-built brick family house; - comprising a large drawing room, dining and breakfast parlours, study, nursery, lofty bedrooms, capacious atticks, large kitchen, good cellarage, servants offices detached, coach-house, stabling, fowl- houses, paved court yard, garden securely enclosed, with every other convenience. In addition to which may be had - several good paddocks adjacent, and well fenced. These premises are in every respect fitted up in the best style, the object of the proprietor being to secure a respectable tenant, such an one will be liberally dealt with - Also, A NEAT COTTAGE RESIDENCE. For further

10 TAHO CSO 1/1/88/1939 11 Department Primary Industry, Parks, Water & Environment (DPIPWE) Deeds Library (DL) Mem 1/57 26 February 1828

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 9

particulars, and cards to view, apply to G. Butler, Esq., solicitor, or to John C. Stracey, House and Land agent. Elizabeth street. April 19, 1836.13

In March 1828, Robinson advertised two cottages to let “opposite Mr Worthy’s” – i.e., facing the present-day site of Coogans. This description suggests that the two cottages for rent may be the conjoined cottages which can be seen in the corner of A. Wood’s engraving of Mr Robinson’s house (see below), and which can also be seen on an early 1830s map of Hobart (also see below). The cottages were described as:

GENTEEL RESIDENCE FOR A SMALL FAMILY. TO BE LET, a well-finished brick-built Dwelling House, eligibly situated on the New town road, nearly opposite to Mr. Worthy's. It contains 4 rooms besides a kitchen detached, with oven. ALSO, A Neat COTTAGE, containing four rooms, and kitchen detached, together with a cellar, a large garden, well stocked with fruit trees and other conveniences. Either of these premises will be Let to a respectable tenant, at a low rent. Apply to Mr. G. A. Robinson, builder, on the premises.14

13 Colonial Times, 19 April 1836 p.8 14 Hobart Town Courier 8 March 1828 p.1

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 10

Figure 3.2 – Excerpt from a c1830s map of Hobart and surrounds, the subject site denoted in red, Robinson’s holding outlined in green. DPIPWE Map Hobart 5.

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 11

Figure 3.3 – Excerpt from Frankland’s 1839 map of Hobart and surrounds, the subject site outlined in red, Robinson’s holding outlined in green. The conjoined decorative Regent cottages are at the bottom left hand corner of the subject site outlined in red, whilst Robinson’s house is the structure closest to Elizabeth Street. Note, that the accuracy of this map is known to be dubious. State Library of Tasmania, Allport Stack 912.94661MAP.

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 12

Figure 3.4 - Excerpt from the 1841 census map of Hobart and surrounds. The above map suggests that Robinson’s house started out as a single residence attached to the service wing (ie kitchens, stables etc). Analysis of later maps suggests that the two cottages conjoined to Robinson’s house were built between 1828 – 1841 (see below). Note, that the accuracy of this map is known to be dubious. Tasmanian Archive and Heritage Office, CSO8-17-578.

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 13

Figure 3.5 - “Mr Robinson’s House, Hobarton”, published in Residence in Tasmania with a descriptive tour through the Island (London, 1856).

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 14

Figure 3.6 - Enlarged detail from Wood’s engraving showing conjoined cottages in the Regent style on the lower northern side of Robinson’s house

Sprent’s c1843 survey plan of Hobart is perhaps the most accurate known survey, which shows a high degree of detail of building locations, ancillary buildings and building materials. By this time the place was known as 168 Elizabeth Street. Note that the Sprent survey only depicts buildings and features which hare visible from public vantage points – the lack of buildings depicted further inside the block and off Warwick Street (which are known to have been there in the 1830s) suggests that the site was fenced and visibility of those buildings inhibited. This includes the conjoined cottages shown on every other map. However, despite its deficiencies, it is worth noting that this is the first map to show the two cottages conjoined to Robinson’s house as a single unit, taking the building right up to the boundary of Bowden’s grant.

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 15

Figure 3.7 - Excerpt from Sprent’s c1843 map of Hobart and surrounds, the subject site denoted in red. (www.thelist.tas.gov.au). Note that the decorative Regent conjoined cottages are not shown on this map, probably due to lack of visibility from the street. This map clearly shows the Robinson grant as distinct from the Bowden grant (see below).

Robinson claimed to be a ‘master builder’ and sometimes even an architect (as was not unusual at that time), but he attracted criticism from his contemporaries, such as Colonial Surveyor James Calder, who said that Robinson was:

a good tradesman but no designer or architect as may be seen in his own residence in Elizabeth Street which was built by himself, or after his own designs, and its present curious roof added in after times under his own direction15.

15 CALDER, J.E. (1875): Some account of the Wars, Extirpation, Habits etc. of the Native Tribes of Tasmania. Hobart. P.74.

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 16

As noted above, Robinson himself declared as early as June 1824 that he intended to build his premises and builder’s yard on the Elizabeth Street allotment in order to commence business as a builder16. In other words, Robinson intended his allotment to be a visual statement of his skills and credentials. And despite what observers like Calder might later say, it should be noted that Robinson’s two earliest erections on the block – ie, his house and the decorative Regent conjoined cottages certainly would have made a splash in conservative 1820s Hobart Town, which was still known by many as “The Camp”. To begin with Robinson’s house, although no masterpiece, it does have some claims to architectural sophistication which would have been rare in Hobart Town at the time. Although only a single pile building, it gives an elegant sense of grandeur, added to by details such as the fine brick portico with blind arched recesses over the windows and doors, and (although added later by Robinson) a mansard roof which allowed vertical attics. And when it comes to advertising your building/architectural skills, the decorative Regent conjoined cottage would certainly have achieved this. The two cottages have certain features in common with Robinson’s house such as the blind arched recesses over the doors. The style, with its sensuous curving roofline topped by finial balls, defies placement in a single category, other than to say that in 1828 Hobart Town they would undoubtedly have captured attention, the primary goal of a self-promoting entrepreneur such as Robinson.

‘ABORIGINES ASYLUM’

At the time of Robinson’s arrival in Van Diemen’s Land in 1824, relations between Tasmanian Aborigines and the ever- increasing population of Europeans began to deteriorate into the period of frontier violence sometimes referred to as the ‘Black War’. One of Governor Arthur’s strategies to end the hostilities was to ‘conciliate’ or ‘pacify’ the Tasmanian Aborigines with a view to removing them to a reserve. In March 1829, Governor Arthur had the following advertisement placed in the Hobart press:

In furtherance, of The Lieutenant Governor's anxious desire to ameliorate the condition of the Aboriginal inhabitants of this territory, His Excellency will allow a salary of fifty pounds per annum, together with rations, to a steady person of good character, that can be well recommended, who will take an interest in effecting an intercourse with this unfortunate race, and reside upon Brune island, taking-charge of the provisions supplied for the use of the natives of that place17.

Robinson successfully applied for this position, and at the end of March 1829 embarked for Brune [Bruny] Island to commence his new role. It soon became apparent that Robinson had a natural talent for attaining the trust and goodwill of Aboriginal

16 TAHO Land Survey Department (LSD) 1/1/73 pp58-59 17 Hobart Town Courier 7 March 1829 p.2

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 17

peoples, and he began the process of enticing the tribes to come with him to ‘Aboriginal Establishments’ at places such as Bruny Island and Hunter’s Island.18

From Robinson’s journal, it is apparent that as early as July 1829 (just months after his appointment) Robinson was using his own house in Elizabeth Street as an unofficial ‘Aborigines Asylum’. In December 1829 he recorded in his journal that he ‘received Black Tom’ at the Aboriginal asylum he had established next to his house in Hobart, suggesting further building had occurred in addition to his rental properties. The next day he took in ‘the black chief’ known as Umarrah.19 Robinson’s journal suggests that the small number of Aborigines who passed through his ‘Asylum’ were mostly in transit to the Bruny Island ‘Aborigines Establishment’ which was at that time being established by Robinson.20 The Elizabeth Street ‘Aborigines Asylum’ first became took on official status in January 1830. Just before his departure on an expedition to Port Davey, Robinson wrote to Reverend Bedford on 11th January 1830 requesting a temporary asylum for the Aborigines during my absence to Port Davey21. Several days before, Robinson had written to the Aborigines Committee that it would be advisable to have a temporary shed constructed on his Elizabeth Street premises for the disposal of those Aborigines not accompanying him to Port Davey, as well as for “any casualties that may intervene prior to my departure”. Robinson went on to say:

There are at present Nine Aborigines sojourning at my dwelling house, but as the compartment which they occupy is not sufficiently spacious to accommodate more than a few, I beg to submit whether an adjoining stable which appears to be well calculated for the purpose, might not be appropriated for the use of the Aborigines until they can be transferred to a more permanent Asylum; or, whether His Excellency would sanction the loan of a few labouring hands to finish an erection which I am now preparing, upon which consideration no rent would accrue to Government.22

Before setting out on the Port Davey expedition, Robinson, concerned about the housing of a number of Aborigines confined with the lunatics at the Colonial Hospital, wrote a letter to the Governor recommending a building contiguous to my premises for the reception of aborigines from hospital23. This journal entry probably refers to the letter quoted above, as Robinson’s entry for the following day (14th January 1830) records that:

18 Australian Diction of Biography, G A Robinson 19 (Cassandra Pybus (Chapter 7 A Self Made Man) in Reading Robinson: Companion Essays to George Robinson’s Friendly Mission, Anna Johnston and Mitchell Rolls, Monash University Publishing. Originally cited in 1 Plomley, NJB, Friendly Mission, 2nd ed., Launceston, Hobart, Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery and Quintus Publishing, 2008, p. 107. 20 Friendly Mission pp68-69, 72 21 Friendly Mission, journal entry 11 January 1830 22 TAHO CSO 1/1/316/7578 pp124-126, GAR to Aborigines Committee, 8 January 1830 23 Friendly Mission journal entry 13 January 1830

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 18

Wrote out and signed an agreement between Messrs Walpole and Wright and myself on the part of government for the rent of this contiguous building, which was hired for six months certain at the rate of 12 pounds per annum24

On 16th January, Robinson wrote to the Colonial Engineer, asking that some repairs be made to the building appropriated for the Aborigines, including a doorway to give direct access to his house25. Putting all these sources, including contemporary maps and the later 1851 sale plan (see below), it seems almost certain26 that the ‘Aborigines Asylum’ was housed in the building adjoining Robinson’s house, clearly visible in Sprent’s 1841 map of Hobart and delineated in the 1851 sale plan as one of the two conjoined cottages attached directly to Robinson’s house27.

Robinson himself painted a fairly glowing picture of life at the Aborigines Asylum. In January 1830, he told the Aborigines Committee that:

Conceiving it advisable that the Aborigines at this particular juncture should be rendered as comfortable as possible, and wishing through the instrumentality of kind treatment alone to render them the harbingers of peace and good fellowship amongst the tribes generally, I have hitherto allowed them to intermix with my own family, and to partake of as many comforts as my own circumscribed means (exclusive of those afforded by Government) would admit of…I beg therefore to recommend that the Aborigines now under my charge be allowed to remain in Hobart Town, where the children can be specially attended to and due care taken in the cultivation of their minds28.

Robinson requested, and was granted, the provision of a constable at the Asylum to promote “quiet and decorum” and “prevent the intrusion of strangers”29. However there is a darker side to the image given by Robinson. For example, Robinson stated before his departure for Port Davey that “there are at present five children who are very capable of being taught” at the Aborigines Asylum, and went on to say that he would “endeavour to possess myself of as many children as I can safely procure, for the purposes of affording them the same advantage30. Also, the terminology of ‘Asylum’ is fairly misleading; traditionally, an asylum is a place of refuge, and yet Robinson repeatedly reported Aborigines ‘escaping’ his asylum. After one

24 Friendly Mission journal entry 14 January 1830 25 Friendly Mission pp111-112 (note) 26 This hypothesis as to which portion of Robinson’s buildings were used relies on the very reasonable assumption that there were no other buildings contiguous to Robinson’s which were not recorded on contemporary maps, or demolished prior to Robinson’s block being comprehensively surveyed prior to sale in 1851. 27 See Sprent 1841 (available at www.thelist.tas.gov.au) and TAHO Non-State (NS)596/1/3 28 TAHO CSO1/1/316/7578 Robinson to Aborigines Committee, 8th January 1830, pp124-126 29 TAHO CSO 1/1/316/7578 Robinson to Aborigines Committee, 15th January 1830 p.129 30 TAHO CSO 1/1/316/7578 Robinson to Aborigines Committee, 8th January 130, p.124

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 19

such escape in March 1830, when three Aboriginal women “escaped from the Asylum”, Governor Arthur instructed that “it is therefore necessary that the place should be secured without delay”, instructing the Colonial Engineer to take steps immediately”31. No record survives of how the Asylum was ‘secured’, however, it is worth noting that the 1851 sale plan (see below) shows a network of substantial brick walls on Robinson’s property, which may well be survivors from this period. These walls are also mentioned in some of the sale memorials following the subdivision of Robinson’s estate in 1851.

As time passed, Robinson’s Aborigines Asylum began to take on the nature of a local attraction or point of interest. To give but two examples, it was reported in November 1830 that:

Two of the Aborigines who have been living so long at Mr Robinson’s house on the New Town road absconded this morning, after divesting themselves entirely of the clothing given to them, and which they have so long worn. They were apparently getting accustomed to the mode of living of the white people, and could speak English. Many of the inhabitants of New Town were in the habit of stopping at the door and talking to them32.

A few months later, the Colonial Times noted that :

It is quite amusing to see how civilised the blacks are becoming under the superintendence of Mr Robinson. We see two or three of them are continually parading up and down the streets to shew [sic] themselves, dressed in long superfine blue coats for all the world looking like gentlemen with no shoes on – the sight, in some persons’ opinion, worth ₤250 per annum, besides odds and ends.33

In October 1833, the arrival of a large number of Aborigines at the Asylum provoked considerable interest from the people of Hobart Town:

On Saturday, the great public resort was the residence of Mr Robinson on the New Town Road, where the thirty Aborigines brought by that active individual in the Isabella, have for the present taken up their quarters. They appear much attached to Mr Robinson and perfectly reconciled to their new situation.34

However perusal of Robinson’s correspondence with Government again shows a darker side. Referring to the Aborigines mentioned above, Robinson reported in November 1833 that “The recently captured Aborigines have become daily more

31 TAHO CSO 1/1/316/7578 Memorandum, Arthur to Colonial Engineer, 5th March 1830 32 Hobart Town Courier, 27 November 1830 p.2 33 Colonial Times 22 February 1831 p.2 34 The Austral-Asiatic Review, 29 October 1833 p.4

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 20

dissatisfied at being so long detained at Hobart Town, several of them have had slight attacks of sickness, which they attribute to this cause”. Robinson recommended their immediate removal to Flinders Island.35

The fame of Robinson’s Aborigines Asylum was crowned by the visit in December 1833 of the artist Benjamin Duterrau, who prepared a number of portraits of Robinson and his ‘conciliated’ Aborigines. To this day, Duterrau’s Aboriginal portraits are the best known of his colonial works.

Figure 3.7 - Duterrau’s most famous image of Robinson and Tasmanian Aborigines, titled by the artist “The Conciliation” (Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery)

35 TAHO CSO 1/1/491/10852 Robinson to Burnett, 8th November 1833

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 21

By August 1834, it was generally agreed that the vast bulk of Tasmanian Aborigines had been removed from mainland Tasmania. Robinson took command of the Flinders Island settlement in October 183536. Thus, there was no longer a need for an Aboriginal Asylum in Hobart, and in April 1836 Robinson advertised his house together with a ‘neat cottage residence’ 37, possibly the former Aborigines Asylum. Robinson left Flinders Island in 1839 and, trading on his experience with the Tasmanian Aborigines, took up the position of Protector of Aborigines in the Port Phillip district. This protectorate was abolished at the end of 1849; Robinson’s wife had died the year before, his children (except his youngest daughter Cecelia) were grown up, and he had the means to live in comfort. Having decided to return to England, Robinson began to organise his affairs, which included having his Elizabeth Street allotment formally recognised as a grant by the Supreme Court in September 184938, leaving him free to dispose of this property, as well as the 2,560 acres near Emu Bay granted in return for his service. Robinson sailed on the Medway for London in May 1852; after a period of time living in Europe, he died in Bath in October 186639.

For decades, Robinson’s inner-city hosting of the aborigines was a point of local folklore around Hobart. Almost 100 years after Robinson arrived in Hobart, his property was described in an editorial describing early Elizabeth Street in the Critic:

George Robinson's house stood three doors below Warwick Street, and faced a portion of the land which was attached to the brewery of the late John James. It was built by Robinson himself, and was considerably below the street level, where the land made an abrupt dip in the direction of Murray Street. It had one of those old-fashioned Mansard roofs and a replica of it as far as outside general appearance went may be seen further up the street, viz., the residence of the late Samuel Crisp, the grandfather of Mr. Justice Crisp. When Robinson started on his mission to break up the aboriginal tribes that in the thirties wore giving considerable trouble to the colonists, the edifice was placed apart for the blacks as they were brought in in batches prior to their removal to Flinders Island. At the time when the foundation stone of the building was laid, there was a wild stretch of land extending from Warwick Street corner down to the old Blue Bells of Scotland, in Murray Street. At this period this vacant space was a meeting ground for the roughs of the day, and to the east of the creek which ran between Murray and Elizabeth streets was a flat on which it is stated by a chronicler of the day no less than 30 bruisers of the period fought contests to a finish. Situate about forty or fifty yards from the aborigines' home was a large well, which was filled up at the end of the fifties. This supplied the reside of the neighbourhood, and some of

36 Australian Dictionary of Biography, entry for G A Robinson 37 The Colonial Times 19 April 1836 p.8 38 Launceston Examiner 22 September 1849 p.8 39 Australian Dictionary of Biography, entry for G A Robinson

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 22

the water from it was utilised for a large underground tank in which the blackfellows now and then had a wash.

This spot was known for years as the “Pool of the Aborigines”. The house, which was constructed of brick through defective workmanship, cracked in one of the corners, and reached such a tumble-down condition that it was condemned by the City Council, and in 1896 it was pulled down, and two up-to- date villas fill its place. Robinson was a builder by trade, but the late Mr. Cotton, one of the early settlers, said that he was a very poor bricklayer. Robinson, who seems to have been cut out more for a social regenerator than an artisan, learned the language of the blacks, and by going amongst them with his life in his hands, so prevailed upon all but about thirty aborigines migrated to Finders Island with him - one of the greatest moral victories ever recorded in history. He received a grant of £1000 for his services, and was made Protector of the Aborigines, a post he held with credit to himself and advantage to the black. Subsequently Mr. Robinson was employed in Victoria in a somewhat similar position. It is to be regretted that the people of this State who owed so much to Robinson, have never erected some permanent memorial of his great service.

When the Tasmanian aborigines decreased in number they were removed to Oyster Cove, whore the last of-their race, WilIiam Lanney and Truganini, died. There was a great struggle for the possession of Lanney's skull, and it was eventually secured by a well-known Hobart surgeon. If there is any truth in rumour, the skull now lies in the museum of the Royal College of Surgeons in England.

A fairly wide lane divided Robinson's house from a block of three large shops which, with the exception of a small vacant allotment now a stone cutter's yard, completed this section of Elizabeth Street as far as Warwick Street. The first of these buildings was occupied by Thomas Biggs, a builder and cabinet maker. The next was to tenanted by Mr. Edward Owen, and the third by Mr. Charles Davis. Those shops are still intact.40

An article from 1890 describes the aboriginal occupation of Robinson’s property:

An Historic Patch—On the western side of Elizabeth Street, between Patrick and Warwick Street is a rare piece of ground about an acre in extent. The ground has historic memories and was a sort of playground

40 The Critic (Hobart), 8/2/1925:3.

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 23

about the end of the twenties and beginning of the thirties for the aborigines that were rounded up indifferent parts of the island by the late George Robinson. The darkies as they were brought in in batches' ware confined in a large two-story brick building next to the ground above mentioned, prior to their - removal to Flinders' Island. On a broad patch, which is now represented by the strip of land now under notice, was a pool which was supplied by a spring that bubbled out of the bank near where James' old brewery is built, and in this pool the blackfellows used to wash themselves. For many years It was known as the "Pool of the Aborigines." The wide waste of land extending along Murray street, opposite the old Blue Bells of Scotland, one of the oldest public houses in the city, at this period was a meeting ground for most of the roughs of the day, and it is said that at least one hundred prise fights took place between the bruisers of the period on it. The home of the aborigines was condemned by the Corporation about four years ago, and was demolished. The pool of the aborigines has dried up, and their playground runs about a ton of nettles and thistles to the acre.41

SALE OF ROBINSON’S GRANT, SUBDIVISION AND SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT

Before Robinson left Australia, he made arrangements to dispose of his land assets. In March 1851, the auctioneer T.Y.Lowes announced the auction of Robinson’s entire 1 acre 2 rood 36 perch grant. The auction particulars described by Lowes were:

Family Residence, Cottages and Building Sites…to sell without reserve….in several lots, the whole of that invaluable plot of ground at the angle of Elizabeth and Warwick Streets, known as the property of G.A.Robinson Esq. Comprising the spacious brick three storey residence with several cottages; and the residue of the extensive frontage on the above streets divided into building allotments….42

41 The Tasmanian News, 13/11/1900:2. 42 Colonial Times 25 March 1851 p4

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 24

Figure 3.8 – Auction advertisement for Robinson’s land. Colonial Times, 25/3/1851:4.

The firm of Butler Nutt & Butler prepared the subdivision, producing a detailed plan of Robinson’s grant divided into 10 lots, with all buildings clearly shown on the plan:

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 25

Figure 3.9 - 1851 plan of Robinson allotment for the 1851 auction. Tasmanian Archive and Heritage Office NS596-1-3.

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 26

Figure 3.10 – Enlargement of 1851 plan of Robinson allotment for the 1851 auction, the subject site depicted in red. Tasmanian Archive and Heritage Office NS596-1-3.

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 27

The auction was scheduled for 4th April 185143. Land title records show that Robinson sold all of his 1 acre 2 rood 36 perch grant, ‘together with the several messuages or tenements and outbuildings thereon erected’ to George Salier, a draper and merchant of Hobart Town for ₤1,200. The memorial of indenture for this sale was dated 9th April 1851, and describes the grant in its entirety (i.e. not in 10 lots) so it is likely that Salier made arrangements to buy the entire grant prior to the auction.

At the time of sale, the land was subject to the existing tenancies of four tenants – Alexander Jack, Alexander Forrest, Bridget Moore and Joseph Jones44. The purchaser, George Salier, was a near neighbour of Robinson’s, residing at ‘Melbourne Lodge’, still standing at the junction of Elizabeth and Warwick Streets diagonally opposite to the subject area. Salier appears to have purchased the land on a speculative basis, as he immediately took steps to put the whole grant back up for auction, using exactly the same 10-lot subdivision plan as had been drawn up for the T.Y.Lowes auction45. (Note that Lots 1,2 & 3 of this 1851 plan tally very closely to titles 49030/1; 49030/2, and 49030/3 which form the bulk of the subject area. Also the lot numbers are identical to those on DPIPWE title diagrams for each title. Therefore, for the sake of simplicity, this research – relating to Robinson’s part of the subject area - will simply refer to lots 1,2 & 3).

LOT 1 – ROBINSON’S HOUSE AND SUBSEQUENT TERRACE HOUSE DEVELOPMENT

Examination of Lot 1 on the 1851 sale plan shows that this lot comprised Robinson’s house with two conjoined houses attached to it, as well as several substantial buildings, some of which may have been the stables, outbuildings and cottage referred to in the 1836 lease advertisement. Salier did not sell this lot at the 1851 auction; instead, he advertised it for lease at the end of April 1851, describing it as:

“That centrally situated and convenient premises formerly known as the property of G.A.Robinson, Esq, on the New Town Road, containing 9 rooms, with every requisite to render it a comfortable residence. Water laid on”46

Salier retained this property (i.e. Lot 1) until his death in June 189247. Over the 41 years that Salier owned Lot 1, he maintained it (i.e. Robinson’s house and the cottages) as rental properties. Salier died intestate; weeks later, the Perpetual Trustees & Executors Agency Co were granted administration of the estate. By this stage, Robinson’s cottage was falling into a state of disrepair; the Valuation Rolls for 1894 show Robinson’s house still occupied but the two attached cottages empty48. In all

43 Colonial Times 25 March 1851 p4 44 DPIPWE DL Mem3/5878 45 DPIPWE DL Mem 3/5947. This memorial of sale is actually for lots 2 and 6, but specifically refers to Salier selling these and other lots by public auction. 46 Colonial Times 29 April 1851 p1 47 TAHO Registrar General’s Department (RGD) 35/1/3 #1290 (Intestate) 48 Hobart Town Gazette 2 January 1894 p.109

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 28

likelihood Salier’s death intestate would have accelerated the decline in maintenance of his properties; at any rate, in 1896 the property was condemned by Hobart City Council and demolished49, with a row of three terraces taking its place50. An article from 1896 recalled the history of this property; although written decades after the fact, it does tally with the known details from primary sources cited above:

There is now being pulled down in Elizabeth street, opposite James’ Old one of the oldest buildings in Hobart. It was built about the end of the twenties, and when George Robinson started on his mission to breakup the aborigine tribes that in the thirties were giving considerable trouble to the Colonists, the edifice now in course of demolition was placed apart for the blacks as they were brought in in batches prior to their removal to Flinders Island. At the time when the foundation stone of the building was laid there was a wild stretch of lane extending from Warwick street comer down in the old Blue Bells of Scotland in Murray Street. At this period this was a meeting ground for most of the roughs of the day and to the east of the creek which ran between Murray and Elizabeth Street was a flat, an which, it is stated, that no less than 30 prize fights took place between the bruisers of the period. Situate not 40yd away from the Aborigines home was a large well which has been filled up for years. It supplied the residents of the neighbourhood and some of the water from it was used for a large underground tank, in which the blackfellows took their daily wash This spot was for years known as the ”pool of the aborigines”. The Tenement, which is constructed of brick, has been in a tumble down state for years, and has been condemned by the City Council.51

The ‘pool of the aborigines’ was also described in 1907 as:

This particular block has historic interest. In the days when George Robinson yarded his captured blacks in the back building between Patrick and Warwick streets, there was a large waterhole supplied by a creek, which took its rise from the eastern slope of Mount Knocklofty. Here, the late Joseph Martin informed one, the 'blacks used to wash themselves in the thirties’. This creek is now an evil smelling sewer. The pool of the aborigines is no more, and now forms part of a well-kept vegetable garden.52

49 Tasmanian News 5 August 1896 p.2 50 The three terraces are shown in photographs from this time; documentary sources are not available for City Council demolitions / constructions before 1919 51 Tasmanian News 5 August 1896 p.2 52 The Daily Telegraph 6 July 1906 p.9

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 29

Figure 3.11 – Robinson’s (former) house, c1890. Tasmanian Archive and Heritage Office, NS 1013-1-522.

Analysis of the valuation rolls for Hobart from 1896 onwards suggest that the new three conjoined terraces were built immediately after the demolition of Robinson’s house and cottages in 189653. In March 1911, this property was sold by Salier’s trustees to Adam Hodgins54. In July 1948, Joan Lillian Stirling Laws (a beenficiary via the estate of Hodgins) sold the property to Victor Watkins, a plumber55. Watkins died in Dec 1966, leaving the property to

53 See Valuation Roll in Hobart Town Gazette 1 January 1897,p.1; see also 1899 and 1901. 54 DPIPWE DL 12/4658 55 DPIPWE DL Mem 23/9783

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 30

Victor Monks Watkins, along with Lots 2 and 3; Victor Watkins sold all three lots – i.e., Lots 1,2 and 3 on the 1851 plan – to Crisp & Gunn Co-Operative Ltd for $71,425 in June 196756.

LOT 2 – THE TWO REGENCY COTTAGES AND LATER REGENT HOUSE

Lot 2 on the 1851 plan was purchased at the May 1851 auction by Abraham Edwin Biggs of Hobart Town, a builder, for ₤273 (however it appears this price also included Lot 6, outside the subject area)57. Comparison of Lot 2 on the 1851 plan with Wood’s contemporary engraving (see above) shows that this lot included the two Regent style conjoined cottages described above. Biggs borrowed the ₤273 purchase price on mortgage from Henry De La Hunt58. In March 1856, Biggs mortgaged a portion of Lot 2 (with 33 feet on Elizabeth Street and a depth of 72 feet on the southern side) to Bassett Dickson of Glen Ayr, Richmond, to secure re-payment to Dickson of ₤800. Then, in June 1863, Biggs sold all of Lot 2 (in two separate but contiguous transactions) to John Mather of Hobart Town, a haberdasher, for an unknown amount. In the memorial for this sale, the description mentions ‘Regent House’59, Biggs’ name for the shop and dwelling which forms what is now known as 244 Elizabeth Street. Given the above sources, ‘Regent House’ was clearly built by Abraham Biggs between 1851 and early 1854, during which time it was rented to the draper Josiah Morey and as Ash’s Dispensary.

In February of 1851 Morey advised the public that:

You should remember that the best place for making your purchases of Drapery Goods, of the most approved fabrics and latest novelties, combined with cheapness, is at Regent House, Elizabeth Street, near the corner of Warwick Street60

It is not known precisely how long Morey rented the building, however Ash was the occupant in 1856 at the time Kelso Terrace was built (see below). Mather owned ‘Regent House’ (i.e. Lot 2) until his death in February 1865 at the age of 4861. The property stayed in Mather’s estate until the trustees, by order of Mather’s son Robert62, sold the property in August 1876 to Peter Laurie Reid of Hobart Town, a shopkeeper, for ₤80063. It is not certain when the unusually styled Regent style cottages at the rear of the site were demolished, but it was probably around this time, as they were certainly gone by the early 1890s.

56 DPIPWE DL Mem 39/1303 57 DPIPWE DL Mem 3/5947 58 DPIPWE DL Mem 3/5947 59 DPIPWE DL Mem 5/1926 & 5/1927 60 The Tasmanian Colonist, 9 February 1854, p.3 61 TAHO RGD 35/1/7 #4853 62 The Mercury 28 July 1876 p.2 63 DPIPWE DL Mem 6/2202

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 31

By 1889 Reid had retired from shopkeeping and sold the property to George Salier for ₤95064. Curiously, this is the same George Salier who had originally auctioned Robinson’s grant in 1851, and who still owned Lot 1 from that sale (see above). Salier retained this property (Lot 2) until his died intestate in June 189265. The property remained under the control of Salier’s estate until April 1912, when it was sold to Annie Maud Abbot for ₤1,860. Abbot held the property until September 1918, when she sold it to Albert Ernest Watkins, a plumber, for ₤2,650. This sale included both Lots 2 and 366 (see below). In 1925, Watkins submitted plans to Hobart City Council for a shop67 to adjoin ‘Regent House’ on the southern side. Although heavily modified since, these plans clearly correspond to the building now adjoining ‘Regent House’.

The Watkins family undertook substantial works to the properties during their ownership, including the construction of an Art-Deco styles shop and residence at 242 Elizabeth Street in 1925, a bakery at the rear of the site in that same year. This property (Lot 2 – ‘Regent House’ and the 1925 brick shop) remained in the Watkins family until June 1967, when Alfred Watkins’ descendent Victor Watkins sold this property (lot 2) along with lots 1 and 3 (later purchased by Watkins) to Crisp & Gunn Co-Operative Ltd for $71,425 in June 196768.

64 DPIPWE DL Mem 8/1810 65 TAHO Registrar General’s Department (RGD) 35/1/3 #1290 (Intestate) 66 DPIPWE DL Mem 14/3605 67 TAHO AE417/1/690 68 DPIPWE DL Mem 39/1303

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 32

Figure 3.12 - Watkins’ 1925 plans for a brick shop to adjoin Regent House (TAHO AE 417/1/690).

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 33

Figure 3.13 – Plans for the bakehouse building at 242 Elizabeth Street, 1925. Tasmanian Archive and Heritage Office, AE417/1/10

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 34

LOT 3 – KELSO TERRACE

Lot 3 on the 1851 sale plan was sold at the May 1851 auction to Thomas Letts Umphelby of Hobart Town, a draper for ₤10569. The 1851 plan shows no structures on this lot, which is reflected in the sale price. Umphelby did not hold the property for long; by December 1852, he had moved to Melbourne, and sold Lot 3 to Abraham Biggs (who had already purchased Lot 2, and others from Robinson’s grant) for ₤16070. Biggs mortgaged this lot in January 1856 to John Barrett for ₤1,00071, which makes it nearly certain that the northern part of what is now known as Kelso Terrace, i.e. the three conjoined shops (see note below as to name72) was built by Abraham Biggs sometime between December 1852 and January 1856 (just after Regent House was built) as there is very little chance that Biggs would have been able to obtain a ₤1,000 mortgage on entirely unimproved land. This hypothesis is confirmed by the sale by Biggs of Lot 3 in June 1856 for ₤2,130 to James Turnbull of New Norfolk73. It is certain that the building as built by 1853, with an advertisement of Samuel Clifford in June of that year advertising his opening of a grocer and tobacconist at ‘176 Elizabeth Street’ – ‘near Warwick Street and two doors from Ash’s Dispensary’ (which would be 248 Elizabeth Street).

Figure 3.14 – The earliest known photograph of the front elevation of Kelso Terrace – from the corner of Elizabeth and Warwick Streets, c1880 – Colin Dennison collection.

69 DPIPWE DL Mem 3/5960 70 DPIPWE DL Mem 3/7820 71 DPIPWE DL Mem 4/2395 72 Note re name ‘Kelso Terrace’: Searches of newspapers, valuation rolls and title deeds all suggest that the name ‘Kelso Terrace’ was actually applied in the nineteenth century to land owned by Joseph Moir, several properties closer to Hobart than the subject area. In all likelihood, common usage of the term ‘Kelso Terrace’ in the 20th century for the conjoined shops in the subject area represents inaccurate memory of Moir’s buildings – therefore is a misnomer in this case. The name has been retained here, as there are references through the twentieth century to that name, however further research on Moir’s property (not within the scope of this document) may be required in order to understand the origins of the name and to avoid overt perpetuation of that name if in appropriate in this case. 73 DPIPWE DL Mem 4/3148

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 35

Turnbull then sold this lot to George Salier (the same George Salier who had auctioned Robinson’s grant in May 1851) for ₤750 in March 186574. No explanation is given in the memorial of sale as to why the price should vary so widely, nor does inspection of the Valuation Rolls for this period shed any light on the matter. Salier retained this property (Lot 3) until his died intestate in June 189275.

In 1892 a fire gutted a building behind the main building occupied by a Mr. Garth. Various newspapers76 reported that the fire had destroyed the roof and completely gutted the building. This is consistent with the photographic evidence of the building still standing at the rear of Kelso Terrace having a hipped roof replacing the earlier gabled roof and the interior fitout of that building retaining c1900 elements (despite the brick party wall appearing older – see Section 5.6).

The property remained under the control of Salier’s estate until April 1912, when it was sold to Annie Maud Abbot for ₤1,860. Abbot held the property until September 1918, when she sold it to Albert Ernest Watkins, a plumber, for ₤2,650. This sale included both Lots 2 and 377. As with Lot 2 listed above, this lot remained in the Watkins family until June 1967, when Alfred Watkins’ descendent Victor Watkins sold this property (lot 3) along with lots 1 and 2 to Crisp & Gunn Co-Operative Ltd for $71,425 in June 196778.

74 DPIPWE DL Mem 5/3338 75 TAHO Registrar General’s Department (RGD) 35/1/3 #1290 (Intestate) 76 The Launceston Examiner, 19/11/1892:5. Tasmanian News 18/11/1892:2. 77 DPIPWE DL Mem 14/3605 78 DPIPWE DL Mem 39/1303

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 36

Figure 3.15 - Plans for the additions to the rear of Kelso Terrace, 246-250 Elizabeth Street, 1941. Tasmanian Archive and Heritage Office, AE 417/1/3633.

PART TWO – JOSEPH BOWDEN’S GRANT

The remaining title in the subject area (234 Elizabeth Street – Title reference 247013/1, shown on Folio Plan P.247013) comprises the bulk of 1 rood 30 perches granted to Joseph Bowden. The small difference in area between the historic grant and the current title area is due to road widening in Elizabeth Street.

Bowden arrived in Van Diemen’s Land in 1824, setting up an inn in Brisbane Street known as ‘The Lamb Inn’. Bowden requested a town allotment in Hobart, but became entangled in a protracted dispute about a six-acre block ‘opposite the one mile stone’ which he believed had been granted to him. However the Town Surveyor recorded that the block in question had already been located to the Freemasons for a lodge, and that Bowden had no claim to it79. How Bowden came to be granted 1 rood 30 perches next door to Robinson’s grant is unrecorded, although it is possible that this grant was compensation for his aforementioned claim to the six acres further up Elizabeth Street. At any rate, Bowden’s allotment was measured and granted in May 1839.

79 TAHO CSO 1/1/301/7302

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 37

Examination of historic Hobart maps through to 1841 (see above) show a single building on Bowden’s grant facing Elizabeth Street. Bowden’s 1843 will directs that his widow Sophia shall have an annuity of ₤500 and life tenancy of “a House and Ground attached situate in Elizabeth Street Hobart Town known as Verandah Cottage adjoining Mr Robinson’s property”80. As well as Verandah Cottage, Bowden also owned the ‘Old Bell Inn’, but this building appears to have been further down Elizabeth Street towards Hobart.

Searches of contemporary newspapers have revealed no information about Verandah Cottage. Bowden died in February 184381 leaving Sophia in possession of the cottage; Sophia survived him by three years, dying in October 184682. From here, the property, under the terms of Bowden’s will, would have passed to the Bowden children. Unfortunately, as occasionally happens, it has proven impossible to track land dealings in the property prior to Aug 1897, at which point Amelia Smith Robinson, Amy Bowden Kirk, Grace Dawson Robinson, Mary Robinson Haines, and Dawson Bowden Robinson were possessed of the property as tenants in common83. Given that two of the above had ‘Bowden’ as a middle name, it is highly likely that these people were the owners of the property as benficiaries of Joseph Bowden’s 1843 will.

1n 1909, Amelia Smith Robinson, Amy Bowden Kirk, Grace Dawson Von Mylius, Maty Haines and Charles Henry Von Mylius sold the property to John Black, a bank manager84. The same Certificate of Title recording this transfer also records that Black then sold the property to Henry Jones in January 1910, and that Jones sold to Joseph Gourlay, a timber merchant, in January 1912 for ₤1,25085. This price would certainly imply that there were substantial structures on the property, although these are difficult to make out on contemporary photographs. The 1903 Valuation roll shows this property as vacant land86, supported by photographic evidence from the early 1890s showing the land as a large and open space, with Veranda Cottage gone. By 1925 it is listed as an “office and timber yard” occupied and owned by Joseph Gourlay Pty Ltd87. All of the above would suggest that Verandah Cottage was demolished or burnt down by the 1880s, with the timber yard and offices taking its place early in the 20th century.

The property remained in the Gourlay family until September 1947, when Joseph Gourlay’s descendants Madeline Gourlay, Onyx Roy Gourlay and Ruby Gwendoline Gourlay sold the timber yard to Crisp & Gunn Co-Operative Ltd (price not recorded)88.

80 TAHO AD960/1/2 81 TAHO RGD 35/1/1 #1425 82 TAHO RGD 35/1/2 # 1208 83 DPIPWE DL Certificate of Title (CT) 103/171 84 DPIPWE DL CT 177/2 85 DPIPWE DL CT177/2 and CT199/142 86 Hobart Town Gazette Valuation Roll 1903 p.1504 87 Tasmanian Government Gazette 19 May 1925 p.1040 88 DPIPWE DL CT 544/11

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 38

As has been discussed above, Crisp & Gunn owned the entire subject area by 1967. In March and June of 1973, Crisp & Gunn sold the entire area to Hobart car dealer Geoffrey Lyndon Archer for a combined price of $68,50089

LATER NINETEENTH-CENTURY DEPICTIONS OF THE OVERALL SUBJECT SITE

There are a number of panoramic photographs of Hobart which include the subject site from the rear, which are useful in understanding the site layout, types of buildings and the evolution of the site.

Figure 3.16 is the earliest known of these photographs, being an 1878 Abbott image. This shows Kelso Terrace (1), Regent House (2), Robinson’s house (3) and the rear building (note the gabled roof) (4).

The angle of this photograph does not allow a view of Veranda Cottage nor the Regent cottages at the rear of the site.

Another image taken shortly after (undated, but certainly 1880s – probably early 1880s – Figure 3.18) shows Kelso Terrace (1), Regent House (2), Robinson’s house (3), Veranda Cottage (4), the rear building (note the gabled roof) (5), the Regent cottages (6) and a large open tract of undeveloped land at the rear of the Bowden (Veranda Cottage) allotment (7).

Figure 3.20 shows the subject site from a different angle and is taken slightly after Figure 3.18, probably also from the early 1880s. This photo clearly shows the rear of Kelso Terrace (1), Regent House (2), Robinson’s house (3), The Veranda Cottage (4), the rear building (5), the Regent cottages (6).

Figure 3.22 shows the subject site in the early 1890s, just prior to the demolition of Robinson’s House and the Veranda Cottage, and post-demolition of the Regent cottages at the rear of the site. This photo clearly shows the rear of Kelso Terrace (1), Regent House (2), Robinson’s house (3), The Veranda Cottage (4), the rear building (5), the site of the (then) recently demolished Regent cottages (6).

Figure 3.24 is the earliest known post-Robinson demolition photograph of the entire site, which shows the newly built three- terrace houses on the site of Robinson’s house, as well as the recently cleared site of Veranda Cottage. This photo clearly shows the rear of Kelso Terrace (1), Regent House (2), the three terrace houses on the site of Robinson’s house (3), the rear building (note the reconfigured roof post-fire 4) and the site of the (then) recently demolished Veranda Cottage(5).

89 DPIPWE DL Mems 45/9 & 45/3982

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 39

Figure 3.16 – Excerpt from Alfred Abbott’s 1878 panorama of Hobart, showing the subject site across Warwick Street. Tasmanian Archive and Heritage Office AUTAS001136156486

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 40

Figure 3.17 – Excerpt from Alfred Abbott’s 1878 panorama of Hobart, showing the subject site across Warwick Street (see text above for explanation of the numbers). Tasmanian Archive and Heritage Office AUTAS001136156486

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 41

Figure 3.18 – Excerpt from a late 1880s panorama of Hobart, showing the subject site across Warwick Street. Tasmanian Archive and Heritage Office PH1-1-35.

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 42

Figure 3.19 – Excerpt from a late 1880s panorama of Hobart, showing the subject site across Warwick Street (see text above for explanation of the numbers). Tasmanian Archive and Heritage Office PH1-1-35.

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 43

Figure 3.20 – An undated, but likely to be c1880s panorama of Hobart, showing the subject site from a different angle to those images above – across Murray Street. Tasmanian Archive and Heritage Office, PH6-1-64.

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 44

Figure 3.21 – Excerpt from a late-c1880s panorama of Hobart, showing the subject site across Harrington Street (see text above for explanation of the numbers). Tasmanian Archive and Heritage Office, PH6-1-64.

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 45

Figure 3.22 – Excerpt from an early 1890s panorama of Hobart, showing that the Regent cottages had been demolished, and this would be just prior to the demolition of the Veranda Cottage and Robinson’s house. Tasmanian Archive and Heritage Office NS 1013-1-522

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 46

Figure 3.23 – Excerpt from an early 1890s panorama of Hobart, showing that the Regent cottages had been demolished (see text above for explanation of the numbers). Tasmanian Archive and Heritage Office NS 1013-1-522.

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 47

Figure 3.24 – Excerpt from a panorama of Hobart, c1900, from Limekiln Hill. TAHO NS 1013-1-729

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 48

Figure 3.25 – Excerpt from a panorama of Hobart, c1900, from Limekiln Hill (see text above for explanation of the numbers). TAHO NS 1013-1-729

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 49

TWENTIETH-CENTURY DEPICTIONS OF THE OVERALL SUBJECT SITE

Figure 3.26 - Excerpt from a 1907 Metropolitan Drainage Board plan of the Hobart CBD, the subject site denoted by red lines. State Library of Tasmania TL.MAP 881.11 GBBD (Map Hobart 13).

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 50

Figure 3.27 – Excerpt from the 1946 aerial run of Hobart, the subject site denoted by red lines (Hobart 1946 Run 1, 10894).

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 51

Figure 3.28 – Excerpt from the 1958 aerial run of Hobart, the subject site denoted by red lines (Hobart 1958 Run 5, T332-12).

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 52

Figure 3.29 - Plans for the renovation of 250 Elizabeth Street as a butchers shop, 1956. Tasmanian Archive and Heritage Office, AE 417/2/4023

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 53

Figure 3.30 - Plans for the renovation of 244 Elizabeth Street, 1961. Tasmanian Archive and Heritage Office, AE 417/3/1276

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 54

Figure 3.31 – Section and elevations for the renovation of 244 Elizabeth Street, 1961. Tasmanian Archive and Heritage Office, AE 417/3/1276

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 55

Figure 3.32 – Excerpt from the 1968 aerial run of Hobart (Run 6, 153).

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 56

Figure 3.33 – Oblique aerial of the Elizabeth/Warwick Streets area, c.late-1960s. Colin Dennison Collection.

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 57

The following figures show the phases of site development as per the above historical summary:

Figure 3.34 – The first phase of development, c1825-c1850s, which is generally the ‘Robinson’ (plus later tenants) period. Note that the building that was at 236 Elizabeth Street was never part of the Robinson allotment.

The first phase of development is the period that was developed by Robinson, with his house, outbuildings etc. as best depicted on the Sprent survey and the 1851 auction notice for Robinson’s estate. It is likely that most of this development was undertaken pre-1835 (i.e. pre- Robinson’s departure) as it is less likely that subsequent tenants would have developed the site to any great degree. The building at what is now 236 Elizabet Street was certainly built prior to 18300 but was not part of the Robinson property.

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 58

Figure 3.35 – The second phase of development, early 1850s, following the Robinson sale. 244 Elizabeth Street, the three-storey (plus basement) shop and residence had been built, whilst all Robinson period buildings still stood.

The second phase of development occurred very soonafter the Robinson sale, with the construction of the three-storey (plus basement) store that was to become Ash’s dispensary at what is now 244 Elizabeth Street. It is likely that the first form of the building behind 244 was built at that time (of which only a portion remains, as discussed below). It is likely that all Robinson period buildings were retained during this early phase of redevelopment as there is no overlap in building footprints from this (or even the next) period).

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 59

Figure 3.36 – The third phase of development, c. early-mid 1850s, with Kelso Terrace having been built.

In quick succession to the construction of 244 Elizabeth Street, Kelso Terrace (i.e. what is now 246-250 Elizabeth Street) was built, presumably with all Robinson period buildings remaining.

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 60

Figure 3.37 – The fourth phase of development, c1890s, with the demolition of several Robinson period buildings.

The fourth phase of development had occurred by the 1890s, by which time Robinson’s house and the large building at the rear of the site had been demolished and the three conjoined terrace houses built on the site of Robinson’s house. The building at 234 Elizabeth Street (early, but not associated with Robinson) had been demolished by this time. Other Robinson outbuildings had been demolished and replaced with outbuildings associated with the terraces (it is possible that these may have incorporated parts of, or be renovated, Robinson era buildings. In 1894, the early 1850s building at the rear of 244 Elizabeth Street was ravaged by fire – it was rebuilt on the same footprint, apparently utilising the earlier rear brick wall, but with a different roof form.

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 61

Figure 3.38 – The fifth phase of development, c1920s, with the construction of the Art Deco building at 242 Elizabeth Street at the bakery at the rear of that part of the site.

The fifth phase of development occurred in the 1920s, with the 1921 construction of the Art Deco building at 242 Elizabeth Street as well as the bakehouse at the rear of that part of the site in 1925.

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 62

Figure 3.39 – The sixth phase of development, c1930s-40s, with the construction of a large commercial building on 236 Elizabeth Street, and the demolition of some earlier outbuildings.

The 1930s and 40s saw little change and development to the part of the subject site that was part of the original Robinson allotment, however the area of 236 Elizabeth Street (outside the original Robinson allotment) was redeveloped with a large commercial/light-industrial building at that time. It is very likely that all above-ground traces of any possibly surviving Robinson era fabric was demolished by this time (possible a few decades earlier). The rear skillion kitchens and bathrooms were added to Kelso Terrace in 1941.

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 63

Figure 3.40 – The seventh phase of development, c1950s-60s, involved mostly changes and additions to the commercial buildings at 236 Elizabeth Street,

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 64

Figure 3.41 – The eighth phase of development, c1970s, with the demolition of the 1890s terrace houses, demolition of the bakers oven at the rear of 244 Elizabeth Street and demolition of some of the mid-c20th buildings behind 236 Elizabeth Street.

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 65

4. STATEMENT OF HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL

4.1. ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHODOLOGY

This statement of archaeological potential is derived from a process which identifies the potential of the site to yield archaeological remains, the significance of any remains, and their potential to yield meaningful information about the site, and which might contribute to relevant key archaeological and historical themes. The following briefly outlines the methodology followed:

Determining general archaeological potential: Through a desktop analysis of historical data and secondary sources, as well as non-invasive site observations, an understanding of the evolution of the site has been gained which has allowed an assessment of the archaeological potential (however significant) of any part of the site - resulting in substantiated predictions of the likelihood of finding something upon any particular part of the site. This has been done by analysing primary source material, summarising the developmental history of the site and developing a chronological narrative detailing an overview of the history of all known features to have ever existed on the site. Where possible, developmental overlays have been developed from historic maps, plans, photographs and other visual documentation. This overlay has been supported by other observations providing supplementary information, and also includes processes such as demolition and disturbance which may have removed or destroyed potential remains – and may have diminished the archaeological potential.

Assessing the significance and potential of any likely archaeological resources to yield meaningful information: Upon understanding the archaeological potential through desktop and site analysis, the next step was to understand its relationship to any aspect of the identified significance of the place – e.g. do the remains have the potential to demonstrate an aspect of the significance of the site or related key historic theme? The potential for any of the archaeological remains to demonstrate important aspects of the history of the site, whether in a state, regional or thematic context, is to be considered.

Understanding possible impact of development and formulation of management strategies: Based on any identified archaeological potential and significance of the site, consideration will be given as to whether the proposed development will impact upon any likely archaeological remains and if necessary broad management strategies will be proposed to manage any impact.

Table 1 (below) demonstrates the steps of this assessment:

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 66

Methodology for formulation of the statement of archaeological potential If 'no' If 'yes'

1. Archaeological potential. Further action may not be Are you likely to find something if you dig here? The significance of the required, although a contingency (i.e. a Statement of Archaeological Potential). archaeological potential should be plan may be required for investigated. unexpected finds.

2. Significance. Could anything you find here greatly contribute to The likely integrity of the Further action may not be our understanding of the site or related significant archaeological remains should be required. theme? investigated.

Further action may not be

3. Integrity. required, although a contingency The likelihood of significant Are any archaeological remains likely to be intact? plan is required for unexpected archaeological remains is confirmed. integrity.

4. Impact Further action may not be An Archaeological Method Will proposed works impact upon the significant required, although a contingency Statement will be required to detail archaeological remains? i.e. an Archaeological plan may be required for how impact will be Impact Assessment. unexpected impacts. managed/mitigated.

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 67

4.2. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF SITE DEVELOPMENT

As per the methodology outlined in Section 10.1, the historical background of the subject site has been provided here in Section 3 – which provides the basis for the formulation of the statement of historical archaeological potential.

The Figures in Section 3 provide a visual indication of the early layout(s) of the site, which are considered here as the first step in understanding archaeological potential – i.e. the physical evolution of the site layout (on a two-dimensional plane at this stage). Figures 10.1 to 10.7 are overlays of site development as depicted on those plans, georeferenced to a range of known reference points both on the site and in the wider environs:

Figure 4.1 – Overlay of the footprint of the pre1830 buildings (purple) in relation to the subject site (red) – drawn from the c1830 survey.

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 68

Figure 4.2 – Overlay of the footprint of the pre1839 buildings (blue) in relation to the subject site (red) – drawn from the 1839 Frankland Survey.

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 69

Figure 4.3 – Overlay of the footprint of the pre1843 buildings (green) in relation to the subject site (red) – drawn from the 1843 Sprent map.

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 70

Figure 4.4 – Overlay of the footprint of the pre1851 (Robinson period) buildings (yellow) in relation to the subject site (red) – drawn from the 1851 auction map.

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 71

Figure 4.5 – Overlay of the footprint of the pre-1908 buildings (blue) in relation to the subject site (red) – drawn from the 1908 Metropolitan Drainage Board plans.

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 72

Figure 4.6 – Overlay of the footprint of development occurring between 1920 and 1946 (orange) in relation to the subject site (red) – drawn largely from the 1946 aerial photo.

Given the above discussion on the accuracy and duplication of some historic sources, Figure 8.7 is a ‘cleaned-up’ version of consolidating all early plans - which omits those survey plans of dubious accuracy and those sources which are considered duplicates of other (reliable) sources. The following layers have been omitted from Figure 8.7:

- The 1841 census map, as it is a close duplicate of the 1839 Frankland survey plan. - Hood’s 1854 map of Hobart Town, as its accuracy is dubious. - The 1946 and 1958 aerial photographs, as they are a close match to the 1907 MDB survey plan and any additional buildings shown on those photographs are not deemed to be significant.

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 73

Figure 10.7 – Composite overlay of the footprint of all known (and likely reliable) pre-1845 buildings and site features (colours as per coding above) in relation to the subject site (red outline) over a 2008 aerial photograph of the subject site (GoogleEarth).

Figure 4.7 – Composite overlay of the footprint of all known pre-1910 buildings and site features, deriving from the known most accurate plans (colours as per coding above) in relation to the subject site (red).

From the information in Section 3, the following broad ‘periods’ of occupation (and associated likely activity) can be applied to the site:

The historical summary shows that:

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 74

- The site can be approached as three historic development periods (pre-mid-1890s) – that of the Robinson development, the Bowden development and the post-Robinson Kelso Terrace/Regency House. - The 1880s-1890s saw major changes to the site, with the demolition of all Robinson and Bowden period buildings and the construction of the three large terrace houses on the site of Robinson’s House. - The first half of the twentieth century saw somewhat of an ‘industrialisation’ of the site, with the construction of various workshops and commercial buildings.

4.3. POSSIBLE ARCHAEOLOGICAL REMAINS AND THEIR SIGNIFICANCE AND RESEARCH POTENTIAL

REMAINS FROM THE ROBINSON PERIOD

The earliest, and likely most significant period of occupation is that of the Robinson occupation, particularly given his prominence in early Tasmania and the activities that he undertook (further discussed below). This section will consider the likely features of the Robinson occupation, the possible archaeological signatures of the activities undertaken in association with those features and how these may have survived in the archaeological record (in the absence of disturbance as will be discussed in Section 10.4).

ROBINSON’S HOUSE

The precise date of the construction of Robinson’s house is not known, but certainly the mid-1820s. The single storey plus attic (rear) portion of the building is likely to have had an Elizabeth Street frontage as a conjoined pair of terrace houses (the 1828 rental advertisement describes two four-roomed cottages), built to a much more strict Georgian order prior to 1830, with the awkward mansard-roofed structure tacked onto the side of it later. It is feasible to think that Robinson built this part of the building first, presuming it was two conjoined houses, he and his family may have resided in one, and rented the other (consistent with early newspaper advertisements of two residences. As his wealth and status grew, so did his desire to articulate his house – hence adding the larger frontage at a 90-degree angle to Elizabeth Street.

Section 3 provides several depictions of the building – the side elevation facing Elizabeth Street presumably taking advantage of a sweeping frontage to Warwick Street pre-Kelso Terrace. This may have incorporated one of the earlier terrace houses as the ‘rear’ portion – however the 1851 auction plan suggests that the overall Robinson house was in fact three separate tenancies. For the purpose of the current document, ‘Robinson’s house’ will be taken to be that entire building (i.e. the high and low portions of the building fronting Elizabeth Street, including the mansard-roofed building) although in reality this may have been three conjoined dwellings.

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 75

In any case, the Robinson house was unusual in a number of ways – certainly not a neatly arranged and symmetrical Georgian building of its time. Section 3.1 describes Surveyor Calder’s critique of Robinson (i.e. a good bricklayer, but shouldn’t be an architect) – commentary which perhaps can be understood when viewing images of the building.

Early descriptions of the building only give vague hints as to the layout, but do describe some of the rooms – and it is known to have had cellars (which given the lay of the land would be deep below Elizabeth Street). The best descriptions of Robinson’s house come from early newspaper advertisements, such as:

…….being a substantial well-built brick family house; - comprising a large drawing room, dining and breakfast parlours, study, nursery, lofty bedrooms, capacious atticks, large kitchen, good cellarage……………These premises are in every respect fitted up in the best style…..90

The building, being a product of Robinson the bricklayer (dabbling in ‘architecture’) may be seen as an interesting artifact of the original and lesser-known career of Robinson, and any hints of its construction method that may be found in archaeological remains would assist in understanding Robinson’s work as a tradesman. The unusual nature of the Robinson buildings, including his house and the ‘cottage-ornee’ Regency style cottages or pavilion at the rear of the site may have been Robinson ‘showing off’ his skills as a bricklayer and architect. As Robinson’s city home, any surviving cultural deposition (artifacts) may give insight into Robinson’s home life, which might provide a contrast to the life of Robinson on his ‘missions’. This, as his family home, may also bear archaeological remains of his family and their activities as a middle class colonial family in urban Tasmania. The site of Robinson’s house may also yield cultural deposition relating to later tenants of the building and their families and the activities undertaken by them.

90 The Colonial Times (Hobart), 19/4/1836:8.

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 76

Figures 4.8 and 4.9 – The Elizabeth Street and internal (to the lot) front elevation of Robinson’s house (see Section 3 for citations).

Figure 10.10 – The rear elevation of Robinson’s house – note the distinct architectural differences of each major part of the house (see Section 3 for citation).

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 77

ROBINSON OUTBUILDINGS

Much less is known about the outbuildings around the Robinson allotment. Early advertising suggests that there were at least two other cottages on the site – which makes sense that Robinson the builder would speculate on some rental properties in this up and coming fringe area of Hobart Town – although the discussion above suggests that these ‘cottages’ may have in fact been part of the building described above as Robinson’s house, or possibly referring to the ‘pavilion’ building which appears to be conjoins cottages. Early advertising also describes servants offices detached, coach-house, stabling, fowl-houses and at least two of the main cottages had detached kitchens.

Perhaps of most significance is the reference that Robinson had established an ‘Aboriginal asylum’ next to his house (as cited in Section 3). Historically, little has been found about how this facility actually functioned – however the snippets of information glean that the building ‘attached’ to Robinson’s house was used for this purpose (probably the lower portion of the building, as opposed to the three-storey ‘frontage’. The 1851 auction plan (see Figure 8.12) depicts substantial masonry fences throughout the site – which may be associated with some form of segregation of areas around Robinson’s house, possibly associated with the containment of the aborigines. It is worthy of mention that there is a huge amount of research that could be done on Robinson and his relationship with the aborigines in his own home – given examples of historically the aborigines being present in his house, his desire for connecting doorways, then it implies that aborigines in the ‘asylum’ had a great deal of ability to move around the buildings and site, therefore ‘containment’ fences are probably a misnomer. This all lends itself to further detailed research which the archaeological record may assist in understanding and/or filling information gaps.

However, it is critical to understand that the current subject site is only a portion of the Robinson land (and that part of the subject site was never part of the Robinson land) – so it cannot be assumed that all of those outbuildings (etc.) were within the subject site.

For example, the earliest depiction of the Robinson allotment (which is known to be reasonably accurate in its depiction of a building’s presence, if not its precise location) only shows what might be the earliest portion of Robinson’s house (i.e. the low part) as well as one outbuilding (see the Regency cottages/‘pavilion’ building below). There are a further four outbuildings which are off the current subject site.

The best depiction of the outbuildings during the Robinson period is from the 1851 auction plan (see Figure 8.12). Aside from the Robinson house (implied here as three houses) which appear to have outbuildings in a fenced courtyard at their collective rear), there are at least two other substantial outbuildings (with what appear to be conjoined additions). Importantly, each of these have what appears to be a substantially fenced and gated yard, which may imply a use that was intended to be well-detached from Robinson’s house itself.

The purpose of all of these buildings has not been ascertained historically, therefore archaeological investigation has the potential to fill a substantial knowledge gap of what may be very significant archaeological remains.

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 78

Figure 4.11 – The c1830 survey of Hobart (DPIPWE Hobart 6) depicting the subject site (outlined in red) and the original Robinson allotment (outlined in green). The blue arrows depict outbuildings outside the subject site.

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 79

Figure 4.12 – The 1851 Robinson auction plan depicting the subject site (outlined in red) and some interpretation of what the building footprints represent. Adapted from Tasmanian Archive and Heritage Office NS596-1-3.

No other depiction of the outbuildings in the centre of the subject site (from the Robinson period) has been found – they did not appear on the c1843 Sprent survey (as they must have been out of public view) and by the 1870s photographs they had been demolished or substantially replaced by what appear to be more ephemeral sheds (e.g. lean-to’s against the fences).

The one outbuilding which there is some pictorial evidence of is a very unusual building towards the rear of the subject site, which appears to have bene two conjoined cottages of very strongly Regent influence, a ‘cottage-ornee’ or ‘pavilion’, based on what appears to be a substantial attempt to articulate this building as a ‘decorative’ building within the expansive grounds of the Robinson allotment. There are several depictions which suggest a single storey building, with large arched-top windows, sweeping gable ends, rounded ‘ball’ capitals, chimneys, decorative hood mouldings and an oval shield on the gable end facing Elizabeth Street.

This building has completely defied any detailed historical documentation – its purpose unknown but appears to have been residential. It certainly dates from c1830 or earlier and survived until probably the early 1890s. It is possible also pre-dates the three-storey section of Robinson’s house.

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 80

Figure 4.13 - Section of the 1856 Butler Stoney engraving depicting the Regency cottages or ‘pavilion’ building.

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 81

Figure 4.14 - Section of a c1878 panorama depicting the Regency cottages/‘pavilion’ building. (see Section 3 for citation).

Figure 4.15 - Section of a pre-1880 panorama depicting the Regency cottages/‘pavilion’ building. (see Section 3 for citation).

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 82

THE ‘POOL OF THE ABORIGINES’

The other feature known to have been historically within Robinson’s land is the ‘pool of the aborigines’, which was described as

Situate about forty or fifty yards from the aborigines' home was a large well, which was filled up at the end of the fifties. This supplied the reside of the neighbourhood, and some of the water from it was utilised for a large underground tank in which the blackfellows now and then had a wash. This spot was known for years as the “Pool of the Aborigines”. 91

The location of the former pool was described in 1900 as:

On a broad patch, which is now represented by the strip of land now under notice, was a pool which was supplied by a spring that bubbled out of the bank near where James' old brewery is built, and in this pool the blackfellows used to wash themselves. For many years It was known as the "Pool of the Aborigines." The home of the aborigines was condemned by the Corporation about four years ago, and was demolished. The pool of the aborigines has dried up, and their playground runs about a ton of nettles and thistles to the acre.92

The ‘pool of the aborigines’ was also described in 1907 as:

In the days when George Robinson yarded his captured blacks in the back building between Patrick and Warwick streets, there was a large waterhole supplied by a creek, which took its rise from the eastern slope of Mount Knocklofty. Here, the late Joseph Martin informed one, the 'blacks used to wash themselves in the thirties’. This creek is now an evil smelling sewer. The pool of the aborigines is no more, and now forms part of a well-kept vegetable garden.93

From the above, it is hinted that the pool was some distance (40-50 yards) from where the aborigines were held on the site. The pool was fed from a spring near ‘James’ Old Brewery’ (now the Coogans building on the corner of Elizabeth and Warwick Streets - although the above contradicts that with the ‘creek from the slopes of Knocklofty’ comment) and that here was a large underground tank associated with the pool.

91 The Critic (Hobart), 8/2/1925:3. 92 The Tasmanian News, 13/11/1900:2. 93 The Daily Telegraph, 6/7/1907:9.

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 83

The only historical depiction found which shows a watercourse through any part of the Robinson allotment is the 1908 Metropolitan Drainage Board plan, which (naturally) would have sought to depict any watercourses etc. This shows that there was a watercourse running through the original Robinson land, but further towards Murray Street (well outside the subject site). Interestingly, the near end of this watercourse would be around 40-50 yards from the ‘pavilion’ building.

The c1830 survey of Hobart does not depict this watercourse, but does depict a building close to the end of it – which may possibly depict the well or a cistern for holding water? (see Figure 10.17).

Figure 4.16 – The line of watercourse as depicted on the 1908 Metropolitan Drainage Board plan (blue) in relation to the original Robinson allotment (green) and the subject site (red).

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 84

Figure 4.17 – The line of watercourse as depicted on the 1908 Metropolitan Drainage Board plan (blue), overlaid on recent aerial photograph, in relation to the original Robinson allotment (green) and the subject site (red).

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 85

Figure 4.17 – The line of watercourse as depicted on the 1908 Metropolitan Drainage Board plan (blue), overlaid on the c1830 survey of Hobart, in relation to the original Robinson allotment (green) and the subject site (red). Note the building close to the watercourse.

Given the above analysis of the scant historical depictions of the location of the ‘pool of the aborigines’, it is likely that the site of the pool, the brick tank/cistern etc. were all off the subject site, and closer to Murray Street.

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 86

REMAINS OF THE EARLY BOWDEN BUILDINGS

Aside from the portion of the subject site that was part of the Robinson estate, 324 Elizabeth Street (i.e. approximately 1/3 of the site) was that which formed a grant to Joseph Boden (granted in 1839, but likely to have been occupied by him from the mid-1820s. Bowden is known to have developed at least two large timber buildings on this site, one facing Elizabeth Street, known as ‘veranda Cottage’ which survived until around the 1890s. There are several depictions of the location and of the rear of this building and its evolution.

Another large building is also depicted on early surveys that include the Bowden land, this appears to have bene demolished prior to the 1860s (i.e. is not in any photographs form that time) and nothing is known historically of that building.

Figure 4.18 – c1870s depiction of the rear of the Bowden house, ‘Veranda Cottage’ (depicted by red arrow). Tasmanian Archive and Heritage Office PH1-1-35.

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 87

Figure 4.19 – c1880s depiction of the rear of the Bowden house, ‘Veranda Cottage’ (depicted by red arrow). Note that the roof and chimneys appear to have been altered since that image depicted in Figure 8.18. Tasmanian Archive and Heritage Office NS1013-1- 522.

Joseph Bowden was the proprietor of the Old Bell Inn which has further down Elizabeth Street towards the city. Whilst detailed research into the Bowden family is beyond the scope of the current document, it is presumed that he Bowden’s, given their ownership of an inner-city hotel and the large scale of their house and landholding in Elizabeth Street, occupied at least a middle-class status in early Hobart. They occupied the buildings in the subject site for up to 70 years as a family, and therefore archaeological remains of that building and cultural deposits have the potential to depict the lifestyle of such a middle-upper class family in central Hobart over several generations as well as the potential to demonstrate construction details on what is an early and (probably) somewhat ephemeral timber building in this area.

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 88

ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH FRAMEWORK AND QUESTIONS

As discussed above, the subject site has the potential to yield archaeological remains associated with the following historic themes:

- Early (i.e. 1820+) middle-upper class Hobart residences and associated family life, cultural activities etc. as well as a range of (as yet not well documented) tenants of other buildings on-site. - George Augustus Robinson, as a nationally significant identity in association with attitudes towards aboriginal populations. - Contact between colonial settlers and the aboriginal population. - The architecture and building of George Augustus Robinson.

Such analysis also has the potential to add depth to other similar such analyses of early-mid Victorian Hobart domestic sites, particularly associated with prominent colonial Tasmanians - such as that undertaken as part of the Menzies Centre (Liverpool/Campbell Streets) excavations, which investigated several prominent 1820s-onwards inner city residences, including Crowther’s (Godden Mackay Logan/Arctas). Other sites such as Judge Pedder’s house (173 Macquarie Street), Crowther’s house/surgery (177 Macquarie Street) and Orr’s house (3 Montpelier Retreat). Similarly, investigations at Peter Degraves house in Collins Street (Hadleys Hotel development, Godden Mackay Logan) and preliminary investigations at the original Hobart Port Officer’s residence at 100 Salamanca Place (Praxis Environment) have investigated prominent early inner city residential sites. Forthcoming excavations on other prominent Hobart residences such as Kemp’s house (36 Argyle Street), will also act to build upon knowledge and provide comparative datasets of early and substantial Hobart residences.

George Augustus Robinson is a very prominent personality in colonial Tasmania and Victoria mostly because of his association with government approaches to ‘managing’ the aboriginal population. Robinson and his activities are well documented historically, however no archaeological approaches to understanding Robinson have been undertaken – the site of his house, outbuildings etc. particularly where he is known to have been housing aborigines on that site, have the potential to yield archaeological information which would support the historical depictions, as well as potentially provide a more tangible depiction of that interaction, which may well be at-odds with the historical record.

From a wider regional perspective, archaeological data and remains yielded from the subject site, whether coupled with other Hobart/Tasmanian data, has the potential to strengthen a comparative dataset for research into intra-colonial society through comparison with mainland (and indeed inter-colonial society on an international level). For example early inner-city working-class communities such as Broadway, Cumberland/Gloucester Streets and the Rocks (Sydney) and Little Lonsdale Street (Melbourne) and portside working-class areas such as Port Adelaide, all of which have had substantial archaeological works undertaken, would provide useful datasets for the analysis of Wapping data, which would in-turn add to the depth and scope of the analysis of those collections on the range of themes as outlined above (and others).

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 89

From a temporal perspective, any remains from the earlier occupation of the site (i.e. pre-1830) represent a very formative period of Hobart’s European settlement and are likely to be of significance when considering their research potential.

Consistent with the ‘Tiered research question’ approach outlined in the Tasmanian Heritage Council’s Guidelines for Historical Archaeological Research on Registered Places94, the following questions could be investigated in the archaeological remains expected to be present within the subject site:

Tier 1 Questions: These questions outline the essential knowledge base needed for any site research or significance evaluations. Such questions are often empirical in nature, and straightforward answers can be sought and often identified – generally limited to a physical knowledge of that particular place. Questions relevant to the subject site may include:

• How closely did the buildings and site features (including outbuildings, fences etc.) conform to the historic plans?

• Can the earliest date of occupation of the place be identified? (i.e. known to be mid-late 1820s, but not historically conclusive).

• What construction methods were used in the buildings and other infrastructure?

• What evidence of alteration of the natural landscape is archaeologically determinable (e.g. filling of the site etc.).

• Are the distinct use/development phases of the buildings distinguishable?

• Can the layout and function of the buildings, and indeed individual rooms or yard spaces be ascertained?

• How thoroughly were the buildings demolished? And what subsequent disturbance is evident?

Answers to these questions provide a foundation of information about the structure, type, use and duration of site occupation which enables the researcher to consider a second tier of questions.

94 http://www.heritage.tas.gov.au/media/pdf/Archae%20ResGlines%20%20FINAL%20-%20June%202009.pdf

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 90

Tier 2 Questions: Conclusions that can be drawn about a site that connect the material remains found on a site to specific behavior. For instance:

• How do artifacts relate to the lifeways of the households that lived on the site, or occupations undertaken on the site? • Do any artifacts represent class, gender, taste and health/hygiene of those living on the site? • Particularly if artifacts can be specifically dated, and with supplementary historical research, artifact assemblages from this site may contribute knowledge and provide tangible connectedness to known inhabitants and their families, and how they lived. In particular, any artifacts that relate to the life of George Augustus Robinson are of particular archaeological interest and significance (noting, however, that Robinson and his family lived there for only around 14 years of the 70 year life of the building, so these deposits may be dominated by the material culture of post-Robinson tenants and owners). • Similarly, do artifacts or structural remains correlate with the known activities and occupations undertaken on the site. This site is of particular archaeological interest and significance as a very important ‘contact’ site, where there is documentation of aboriginal Tasmanians living with George Augustus Robinson, in what was described as an ‘asylum’ but strictly speaking make have been a much less ‘institutional’ cohabitation that warrants further historical and archaeological research. Note also that this use of the site was only for a brief few years during the late 1820s, therefore is likely to be substantially overlain by later occupation.

The material culture evident through archaeological remains on this site (noting however the possibility of disturbance) has the potential to provide a range of analytical approaches that may supplement, and/or refute, the historical record and be a very important research tool.

Tier 3 Questions: These questions represent the highest level of inquiry. Such questions associate the activities and behavior at individual sites with broad social, technological and cultural developments – which can be of interest on local, national or global lines of enquiry. Whilst these questions posed for a single site may not reach conclusions in the short term (as Tier 1 and 2 questions might) – the collection of data can contribute to future research by the provision of a comparable dataset. The goal of such research is to develop increasingly refined and tested understandings of human cultures within broader theoretical or comparative contexts. Lines of wider enquiry that findings from within the subject site may contribute to are:

• Do the conclusions on gender, class, economic and social status of the inhabitants of the buildings conform to the ‘normal’ early-mid Victorian household?

• If any archaeological signatures of aboriginal occupation and in particular archaeological evidence of contact between Aboriginal and European culture, how does this compart to other contact sites?

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 91

• Are there class or status differences evident in the material culture of the inhabitants of this area (subject to further historical research) when compared to, say, other early Hobart residents or residents in contemporary rural areas and/or other cities.

• Did any changes in material culture through time in the residences coincide with wider Tasmanian or local events or technology (e.g. end of convict labour, urbanisation/development of Hobart, port/railway upgrades, start of rubbish collection etc.)?

4.4. LIKELY DISTURBANCE EVENTS

Section 8.2 (referring to Section 3) has provided a background history of the subject site and Section 10.3 has provided an overview of the likely types of development which are known to have been undertaken on the site. As per the methodology in Section 8.1, this has acted to build a picture of what has previously been on the site and what has had the potential to leave archaeological traces.

However, also as per the methodology in Section 8.1, it is necessary to consider the events which have possibly acted to impact (i.e. damage or remove) any archaeological remains which may derive from that site development.

The following has been considered in understanding likely disturbance events on earlier archaeological remains.

THE CONSTRUCTION OF KELSO TERRACE AND REGENT HOUSE (EARLY 1850S) The entire footprint of Kelso Terrace (including Regent House) occupy what would have been the front garden of Robinson’s house. There is no known earlier development in that area, so the construction of Kelso Terrace is very unlikely to have impacted any significant archaeological remains (i.e. this area probably had no such remains being largely devoid of development pre-Kelso Terrace and Regent House).

THE DEMOLITION OF THE ‘REGENCY-STYLE COTTAGES’ (PROBABLY C1880S). No detail has been found on the demolition of the Regency style cottages (or pavilion) at the rear of the site, nor even a precise date of demolition (but known to have been between 1870 and 1890). Apart from a mid-c20th small shed, there has been no subsequent substantial development on that part of the site, therefore post-demolition disturbance is likely to have been minimal.

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 92

THE DEMOLITION OF ROBINSON’S HOUSE (1894). Apart from the fact that the building was demolished by order of the Hobart Corporation (council) in 1894, little is known about the process of demolition of Robinson’s house. The house is known to have had cellars – whether these were removed via deep demolition, or simply filled to maintain a more natural ground level is not known. Robinson’s house was set lower than the street, Figures 10.20 and 10.21 show that the ground level at the front of the building appears to be around 1 metre lower than that of Elizabeth Street (note the windowsill level being approximately street level). The ground level at the rear of Robinson’s house appears to be around 2-metres lower than Elizabeth Street, and certainly around 2 metres lower than the ground level currently is in that area.

Figure 4.20 – Depiction of the slope of historic ground level c1880s – the red arrow depicting the ~2-metre fall from the Elizabeth Street frontage to the rear wall of Robinson’s house.

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 93

Figure 4.21 – Note the stepping down to Robinson’s house from Elizabeth Street, as depicted here by the windowsill being at the same level as the footpath, suggesting that ground level once inside the site was around 1-metre below street level.

THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE THREE TERRACE HOUSES (LATE 1890S) AND THEIR DEMOLTION C1970S. Shortly after the demolition of Robinson’s house, three substantial two-storey (plus basement due to the slope of the land) masonry terrace houses were built on the site. No plans for these buildings has been found, however given that they were of such substantial size and of masonry construction (similar to Kelso Terrace itself), these are likely to have impacted the footprint of Robinson’s house. Note however that these buildings were built before the widespread utilisation of mechanical excavation, there may have still be vestiges of the foundations and basements of Robinson’s house.

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 94

Figure 4.21 – the rear elevation of the c1894 terrace houses.

These buildings were demolished after the late 1960s, which is a time when mechanical excavation was predominant and it is likely that this demolition had further impact upon any archaeological remains. However, with that demolition, the Elizabeth Street frontage of the site was built up, therefore there may have been less impetus to excavate deeply, which may have preserved some foundation remains of these buildings, and possibly any earlier surviving portions of Robinson’s house.

THE DEMOLITION OF THE BOWDEN BLOCK BUILDINGS AND MID-C20TH DEVELOPMENT Outside the portion of the subject site that was part of the Robinson land, the eastern part of the site was part of a grant to Bowden, upon which at least one building was built during the 1820s – a timber building fronting Elizabeth Street, which appears to have had a masonry façade added by 1843 and another timber building built to the rear by that year also. The entire (large) rear paddock of that block appears not to have been developed at all during the nineteenth century.

Although substantial, these buildings did appear to be somewhat ephemeral – as timber buildings and in the scant depictions of the rear of these buildings suggest they were not well built. The rear building appears to have been demolished prior to the late 1870s and the front building prior to 1894. No detail has been found on the demolition of these buildings.

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 95

By 1946, the frontage of the site had been redeveloped with a large commercial building which had wings extending rearward. Plans for this building could not be located, however it is noted that the scale of this building, being substantially larger and extending further rearward from the Elizabeth Street frontage, would have required a larger flattened building platform than the earlier two buildings (which from photographic evidence followed the natural fall of the land). This is likely to have resulted in a desire to fill the frontage of the site to bring the further rearward portions of that land to a level closer to Elizabeth Street, which may have in effect sealed in any earlier archaeological remains and protect them from impact from the redevelopment of that site, both prior to 1946 and the later redevelopment prior to 1968.

DISTURBANCE FROM MODERN SERVICE TRENCHES

A search of available underground asset registers reveals little information on the extent of any underground services which may have (or do) run through the site and may have caused archaeological impact. Aside from street connections to the existing buildings (i.e. at the Elizabeth Street frontage of the site), there are no Taswater, TasGas or HCC evident in the entire rear portion of the site, apart from a sewer main running through the rear of 242 Elizabeth Street which intersects the likely footprint of the Regent cottages building. There is an NBN asset marked in 234 Elizabeth Street, which is outside the area of concentrated development from the Bowden period on that block.

It is likely that there are privately owned underground assets within the site (e.g. stormwater, water connections etc.). however no register of these was located during the course of this project. These, however, would probably only have minimal and localised impact upon any archaeological remains.

In summary, although further investigation of underground assets is required to definitively understand the impact that these may have had on any archaeological remains (e.g. via physical locating of both existing and redundant services), it appears that underground service trenching is unlikely to have had any major impact upon any significant archaeological remains on the site.

4.5. CURRENT SITE OBSERVATIONS

Non-invasive archaeological survey of the subject site reveals little information on the likelihood of archaeological potential apart from the apparent lack of recent disturbance of large parts of the site. For an inner-city site, this is remarkably devoid of recent development, with buildings overing only a small portion of the site.

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 96

The topography of the site appears to be consistent with the expected historical topography – as can be alluded from the surrounding area as well as the historical depictions in Section 3.3 – the site does not appear to have bene subject to any major earthworks, terracing etc. The only area where there appears to be obvious landform changes is the carpark area of 234-240 Elizabeth Street, where that area has been levelled with a steep ramp near the rear line of the 1925 building and Regent House. The ground level in this area appears to be around 2-metres higher than the expected ‘natural/historic’ ground level in the area. This filling appears to have occurred in 1973, when the carpark was levelled to a level more consistent with the floor of the 1925 building – post demolition of the terrace houses and when that site was consolidated into a showroom and caryard.95 Given the presence of this fill, it is not possible form site observations to get any sort of feel for the disturbance associated with either the construction or demolition of the terrace houses (i.e. pre-1973) – which (as discussed above) has critical implications for understanding the archaeological potential of Robinson’s house and the ‘Aborigines Asylum’.

Figure 4.22 – Overview of the rear of the site, taken from the rear windows of Kelso Terrace.

95 Tasmanian Archive and Heritage Office AE417/5/2250.

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 97

Figure 4.23 – Overview of the rear of the site, taken from the rear windows of Kelso Terrace.

Overall, site observations provide little insight into archaeological potential apart from supporting the likelihood alluded to in the historical documentation and discussed in Section 8.4 that the site has not been subject to substantial disturbance post-demolition of the early buildings.

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 98

4.6. ARCHAEOLOGICAL ZONING PLAN AND POLICIES

As per the methodology outlined in Section 4.1, this section has drawn upon the chronology of site development which has detailed the physical evolution of the site and events/processes which would have acted to build the archaeological record. Section 8.3 has discussed the likely significance of those archaeological remains and what they may yield in terms of research potential alongside key historic, regional, thematic and temporal lines of enquiry. Section 8.4, coupled with observations detailed in Section 8.6, has provided an assessment of the events which are likely to have impacted upon the integrity of those archaeological remains.

From the above, it is therefore possible to formulate an archaeological zoning plan, which provides an indication of the parts of the site which are likely to yield significant archaeological remains. The spatial reference provided by the zoning plan can then be coupled with archaeological management policies, which are guided by the significance of the particular remains expected and their ability to yield information as per the research questions.

Figure 10.24 depicts the areas of archaeological potential as per the above discussion:

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 99

Figure 4.24 – Archaeological zoning of the subject site, as per the table below (note that the non-shaded areas are considered to have low/no archaeological potential). Adapted from www.thelist.tas.gov.au

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 100

Area Likely remains Likely integrity Significance/potential

Red Structural remains of George Augustus Robinson’s The integrity of the Robinson era structure and deposits in Subject to determining the extent of post-demolition c1820s house and possibly later additions/conversions. this area is not known at this stage. There is a high disturbance of the Robinson building (namely through a Cultural deposits relating to the occupation of the likelihood that substantial disturbance occurred during the better understanding of the construction and building by Robinson and his family, however noting mid-1890s redevelopment of this part of the site for the demolition of the c1894 terrace houses), any remains that is occupation lasted only around 14 years of the three substantial terrace houses built on the footprint of of Robinson’s house which are part of his original 70-year life of the building, therefore occupational Robinson’s house. construction and any cultural deposits which relate to debris from later tenants and owners is likely to be the Robinson era are of high archaeological potential. more prevalent. Cultural deposits relating to post-Robinson tenants and owners are considered to be of moderate archaeological potential. Cultural deposits relating to the aboriginal occupation Any cultural deposits of the aboriginal occupation of of the building attached to Robinson’s house, however the building represent contact archaeology of very high noting that this was only for a few years of the 70-year archaeological potential. life of the building. Structural remains of the c1894 terrace houses and The integrity of any remains of the c1894 terrace houses In any case, any remains of the 1894 terrace houses cultural deposits relating to the use and occupation of and associated cultural deposits is not known at this stage. and associated cultural deposits are considered to be of those buildings for 70+ years. low/no archaeological potential. Orange Structural remains of the outbuildings and fences The integrity of this area is likely to be high. Whilst specific Subject to determining the extent of post-demolition associated with George Augustus Robinson’s c1820s detail as to the thoroughness of the demolition of these disturbance of the Robinson building (namely through a house, as well as remains of the Regency-style buildings is not known, post-demolition disturbance better understanding of the construction and cottages/’pavilion’ and possibly later appears to be minimal. demolition of the c1894 terrace houses), any remains of Robinson’s house which are part of his original

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 101

additions/conversions. Possibly also ancillary features construction and any cultural deposits which relate to such as drains, wells etc. the Robinson era are of high archaeological potential. Cultural deposits relating to the occupation of the site Cultural deposits relating to post-Robinson tenants and by Robinson and his family, however noting that is owners are considered to be of moderate occupation lasted only around 14 years of the 70-year archaeological potential. life of the building, therefore occupational debris from later tenants and owners is likely to be more prevalent. Cultural deposits relating to the possible aboriginal use Any cultural deposits of the aboriginal occupation of and occupation of the buildings behind Robinson’s the buildings and yards represent contact archaeology house (e.g. kitchens, yards), however noting that this of very high archaeological potential. was only for a few years of the 70-year life of the building. Blue Structural remains of Joseph Bowden’s c1820s house The integrity of this area is likely to be high. Whilst specific Although not such a prominent historical figure as and possibly later additions/conversions. detail as to the thoroughness of the demolition of these Robinson, further research into Bowden and his family, Remains of the other building of unknown function on buildings is not known, post-demolition disturbance coupled with the archaeology of this site, has the the Bowden allotment. appears to be minimal. potential to provide insight into a middle-upper-class Cultural deposits relating to the occupation of the early Hobart family which is considered to be of high building by Bowden and his family over the 70-year life archaeological potential. of that building. Other areas These areas are not known to have been the site of any If any unexpected archaeological remains are found in (i.e. not historical development (e.g. building footprints) these areas, an assessment of significance should be shaded) however may contain remains of ancillary structure undertaken by a qualified historical archaeologist and such as cells, cesspits, minor building foundations, managed according to industry standard. drains, paving etc.

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 102

Accordingly, the following archaeological management policies are recommended:

1. Any excavation proposed in areas of high archaeological potential (i.e. red, blue and orange) must be preceded by an archaeological impact assessment, and if necessary an archaeological method statement, which details measures to be taken to avoid or mitigate impact upon the archaeological resource. That method statement must be in accordance with industry standard (e.g. the Tasmanian Heritage Council’s Practice Note 2 – Managing Historical Archaeological Significance in the Works Application Process) and implemented in the works process.

2. Input from Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania as to the requirement for aboriginal heritage officer input into the areas of high archaeological potential which may represent contact sites (i.e. red and orange) is likely to be required. The proponent of any development in these areas must contact Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania for advice.

Note that works as per above are likely to require a development application to Hobart City Council, who will assess the acceptability of the approach to archaeology as part of the development appraisal process.

3. Generally, no archaeological input is required for excavation in areas of low archaeological potential, however any unexpected finds must be reported to a qualified historical archaeologist who is to assess their significance and deal with any significant finds as per (1) and (2) above. There is merit in an archaeological inspection of initial excavation in this area in order to refine archaeological judgments and to broadly document site formation processes in that area (e.g. rivulet filling/diversion). If it is found that this area has a higher than expected archaeological potential, then that part of the site is to be dealt with as per the provisions for high or medium archaeological potential at the discretion of the archaeologist.

4. Where possible, the preference is to not disturb archaeological remains, however it is acknowledged that the feasible redevelopment of the site may not be possible without doing so. Consideration should be given to any development design to minimise potential impact, however if this is not feasible the above policies (and implementation of method statements pursuant to those policies) are considered sufficient to yield the archaeological potential of the site. An archaeologist should be included in the project design team in order to manage archaeology as part of an iterative process between the client, archaeologist, designer(s) and permit authorities.

5. Consideration should be given in any redevelopment of the site to incorporate archaeological remains (e.g. as interpretation) however this should not inhibit the feasible redevelopment of the site.

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 103

6. A test-trenching program, or geophysical investigations may be employed to refine the archaeological judgments outlined in this document and to better guide the design and implementation process (note that test-trenching may require development approval).

7. All results from any archaeological work on the site should be made widely available in order to support the ongoing research of the place and associated themes.

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 104

5. TEST TRENCHING PROGRAM

5.1. PROPOSED TEST TRENCH LOCATIONS

It is proposed that a test trenching program be undertaken which will be aimed at refining/confirming the archaeological judgments of this document and allowing a more certainty in the rollout of the overall archaeological works program in any future development of the site (subject to any future development approvals). The following test trenches are proposed, as illustrated on Figure 5.1:

Area Approx. size Expected depth Rationale 1 5 x 5m Unknown, This test trench aims to test the nature, integrity and depth of cultural material although at (structure and artifacts) relating to Robinson’s house and the later c1890s terrace least a metre of houses. The trench is aligned to intersect the ‘new’ and ‘old’ portions of Robinson’s modern fill is house and to test how much disturbance is likely to have occurred to Robinson era likely. deposits from the construction and demolition of the c1890s buildings. This trench particularly aims to ascertain the depth of historic remains, the depth of later fill and may determine whether or not basements were present in (this portion at least) the Robinson House. This trench also aims to give an indication as to the possible concentration and distribution of underfloor deposits and other cultural deposition.

2 5m x 5m Likely shallow This test trench aims to test the nature, integrity and depth of cultural material (structure and artifacts) relating to Robinson’s outbuildings, intra-site fencing and the later outbuildings on this part of the site. The trench is aligned to intersect the two known ‘generations’ of buildings and to test how much disturbance is likely to have occurred to Robinson era deposits from the construction and demolition of the pre- 1890s outbuilding. This trench particularly aims to ascertain the depth of historic remains (likely to be very shallow given the topography) and the depth of any later fill. This trench also aims to give an indication as to the possible concentration and distribution of underfloor deposits and other cultural deposition.

3 5m x 5m Likely shallow This test trench aims to test the nature, integrity and depth of cultural material (structure and artifacts) relating to Robinson’s ‘Regency-style cottages’. The trench is aligned to intersect the corner of that building in an area less prone to disturbance from the bakehouse and to test how much disturbance is likely to have occurred to Robinson era deposits from the demolition of that building. This trench particularly aims to ascertain the depth of historic remains (likely to be very shallow given the topography) and the depth of any later fill. This trench also aims to give an indication as

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 105

to the possible concentration and distribution of underfloor deposits and other cultural deposition.

4 5m x 5m Unknown This test trench aims to test the nature, integrity and depth of cultural material (structure and artifacts) relating to Bowden’s pre-1830 house. The trench is aligned to intersect the inside and outside of the house and to give an indication as to the possible concentration and distribution of underfloor deposits and other cultural deposition. This trench particularly aims to ascertain the depth of historic remains (likely to be very shallow given the topography) and the depth of later fill.

Figure 5.1 – Proposed test trench locations (red) in relation to the most accurate known historic building depictions (colour coding as per Section 10.2. The results of the test trenching are to be presented as a preliminary archaeological report and used to

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 106

further refine the archaeological method statement (if necessary) and may be used to further refine implementation timeframes, costings etc. Note that it is proposed that if the test trenches depicted on Figure 5.1 do not fulfil the stated objectives of the test trenching program, that, with the approval of HCC Cultural Heritage Officer and the Works Manager of Heritage Tasmania, that these areas of excavation be increased by a maximum of 50% (with the currently proposed methodology applied) in order to broaden the area of investigation in pursuit of the stated aims of the archaeological test trenching program.

5.2. ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT

The general approach to the test trenching will be as per the overall archaeological method statement detailed below:

IMPLEMENTATION TIMEFRAME

It is proposed that the archaeological test excavations will be undertaken ahead of any further works program on the site so as to allow for further detailed archaeological planning to inform the impact assessment and refined method statement to accompany any further works program on the site.

APPROACH TO WORKS

Removal of non-significant overburden Initially, an archaeologist will supervise the mechanical excavation of any non-significant overburden (e.g. asphalt and concrete carpark surfaces) until such a point where any significant archaeological remains are encountered, then excavation will cease until an understanding of the nature of the remains is ascertained. If no significant archaeological remains are encountered (to a depth of sterile ground level) then the provisions of ‘cessation of archaeological input’ (below) will be implemented.

Where significant archaeological remains are encountered In areas where significant archaeological remains are encountered, those areas will be gridded to extent of the test trench and excavation will continue by hand (as per methodology below), to expose the remains in order to gain further understanding of their nature, and to thoroughly record them (as per methodology below). Mechanical excavation in those areas will only continue if the archaeologist is satisfied that this can occur without detriment, that required outcomes can be achieved and that excavation by hand is not necessary. This work will be supervised by both a historical and indigenous archaeologist.

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 107

The general approach to excavation will be by gridding the area in units which are responsive to the nature of the remains (e.g. in horizontal control units no greater than 1000x1000mm in areas where remains appear to be complex or concentrated, or in larger control units where remains are not as complex or concentrated) and removal of each contextual unit or spit (in depths as deemed appropriate by the archaeologist, according to the nature of the strata and/or remains). Apart from non-significant overburden, all spoil will be sieved through mesh of a gauge no greater than 12mm and any significant artifacts managed as per below.

It is expected that the stratigraphic sequence will be relatively simple, that of post demolition (possibly including some disturbance), demolition, occupation (which may include several distinct phases including habitation and construction, and in the case of Robinson’s house – two distinct building phases) and that of pre-construction. Excavation of remains within the defined contexts in reverse order of deposition will occur and each unit/context thoroughly recorded (as per below) prior to removal.

It is proposed that all depositional strata be removed initially, as per above, with the aim of exposing and retaining any/all structural remains in-situ for holistic recording and for the detailed recording. At this stage, no significant structure will be removed unless this is required to gain access to more significant structure beneath (which is not expected to be the case given the reasonably simple expected development sequence and that the 1890s structure that may overprint the Robinson House is not considered to be of high significance).

It is possible that the basements of the Robinson building will be encountered and if present there is a high likelihood that these may contain demolition rubble or fill in a secondary context. Depending on the nature of the fill and whether any significant depositional arrangement is evident, this will be removed by a means deemed pragmatic by the archaeologist in order to expose significant remains and yield as much information as is considered necessary from that fill and to retain the structure in-situ at this stage.

Cessation of archaeological input Archaeological input will cease only when the archaeologist is satisfied that all significant remains have been investigated and thoroughly recorded, as per this method statement and any conditions of statutory approvals, or if sterile ground is encountered, and that adequate consultation has been undertaken with Hobart City Council’s Heritage Officer to verify that all on-site archaeological requirements have been met (and archaeological conditions satisfied).

RECORDING

Any structure or significant cultural deposit encountered will be thoroughly recorded (both photographically and sketched at a scale of no smaller than 1:20 and plotted on the site plan at a scale of a scale no smaller than 1:200). The

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 108

first preference will be to keep structural remains in-situ (and covered in geo-fabric, unless removal is necessary to further investigate lower strata (which may bear archaeological remains), or if there is no prudent and feasible alternative to removal to allow the development to proceed – in which case remains will be removed after thorough recording.

ARTIFACTS

Any significant artifacts found during excavations will be retained and have the required in-field conservation treatments and packaging undertaken. Artifacts will be bagged and tagged with spatial identification and removed from the site (to a secure location) daily. Trench-notes will further detail the context and initial interpretation of artifacts.

Basic post-field curation of artifacts will be undertaken. Glass and ceramic items will be washed, whilst any organics or metals will be dry-brushed. Artifacts will be packaged in acid-free archive bags, tagged with appropriate tags, and boxed in archival quality boxes (with appropriate padding if required). Should any urgent conservation treatment be required, a professional Conservator will be consulted at the earliest possible instance. A detailed catalogue of artifacts will be included in the final report on works.

After any required analysis, these will be archived (with a copy of relevant reports) on-site of the new development (upon completion) – however at the owner’s discretion and with the approval of Hobart City Council’s Heritage Officer and Heritage Tasmania, alternative arrangements for storage and longer-term curation/display may be made with an appropriate repository.

REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

Excavations and monitoring must be recorded to appropriate professional standards (for example Section 4.2 of the Tasmanian Heritage Council’s Practice Note 2). A final report must include (at a minimum):

• An executive summary of findings • Details of the methodology employed • Detailed interpretations of findings • Relevant annotated photographs • Site plans at a scale of no less than 1:200 • Trench plans at a scale of no less than 1:50 • Feature plans/sketches at a scale of no less than 1:20 • Photograph log

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 109

A copy of the final report, and project archive, will be deposited with Hobart City Council (and other repositories as listed below) within 6 months of completion of the excavations.

PUBLIC BENEFIT

At this test trenching stage, it is not considered necessary to implement a public benefit program., however the results from these investigations will be used to formulate a detailed public benefit program to be implemented in any future major works/development on the site. This may include:

- A viewing area from the Elizabeth Street footpath established during the initial archaeological works program (i.e. ahead of the demolition/construction program) to view archaeological works being undertaken on the frontage of the site. - An interpretation plan will be developed which will consider options for the interpretation of the heritage values of the site in the new development (e.g. static/multimedia installations, curated objects, recycling of materials in contemporary installations etc.). - The project report will be made publicly available, through appropriate repositories such as Hobart City Council, Heritage Tasmania, the State Library of Tasmania and the National Library of Australia (Trove). - If archaeological results warrant, an academic publication may be produced. In any case, archaeological results will be made freely available for future archaeological research.

Note that report on the archaeological test trenching works will be made publicly available for bona-fide historical/archaeological research.

ABORIGINAL HERITAGE

As per the historical overview presented in Section 3, it is highly likely that this site represents a very significant contact site – representing an important site in the interaction between early European settlement of Tasmania and the indigenous population. Further, the site may represent an archaeological signature of colonial attitudes towards the indigenous population. The test trenching must include the input of an Aboriginal heritage consultant, and the approach to such is detailed in Appendix A – to ensure that the test excavations comply with the requirements of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1975. The results of the test excavations will guide the future approaches to the management of Aboriginal heritage consistent with that Act.

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 110

SITE CONTAMINATION

It is the responsibility of the proponent of the development to investigate the possibility of site contaminants, and to either verify that no site contaminants are present, or to take required measures to deal with any known or likely contaminants during excavation works (noting that any necessary decontamination works may require archaeological input).

PRAXISENVIRONMENT May 2019 111

APPENDIX A

Advice on the approach to Aboriginal and contact archaeology.

Cultural Heritage Management Australia.

112

Statement of Aboriginal Archaeological Potential The study area at 234-250 Elizabeth St is located within the City of Hobart, on the western margins of the River Derwent. This is within land traditionally occupied by the Mouheneenner Band, who were part of the South East Nation.

The South East Nation is believed to have spent the vast majority of the year exploiting the resources along the coastline, and the immediate hinterland areas. In winter they were primarily focused along the coastline gathering shellfish. In November they are reported to have gathered on North Bruny Island to exploit the mutton-bird colonies. By mid-summer the people had moved down to Recherché Bay to hunt seals.

The Derwent Estuary is a major resource zone, and undoubtedly would have been a focal point of seasonal occupation for the local Aboriginal inhabitants, with the main focus of activity being the shell fish resources (specifically mud oyster and black mussels) that were in abundance along the foreshores, and were easily accessible. This is supported by the archaeological record which shows that several hundred Aboriginal sites have been recorded along the Derwent Estuary margins, with the majority of the sites being shell midden deposits and/or artefact scatters.

Given the close proximity of the current study area to the foreshores of the River Derwent, there is a distinct possibility that Aboriginal activity extended into this area. Even though the study area has been the focus of European occupation and development for over 200 years, it is still possible that the archaeological remains of the earlier Aboriginal occupation is still present. The most likely archaeological deposits that would be present are shell midden material and/or stone artefacts. It is also possible, although less likely that Aboriginal hearths could be encountered.

The colonial town of Hobart was also the setting for early contact activity between the local Mouheneenner people and the colonial settlers. Several archaeological investigations undertaken in Hobart and surrounds has yielded evidence for this contact activity, mainly in the form of glass and ceramic artefacts that have been deliberately modified by Aboriginal people for the use as tools.

The study area is known to have been initially occupied by colonial settlers in the early 1800s, which is the period when Aboriginal/Colonial contact was at its peak. There is therefore a distinct possibility that evidence for contact activity may be encountered at the site. As noted above, the most likely evidence would be in the form of modified glass and ceramic artefacts. This possibility is elevated significantly because of the fact George Augustus Robinson is known to have had an association with the study area. Robinson was a key figure in the interactions between the colonists and the local Aboriginal populations throughout much of the contact period.

Recommendations In Tasmania, all Aboriginal relics are protected under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1975 (The Act). It is illegal to destroy, damage, deface, conceal or otherwise interfere with a relic, unless in accordance with the terms of a permit granted by the Minister.

It is acknowledged that Aboriginal heritage relics or features may be encountered during the course of the excavation program. If this is the case, then the procedures outlined in the following Unanticipated Discovery Plan (UDP) will be implemented, with some possible variations which take into account the fact that a qualified archaeologist has made the discovery.

As a guideline, if suspected Aboriginal relics or features are identified in the immediate vicinity of the excavations area, but will not be directly impacted by the excavation works, then the find will be recorded, photographed and AH site cards prepared and lodged with Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania (AHT). As part of this process, a report will be prepared which presents management recommendations for the site.

If suspected Aboriginal reics, deposits or features are identified within the excavation areas, then work at the excavation area will cease. The find will be recorded, photographed and site cards prepared and lodged with AHT. The project archaeologist will then liaise with AHT regarding management options and permitting requirements for the site. Excavations will recommence once the management recommendations for the Aboriginal site have been fully implemented to the satisfaction of AHT.

Unanticipated Discovery Plan for Aboriginal Heritage The following section describes the proposed method for dealing with unanticipated discoveries of Aboriginal sites and objects. The plan provides guidance to the proponent so that they may meet their obligations with respect to heritage in accordance with the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1975 and the Coroners Act 1995.

Please Note: There are two different processes presented for the mitigation of these unanticipated discoveries. The first process applies for the discovery of all cultural heritage sites or features, with the exception of skeletal remains (burials). The second process applies exclusively to the discovery of skeletal remains (burials).

Discovery of Cultural Heritage Items Section 14 (1) of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1975 states that “Except as otherwise stated in this Act, no person shall, otherwise than in accordance with the terms of a Permit granted by the Minister on the recommendation of the Director – destroy, damage, deface, conceal or otherwise interfere with a relic.”

Accordingly, the following processes should be implemented if a suspected relic is encountered.

Step 1 If any person believes that they have discovered or uncovered Aboriginal cultural heritage materials, the individual should notify any machinery operators that are working in the general vicinity of the area that earth disturbance works should stop immediately.

Step 2 A buffer protection zone of 10m x 10m should be established around the suspected cultural heritage site or items. No unauthorised entry or earth disturbance will be allowed within this ‘archaeological zone’ until such time as the suspected cultural heritage items have been assessed, and appropriate mitigation measures have been carried out.

Step 3 Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania (AHT) in Hobart (ph 1300 487 045) should be contacted immediately and informed of the discovery. AHT will make necessary arrangements for the further assessment of the discovery. Based on the findings of the assessment, appropriate management recommendations should be developed for the cultural heritage find.

Discovery of Skeletal Material Step 1 Under no circumstances should the suspected skeletal remains be touched or disturbed. If these are human remains, then this area potentially is a crime scene. Tampering with a crime scene is a criminal offence.

Step 2 Any person discovering suspected skeletal remains should notify machinery operators that are working in the general vicinity of the area that earth disturbing works should stop immediately. Remember health and safety requirements when approaching machinery operators.

Step 3 A buffer protection zone of 50m x 50m should be established around the suspected skeletal remains. No unauthorised entry or earth disturbance will be allowed with this buffer zone until such time as the suspected skeletal remains have been assessed.

Step 4 The relevant authorities (police) will be contacted and informed of the discovery.

Step 5 Should the skeletal remains be suspected to be of Aboriginal origin, then Section 23 of the Coroners Act 1995 will apply. This is as follows:

1) The Attorney General may approve an Aboriginal organisation for the purposes of this section. 2) If, at any stage after a death is reported under section 19(1), a coroner suspects that any human remains relating to that death may be Aboriginal remains, the coroner must refer the matter to an Aboriginal organisation approved by the Attorney General (In this instance TALSC). 3) If a coroner refers a matter to an Aboriginal organisation approved by the Attorney-General – (a) The coroner must not carry out any investigations or perform any duties or functions under this Act in respect of the remains; and (b) The Aboriginal organisation must, as soon as practicable after the matter is referred to it, investigate the remains and prepare a report for the coroner. 4) If the Aboriginal organisation in its report to the coroner advises that the remains are Aboriginal remains, the jurisdiction of the coroner under this Act in respect of the remains ceases and this Act does not apply to the remains. In this instance the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1975 will apply, and relevant Permits will need to be obtained before any further actions can be taken. 5) If the Aboriginal organisation in its report to the coroner advises that the remains are not Aboriginal remains, the coroner may resume the investigation in respect of the remains.

Document:

234 Elizabeth Street, Hobart, Tasmania

(Including 234-236, 240 & 242-250 Elizabeth Street)

Soil and Water Management Plan (SWMP)

Prepared for:

Fragrance Hobart Tas (Elizabeth) Pty. Ltd

For the benefit of:

City of Hobart

Prepared by:

Environmental Management & Consulting Pty Ltd ABN: 17 273 533 294 Office/ Mail: Level 2, 67 Letitia St, North Hobart 7000, Tasmania

Document Simon Chislett Authored & Principal Environmental Engineer, Issued by: B.Eng (Env) Hons Environmental Management & Consulting Pty Ltd Certified Environmental Practitioner (CEnvP) Contaminated Site Specialist (EIANZ) Certification No: SC400112 Email: [email protected]

DOCUMENT REVISION RECORD Rev Date Details of Revisions R00 8 July 2019 SWMP issued to client

Management Plan 001

Leachate, Sediment and Runoff Management Plan

Objective:

To minimise stockpile leachate and prevent soil erosion leading to sediment and potential contaminants leaving the controlled work area. This plan intends to meet Hobart City Council’s requirements identified within their request for a Soil and Water Management Plan and in accordance with Soil and Water Management on Building and Construction Sites fact sheets (Derwent Estuary Program, 2008)

Procedure:

Sediment may be generated on site by the erosion of exposed areas (such as excavations) and stockpiles. The Archaeologist, Praxis Environment (or their delegate) is responsible for preventing the migration of sediment carried by stormwater outside of the work area. Praxis Environment is to ensure the ongoing efficacy of the controls applied and to update this plan as required either prior to, or during the planned works.

Stockpile leachate if left uncontrolled may migrate vertically through stockpiled soil and into the underlying soil profile and potentially into groundwater.

Prior to starting work, Praxis Environment is to:

• Identify all storm water drains and pits on site and assess the required sediment controls. • An accredited service locator is to be engaged to identify stormwater assets prior to mechanical excavation.

The following controls are to be mandatory:

• Soil stockpiled at Elizabeth Street Site is to be covered (unless stockpiles are currently being worked) to prevent ongoing leachate generation and sediment runoff. o Covers are to be adequately weighted down to ensure they are not blow away during periods of high winds. o If stockpiles are currently being worked and are unable to be covered, hay bales are to be deployed down gradient of the stockpile. • Plastic sheets (minimum 200µm thickness) should be used as a base for the stockpiles if soil is to be stockpiled on unsealed areas. Base plastic is to be utilised to prevent potential contaminants leaching into the subsurface.

• Diversion of stormwater around stockpiles • Maintain existing site stormwater channels where possible to: o Capture site stormwater and silt runoff before it can enter adjacent roads, drains or off-site water bodies. o Divert stormwater from entering open excavations. • Construction vehicles will park in sealed areas wherever possible to prevent any tracking offsite of soil. • All plant and vehicle tracks/tyres to be clean before exiting the site. • Sediment control systems (discussed below).

Gutter/Pit Sediment Control systems

Examples of sediment control systems for kerb and gutter drainage, or drainage pits at risk from site stormwater/sediment is provided below.

Where a grated pit is present without a kerbing system, a geotextile sausage is to be laid out surrounding the drain, forming an unbroken ring shape similar to a donut.

Sediment Fence Control System:

Where sediment fence is utilised, it shall be laid out in accordance with the below diagrams:

Where excavation occurs within areas with a currently sealed surface (such as asphalt or concrete) haybales shall be deployed in a similar manner to sediment fence.

Location of Identified Controls

Figure 1 (attached) outlines the location of key Soil and Water Management Plan controls. Note: This layout plan is provided as a guide and should be implemented by Praxis Environment taking into consideration the conditions onsite in order to ensure the aims of the Soil and Water Management Plan are met.

STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS

This report has been prepared in accordance with the scope of services described in the contract or agreement between Environmental Management & Consulting Pty Ltd (EM&C) and the Client. The report relies upon data, surveys, measurements and results taken at or under the particular times and conditions specified herein. Any findings, conclusions or recommendations only apply to the aforementioned circumstances and no greater reliance should be assumed or drawn by the Client. Furthermore, the report has been prepared solely for use by the Client and EM&C accepts no responsibility for its use by other parties. The client agrees that EM&C’s report or associated correspondence will not be used or reproduced in full or in part for promotional purposes and cannot be used or relied upon in any prospectus or offering. No warranties express or implied are made. Subject to the Scope of Work, EM&Cs assessment is limited strictly to identifying typical environmental conditions associated with the subject property and does not include evaluation of the structural conditions of any buildings on the subject property or any other issues. Additionally unless otherwise stated EM&C did not conduct soil, air, wastewater or other matrix analyses including asbestos or perform contaminated sampling of any kind. Nor did EM&C investigate any waste material from the property that may have been disposed of off the site, nor related waste management practices. The results of this assessment are based upon site inspection conducted by EM&C personnel, information from interviews with people who have knowledge of site conditions and information provided by regulatory agencies. All conclusions and recommendations regarding the property are the professional opinions of the EM&C personnel involved with the project, subject to the qualifications made above. While normal assessments of data reliability have been made, EM&C assumes no responsibility or liability for errors in any data obtained from regulatory agencies, statements from sources outside of EM&C, or developments resulting from situations outside the scope of this project. EM&C is not engaged in environmental auditing and /or reporting of any kind for the purpose of advertising sales promoting, or endorsement of any clients’ interests, including raising investment capital, recommending investment decisions, or other publicity purposes. EM&C assumes no responsibility or liability for errors in any data obtained from regulatory agencies, statements from sources outside of EM&C, or developments resulting from situations outside the scope of this project. Information relating to soil, groundwater, waste, air or other matrix conditions in this document is considered to be accurate at the date of issue. Surface, subsurface and atmospheric conditions can vary across a particular site or region, which cannot be wholly defined by investigation. As a result, it is unlikely that the results and estimations presented in this report will represent the extremes of conditions within the site that may exist. Subsurface conditions including contaminant concentrations can change in a limited period of time and typically have a high level of spatial heterogeneity. From a technical perspective, there is a high degree of uncertainty associated with the assessment of subsurface, aquatic and atmospheric environments. They are prone to be heterogeneous, complex environments, in which small subsurface features or changes in geologic conditions or other environmental anomalies can have substantial impact on water, air and chemical movement. Major uncertainties can also occur with source characterization assessment of chemical fate and transport in the environment, assessment of exposure risks and health effects, and remedial action performance. These factors make uncertainty an inherent feature of potentially impacted sites. Technical uncertainties are characteristically several orders of magnitude greater at impacted sites than for other kinds of projects. EM&C’s professional opinions are based upon its professional judgment, experience, and training. These opinions are also based upon data derived from the limited testing and analysis described in this report. It is possible that additional testing and analysis might produce different results and/or different opinions or other opinions. EM&C has limited its investigation(s) to the scope agreed upon with its client. EM&C believes that its opinions are reasonably supported by the testing and analysis that has been undertaken (if any), and that those opinions have been developed according to the professional standard of care for the environmental consulting profession in this area at this time. Other opinions and interpretations may be possible. That standard of care may change and new methods and practices of exploration, testing and analysis may develop in the future, which might produce different results. EM&C is not in the business of providing legal advice.

Approximate Scale Metres 0 17 34

Legend

Proposed Excava1on area

Sediment Fencing - Ticks represent stakes at 3m spacing

Sediment boom - Deployed in donut shape arounded grated pit

Hay Bale

Plan notes: Stockpiled soil to be located adjacent to excava1ons. Stockpiles only to be construced following the establishment of the necessary controls iden1fied within the Management Plan. Current site stormwater flows are to be maintained, however sediment controls are to be installed to retain generated sediment runoff, created as a result of the proposed inves1ga1on works.

Figure 1: Soil and Water Management Plan Containment Plan 234 Elizabeth Street, Hobart Tel: +61(03)6231 5979 Email: [email protected] Issue Date: 08/07/19 Mail: Level 2, 67 Le11a St, North Hobart, Tasmania 7000 © 2019 Environmental Management & Consul1ng Pty Ltd EMC Job Number: TBA FOLIO PLAN DEPUTY RECORDER OF TITLES Issued Pursuant to the Land Titles Act 1980

Search Date: 23 May 2019 Search Time: 02:39 PM Volume Number: 174098 Revision Number: 01 Page 1 of 1 Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment www.thelist.tas.gov.au RESULT OF SEARCH DEPUTY RECORDER OF TITLES Issued Pursuant to the Land Titles Act 1980 SEARCH OF TORRENS TITLE

VOLUME FOLIO 174098 4

EDITION DATE OF ISSUE 1 29-Mar-2018 SEARCH DATE : 23-May-2019 SEARCH TIME : 02.37 PM

DESCRIPTION OF LAND

City of HOBART Lot 4 on Plan 174098 Derivation : Part of 0A-1R-30P Granted to Joseph Bowden Prior CT 247013/1

SCHEDULE 1

M587275 TRANSFER to FRAGRANCE TAS-HOBART (ELIZABETH) PTY LTD Registered 26-Aug-2016 at 12.01 PM

SCHEDULE 2

Reservations and conditions in the Crown Grant if any BENEFITING EASEMENT: right of drainage over the land marked Drainage Easement 1.52 wide on Plan 174098

UNREGISTERED DEALINGS AND NOTATIONS

NOTICE: This folio is affected as to amended plan notation pursuant to Request to Amend No. E41438 made under Section 103 of the Local Government (Building and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1993. Search Sealed Plan No. 66912 Lodged by SIMMONS WOLFHAGEN on 10-Nov-2016 BP: E41438

Page 1 of 1 Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment www.thelist.tas.gov.au RESULT OF SEARCH DEPUTY RECORDER OF TITLES Issued Pursuant to the Land Titles Act 1980 SEARCH OF TORRENS TITLE

VOLUME FOLIO 174098 2

EDITION DATE OF ISSUE 2 20-Feb-2018 SEARCH DATE : 23-May-2019 SEARCH TIME : 02.39 PM

DESCRIPTION OF LAND

City of HOBART Lot 2 on Plan 174098 Derivation : Part of 1A-2R-36Ps Gtd to G.A. Robinson Derived from A24775 Prior CT 49030/2

SCHEDULE 1

M587275 TRANSFER to FRAGRANCE TAS-HOBART (ELIZABETH) PTY LTD Registered 26-Aug-2016 at 12.01 PM

SCHEDULE 2

Reservations and conditions in the Crown Grant if any 45/3982 CONVEYANCE - BENEFITING EASEMENT: (appurtenant to that portion of the said land within described formerly being lot 2 on Diagram No.49030) A right to pass and repass over the Right of Way marked 'B' shown on Plan No.174098

UNREGISTERED DEALINGS AND NOTATIONS

No unregistered dealings or other notations

Page 1 of 1 Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment www.thelist.tas.gov.au RESULT OF SEARCH DEPUTY RECORDER OF TITLES Issued Pursuant to the Land Titles Act 1980 SEARCH OF TORRENS TITLE

VOLUME FOLIO 174098 1

EDITION DATE OF ISSUE 1 20-Feb-2018 SEARCH DATE : 23-May-2019 SEARCH TIME : 02.38 PM

DESCRIPTION OF LAND

City of HOBART Lot 1 on Plan 174098 Derivation : Part of 1A-2R-36Ps Gtd to G.A. Robinson Derived from A24775 Prior CT 49030/1

SCHEDULE 1

M587275 TRANSFER to FRAGRANCE TAS-HOBART (ELIZABETH) PTY LTD Registered 26-Aug-2016 at 12.01 PM

SCHEDULE 2

Reservations and conditions in the Crown Grant if any 45/9 CONVEYANCE - BENEFITING EASEMENT: (appurtenant to that portion of the said land within described formerly being lot 1 on Diagram No.49030)A right to pass and repass over the Right of Way marked 'B' shown on Plan No.174098

UNREGISTERED DEALINGS AND NOTATIONS

No unregistered dealings or other notations

Page 1 of 1 Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment www.thelist.tas.gov.au FOLIO PLAN DEPUTY RECORDER OF TITLES Issued Pursuant to the Land Titles Act 1980

Search Date: 23 May 2019 Search Time: 02:38 PM Volume Number: 174098 Revision Number: 01 Page 1 of 1 Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment www.thelist.tas.gov.au FOLIO PLAN DEPUTY RECORDER OF TITLES Issued Pursuant to the Land Titles Act 1980

Search Date: 23 May 2019 Search Time: 02:39 PM Volume Number: 174098 Revision Number: 01 Page 1 of 1 Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment www.thelist.tas.gov.au RESULT OF SEARCH DEPUTY RECORDER OF TITLES Issued Pursuant to the Land Titles Act 1980 SEARCH OF TORRENS TITLE

VOLUME FOLIO 174098 3

EDITION DATE OF ISSUE 1 29-Mar-2018 SEARCH DATE : 28-May-2019 SEARCH TIME : 04.54 PM

DESCRIPTION OF LAND

City of HOBART Lot 3 on Plan 174098 Being the land firstly described in Conveyance No. 45/3982 Derivation : Part of 1A-2R-36P Granted to George Augustus Robinson Prior CT 49030/3

SCHEDULE 1

M587275 TRANSFER to FRAGRANCE TAS-HOBART (ELIZABETH) PTY LTD Registered 26-Aug-2016 at 12.01 PM

SCHEDULE 2

Reservations and conditions in the Crown Grant if any 45/3982 CONVEYANCE - BENEFITING EASEMENT: right to pass and repass over the land marked Right of Way 'A' and Right of Way 'B' on Plan 174098

UNREGISTERED DEALINGS AND NOTATIONS

No unregistered dealings or other notations

Page 1 of 1 Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment www.thelist.tas.gov.au FOLIO PLAN DEPUTY RECORDER OF TITLES Issued Pursuant to the Land Titles Act 1980

Search Date: 28 May 2019 Search Time: 04:54 PM Volume Number: 174098 Revision Number: 01 Page 1 of 1 Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment www.thelist.tas.gov.au

Tasmanian Heritage Council GPO Box 618 Hobart Tasmania 7000 Level 3, 200 Collins St, Hobart Tasmania 7000 Tel: 1300 850 332 [email protected] www.heritage.tas.gov.au

PLANNING REF: PLN-19-308 THC WORKS REF: #5933 REGISTERED PLACE NO: #125 FILE NO: 09-48-31THC APPLICANT: Ireneinc DATE: 22 August 2019

NOTICE OF HERITAGE DECISION (Historic Cultural Heritage Act 1995)

Registered Place: Kelso Terrace, 242-250 Elizabeth Street, Hobart (CT174098/2 & 3). Development Site: 234 Elizabeth Street, 236-240 Elizabeth Street, and 242-250 Elizabeth Street, Hobart. Proposed Works: Archaeological works: 4 No. test trenches, each 5 x 5 metres. Trenches 1 & 2 – 263-24 Elizabeth Street; Trench 3 – Right of Way, and part of 242-250 Elizabeth Street; Trench 4 – 234 Elizabeth Street, Hobart.

Under section 39(6)(b) of the Historic Cultural Heritage Act 1995, the Heritage Council gives notice that it consents to the discretionary permit being granted in accordance with the documentation submitted with Development Application PLN-19-308, advertised on 17/07/2019, subject to the following conditions:

1. This approval is limited to the first step archaeological test trenching described in the Archaeological Method Statement of the Archaeological Test Trenching Program, by Praxis Environment, May 2019. Any further archaeological works remain subject to further heritage approval.

2. A copy of the final excavation report, and project archive from the archaeological test trenching is to be provided to Heritage Tasmania within 6 months of completion of the excavations. Reason for conditions To ensure that the endorsed archaeological program is delivered in accordance with the Archaeological Method Statement.

Advice to Applicant The Tasmanian Heritage Council’s statutory interest is limited to works proposed within the parcels of land being entered in the Tasmanian Heritage Register at 242- 250 Elizabeth Street, Hobart (CT174098/2 & CT174098/3). The north-western extent of Trench # 3 is likely to encroach into the Registered property title. The remaining Trenches #1, 2 & 4 are outside of the land being subject to provision of the Historic Cultural Heritage Act 1995.

The Tasmanian Heritage Council notes that the proposed Archaeological Test Trenching Program involves 4 trenches (5x5m) sited to primarily intersect the footprint of known historic structures. This proposed program will be able to assess the relative survival of building footings and features including cellars as well as the potential for sub-floor archaeological deposits. However it will not be able to assess the likely presence of intact sub-surface features and deposits across the broader site and in particular in the various yard areas associated with the Robinson house. Given the focus of the research questions on Aboriginal Tasmanians who occupied the site sporadically in the late 1820s and the expectation that they may have made use of yard and other open areas to the rear of the residential structures, it could be argued that the proposed testing program is insufficient to identify associated deposits. A suggested alternative approach might involve a larger number of smaller trenches (e.g. 1 x 2m) distributed not only to intersect building footprints but also across the yard areas within the Robinson lot with the expectation that any trench positioned within the Robinson house that identified a cellar structure may have to be extended to allow deposits within the cellar to be safely tested.

Please ensure the details of this notice, including conditions, are included in any permit issued, and forward a copy of the permit or decision of refusal to the Heritage Council for our records.

Should you require clarification of any matters contained in this notice, please contact Mr Ian Boersma on 1300 850 332.

Brett Torossi Chair Under delegation of the Tasmanian Heritage Council

Notice of Heritage Decision 5933, Page 2 of 2