Greendale Road, Bringelly, NSW

Douglas Partners Pty Ltd ABN 75 053 980 117 www.douglaspartners.com.au Unit 5, 50 Topham Road Smeaton Grange NSW 2567 Phone (02) 4647 0075 Fax (02) 4646 1886

Project 76678.00 Macarthur Developments 4 June 2015 1150 Camden Valley Way RWG LEPPINGTON NSW 2765

Attention: Mr Stephen McMahon

Email: [email protected]

Dear Sirs

Site Clean-up Status Report Lot 101 Greendale Road, Bringelly, NSW

1. Introduction

Douglas Partners Pty Ltd (DP) was commissioned by Macarthur Developments (MD) to prepare a status report for remediation works currently being undertaken on Lot 101 Greendale Road, Bringelly, NSW which is currently owned and occupied by Boral Property Group. Transpacific Industrial Solutions Pty Ltd (TIS) previously prepared Surplus Site Clean Up Plan Boral Bringelly (Job No.: QN666224) dated 24 September 2014 (TIS, 2014). The TIS report includes the identification of four areas within the site where stockpiles of waste are present.

2. Background

DP understands the following with respect to the site and MD’s requirements:

 Clean-up of the site, with reference to TIS (2014) is currently being conducted by remediation contractor Budget Demolitions;  MD have been instructed by the Commonwealth Bank to provide a status report that investigates and reports on the progress of the clean-up of the Boral land in accordance with the requirements of the TIS (2014); and  MD has requested the report include the following information, with particular reference to the four areas of concern identified Figure 2 of TIS (2014);

o Inspect the site and interview the site foreman from Budget Demolitions; o Observe the extent of clean up works underway, completed and yet to be commenced as referenced in TIS (2014);

o Identify and estimate of the scale of clean up works that, based on progress, will be required after Monday 15th June 2015 to ensure compliance with TIS (2014); and

o Identify and estimate of the cost and timeframe of any clean up works, based on progress, that will be required after Monday 15th June 2015 to ensure compliance with TIS (2014).

Brisbane • Cairns • Canberra • Darwin • Geelong • Gladstone • Gold Coast • Macarthur • Melbourne • Newcastle • Perth • Sunshine Coast • Sydney • Townsville • Wollongong • Wyong

Page 2 of 3

3. Comments

TIS (2014) identified four areas where bricks and waste material area stockpiles within the site (as shown on Figure 2 of TIS, 2014). The report presents a ‘preferred clean-up strategy’ and ‘ soil cleanup validation plan’. DP inspected the four areas on 3 June 2015. A summary of the observation made during the inspection is outlined below:  Clean-up of the three northern most areas was approximately 75% complete. Based on discussion with Budget Demolition’s foreman, in the order of 30 truckloads (approximately 280 m3) of waste material had been excavated and disposed from the site. The foreman estimated that the clean-up of the three northern areas would be complete in approximately 2 – 4 days; and  Clean-up of the southern area had not commenced. Budget Demolitions estimate approximately 200 m3 of stockpiled bricks in the southern area.

Based on the progress of works to date and the contractors estimated time for completion, we anticipate that clean-up of the four nominated areas within the site should be completed on site by 15 June, with the possible exception of the brick piles located in the southern area of the site.

For the purposes of this letter, as a conservative estimate, we have assumed in our costing that all of the brick piles in the southern area will require removal following the 15 June 2015. We have used the following assumptions in preparing this estimate:  Volume of bricks to be removed: 200 m3 (estimated by contractor);  Disposal rate for bricks: $350 per m3 including haulage (typical rate);  Day rate for machines and labour: $5000 per day (typical rate); and  Time required to remove 200 m3: 10 days (DP Estimate).

Table 1, below presents below presents a breakdown of the estimate based on the above assumptions:

Table 1: Cost Estimate Item Cost Estimate (ex. GST) Plant and Labour hire (10 days at $5000 per day) $50,000 Disposal Fee (200 m3 at $350 per m3) $70,000 Consultants fees (waste classification, validation) $10,000 Sub-total $130,000 Contingency (15% of sub-total) $19,500 Total $149,500

Site Clean-up Status Project 76678.00 Lot 101 Greendale Road, Bringelly June 2015

20 August 2015

Transpacific Industrial Solutions

Prepared for Phil Taylor Boral Limited PO Box 42 South Wentworthville NSW 2145

By Transpacific Industrial Solutions Contact: Greg Bartlett Senior Environmental Scientist tel 1300 099 498 email [email protected]

Document Reference: HC‐2015‐49 Job No: QN783837 Revision No. 1

Transpacific Industries Pty Ltd 1/423‐427 Victoria Street, Wetherill Park NSW 2164 PO Box 6460, Wetherill Park BC NSW 2164 Phone: 1300 099 498 Surplus Site Clean‐Up Validation Report Boral Bringelly | Greendale Road, Bringelly, NSW (Lot 101 DP 1203966)

CONTENTSi

Executive Summary 1 1 Introduction, Objective and Scope 2 1.1 Introduction 2 1.2 Objectives 2 1.3 Scope of Works 2 2 Site Summary Information 4 2.1 Site Identification 4 2.2 Site Description 4 2.3 Surrounding Land Use 4 2.4 Topography and Vegetation 4 2.5 Geology and Soils 4 3 Adopted Surplus Site Clean‐Up Strategy 6 4 Sampling, Analysis and Quality Plan 7 4.1 Regulatory Guidelines 7 4.2 Sediment Sampling Methodology 7 4.3 Soil Sampling Methodology 7 4.4 Sampling QA/QC 8 4.5 Decontamination 9 4.6 Laboratory Analysis 9 5 Surplus Site Clean‐Up Validation Criteria 10 5.1 Sediment Validation Criteria 10 5.2 Soil Validation Criteria 11 5.3 Waste Classification Criteria 13 6 Quality Assurance/Quality Control 16 6.1 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Results 18 6.1.1 Precision 20 6.1.2 Accuracy 21 6.1.3 Representativeness 22 6.1.4 Holding Times 23 6.1.5 Comparability 23 6.1.6 Completeness 23 6.1.7 Sensitivity 23 6.1.8 QA/QC Assessment Conclusions 23 7 Laboratory Analytical Results 24 7.1 Soil 24 7.1.1 Heavy Metals 25 7.1.2 TPH/ BTEX 25

Rev 1 page i Surplus Site Clean‐Up Validation Report Boral Bringelly | Greendale Road, Bringelly, NSW (Lot 101 DP 1203966)

7.1.3 PAHs 25 7.1.4 OCPs/ OPPs 25 7.1.5 PCBs 25 7.1.6 Asbestos 25 7.2 Sediment 26 7.2.1 Heavy Metals 26 7.2.2 UT PAHs 27 7.2.3 UT OCP/OPP 28 7.2.4 UT PCBs 29 7.2.5 Asbestos 29 7.3 Waste Classification & Disposal 30 8 Discussion of Analytical Results 31 8.1 Soil 31 8.2 Sediments 31 9 Conclusions 33 10 Limitations 34

Rev 1 page ii Surplus Site Clean‐Up Validation Report Boral Bringelly | Greendale Road, Bringelly, NSW (Lot 101 DP 1203966)

Tables

Table 1 | Sample Register

Table 2 | Soil Summary Results

Table 3 | Sediment Summary Results

Table 4 | Stockpile Waste Classification

Figures

Figure 1 Site Location

Figure 2 Site Layout

Figure 3a Sampling Locations and Exceedances – Area 1

Figure 4a Sampling Locations and Exceedances – Area 2 Part 1

Figure 4b Sampling Locations and Exceedances – Area 2 Part 2

Figure 5a Sampling Locations and Exceedances – Area 3

Figure 6a Sampling Locations and Exceedances – Area 4 Part 1

Figure 6b Sampling Locations and Exceedances – Area 4 Part 2

Figure 6c Sampling Locations and Exceedances – Area 4 Part 3

Figure 7 Sampling Locations and Exceedances – Area 5

Figure 8 a Sampling Locations and Exceedances – Area 6 Part 1

Figure 8 b Sampling Locations and Exceedances – Area 6 Part 2

Figure 8c Sampling Locations and Exceedances – Area 6 Part 3

Figure 8 d Sampling Locations and Exceedances – Area 6 Part 4

Rev 1 page iii Surplus Site Clean‐Up Validation Report Boral Bringelly | Greendale Road, Bringelly, NSW (Lot 101 DP 1203966)

Appendices

Appendix A Test Pit Bore Logs

Appendix B Decontamination and Calibration Certificates

Appendix C Laboratory Reports and Chain of Custody Documentation

Appendix D Laboratory QA/QC Reports

Appendix E Waste Classification Reports

Appendix F Waste Disposal Documentation

Appendix G Clearance Certificates

Appendix H 95% UCL Calculation

Rev 1 page iv Surplus Site Clean‐Up Validation Report Boral Bringelly | Greendale Road, Bringelly, NSW (Lot 101 DP 1203966)

Abbreviations

µg/L micrograms per litre AHD Australian Height Datum ANZECC Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council ARMCANZ Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand bgs below ground surface COC Chain of Custody DQO Data Quality Objectives GSW General Solid Waste ISQG Interim Sediment Quality Guidelines m2 Square Metre m3 Cubic Metre m bgs Metres Below Ground Surface mg/kg Milligrams per kilogram NATA National Association of Testing Authorities NEPC National Environment Protection Council NEPM National Environment Protection Measure NHMRC National Health and Medical Research Council NSW EPA New South Wales Environment Protection Authority OCP Organochlorine Pesticides PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon PID Photoionisation Detector ppm parts per million RSW Restricted Solid Waste SB Soil bore SIL Soil Investigation Level SSC Surplus Site Clean‐Up SSCP Surplus Site Clean‐Up Plan TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons TPI Transpacific Industrial Solutions Pty Ltd

Rev 1 page v Surplus Site Clean‐Up Validation Report Boral Bringelly | Greendale Road, Bringelly, NSW (Lot 101 DP 1203966)

Executive Summary

Transpacific Remediation Services, a division of Transpacific Industrial Solutions Pty Ltd (TPI) were commissioned by Boral Limited to undertake surplus site clean‐up (SSC) validation works at the Boral Bringelly site located at Lot 2 Greendale Road, Bringelly. The site is legally identified as Lot 101 DP 1203966 (formerly Lot 11 DP 1125892) (the ‘site’) (refer Figure 1).

A Surplus Site Clean‐Up Plan (SSCP) was prepared by Transpacific to document the procedures and standards to be followed to remove and validate areas in which deleterious materials have been placed in several areas within the Boral Bringelly property. The SCC validation works were required to facilitate divestment of the Lot.

The overarching goal of the clean‐up program was to remove bricks and other anthropogenic material whilst mitigating the risk of impacting on the surrounding area, such that mature flora are not undermined and banks remain stabilised

Each of the areas, designated as Area 1 to Area 6, were identified to either contain stockpiles of bricks during a site walkover conducted 11 September 2014 or fly tipped materials, consisting of household refuse (including asbestos containing materials (ACM)), fencing materials and a car body identified within and adjacent to the stockpiled materials.

Soil and sediment validation samples were collected at a frequency of one sample per 25m2. During the current investigation, conducted between May 2015 and August 2015, a total of 65 soil validation and 52 sediment validation samples were collected.

Based on the results of the SSC validation each of the six SSC areas were appropriately validated in accordance with the adopted site assessment criteria with the exception of one dieldrin hotspot location that exceeded the ISQG Low assessment criteria but was significantly below the HIL‐B Residential assessment criteria. The remaining hotspot location is localised in nature and not considered to pose a significant risk to human health given that the concentration is several magnitudes lower than the HIL‐B Residential assessment criteria. The area has since been backfilled reducing the exposure risk.

To this end, each of the six SSC areas are considered to have been suitably validated such that they would not preclude the proposed Residential (with minimal access to soils) use.

Rev 1 page 1 Surplus Site Clean‐Up Validation Report Boral Bringelly | Greendale Road, Bringelly, NSW (Lot 101 DP 1203966)

1 Introduction, Objective and Scope 1.1 Introduction

A Surplus Site Clean‐Up Plan (SSCP) was prepared by Transpacific (TPI 20141) to document the procedures and standards to be followed to remove and validate areas in which deleterious materials have been placed in certain areas within the Boral Bringelly property within Lot 101 DP 1208182. It is understood that since the preparation of the SSCP that two additional brick stockpile areas have since been identified and are also addressed in this report.

Each of the areas, designated as Area 1 to Area 6, were identified to either contain stockpiles of bricks during a site walkover conducted 11 September 2014 or fly tipped materials, consisting of household refuse (including asbestos containing materials (ACM)), fencing materials and two car bodies identified within and adjacent to the stockpiled materials. Further, several discarded tyres were identified.

The investigation was conducted in general accordance with relevant NSW EPA guidelines.

1.2 Objectives

The overarching objectives of the SSC validation works are to:

 Facilitate the removal of brick and anthropogenic material to a practical extent whilst mitigating the risk of impacting on the surrounding land (undermining existing mature flora or destabilising creek banks);  Ensure that each respective area is cleaned up and appropriately validated to a level suitable for the proposed residential (with minimal access to soil) land use; and  Assess the need for further investigation. 1.3 Scope of Works

To achieve the project objectives, the following scope of work was undertaken:

 Validation of the footprint beneath each identified clean‐up area;  Off‐site disposal of anthropogenic material to a facility licenced to accept such waste;  Validation of any imported fill for the reinstatement and/or stabilisation of areas in which material has been removed; and

1 Surplus Site Clean‐Up Plan – Boral Bringelly – Lot 2 Greendale Road, Bringelly, NSW, 2556 (Lot 11 DP 1125892), Transpacific Industrial Solutions, 24 September 2014 (TPI 2014)

Rev 1 page 2 Surplus Site Clean‐Up Validation Report Boral Bringelly | Greendale Road, Bringelly, NSW (Lot 101 DP 1203966)

 Preparation of a final validation report documenting the completion of the clean‐up works demonstrating the effectiveness of the works and a conclusion statement on whether the site has been cleaned up to a condition suitable for the proposed residential land use scenario.

Rev 1 page 3 Surplus Site Clean‐Up Validation Report Boral Bringelly | Greendale Road, Bringelly, NSW (Lot 101 DP 1203966)

2 Site Summary Information 2.1 Site Identification

A Local Area Map is presented as Figure 1. Relevant information in relation to site identification is summarised in Table 2.1 below.

Table 2.1 | Summary Site Details

Lot/DP Lot 101 DP 1203966 (formerly Lot 11 DP 1125892)

Address Greendale Road, Bringelly, NSW, 2556 Local Council Camden Current Site Zoning Rural – Primary Production Proposed Site Zoning Residential

2.2 Site Description

Thompsons Creek traverses the eastern and central portion of the site, whilst Lowes Creek forms the southern site boundary of the Lot. As identified in a preliminary site investigation (PSI) completed by Environmental Earth Sciences (EES) in July 20142, it is understood that surface water and groundwater preferentially drain into Thompsons Creek.

A brief summary of the surrounding environment follows.

2.3 Surrounding Land Use

The area surrounding the site is predominately rural in character with the exception of the adjoining brick manufacturing plant and quarry. Adjoining sites are zoned Rural‐Primary Production and are each used for rural purposes.

2.4 Topography and Vegetation

As detailed in EES (2014), the clean‐up areas are situated within an area of 200‐600m crests and ridges with slopes between 5% and 15%. Although surrounding areas were observed to have been extensively cleared with remnant vegetation the riparian zone and adjacent areas were heavily vegetated with juvenile and mature trees.

2.5 Geology and Soils

As detailed in EES (2014), the Sydney 1:100,000 Geological Series Sheet 9130 indicates that the site is situated on the middle Triassic Winamatta Group, comprising three formations of the Liverpool Subgroup; Bringelly shale at the surface, underlain by fine to medium grained quartz lithic Minchinbury

2 2 Boral Limited/CSR Limited. Preliminary Site Investigation at Boral Bringelly, Lot 2, Greendale Road, Bringelly, NSW (Ref- 114036), Environmental Earth Sciences NSW, July 2014 (EES 2014)

Rev 1 page 4 Surplus Site Clean‐Up Validation Report Boral Bringelly | Greendale Road, Bringelly, NSW (Lot 101 DP 1203966)

Sandstones and dark grey Ashfield shales and siltstones. The Winamatta Group is underlain by Triassic aged Hawkesbury Sandstone.

Soils within proximity to the creeks are anticipated to be fluvial with deep layered sediments over bedrock or plastic clays and loams and may be erosive and dispersive.

Based on the findings of the ESS (2014) PSI, the soils are considered to possess a low acid sulfate soil risk, however areas adjacent to Thompsons Creek, and likely Lowes Creek, have been identified to produce saline surface conditions and as such will require management to mitigate potential soil dispersion during the clean‐up works.

Rev 1 page 5 Surplus Site Clean‐Up Validation Report Boral Bringelly | Greendale Road, Bringelly, NSW (Lot 101 DP 1203966)

3 Adopted Surplus Site Clean‐Up Strategy

To achieve the clean‐up objectives the following requirements were met:

 Bricks and waste materials were removed to the best extent practicable from each of the areas identified in Figure 2. Following removal of bricks and other waste materials a surface scrape was required prior to collection of validation samples;  All fly tipped wastes (household refuse) identified are removed via grabs and placed into bins for disposal in the first instance followed by a surface scrape prior to validation sampling;  If bricks are identified as buried, such as in creek cross‐overs, it was recommended that they remain insitu so as to not disturb the integrity of creek banks and increase the potential erosivity of dispersive soils;  Care was taken when removing bricks from within vegetated riparian areas to minimise disturbance. No trees greater than three metres tall were damaged during the works. In the event that brick or waste removal was inhibited by trees the material was to remain in‐situ so as not to destabilise banks, create potential increases in sediment loads or alter potential flow regimes;  Test pits were installed in heavily vegetated areas with bricks buried in near surface soils to visually inspect the depth, confirm no other co‐contaminants (such as ACM) and supported via chemical analysis;  Care was taken to ensure that waste streams were separated to allow for the recycling of as much material as possible;  Care was taken to ensure minimal disturbance to surface soils, however if necessary to remove minimal amounts such that bricks are free of residual soils and can be appropriately recycled;  The footprint of all clean up areas were appropriately validated in accordance with relevant guidelines. All disturbed areas in or immediately adjacent to the creek were visually inspected, photographed and validated with analytical results compared against the Interim Sediment Quality Guidelines (ISQG) thresholds (ANZECC 2000) (Section 4.1). Soil samples collected from those areas adjacent to or beneath the footprint of the stockpiled areas are to be visually inspected, photographed and validated with analytical results compared against the health based threshold concentrations for residential land use, Column B (HIL B – Residential with minimal opportunities for soil access) of Table 1A(1) and ecological screening levels (ESLs) for TPH fractions (Table 1B(6)) and management limits (MLs) for TPH fractions (Table 1B(7)) (Section 4.2).; and  Ensure that all waste streams generated during the remediation works are tracked and disposed to facilities licensed to accept such waste. Soil waste classification reports are provided in Appendix E. Waste disposal documentation is provided in Appendix F.

Rev 1 page 6 Surplus Site Clean‐Up Validation Report Boral Bringelly | Greendale Road, Bringelly, NSW (Lot 101 DP 1203966)

4 Sampling, Analysis and Quality Plan 4.1 Regulatory Guidelines

The investigation was undertaken in general accordance with the following guidelines, as relevant:

 Australian Standard AS 4482.1 (1999), Guide to Sampling and Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Soil (Part 1: Non‐volatile and semi‐volatile compounds);  Australian Standard AS 4482.2 (1999), Guide to Sampling and Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Soil (Part 2: Volatile Substances);  NSW EPA (1995) Sampling Design Guidelines;  New South Wales Office of Environment and Heritage (2011) Contaminated Sites: Guidelines for Consultants Reporting on Contaminated Sites (2nd edition);  NEPC (2013). National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure (NEPM), Schedule B (1) Guideline on Investigation Levels for Soil and Groundwater;  New South Wales Department of Environment and Climate Change (NSW DECC) (2009) Guidelines on the Duty to Report Contamination under the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997;  Guidelines for the Assessment and Management of Asbestos‐Contaminated Sites in Western Australia, May 2009, Western Australia Department of Health, May 2009 (WA DOH 2009); and  Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality. Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council and Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand, Paper No 4, 2000 (ANZECC/ARMCANZ 2000); and  NSW EPA (2014) Waste Classification Guidelines. Part 1: Classifying waste. 4.2 Sediment Sampling Methodology

Sediment samples were obtained via hand auger or by hand with nitrile gloves changed between sampling locations and the samples analysed and compared against the Interim Sediment Quality Guidelines (ISQG) thresholds (ANZECC 2000).

4.3 Soil Sampling Methodology

Sampling, analysis and reporting of soil samples was undertaken in accordance with the Australian Standard 4482‐1997 Guide to the Sampling and Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Soil, Part 1: Non‐volatile and semi‐volatile compounds, NEPC 1999 Schedule B(2) Guideline on Data Collection, Sample Design and Reporting, and the NSW EPA (1995) Contaminated Sites: Sampling Design Guidelines.

Environmental scientists/ engineers experienced and qualified in standard field sampling procedures and methodologies were used to conduct soil validation sampling. All field equipment used for the validation sampling will be decontaminated between each sample by washing in an appropriate decontamination solution and rinsing with deionised water.

Rev 1 page 7 Surplus Site Clean‐Up Validation Report Boral Bringelly | Greendale Road, Bringelly, NSW (Lot 101 DP 1203966)

The following steps were followed to obtain soil samples for laboratory and field analysis.

 Test pit samples obtained were collected via excavator, from the centre of the excavator bucket;  The samples collected for laboratory analysis were placed in new acid washed glass jars and sealed with a lid incorporating a teflon insert;  A “chain of custody” form was completed to accompany samples, detailing the sample IDs, dates of collection, method of preservation and analytes requested for analysis. The “chain of custody” was transported with the samples at all times and provides evidence of the transfer of samples from one party to another. The “chain of custody” form demonstrates that the samples have been properly received, documented, processed and stored; and  Sample jars were placed on ice in a cooler after sampling and prior to, and during transportation. The samples will be either refrigerated or kept on ice to prevent the potential loss of volatiles in the samples collected.

4.4 Sampling QA/QC

Environmental scientists/engineers experienced and qualified in standard field sampling procedures and methodologies were used to conduct soil, sediment, surface water and groundwater sampling.

All field equipment used for the sampling of soils and groundwater were decontaminated between each sample by washing in an appropriate decontamination solution and rinsing with deionised water.

Only new sample containers were used, and all samples were stored in a cooler prior to dispatch to the laboratory. All soil and/or groundwater samples were labelled with reference to their sample location or stockpile number to ensure satisfactory tracking of samples and analytical results. Field notes detailing sampling locations, depths and soil types are to be maintained during the field works.

The bottles/jars were labelled with the following data: a) Sample identification number; b) Job number; c) Dates of sample collection; d) Preservation method (if any).

Split samples (duplicate) and blind duplicate (triplicate) samples were collected at a ratio of 1 duplicate per 20 primary samples. Duplicate and triplicate samples were identified as a "QC sample" but not marked specifically as duplicate samples. Field triplicate samples were analysed by a secondary NATA accredited laboratory different from the primary laboratory.

An equipment rinsate sample was collected in the field following sampling. One field blank was also collected per sampling day. A trip blank was prepared per esky and transported with the samples. These samples were collected during both the soil and groundwater sampling programs. Laboratory prepared trip blank spike samples were also collected and transported with the samples to the laboratory. The trip

Rev 1 page 8 Surplus Site Clean‐Up Validation Report Boral Bringelly | Greendale Road, Bringelly, NSW (Lot 101 DP 1203966) blank spike is injected with a known VOC concentration and was analysed to assess the loss of volatiles during transportation of the samples from the field to the laboratory.

The samples were then placed in a cooler with ice and refrigerated (where required). A “chain of custody” (COC) form will be filled out and sent with the sample via an overnight courier to a NATA registered analytical laboratory. Samples retained but not requiring immediate analysis were kept in refrigerated storage at the laboratory.

4.5 Decontamination

Decontamination of sampling equipment was undertaken before each sampling interval. Non dedicated sampling equipment were cleaned with a brush in potable water, scrubbed and rinsed in laboratory grade detergent solution with potable water, a rinse with potable water and a final rinse with deionised water. Decontamination sheets are provided in Appendix B.

4.6 Laboratory Analysis

Transpacific used ALS at Smithfield, NSW as the primary laboratory for the required analyses. Envirolab Services Pty Ltd (Envirolab) at Chatswood, NSW was used as the secondary laboratory for the required analyses. Both laboratories are NATA registered for the required analyses. In addition, the laboratories were required to meet TPI’s internal QA/QC requirements. Laboratory analysis of samples was conducted with reference to COPCs as listed in the Sample Register in Table 1.

Rev 1 page 9 Surplus Site Clean‐Up Validation Report Boral Bringelly | Greendale Road, Bringelly, NSW (Lot 101 DP 1203966)

5 Surplus Site Clean‐Up Validation Criteria

The frequency of validation sampling of the footprint and/ or base and walls of near surface excavations was collected in general accordance with the NSW EPA (1994) Guidelines for Assessing Service Station Sites as detailed below in Table 5.1

Table 5.1 | Sampling Frequency

Analytes Location Sampling Frequency Sediments Soils

Excavation Walls Ultra trace PAHs, OCPs, OPPs, PCBs and heavy Excavation Base/ Footprint of Clean‐Up Area metals TPH, BTEX, PAHs, OCPs, 1 sample per 25m2 PCBs, heavy metals and Stockpile Validation to Confirm Reuse On‐site TPH, BTEX, PAHs, OCPs, asbestos PCBs, heavy metals and Stockpile Sampling for Off‐site Disposal asbestos

1 sample per TPH, BTEX, PAHs, OCPs, PCBs, heavy metals and Imported Fill 100m3 asbestos

5.1 Sediment Validation Criteria

The adopted guidelines for sediment are the Interim Sediment Quality Guidelines (ISQG) thresholds (ANZECC 2000). These guidelines are not intended as clean‐up criteria, but rather investigation levels to trigger site specific management. The investigation levels are summarised in Table 5.2.

Table 5.2 | Sediment Assessment Criteria

Analytes ISQC Low ISQC High

METALS Antimony 2 25 Arsenic 20 70 Cadmium 1.5 10 Chromium 80 370 Copper 65 270 Lead 50 220 Mercury 0.15 1 Nickel 21 52

Rev 1 page 10 Surplus Site Clean‐Up Validation Report Boral Bringelly | Greendale Road, Bringelly, NSW (Lot 101 DP 1203966)

Analytes ISQC Low ISQC High Silver 1 3.7 Zinc 200 410 INORGANICS2 Acenaphthene 16 500 Acenaphthylene 44 640 Fluorene 19 540 Naphthalene 160 21,00 Phenanthrene 240 1,500 Benzo(a)anthracene 261 1,600 Benzo(a)pyrene 430 1,600 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 63 260 Chrysene 384 2,800 Fluoranthene 600 5,100 Pyrene 665 2,600 Total PAHs 4,000 45,000 Total DDT 1.6 46 p.p’‐DDE 2.2 27 o,p’‐+p,p’‐DDD 2 20 Chlordane 0.5 6 Dieldrin 0.02 8 Endrin 0.02 8 Lindane 0.32 1 Total PCBs 23 ‐ Note: 1) All values are in mg/kg dry weight except TBT, which is expressed in µgSn/kg 2) Normalised to 1% organic carbon

5.2 Soil Validation Criteria

The soil investigation levels presented in National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure (1999, amended 2013) Schedule B(1) ‘Investigation Levels for Soil and Groundwater’ by the NEPC are the criteria which have been adopted in this investigation. Any soil imported to the site must be obtained from reputable suppliers and will comprise either Virgin Excavated Natural Material (VENM) or Excavated Natural Material (ENM). Review of the source site will be undertaken prior to the importation of fill. If the fill is not accompanied by a certificate indicating

Rev 1 page 11 Surplus Site Clean‐Up Validation Report Boral Bringelly | Greendale Road, Bringelly, NSW (Lot 101 DP 1203966) suitability, the material must be appropriately validated in accordance with the criteria specified in this section.

The Site is currently zoned Rural – Primary Production, however Boral have requested that where necessary the site is validated to residential (minimal access to soil) use to reflect the proposed end land use following sub‐division and sale. The results of soil analyses will be assessed against the Health based threshold concentrations Column B (HIL B – Residential with minimal opportunities for soil access) of Table 1A(1) and ecological screening levels (ESLs) for TPH fractions (Table 1B(6)) and management limits (MLs) for TPH fractions (Table 1B(7)).

The analytes and adopted soil remediation acceptance criteria are tabulated in Table 5.3 which follows.

Table 5.3 | Soil Assessment Criteria

Analytes Health Investigation Levels (HILs) (mg/kg)1

Arsenic (total) 500 Arsenic (aged) 1002 Cadmium 150 Chromium 500 Chromium 3+(aged) 1608 Copper 30,000 Lead 1,200 Mercury (inorganic) 120 Nickel 1,200 Zinc 60,000 F1 TPH (C6‐C10) 2154 / 8005 / 50 7 F2 TPH (C10‐C16) 1704 / 1,0005 / 280 7 F3 TPH (C16‐C34) 2,5004 / 5,0005 F4 TPH (C34‐C40) 6,6004 / 10,0005 Benzene 0.7 7 Toluene 480 7 Xylenes 110 7 Naphthalene 5 7 Carcinogenic PAHs (as 4 6 BaP TEQ) Total PAHs 400 Aldrin + Dieldrin 10 Chlordane 90

Rev 1 page 12 Surplus Site Clean‐Up Validation Report Boral Bringelly | Greendale Road, Bringelly, NSW (Lot 101 DP 1203966)

Analytes Health Investigation Levels (HILs) (mg/kg)1

DDT + DDD + DDE 600 Heptachlor 10 PCBs (total) 1 2 Asbestos No free asbestos fibres at ground surface3 1 HIL B Residential with minimal opportunities for soil axccess, includes dwellings with fully and permanently paved yard space such as high rise buildings and apartments (NEPM 2013) 2 Non‐dioxin‐like PCBs only 3 WA DOH (2009) 4 ESLs for TPH fractions F1 ‐ F4 in soil ‐ Fine Soils (NEPM 2013) 5 Management Limits for TPH Fractions F1 ‐ F4 in soil ‐ Fine Soils (NEPM 2013) 6 HIL is based on the 8 carcinogenic PAHs and their TEFs (potency relative to B(a)P). The B(a)P TEQ is calculated by multiplying the concentration of each carcinogenic PAH by its B(a)P TEF, and summing these products (Benzo(a)anthracene ‐ 0.1, Benzo(a)pyrene ‐ 1, Benzo(b+j)fluoranthene ‐ 0.1, Benzo(k)fluoranthene ‐ 0.1, Benzo(g,h,i)perylene ‐ 0.01, Chrysene ‐ 0.01, Dibenz(a,h)anthracene ‐ 1 and Ideno(1,2,3‐c,d)pyrene ‐ 0.1). 7 HSL B Values for Clay Soils 0 ‐ <1m ‐ Fine Soils (NEPM 2013) 8 Soil Specific added contaminant limits for aged chromium III in soil (≥10% clay content)Surplus Site Clean‐Up Validation Program

5.3 Waste Classification Criteria

Based on DECC (2014), soils requiring offsite disposal must be classified as either general solid waste, restricted solid waste, hazardous waste or special waste (for instance where asbestos is present). The waste criteria for the chemicals of concern tested as part of this sampling program are presented in Tables 5.4 and 5.5.

Table 5.4 | Waste Classification Criteria without TCLP

Maximum Values of Total Concentrations for Classification Without TCLP Analytes General Solid Waste Restricted Solid Waste Total Concentrations Total Concentrations

Arsenic 100 400 Cadmium 20 80 Chromium (VI) 100 400 Nickel NA NA Lead 100 400 Mercury (inorganic) 4 16

C6‐C9 Petroleum Hydrocarbons NA NA

C10‐C36 Petroleum Hydrocarbons NA NA Benzene 10 40 Toluene 288 1152

Rev 1 page 13 Surplus Site Clean‐Up Validation Report Boral Bringelly | Greendale Road, Bringelly, NSW (Lot 101 DP 1203966)

Maximum Values of Total Concentrations for Classification Without TCLP Analytes General Solid Waste Restricted Solid Waste Total Concentrations Total Concentrations Ethylbenzene 600 2400 Xylenes 1000 4000 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.8 3.2 Total PAHs NA NA Endosulfan 60 240 PCBs NA NA Notes: 1) Totals are expressed as mg/kg on a dry weight basis 2) NA = No established criteria

Rev 1 page 14 Surplus Site Clean‐Up Validation Report Boral Bringelly | Greendale Road, Bringelly, NSW (Lot 101 DP 1203966)

Table 5.5 | Waste Classification Criteria with TCLP

Maximum Values of Total Concentrations for Classification With TCLP

Analytes General Solid Waste Restricted Solid Waste Total Concentrations Total Concentrations

TCLP Total TCLP Total

Arsenic 5 500 20 2000 Cadmium 1 100 4 400 Chromium (VI) 5 1900 20 7600 Nickel 2 1050 8 4200 Lead 5 1500 20 6000 Mercury (inorganic) 0.5 50 0.8 200

C6‐C9 Petroleum Hydrocarbons NA 650 NA 2600

C10‐C36 Petroleum Hydrocarbons NA 10000 NA 40000 Benzene 0.5 18 2 72 Toluene 14.4 518 57.6 2073 Ethylbenzene 30 1080 120 4320 Xylenes 50 1800 2000 7200 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.04 10 0.16 23 Total PAHs NA 200 NA 800 Endosulfan 3 108 12 432 PCBs NA 200 NA 800

Notes: 1) Totals are expressed as mg/kg on a dry weight basis, TCLP as mg/L 2) NA = No established criteria

Rev 1 page 15 Surplus Site Clean‐Up Validation Report Boral Bringelly | Greendale Road, Bringelly, NSW (Lot 101 DP 1203966)

6 Quality Assurance/Quality Control

To assess the usability of the data prior to making decisions, the data will be required to be assessed against pre‐determined Data Quality Indicators (DQIs) for completeness, comparability, representativeness, precision and accuracy (Table 6.1).

Table 6.1 | Data Quality Objective Criteria

Data Quality Objective Evaluation Criteria

Documentation and Data Completeness

To ensure sufficient site information and  Site conditions appropriately described data is generated during the investigation  Investigation area appropriately described  Understanding of site history and chemicals of potential concern identified  Sampling locations appropriately described and accurately located  Samples analysed for correct chemicals of potential concern  Accurate completion of field records, calibration records, chain of custody forms, laboratory sample receipt and test certificates from NATA registered laboratories  Identification if key receptors

Data Comparability

The confidence at which one data may  Adherence to appropriate sampling methodology and be compared with another. Achieved sample storage and preservation through maintaining a level of consistency in sample collection  Selection of NATA certified laboratory operating under techniques as detailed in the TIG NEPM analytical procedures Monitoring Procedures as well as  Inter‐laboratory duplicate samples ensuring analysing laboratories maintain consistent analytical techniques and  Intra‐laboratory duplicate samples methods of reporting.

Data Representativeness

Degree at which sample data accurately  Collection of representative samples from each and precisely represents a characteristic sampling location of a population or an environmental condition.

Rev 1 page 16 Surplus Site Clean‐Up Validation Report Boral Bringelly | Greendale Road, Bringelly, NSW (Lot 101 DP 1203966)

Data Quality Objective Evaluation Criteria

Precision

A measure of the reproducibility of  Use of appropriately trained and qualified field measurements under a given set of personnel conditions assessed by calculating the Relative Percent Difference (RPD) of  Assessment of the field and laboratory duplicate RPDs duplicate samples. This is a measure of the reliability, unreliability or qualitative value of the data.

Accuracy

A measure of the bias in a measurement  Assessment of the laboratory QC analytical results system, assessed by reference to the analytical results of laboratory control  Collection and analysis of trip blanks, trip spikes and samples, laboratory surrogate and equipment rinsate blanks matrix spikes and analyses against reference standards.

The pre‐determined Data Quality Indicators (DQIs) established for the investigation are shown in Table 6.2.

Table 6.2 | Summary of Transpacific Data Quality Indicators

Data Quality Indicator Frequency TPI Data Quality Indicator

Precision

Blind duplicates (intra laboratory) 1/10 samples <50% RPD1 Split duplicates (inter laboratory) 1/20 samples <50% RPD1 Laboratory duplicate analyses 1 per lab batch <10 x LOR RPD Range No Limit1 10 to 20 x LOR RPD Range 0 – 50%1 <20 x LOR RPD Range 0 – 20%1

Accuracy

Surrogate spikes all organic samples 70‐130%2 Laboratory control spikes 1 per lab batch 70‐130%2 Matrix spikes 1 per lab batch 70‐130%2

Representativeness

Sampling appropriate for media and All samples Transpacific Industries Group procedures analytes Samples extracted and analysed within All samples pH (7 days), organics (14 days, TPH in holding times. water 7 days), inorganics (6 months)

Rev 1 page 17 Surplus Site Clean‐Up Validation Report Boral Bringelly | Greendale Road, Bringelly, NSW (Lot 101 DP 1203966)

Data Quality Indicator Frequency TPI Data Quality Indicator Rinsate Samples 1 per lab batch

Comparability

Standard operating procedures for All Samples All samples sample collection & handling Standard analytical methods used for all All Samples All samples analyses Consistent field conditions, sampling All Samples All samples staff and laboratory analysis Limits of reporting appropriate and All Samples All samples consistent

Completeness

Soil and groundwater description and All Samples All samples COCs completed and appropriate Appropriate documentation All Samples All samples Satisfactory frequency and result for QC All QA/QC samples n/a samples (blind and split duplicates, surrogate spikes, matrix spikes and LCS) Data from critical samples is considered n/a Critical samples valid valid 1 If the RPD between duplicates is greater than that of the pre‐determined data quality indicator, a judgement will be made to ascertain whether the exceedance is critical in relation to the validation of the data set or unacceptable sampling error has occurred in the field. 2 The range specified is the TPI DQI criteria, it is noted that the laboratory control and spike samples vary according to the analyte.

6.1 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Results

QA/QC results for soil are summarised in Table 6.3 and discussed later in this section. Detailed QA/QC results are included the laboratory reports in Appendix D.

Rev 1 page 18 Surplus Site Clean‐Up Validation Report Boral Bringelly | Greendale Road, Bringelly, NSW (Lot 101 DP 1203966)

Table 6.3 | QA/QC Results Summary

Data Quality Indicator Results DQI met?

Precision

Blind duplicates (intra laboratory) 0 – 110% Partial1 Split duplicates (inter laboratory) 0 – 50% Yes Laboratory duplicate analyses 0 – 76.4% Partial1

Accuracy

Surrogate spikes 39.2 – 129% Partial1 Matrix spikes 33.9 – 142% Partial1 Laboratory Control Sample 39.8 – 141% Partial1

Representativeness

Rinsate (5 June 2015)

Rinsate (16 June 2015)

Rinsate (29 June 2015)

Rinsate (2 July 2015)

Rinsate (15 July 2015)

Rinsate (29 July 2015)

Rinsate (29 July 2015) NA Partial1

Trip Spike (5 June 2015) 75 – 80% Yes

Trip Blank (5 June 2015)

Trip Spike (16 June 2015) 70 – 78% Yes

Trip Blank (16 June 2015)

Trip Spike (29 June 2015) 75 – 80% Yes

Trip Blank (29 June 2015)

Trip Spike (2 July 2015) 65 – 70% Partial1

Trip Blank (2 July 2015)

Trip Spike (15 July 2015) 75 – 80% Yes

Trip Blank (15 July 2015)

Rev 1 page 19 Surplus Site Clean‐Up Validation Report Boral Bringelly | Greendale Road, Bringelly, NSW (Lot 101 DP 1203966)

Data Quality Indicator Results DQI met?

Trip Spike (29 July 2015) NA Partial1

Trip Blank (29 July 2015) NA Partial1

Trip Spike (10 August 2015) NA Partial1

Trip Blank (10 August 2015) NA Partial1 Sampling appropriate for media and analytes Appropriate sampling for media and analytes Yes Samples extracted and analysed within All primary samples extracted and analysed Partial1 holding times within 14 days

Comparability

Standard operating procedures used for Standard procedures for all sampling Yes sample collection and handling Standard analytical methods used Standard analytical methods used. Yes Consistent field conditions, sampling staff and The primary lab remained consistent throughout Yes laboratory analysis the investigation. Sampling was conducted by field staff using the same operating procedures in the same conditions throughout the works. Limits of reporting appropriate and consistent LORs appropriate and generally consistent Yes

Completeness

Drilling logs, water quality parameters and All borehole logs, COCs and field documentation Yes COCs completed and appropriate complete Appropriate documentation All appropriate field documentation is included in Yes the Appendices. Satisfactory frequency and result for QC The QC results are considered adequate for the Yes samples (blind and split duplicates, surrogate purposes of the investigation. spikes, matrix spikes and LCS) Data from critical samples is considered valid Data from all critical samples is considered valid Yes 1 See discussion of DQI exceedances below.

6.1.1 Precision

6.1.1.1 Field Duplicates

Inter‐laboratory and intra‐laboratory duplicate samples compared to their primary samples with RPDs of <30‐50%, as per DQIs (Table 6.5), with the following exceptions summarised below.

 Zinc in soil sample V40 (126mg/kg) and its duplicate sample QC11 (68mg/kg) with an RPD of 60%;

Rev 1 page 20 Surplus Site Clean‐Up Validation Report Boral Bringelly | Greendale Road, Bringelly, NSW (Lot 101 DP 1203966)

 Copper in soil sample V41 (20mg/kg) and its duplicate sample QC12 (39mg/kg) with an RPD of 64%;  Lead in soil sample V55 (13mg/kg) and its duplicate sample QC14 (22mg/kg) with an RPD of 51%;  Lead in soil sample V56 (44mg/kg) and its duplicate sample QC15 (22mg/kg) with an RPD of 67%;  Lead in soil sample V57 (18mg/kg) and its duplicate sample QC16 (62mg/kg) with an RPD of 110%; and  Zinc in soil sample V57 (75mg/kg) and its duplicate sample QC16 (240mg/kg) with an RPD of 105%.

The elevated RPDs are attributed to the heterogeneous nature of the material. Across the analytical results, there is generally a good correlation between the primary, duplicate and triplicate samples. This indicates that there is no significant error being introduced by sampling technique or laboratory methods and the soil analytical data is considered to be of an acceptable quality to achieve the objectives of the investigation.

6.1.1.2 Laboratory Duplicates

All laboratory duplicates for soil samples were below the adopted DQI criteria with the exception of:

 Iron in laboratory sample ID ES12541117‐032 (75,900mg/kg) and its duplicate sample (57,700mg/kg) with an RPD of 25.5% exceeding the LOR based limits (0% ‐ 20%);  Copper in laboratory sample ID ES1524044‐001 (580mg/kg) and its duplicate sample (357mg/kg) with an RPD of 47.6% exceeding the LOR based limits (0% ‐ 20%); and  Nickel in laboratory sample ID ES1524019‐040 (30mg/kg) and its duplicate sample (66mg/kg) with an RPD of 76.4% exceeding the LOR based limits (0% ‐ 20%).

Given there is generally a good correlation between the laboratory duplicates and concentrations of each respective heavy metal were reported below the nominated site assessment criteria, with the exception of nickel at one sampling location during the current investigation, it is considered that there is no significant error being introduced by laboratory methods, the soil analytical data is considered to be of an acceptable quality to achieve the objectives of the investigation.

6.1.2 Accuracy

6.1.2.1 Surrogate Spikes

The frequency of surrogate spike sample analyses was considered to be acceptable. Surrogate spike recoveries were generally within the adopted DQI criteria (70 ‐ 130%) with the exception of some constituent Phenolic, PCB, OCPs and OPPs, although exceeding the Transpacific DQI’s, remained within the laboratory’s acceptance limits (NEPM 2013 Schedule B and ALS QCs3 criteria).

As such, data is considered to be of an acceptable quality to achieve the objectives of the investigation.

6.1.2.2 Matrix Spikes

Rev 1 page 21 Surplus Site Clean‐Up Validation Report Boral Bringelly | Greendale Road, Bringelly, NSW (Lot 101 DP 1203966)

The frequency of matrix spike sample analyses was considered to be acceptable. Matrix spike recoveries were generally within the adopted DQI criteria (70 ‐ 130%) with the exception of some constituent OCPs and OPPs although exceeding the Transpacific DQI’s, remained within the laboratory’s acceptance limits (NEPM 2013 Schedule B and ALS QCs3 criteria).

As such, data is considered to be of an acceptable quality to achieve the objectives of the investigation.

6.1.2.3 Laboratory Control Samples

Laboratory control sample (LCS) recoveries were generally within the adopted DQI criteria (70 ‐ 130%) with the exception of silver and constituent OCPs, although exceeding the Transpacific DQI’s, remained within the laboratories limits.

As such, data is considered to be of an acceptable quality to achieve the objectives of the investigation.

6.1.3 Representativeness

6.1.3.1 Sampling Appropriate for Media and Analytes

The sampling methods were considered appropriate for the media and the analytes targeted.

6.1.3.2 Trip Spikes

A trip spike was supplied and included with each batch of samples and submitted for analysis during the soil investigation with the exception of the samples submitted for analysis on 29 July 2015 and 10 August 2015 as the COPCs were non‐volatile in nature (OCPs, heavy metals and asbestos). The recoveries of the trip spike samples were all within the nominated acceptance criteria with the exception of the recovery for benzene and toluene which was reported slightly below (65%) the acceptable limit in laboratory batch ES1525271. Given that the volatile fraction TPH fractions and BTEX have historically not been detected during the investigation and that COPCs identified are predominantly semi volatile (OCP & PAH) or inorganic (heavy metals) in nature the data is still considered to be of an acceptable quality to achieve the objectives of the investigation.

6.1.3.3 Trip Blanks

A trip blank was provided with each batch of samples and submitted for analysis during the soil investigation with the exception of the samples submitted for analysis on 29 July 2015 and 10 August 2015 as the COPCs were non‐volatile in nature (OCPs, heavy metals and asbestos). All levels of analytes in the trip blanks were reported below detection limits.

6.1.3.4 Laboratory Blanks

A laboratory blank was analysed with each batch of samples. All levels of analytes in laboratory blanks were reported below detection limits.

Rev 1 page 22 Surplus Site Clean‐Up Validation Report Boral Bringelly | Greendale Road, Bringelly, NSW (Lot 101 DP 1203966)

6.1.3.5 Rinsate Blanks

A rinsate blank was collected daily and analysed to assess the thoroughness of decontamination procedures with the exception of samples submitted 10 August 2015. Disposable nitrile gloves were changed between sampling locations eliminating the opportunity for cross contamination . All other rinsate sample results were reported below laboratory detection limits.

6.1.4 Holding Times

All primary analyses have been extracted and analysed within holding times with the exception of PAHs in sample ID SED21V. Given that the results reported were similar in magnitude to adjacent samples collected the data is still considered to be of an acceptable quality to achieve the objectives of the investigation.

6.1.5 Comparability

The laboratories were NATA accredited for all methods. Experienced Transpacific Industries Group personnel undertook all sampling in accordance with standard Transpacific Industries Group sampling methods. All required field forms and sampling logs have been appropriately completed by sampling personnel.

6.1.6 Completeness

All documentation was completed to the required standard. Chain of custody forms are provided with laboratory documentation included as Appendix C.

6.1.7 Sensitivity

Laboratory analysis methods for all contaminants adopted during the investigation used limits of reporting significantly less than the site assessment criteria to ensure that contaminant concentrations could be confidently identified as being less than the adopted site assessment criteria.

6.1.8 QA/QC Assessment Conclusions

The results of the field and laboratory QA/QC program indicates that the data obtained from this investigation generally met the predetermined Data Quality Indicators (DQIs) or, where the DQIs were exceeded, did not generally indicate systematic sampling or analytical errors. As such the data is considered to be of adequate quality to be relied on for the purposes of assessing the environmental condition at the site.

Rev 1 page 23 Surplus Site Clean‐Up Validation Report Boral Bringelly | Greendale Road, Bringelly, NSW (Lot 101 DP 1203966)

7 Laboratory Analytical Results

Soil and sediment validation results from the investigation conducted between 26 May 2015 and 29 July 2015 are summarised in Sections 7.1 and 7.2 which follow, and are discussed in Section 8. The sample register for all samples collected is presented in Table 1. Analytical results are presented Tables 2 and 3.

All disturbed areas within the creek line were visually inspected and validated with analytical results compared against the Interim Sediment Quality Guidelines (ISQG) thresholds (ANZECC 2000) (Section 5.1). Soil samples collected from those areas adjacent to the creek line in embankments or beneath the footprint of stockpiled areas were visually inspected and validated with analytical results compared against the health based threshold concentrations for residential land use, Column B (HIL B – Residential with minimal opportunities for soil access) of Table 1A(1) and ecological screening levels (ESLs) for TPH fractions (Table 1B(6)) and management limits (MLs) for TPH fractions (Table 1B(7)) (Section 5.2).

Laboratory Certificates of Analysis, Chain of Custody documentation and Sample Receipt Advice are presented in Appendix C.

7.1 Soil

Soil analytical results for soil validation samples collected between 5 June 2015 and 29 July 2015 are summarised in Table 2. A total of 75 primary soil validation samples were collected during the current investigation. Sampling locations are presented in Figures 4 to 8. Laboratory Certificates of Analysis, Chain of Custody documentation and Sample Receipt Advice are presented in Appendix C.

Each of the SSC validation areas, designated as Area 1 to Area 6, were historically identified to either contain stockpiles of bricks (Area 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6) during a site walkover conducted 11 September 2014 or fly tipped materials, consisting of household refuse (including asbestos containing materials (ACM)) (Area 2 and 3), fencing materials and a car bodies (Area 3) identified within and adjacent to the stockpiled materials.

Following site clean‐up works reworked natural material was encountered in each clean‐up area with the exception of Area 5 where fill (consisting of bricks and brick fragments) was encountered during test pitting at the majority of sampling locations to a depth of 0.5m bgs. It is understood that an agreement was made between Boral and the purchaser of the site not to remove buried bricks from within Area 5. As they were in an area densely populated by juvenile Eucalypts. It was considered to be more prudent to not disturb the area, yet undertake a visual and chemical assessment of the buried material.

Underlying natural material generally consisted of compacted stiff plastic brown, orange clays. Surface soil samples were analysed at each location as these were considered to be the most likely horizon of contaminated material (area of concern) and indicator of deeper impacted soils. In the event that surface soils identified exceedances in criteria underlying soils would require analysis for delineation purposes.

Rev 1 page 24 Surplus Site Clean‐Up Validation Report Boral Bringelly | Greendale Road, Bringelly, NSW (Lot 101 DP 1203966)

7.1.1 Heavy Metals

Concentrations of heavy metals (Table 2) were reported below the adopted HIL B (Residential with minimal opportunities for soil access) site assessment criteria (NEPM 2013) within each of the 75 soil validation samples submitted for analysis during the current investigation.

7.1.2 TPH/ BTEX

Concentrations of TPH and BTEX (Table 2) were reported below the adopted site assessment criteria (HSLs, ESLs and Management Limits) (NEPM 2013) within each of the 75 soil validation samples submitted for analysis during the current investigation.

7.1.3 PAHs

Concentrations of PAHs (Table 2) were reported below the adopted HIL B (Residential with minimal opportunities for soil access) and HSL site assessment criteria (NEPM 2013) within each of the 75 soil validation samples submitted for analysis during the current investigation.

7.1.4 OCPs/ OPPs

Concentrations of OCPs/ OPPs (Table 2) were reported below the adopted HIL B (Residential with minimal opportunities for soil access) site assessment criteria (NEPM 2013) within each of the 75 soil validation samples submitted for analysis during the current investigation.

7.1.5 PCBs

Concentrations of PCBs (Table 2) were reported below the adopted HIL B (Residential with minimal opportunities for soil access) site assessment criteria (NEPM 2013) within each of the 75 soil validation samples submitted for analysis during the current investigation.

7.1.6 Asbestos

Seventy five primary soil validation samples were analysed for asbestos during the current investigation. Based on the results of the investigation, asbestos was not detected in soil samples submitted for analysis with the exception of:

 two pieces of friable chrysotile asbestos cement sheeting (approximately 2mm x 2mm x 1mm) identified in surface soils at sample location V48 in Area 2 with the material removed via further excavation and validated at a depth of 0.8m bgs with sample V48b; and  one piece of bonded chrysotile, amosite and crocidolite asbestos cement sheeting (approximately 3mm x 2mm x 2mm) identified in surface soils at sample location V57 in Area 3 with the material removed via further excavation and validated at a depth of 0.3m bgs with sample V57.

Rev 1 page 25 Surplus Site Clean‐Up Validation Report Boral Bringelly | Greendale Road, Bringelly, NSW (Lot 101 DP 1203966)

7.2 Sediment

Sediment analytical results for sediment validation samples collected between 5 June 2015 and 29 July 2015 are summarised in Table 2. A total of 52 primary sediment validation samples were collected during the current investigation. Sampling locations and exceedances of the adopted ISQG (ANZECC 2000) assessment criteria are presented in Figures 4 to 8. Laboratory Certificates of Analysis, Chain of Custody documentation and Sample Receipt Advice are presented in Appendix C.

Sediment samples, collected from within the creek line generally consisted of clayey silts and silty clays with crushed brick inclusions. Underlying natural material generally consisted of compacted stiff plastic brown, orange clays. Several areas, in particular Areas 2 and 4 were inundated with water following a significant rainfall event on 19 June.

7.2.1 Heavy Metals

Concentrations of heavy metals (Table 3) were reported below the adopted ISQG site assessment criteria with the exception of:

 Arsenic in sample SED35 in Area 2 which was detected above the Interim Sediment Quality Guideline (ISQG) Low investigation level of 20mg/kg with a concentration of 40.0mg/kg with the material removed via further excavation and validated at a depth of 0.3m bgs (16.0mg/kg) with sample SED35V;  Lead in sample SED20 in Area 2 which was detected above the Interim Sediment Quality Guideline (ISQG) Low investigation level of 50mg/kg with a concentration of 69.9mg/kg with the material removed via further excavation and validated at a depth of 0.3m bgs (22.0mg/kg) with sample SED20V;  Lead in sample SED21 in Area 2 which was detected above the Interim Sediment Quality Guideline (ISQG) Low investigation level of 50mg/kg with a concentration of 55.9mg/kg with the material removed via further excavation and validated at a depth of 0.3m bgs (19.0mg/kg) with sample SED21V;  Lead in sample SED35 in Area 2 which was detected above the Interim Sediment Quality Guideline (ISQG) Low investigation level of 50mg/kg with a concentration of 118mg/kg and with the material removed via further excavation and validated at a depth of 1.0m bgs (7mg/kg) with sample SED35Va;  Lead in sample SED48 in Area 3 which was detected above the Interim Sediment Quality Guideline (ISQG) Low investigation level of 50mg/kg with a concentration of 99.3mg/kg with the material removed via further excavation and validated at a depth of 0.3m bgs (31.0mg/kg) with sample SED48V;  Nickel in sample SED35 in Area 2 which was detected above the Interim Sediment Quality Guideline (ISQG) Low investigation level of 21mg/kg with a concentration of 39.9mg/kg with the material removed via further excavation and validated at a depth of 1.0m bgs (11mg/kg) with sample SED35Va;

Rev 1 page 26 Surplus Site Clean‐Up Validation Report Boral Bringelly | Greendale Road, Bringelly, NSW (Lot 101 DP 1203966)

 Zinc in sample SED16 in Area 1 which was detected above the Interim Sediment Quality Guideline (ISQG) High investigation level of 410mg/kg with a concentration of 1,780mg/kg with the material removed via further excavation and validated at a depth of 0.5m bgs (35mg/kg) with sample SED16Va;  Zinc in sample SED18 in Area 2 which was detected above the Interim Sediment Quality Guideline (ISQG) Low investigation level of 200mg/kg with a concentration of 220mg/ with the material removed via further excavation and validated at a depth of 0.3m bgs (35mg/kg) with sample SED18V;  Zinc in sample SED20 in Area 2 which was detected above the Interim Sediment Quality Guideline (ISQG) High investigation level of 410mg/kg with a concentration of 889mg/kg with the material removed via further excavation and validated at a depth of 0.5m bgs (83mg/kg) with sample SED20Va;  Zinc in sample SED21 in Area 2 which was detected above the Interim Sediment Quality Guideline (ISQG) High investigation level of 410mg/kg with a concentration of 1,340mg/kg with the material removed via further excavation and validated at a depth of 0.3m bgs (102mg/kg) with sample SED21V;  Zinc in sample SED35 in Area 2 which was detected above the Interim Sediment Quality Guideline (ISQG) High investigation level of 410mg/kg with a concentration of 719mg/kg with the material removed via further excavation and validated at a depth of 1.0m bgs (39mg/kg) with sample SED35Va;  Zinc in sample SED38 in Area 2 which was detected above the Interim Sediment Quality Guideline (ISQG) Low investigation level of 200mg/kg with a concentration of 202mg/kg with the material removed via further excavation and validated at a depth of 0.3m bgs (154mg/kg) with sample SED38V;  Zinc in sample SED50 in Area 2 which was detected slightly above but of similar magnitude to the Interim Sediment Quality Guideline (ISQG) Low investigation level of 200mg/kg with a concentration of 207mg/kg; and  Mercury in sample SED40 in Area 2 which was detected above the Interim Sediment Quality Guideline (ISQG) Low investigation level of 0.15mg/kg with a concentration of 0.26mg/kg with the material removed via further excavation and validated at a depth of 0.3m bgs (<0.01mg/kg) with sample SED40V.

7.2.2 UT PAHs

Concentrations of PAHs (Table 3) were reported below the adopted ISQG site assessment criteria with the exception of:

 Acenaphthene in sample SED20 in Area 2 which was detected above the Interim Sediment Quality Guideline (ISQG) Low investigation level of 16µg/kg with a concentration of 68µg/kg with the material removed via further excavation and validated at a depth of 0.3m bgs (11µg/kg) with sample SED20V;

Rev 1 page 27 Surplus Site Clean‐Up Validation Report Boral Bringelly | Greendale Road, Bringelly, NSW (Lot 101 DP 1203966)

 Acenaphthene in sample SED21 in Area 2 which was detected above the Interim Sediment Quality Guideline (ISQG) Low investigation level of 16µg/kg with a concentration of 51µg/kg with the material removed via further excavation and validated at a depth of 0.3m bgs (<4µg/kg) with sample SED21V;  Fluorene in sample SED20 in Area 2 which was detected above the Interim Sediment Quality Guideline (ISQG) Low investigation level of 19µg/kg with a concentration of 31µg/kg with the material removed via further excavation and validated at a depth of 0.3m bgs (8µg/kg) with sample SED20V;  Fluorene in sample SED21 in Area 2 which was detected above the Interim Sediment Quality Guideline (ISQG) Low investigation level of 19µg/kg with a concentration of 26µg/ with the material removed via further excavation and validated at a depth of 0.3m bgs (<4µg/kg) with sample SED21V; and  Phenanthrene in sample SED21 in Area 2 which was detected above the Interim Sediment Quality Guideline (ISQG) Low investigation level of 240µg/kg with a concentration of 343µg/kg with the material removed via further excavation and validated at a depth of 0.3m bgs (9µg/kg) with sample SED21V.

7.2.3 UT OCP/OPP

Concentrations of UT OCPs and OPPs ((Table 3) were reported below the adopted ISQG site assessment criteria with the exception of:

 DDT in sample SED20 in Area 2 which was detected above the Interim Sediment Quality Guideline (ISQG) Low investigation level of 1.6µg/kg with a concentration of 12.7µg/kg with the material removed via further excavation and validated at a depth of 0.3m bgs (<0.5µg/kg) with sample SED20V;  Chlordane in sample SED35 in Area 2 which was detected above the Interim Sediment Quality Guideline (ISQG) Low investigation level of 0.5µg/kg with a concentration of 5.77µg/kg with the material removed via further excavation and validated at a depth of 1.0m bgs (<0.25µg/kg) with sample SED35Va;  Chlordane in sample SED37 in Area 2 which was detected above the Interim Sediment Quality Guideline (ISQG) Low investigation level of 0.5µg/kg with a concentration of 0.68µg/kg with the material removed via further excavation and validated at a depth of 0.5m bgs (<0.25µg/kg) with sample SED37V;  Dieldrin in sample SED21 in Area 2 which was detected above the Interim Sediment Quality Guideline (ISQG) Low investigation level of 0.02µg/kg with a concentration of 4.12µg/kg with the material removed via further excavation and validated at a depth of.3m bgs (<0.5µg/kg) with sample SED21V;  Dieldrin in sample SED35 in Area 2 which was detected above the Interim Sediment Quality Guideline (ISQG) Low investigation level of 0.02µg/kg with a concentration of 6.09µg/kg with the material removed via further excavation and validated at a depth of 1.0m bgs (<0.5µg/kg) with sample SED35Va;

Rev 1 page 28 Surplus Site Clean‐Up Validation Report Boral Bringelly | Greendale Road, Bringelly, NSW (Lot 101 DP 1203966)

 Dieldrin in sample SED37 in Area 2 which was detected above the Interim Sediment Quality Guideline (ISQG) Low investigation level of 0.02µg/kg with a concentration of 1.06µg/kg with the material removed via further excavation and validated at a depth of 0.5m bgs (<0.5µg/kg) with sample SED37Va;  Dieldrin in sample SED38 in Area 2 which was detected above the Interim Sediment Quality Guideline (ISQG) Low investigation level of 0.02µg/kg with a concentration of 1.49µg/kg at a depth of 0.1m bgs and 4.72µg/kg a depth of 0.5m bgs;  Dieldrin in sample SED39 in Area 2 which was detected above the Interim Sediment Quality Guideline (ISQG) High investigation level of 8µg/kg with a concentration of 11µg/kg with the material removed via further excavation and validated at a depth of 0.3m bgs (<0.5µg/kg) with sample SED39V;  Dieldrin in sample SED40 in Area 2 which was detected above the Interim Sediment Quality Guideline (ISQG) Low investigation level of 0.02µg/kg with a concentration of 0.62µg/kg with the material removed via further excavation and validated at a depth of 0.3m bgs (<0.5µg/kg) with sample SED40V; and  Dieldrin in sample SED41 in Area 2 which was detected above the Interim Sediment Quality Guideline (ISQG) Low investigation level of 0.02µg/kg with a concentration of 2.27µg/kg with the material removed via further excavation and validated at a depth of 0.3m bgs (<0.5µg/kg) with sample SED41V.

7.2.4 UT PCBs

Concentrations of UT PCBs (Table 3) were reported below the laboratory LOR in each of the 52 sediment validation samples submitted for analysis with the exception of sample SED19 which exceeded the . (ISQG) Low investigation level of 23µg/kg with a concentration of 37.5µg/kg.

Calculation of the 95% upper confidence limit (UCL) of the arithmetic mean concentration of PCBs was undertaken using the available data at the time. Based on the results of the calculation (Attachment H), PCB concentrations have been confirmed to be below the ISQG Low criteria of 23µg/kg with concentrations of 8.138µg/kg (using 95% Students‐t UCL) and 8.331µg/kg (using 95% Modified –t UCL). Therefore based on the results of the 95% UCL calculation the sediment in the vicinity of hotspot SED19 is considered suitable for remain in‐situ on site.

7.2.5 Asbestos

Twenty one sediment validation samples were analysed for asbestos during the current investigation. Based on the results of the investigation, asbestos was not detected in sediment samples submitted for analysis with the exception of one piece of friable chrysotile asbestos cement sheeting (approximately 5mm x 5mm x 2mm) identified in surface soils at sample location SED35 in Area 2 with the material removed via further excavation and validated at a depth of 1.0m bgs with sample SED35V.

Rev 1 page 29 Surplus Site Clean‐Up Validation Report Boral Bringelly | Greendale Road, Bringelly, NSW (Lot 101 DP 1203966)

7.3 Waste Classification & Disposal

Four soil stockpiles were generated during the early phases of work. Bricks and anthropogenic material were removed from the soil stockpiles and placed into appropriate waste streams for off‐site disposal or recycling where possible.

Stockpile SP1 was generated from spoil excavated from Areas 1 and 4 and was approximately 45m3 in volume and was classified as general solid waste (GSW) (non‐putrescible). Stockpiles SP2, SP3 and SP4 were generated from Areas 2 and 3. Each stockpile was approximately 15m3 in volume. Each of the stockpiles were classified as GSW (Special Waste – Asbestos Soils) (non‐putrescible) with the exception of SP2 which was initially classified as Hazardous (Special Waste – Asbestos Soils) (non‐putrescible) due to lead concentrations. Subsequent TCLP analysis of lead for each of the three samples collected from SP2 confirmed that the leachable concentrations of the material did not exceed the general solid waste classification therefore the material was considered suitable for disposal at a facility licensed to accept GSW (Special Waste – Asbestos Soils) (non‐putrescible).

The remaining waste classifications were based on in‐situ analytical results to facilitate chase out of impacted soils and sediments. All soils and sediments in‐situ were classified as GSW (Special Waste – Asbestos Soils) (non‐putrescible). Waste classification reports are provided in Appendix E.

Waste disposal documentation is provided in Appendix F. Based on the disposal documentation, the following waste streams and volumes were removed during the current SSC validation works:

 General Solid Waste (Special Waste – Asbestos Soils) (non‐putrescible) – 563.12 tonnes;  Bricks – 1,403.35 tonnes;  Metal – 14.8 tonnes, inclusive of two car bodies;  Tyres – 64 units; and  Dry Commercial/ Special Asbestos Waste ‐ .9.86 tonnes.

Rev 1 page 30 Surplus Site Clean‐Up Validation Report Boral Bringelly | Greendale Road, Bringelly, NSW (Lot 101 DP 1203966)

8 Discussion of Analytical Results 8.1 Soil

Based on the results of the investigation, concentrations of COPCs (TPH, BTEX, PAHs, OCP, OPP, PCB and heavy metals), were reported below the adopted HIL‐B Residential site validation criteria in all soil samples collected form within the creek bank and surrounding SSC areas with the exception of asbestos identified at locations V48 and V57. Sampling location V48 was situated within Area 2, whilst location V57 was situated within Area 3. Both samples were collected from surface soils in areas where asbestos sheeting was identified during SSC works. Further excavation was undertaken to vertically delineate and remove impacted soils.

Sampling location V48 was validated at a depth of 0.8m bgs (V48b). Further as traces or crushed brick and anthropogenic material were observed in the walls of the hotspot during chase samples were collected from each of the excavation walls to the south, east and west with analytical results confirming the absence of ACM, indicating that the identified asbestos hotspot has been removed and the area appropriately validated. It is noted that the hotspot had been delineated to the north with asbestos was not detected in the sediment validation sample SED38. Excavation extents were also visually validated noting the absence of ACM.

Sampling location V57 was excavated to 0.3m bgs (V57 collected 15/7/15) with analytical results confirming the absence of ACM, indicating that the identified asbestos hotspot has been removed and the area appropriately validated.

It is understood that an agreement was made between Boral and the purchaser of the site not to remove buried bricks from within Area 5. Area 5 was observed to contain buried bricks in an area densely populated by juvenile Eucalypts. It was considered to be more prudent to not disturb the area, yet undertake a visual and chemical assessment of the buried material. Bricks were observed buried in near surface soils to depths of 0.3 to 0.5m bgs. Test pit logs are provided in Appendix A. No exceedances of the HIL‐B, ESL, ML or HSL criteria were identified during the test pit investigation works undertaken in Area 5. No asbestos containing material was observed in test pit spoil or identified in soil samples submitted for analysis.

A final walkover was undertaken by a suitably qualified hygienist. A clearance certificate is provided in Appendix G.

8.2 Sediments

Exceedances of the ISQG criteria were predominantly identified in areas not related to buried bricks but where fly tipped anthropogenic wastes were identified or related to the historical agricultural land use setting with the majority of exceedances identified in Area 2. Given that bricks are relatively inert in nature COPCs were predominantly reported below the laboratory LOR in areas containing only buried bricks.

Heavy metal exceedances as arsenic, cadmium, lead, nickel and particularly zinc, constituent PAHs as well as pesticides (chlordane and dieldrin) were identified predominantly in Area 2 Parts 1 and 2 (refer Figures

Rev 1 page 31 Surplus Site Clean‐Up Validation Report Boral Bringelly | Greendale Road, Bringelly, NSW (Lot 101 DP 1203966)

4a and 4b). Additionally, PCBs were identified above the ISQG High criteria at one location (SED19) in area 2 Part 1. Asbestos fibres were identified in surface soils at one sediment sampling location in Area 2 where asbestos sheeting was removed during the SSC works.

Instances where organic exceedances were identified were confined to areas inundated with water following a significant rainfall event (29mm) on 19 June. It is assumed that given that the creek line is situated in a low lying area with respect to surrounding topography that significant periods of inclement weather would preferentially drain to this area with the identified contamination likely to have migrated from within the locality.

With the exception of the PCB exceedance (SED19 at a depth of 0.1m bgs), dieldrin (SED38Va at a depth of 0.5m bgs) and zinc (SED50 at a depth of 0.1m bgs) chase out samples reported concentrations below the adopted ISQG criteria indicating that each respective hotspot had been removed and the area appropriately validated.

To assess the suitability of the PCB exceedance to remain in‐situ, calculation of the 95% upper confidence limit (UCL) of the arithmetic mean concentration of PCBs was undertaken using the available data at the time. Based on the results of the calculation of the 95% UCL of the arithmetic mean (Attachment H), PCB concentrations have been confirmed to be below the ISQG Low criteria of 23µg/kg with concentrations of 8.138µg/kg (using 95% Students‐t UCL) and 8.331µg/kg (using 95% Modified –t UCL). Therefore based on the results of the 95% UCL calculation the sediment in the vicinity of hotspot SED19 is considered suitable for remain in‐situ on site.

Dieldrin was not validated at sample location SED38 in area 2 Part 2. The hotspot was historically excavated to 0.5m bgs, however remained above the ISQG Low criteria. Given that the creek itself flows into a dam used by the quarry and creek flow would be ephemeral only during prolonged rainfall events and would be a sustainable habitat to aquatic organisms and the concentration is several orders of magnitude below the HIL‐B Residential criteria specified in the NEPM, the hotspot was not considered to pose a significant risk if left in‐situ in this instance. The area has since been backfilled reducing the exposure risk.

Zinc was not validated at sample location SED50 in Area 3. The concentration of zinc (207mg/kg) was slightly above, but of the same magnitude as the ISQG criteria (200mg/kg). As such, the hotspot was not considered to pose a significant risk if left in‐situ in this instance.

Rev 1 page 32 Surplus Site Clean‐Up Validation Report Boral Bringelly | Greendale Road, Bringelly, NSW (Lot 101 DP 1203966)

9 Conclusions

Each of the areas, designated as Area 1 to Area 6, were identified to either contain stockpiles of bricks during a site walkover conducted 11 September 2014 or fly tipped materials, consisting of household refuse (including asbestos containing materials (ACM)), fencing materials and two car bodies identified within and adjacent to the stockpiled materials.

Based on the results of the SSC validation works undertaken between May 2015 and August 2015 and subject to the limitations in Section 10, each of the six SSC areas were appropriately validated in accordance with the adopted site assessment criteria with the exception of one dieldrin hotspot location that exceeded the ISQG Low assessment criteria but was significantly below the HIL‐B Residential assessment criteria. The remaining hotspot location is localised in nature and not considered to pose a significant risk to human health given that the concentration is several magnitudes lower than the HIL‐B Residential assessment criteria. The area has since been backfilled reducing the exposure risk.

To this end, each of the six SSC areas are considered to have been suitably validated such that they would not preclude the proposed Residential (with minimal access to soils) use.

Rev 1 page 33 Surplus Site Clean‐Up Validation Report Boral Bringelly | Greendale Road, Bringelly, NSW (Lot 101 DP 1203966)

10 Limitations

This report with respect to the land at Lot 101 DP1203966 (‘Boral Site’) has been prepared for use by Boral Limited who commissioned the works in accordance with the project specification and has been based in part on information obtained from other parties. The advice provided herein relates solely to this project and all results conclusions and recommendations made for the Boral Site should be reviewed by a suitably qualified person with experience in environmental investigations, before being used for any other purpose.

Transpacific Industrial Solutions Pty Ltd accepts no liability for use or interpretation by any person or body other than Boral Limited and any prospective purchaser of the Boral Site from Boral Limited provided that each prospective purchaser seeking to rely on this report provided by Transpacific Industrial Solutions Pty Ltd (‘Transpacific’) has executed the Reliance Letter in the form as attached to this Limitation document. Reproduction of part or all of this report should not be conducted without prior approval by Boral Limited, or amended in any way without prior approval by Transpacific, and should not be relied upon by other parties, who should make their own enquires.

Sampling and chemical analysis of environmental media is based on appropriate guidance documents made and approved by the relevant regulatory authorities. Any conclusions arising from the review and assessment of environmental data are based on the sampling and analysis considered appropriate based on the regulatory requirements, guidelines and site history provided by the client, not on sampling and analysis of all media at all locations for all potential contaminants.

Limited sampling and laboratory analyses were undertaken as part of the investigations, as described herein. Ground and subsurface conditions between sampling locations may vary in response to natural conditions, chemical reactions, spills of contaminated substances or placement of fill material, and this should be considered when extrapolating between sampling points. Chemical analytes are based on the information detailed in the site history. Further chemicals or categories of chemicals may exist at the site, which were not identified in the site history and which may not be expected at the site. The conclusions and recommendations reached in this report are based on the information obtained at the time of the investigations.

This report does not provide a complete assessment of the environmental status of the site, and it is limited to the scope defined herein. Should information become available regarding conditions at the site including previously unknown sources of contamination, Transpacific reserves the right to review the report in the context of the additional information.

Rev 1 page 34 Surplus Site Clean‐Up Validation Report Boral Bringelly | Greendale Road, Bringelly, NSW (Lot 101 DP 1203966)

RELIANCE LETTER

[insert date]

[name of prospective purchaser from Boral Limited]

(the Addressee)

Dear Sirs

Environmental site assessment report (Reliance Letter)

1 Introduction

1.1 Transpacific Industrial Solutions Pty Ltd has prepared the environmental site assessment report dated 20 August 2015 (Report) for the land owned by Boral Limited (the Principal) identified as Lot 101 DP1203966 (Boral Site), The Principal plans to sell the Boral Site and the Addressee is a prospective purchaser of the Boral Site (Proposed Transaction). Where used in this letter and the Report, references to ‘we’, ‘us’ or ‘our’ means Transpacific Industrial Solutions Pty Ltd.

1.2 The Report is now provided to the Addressee in relation to the Proposed Transaction on a reliance basis in accordancee with th terms set out in this letter. Additionally, the assumptions, qualifications, scope and other limitations set out in the Report are deemed to be incorporated by reference into this letter and form part of the terms and conditions agreed with the Addressee.

1.3 The Addressee acknowledges and agrees that its ability to rely on the Report is subject to and conditional on its execution of a copy of this Letter.

1.4 No other party may rely on the Report without our express written consent.

2 Use of Report and reliance on Report

2.1 As a condition of our consent to rely on the Report, the Addressee agrees:

(a) it is not our client with respect to the Proposed Transaction or any proposed financing of the Proposed Transaction;

(b) the Report has been prepared on the instructions of the Principal and is for the use and benefit of the Principal on the terms set out in the Report;

(c) we have not had regard to any special or particular interests of any persons (including the Addressee) in undertaking our enquiries or setting out our findings in the Report;

(d) we do not owe the Addressee a duty of care or have any other liability to the Addressee in respect of the preparation or disclosure of the Report;

(e) our consent will in no event be deemed to imply any professional advice or recommendation by us with respect to the appropriateness of any reliance on the Report by the Addressee;

Rev 1 page 35 Surplus Site Clean‐Up Validation Report Boral Bringelly | Greendale Road, Bringelly, NSW (Lot 101 DP 1203966)

(f) we have not advised the Addressee as to whether or to what extent it may be prudent to rely on the Report in lieu of any due diligence review to be undertaken by it, or at its direction, in connection with the Proposed Transaction;

(g) we do not comment on the commercial viability of the Proposed Transaction and neither the provision of the Report or this letter to the Addressee, nor anything contained in the Report or this letter, will be construed by the Addressee as the provision of any professional advice or opinion or as an inducement or recommendation to proceed or not to proceed with the Proposed Transaction;

(h) the Report is based on the face value of information provided by or on behalf of the Principal or third party sources and we have not verified the validity, completeness or accuracy of such information;

(i) except for the information contained in the Report, the Addressee may not rely on any information provided by us without our prior written consent (which we may withhold in our absolute discretion);

(j) we do not assume any responsibility or liability to the Addressee:

(i) which is additional to or greater than that which we already have to the Principal; or

(ii) for use of the Report for a purpose which is other than that for which it was prepared;

(k) the Report has not been and will not be updated to take into account any events, facts or circumstances coming to our attention after the date of the Report. In addition, the Report has not been and will not be updated to reflect any additional work or procedures that we may carry out after the date of the Report; and

(l) this letter sets out the full extent of our obligations and liabilities arising out of or in connection with this letter and the Report and there are no conditions, warranties, representations or terms, express or implied, that are binding on us except as specifically stated in this letter.

2.2 The Addressee expressly acknowledges that while it has an interest in the content of the Report, it has retained its own advisers to advise on the contents of the Report and to negotiate the documentation relating to the Proposed Transaction and that:

(a) we have not and will not advise the Addressee in relation to the Proposed Transaction and have not and will not take instructions from the Addressee in relation to the Report or the Proposed Transaction; and

(b) the professional advisers engaged by the Addressee will review the Report and advise the Addressee as to all matters which might influence, or be dealt with in, any documentation in relation to the Proposed Transaction.

3 Non‐disclosure

3.1 The Addressee agrees:

(a) it will not replicate, reproduce, publish, refer to or quote from the whole or any part of the Report without our prior written consent (which we may withhold in our absolute discretion);

Rev 1 page 36 Surplus Site Clean‐Up Validation Report Boral Bringelly | Greendale Road, Bringelly, NSW (Lot 101 DP 1203966)

(b) it will only provide the Report to those of its directors, officers, employees and professional advisers in relation to the Proposed Transaction who reasonably require it in connection with the Proposed Transaction (Specified Persons);

(c) except as specified in clause 3.1(b), it will not disclose the Report to any other party without our prior written consent (which we may withhold in our absolute discretion) unless:

(i) disclosure is required by law; or

(ii) disclosure is required for regulatory or audit purposes;

(d) upon request by us it will immediately:

(i) return to us all copies of the Report; and

(ii) destroy all notes and other materials (whether in documentary, electronic or other form) which contain information based on or derived from the Report except for legal advice containing information based on the Report, notes or other materials that are required to be retained pursuant to any applicable laws, rules, regulations or compliance procedures, or which have been electronically archived and expunging such information would impose an undue burden on the Addressee; and

(e) it will procure (prior to providing a Specified Person with a copy of the Report) that the Specified Person understands and accepts the terms and conditions set out in this letter as if such Specified Person had entered into and signed this letter as an Addressee, except that Specified Persons are not entitled to disclose copies of the Report to any other person. The Addressee assumes responsibility for any breach by a Specified Person of any of the terms set out in this letter.

3.2 We accept no liability or responsibility to any advisers of the Addressee, notwithstanding our consent that copies of the Report may be made available to them. The Addressee agrees to make it clearly understood to its advisers that we accept no liability or responsibility to them in respect of the Report and that the Report may only be used by them for the purposes specified in this letter.

4 Limitation of liability

4.1 In no event will we (or any of our directors, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, insurers or agents) (Relevant Parties) be liable for:

(a) any claim in relation to the Report to the extent that the Addressee was aware of the fact, matter, circumstances or event giving rise to such claim prior to or on completion of the Proposed Transaction; or

(b) any loss, damage, cost or expense in connection with any dishonest, deliberate or reckless misstatement, concealment or other conduct on the part of any other person.

4.2 In certain situations there may be a risk that we will be prejudiced as a result of any arrangements with other advisors to limit their liability. If the liability of any other adviser or third party is limited or excluded in any way in connection with the Proposed Transaction (a Limitation), the liability of Transpacific Industrial Solutions Pty Ltd to the Addressee for any losses, liabilities, damages, costs, charges and expenses will be limited to the amount for which we would have been liable in the absence of such Limitation.

Rev 1 page 37 Surplus Site Clean‐Up Validation Report Boral Bringelly | Greendale Road, Bringelly, NSW (Lot 101 DP 1203966)

4.3 All legal proceedings arising from or in connection with the Report must be formally commenced within two years from the date of the Report. The Addressee will be precluded from bringing any claim against the Relevant Parties under or in connection with the Report, howsoever arising, later than two years after the date of the Report (provided that this provision will not operate to extend any claims which at law would be statute barred).

4.4 In addition to any other applicable limitation of liability, our liability in connection with the Report or the Addressee's reliance on the Report is limited as follows:

(a) we will only be liable for work performed by us, but not for work performed by any other party;

(b) to the maximum extent permitted by law, we will be liable only in the case of negligence or willful misconduct in failing to prepare the Report in accordance with the scope, assumptions and qualifications set out in the Report; and

(c) our maximum aggregate liability to all recipients of this letter, arising out of or in connection with the Report, will not exceed $3 million.

4.5 The Addressee acknowledges and agrees that the limit of liability in clause 4.4 shall be our total aggregate liability to any and all addressee’s and relying parties and any other third parties collectively.

4.6 The Addressee will not be entitled to recover more than once in respect of any one matter giving rise to any claim.

4.7 The Addressee agrees to indemnify and hold us, our directors, officers, employees, agents, consultants and contractors (Indemnified Parties) harmless against all loss or damage of any kind (including damages, costs, interest, loss of profits or special loss or damage) (together, Loss) incurred by the Indemnified Parties arising out of or in connection with:

(a) any claim against an Indemnified Party by any person (including the Addressee or any Specified Person) that arises out of or in connection with the use of the Report by the Addressee or any Specified Person except to the extent of any Loss for which we have agreed to accept responsibility in accordance with this letter; and

(b) any breach of this letter by the Addressee or any Specified Person.

4.8 The Addressee must take such action as we may reasonably require to recover any amount from any party in connection with a claim or other legal proceeding made in relation to the Report or this letter.

5 General

5.1 Nothing in this letter excludes or limits our liability to the extent the liability is not permitted to be limited or excluded as a matter of law.

5.2 This letter may be signed in counterparts and all counterparts taken together constitute one document.

5.3 The Addressee is not permitted to charge, declare a trust in respect of or transfer any rights or obligations arising out of or in connection with this letter.

5.4 Where there is a conflict between the terms of this letter and those set out in the Report, the terms of this letter prevail.

Rev 1 page 38 Surplus Site Clean‐Up Validation Report Boral Bringelly | Greendale Road, Bringelly, NSW (Lot 101 DP 1203966)

6 Governing law and jurisdiction

6.1 This letter is governed by the laws of New South Wales. The courts of New South Wales have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide any suit, action or proceeding and to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with the Report or this letter and, for these purposes, the Addressee agrees to submit to the jurisdiction of the courts of New South Wales.

Please confirm your agreement to the terms of this letter by signing, dating and returning to us a copy of this letter.

Yours faithfully

Transpacific Industrial Solutions Pty Ltd

On copy letter

Acknowledgment and agreement by [name of Addressee]

In consideration for the provision to us of the Report we, [name of Addressee], acknowledge our agreement to the terms and conditions set out in this letter on which we are entitled to rely on the Report.

Dated:

Signed for an on behalf of [name of Addressee]

______(Signature of authorised person)

______(Name and Title)

Rev 1 page 39 Surplus Site Clean‐Up Validation Report Boral Bringelly | Greendale Road, Bringelly, NSW (Lot 101 DP 1203966)

Figures

Rev 1 N

SITE LOCATION

Source:Google Maps (2014) Legend Figure 1: Site Location Scale

Project No: QN 783837 Client: Boral Limited Site Boundary Project Name: Surplus Site Cleanup Plan Site Address: Lot 2 Greendale Road, Bringelly, NSW, 2556 Revision: Rev 0 Drawn By: AP GREENDALE ROAD N

Multiple brick stockpiles

Approx location of general (unverified) waste

Discarded tyres on bank of dam

LOT 101 DP 1203966

Multiple brick stockpiles

Source:Google Maps (2014) Legend Figure 2: Location of Surplus Site Cleanup Works Scale

Project No: QN 783837 Client: Boral Limited 425m Site Boundary Project Name: Surplus Site Cleanup Plan Site Address: Lot 2 Greendale Road, Bringelly, NSW, 2556 Revision: Rev 0 Drawn By: AP GREENDALE ROAD N

ISQG (High) Sample ID Analyte Conc. (mg/kg) SED16 Zinc 1,780 ISQG (High) Sample ID Analyte Conc. (mg/kg) SED16V Zinc 453 ESLs (NEPM 2013) Sample ID Analyte Conc. (mg/kg) SED16 Asbestos Amosite

Pond LOT 101 DP 1203966 SED 17 Free Water X Over Grassy Area SED 15 SED 8 X SED 10 X ISQG (High) SED 12 X Sample ID Analyte Conc. (mg/kg) X Creek SED 16 X SED16 Zinc 1,780 SED 16V Creek SED16V Zinc 453 X SED 16Va SED 14 X X X SED 13 SED 11 SED 9

Source:Google Maps (2014) Legend Figure 3: Sampling Locations And Exceedances - Area 1 Scale Project No: QN 783837 Client: Boral Limited 425m Site Boundary Project Name: Surplus Site Cleanup Plan Site Address: Lot 2 Greendale Road, Bringelly, NSW, 2556 Date: May 2015 - August 2015 Revision: Rev 0 Drawn By: AP GREENDALE ROAD N

ISQG (Low) Sample ID Analyte Conc. (mg/kg) ISQG (Low) Lead 55.9 Sample ID Analyte Conc. (mg/kg) Acenaphthene 51 Lead 69.9 SED21 Fluorene 26 Acenaphthene 68 SED20 Phenanthrene 343 Fluorene 31 Total DDT 12.7 Dieldrin 4.12 Zinc 271 ISQG (High) ISQG (High) Sample ID Analyte Conc. (mg/kg) 2 Sample ID Analyte Conc. (mg/kg) SED21V Zinc 1,340 SED20 Zinc 889 Dieldrin 27.3

LOT 101 DP 1203966 X V 18

SED 18 XSED 18V ISQG (Low) X X SED 21 Sample ID Analyte Conc. (mg/kg) X SED 20 SED18 Zinc 220 SED 19 SED 20V SED 21V SED 20Va X V 19 X V 17

ISQG (High) Sample ID Analyte Conc. (mg/kg) SED19 PCBs 37.5

Source:Google Maps (2014) Legend Figure 4a: Sampling Locations And Exceedances - Area 2 Part 1 Scale Project No: QN 783837 Client: Boral Limited 425m Site Boundary Project Name: Surplus Site Cleanup Plan Site Address: Lot 2 Greendale Road, Bringelly, NSW, 2556 Date: May 2015 - August 2015 Revision: Rev 0 Drawn By: AP GREENDALE ROAD N ISQG (Low) Sample ID Analyte Conc. (mg/kg) Arsenic 40 Cadmium 1.9 Lead 118 SED35 Nickel 39.9 Chlordane 5.77 ISQG (Low) Dieldrin 6.09 ISQG (Low) Sample ID Analyte Conc. (mg/kg) Sample ID Analyte Conc. (mg/kg) Chlordane 0.68 ISQG (High) SED37 Zinc 202 Sample ID Analyte Conc. (mg/kg) SED38 Dieldrin 1.06 Dieldrin 1.49 ISQG (High) SED35 Zinc 719 ISQG (High) Sample ID Analyte Conc. (mg/kg) Sample ID Analyte Conc. (mg/kg) Sample ID Analyte Conc. (mg/kg) SED37V Dieldrin 27.7 SED35 Asbestos Chrysotile SED38V Dieldrin 25.7 ISQG (High) SED38Va Dieldrin 4.7 Sample ID Analyte Conc. (mg/kg) Lead 62 Nickel 34.0 2 SED35V Zinc 238 Chlordane 3.96 Dieldrin 6.4

ISQG (High) SED 43X SED 42 Sample ID Analyte Conc. (mg/kg) X SED41 Dieldrin 2.27 X SED 41 SED 37Va V 54 XSED 41V SED 37V LOT 101 DP 1203966 SED 39VSED 39 SED 37 SED 40 SED 39V X X X ISQG (High) SED 40V X SED 38Va SED 36 X SED 38V X SED 28 Sample ID Analyte Conc. (mg/kg) X SED 38 SED40 Dieldrin 0.62 V 53 X X SED 35Va X X V 48 V 47 SED 35V ISQG (High) X X V 49 X X SED 29 V 51V 51 V 50 SED 35 Sample ID Analyte Conc. (mg/kg) V 52 V 46 X SED40 Mercury 0.26 V 45X SED 34 XV 38 X V 44 X SED 33 XSED 30 X ISQG (High) V 48 V 43 X SED 31 Sample ID Analyte Conc. (mg/kg) V 48i XXX V 48iii X X SED39 Dieldrin 11 V 48a SED 32 V 48b V 42 X X X X X V 39 V 48ii V 41 V 40

Sample ID Analyte Conc. (mg/kg) V48 Asbestos Chrysotile V48a Asbestos Chrysotile

Source:Google Maps (2014) Legend Figure 4b: Sampling Locations And Exceedances - Area 2 Part 2 Scale Project No: QN 783837 Client: Boral Limited 425m Site Boundary Project Name: Surplus Site Cleanup Plan Site Address: Lot 2 Greendale Road, Bringelly, NSW, 2556 Date: May 2015 - August 2015 Revision: Rev 0 Drawn By: AP GREENDALE ROAD N

ISQG (Low) Sample ID Analyte Conc. (mg/kg) SED48 Lead 99.3

ISQG (Low) Sample ID Analyte Conc. (mg/kg) SED50 Lead 207 3

X X LOT 101 DP 1203966 X V 60 X V 65 V 59 X V 61 V 62

XXX X X SED 45 X X X SED 46 SED 47 SED 48 SED 49 SED 50 SED 51 SED 52 SED 48V

X Sample ID Analyte Conc. (mg/kg) X V 63 V 64 V 55 X Chrysotile, V 56 V 57 X X X V57 Asbestos Crocidolite & X V 58 Amosite V 57(15/7/15)

Source:Google Maps (2014) Legend Figure 5: Sampling Locations And Exceedances - Area 3 Scale Project No: QN 783837 Client: Boral Limited 425m Site Boundary Project Name: Surplus Site Cleanup Plan Site Address: Lot 2 Greendale Road, Bringelly, NSW, 2556 Date: May 2015 - August 2015 Revision: Rev 0 Drawn By: AP GREENDALE ROAD N

SED 1 Creek X X X SED 3 SED 2

LOT 101 DP 1203966 V 4 V 5 X X V 7 V 6 X X

V 1 X

X X V 3 V 2

Source:Google Maps (2014) Legend Figure 6a: Sampling Locations And Exceedances - Area 4 Part 1 Scale Project No: QN 783837 Client: Boral Limited 425m Site Boundary Project Name: Surplus Site Cleanup Plan Site Address: Lot 2 Greendale Road, Bringelly, NSW, 2556 Date: May 2015 - August 2015 Revision: Rev 0 Drawn By: AP GREENDALE ROAD N

Vegetation

LOT 101 DP 1203966 Creek Drainage Channel X SED 5 Drainage X Channel SED 6 X SED 4

X V 9 V 8 X V 10 X X V 12 V 11 X

Source:Google Maps (2014) Legend Figure 6b: Sampling Locations And Exceedances - Area 4 Part 2 Scale Project No: QN 783837 Client: Boral Limited 425m Site Boundary Project Name: Surplus Site Cleanup Plan Site Address: Lot 2 Greendale Road, Bringelly, NSW, 2556 Date: May 2015 - August 2015 Revision: Rev 0 Drawn By: AP GREENDALE ROAD N

Creek

LOT 101 DP 1203966 X SED 7 X V 13 X V 14 X V 16 X V 15

Source:Google Maps (2014) Legend Figure 6c: Sampling Locations And Exceedances - Area 4 Part 3 Scale Project No: QN 783837 Client: Boral Limited 425m Site Boundary Project Name: Surplus Site Cleanup Plan Site Address: Lot 2 Greendale Road, Bringelly, NSW, 2556 Date: May 2015 - August 2015 Revision: Rev 0 Drawn By: AP GREENDALE ROAD N

Vegetation

TP 5 TP 4 X X LOT 101 DP 1203966

X TP 3

X TP 2 TP 1 X 5 Track

Source:Google Maps (2014) Legend Figure 7: Sampling Locations And Exceedances - Area 5 Scale Project No: QN 783837 Client: Boral Limited 425m Site Boundary Project Name: Surplus Site Cleanup Plan Site Address: Lot 2 Greendale Road, Bringelly, NSW, 2556 Date: May 2015 - August 2015 Revision: Rev 0 Drawn By: AP GREENDALE ROAD N

LOT 101 DP 1203966

V 20 X

Lake V 21 X

V 22 X

Source:Google Maps (2014) Legend Figure 8a: Sampling Locations And Exceedances - Area 6 Part 1 Scale Project No: QN 783837 Client: Boral Limited 425m Site Boundary Project Name: Surplus Site Cleanup Plan Site Address: Lot 2 Greendale Road, Bringelly, NSW, 2556 Date: May 2015 - August 2015 Revision: Rev 0 Drawn By: AP GREENDALE ROAD N

LOT 101 DP 1203966 Lake V 25 SED 23 X X V 27 X V 24 X SED 22 V 26 XX

V 23 X

Path

Source:Google Maps (2014) Legend Figure 8b: Sampling Locations And Exceedances - Area 6 Part 2 Scale Project No: QN 783837 Client: Boral Limited 425m Site Boundary Project Name: Surplus Site Cleanup Plan Site Address: Lot 2 Greendale Road, Bringelly, NSW, 2556 Date: May 2015 - August 2015 Revision: Rev 0 Drawn By: AP GREENDALE ROAD N

LOT 101 DP 1203966 SED 28 X V 34 V 33 X X V 31 V 32 X V 37 X X V 36 SED 27 V 35 X X X X SED 26 SED 24 X SED 25 Dry Creekbed X Track

Site Boundary

Source:Google Maps (2014) Legend Figure 8c: Sampling Locations And Exceedances - Area 6 Part 3 Scale Project No: QN 783837 Client: Boral Limited 425m Site Boundary Project Name: Surplus Site Cleanup Plan Site Address: Lot 2 Greendale Road, Bringelly, NSW, 2556 Date: May 2015 - August 2015 Revision: Rev 0 Drawn By: AP GREENDALE ROAD N

LOT 101 DP 1203966

Creek X V 30

X V 28 Vegetation

X V 29

Source:Google Maps (2014) Legend Figure 8d: Sampling Locations And Exceedances - Area 6 Part 4 Scale Project No: QN 783837 Client: Boral Limited 425m Site Boundary Project Name: Surplus Site Cleanup Plan Site Address: Lot 2 Greendale Road, Bringelly, NSW, 2556 Date: May 2015 - August 2015 Revision: Rev 0 Drawn By: AP

Maryland Homestead 773 The Northern Road, Bringelly, NSW

Historical Context

February 2015

Rosemary Broomham Consultant Historian/Archaeologist 49 Darghan Street, Glebe NSW 2037 M 0417 411 486 E [email protected]

Contents

2.0 Historical Context

2.1 Introduction 1

2.2 More numerous than expected – the inland Aborigines of New South Wales 2 The Cowpastures Frontier 3 Conflict on the southern frontier 4

2.3 John Dickson: a favoured immigrant 6 Nonorrah, John Dickson’s country estate 6 Sale of Cowpasture Estates 1840 – 1854 10

2.4 Thomas Barker – apprentice engineer to public figure 12 Thomas Barker – mentor to young, single immigrants 13 Maryland, Thomas Barker’s country estate 15 Thomas Barker – grazier and wine producer 17 Maryland in 1876 18

2.5 Thomas Charles Barker Esquire, Maryland, Bringelly 1863-1940 20

2.6 Ninian Alan Thomson – Maryland, company director’s retreat 21

2.7 Elizabeth and Annette (Annie) Thomson – dairy farmers of Maryland 24

2.8 New owners for Maryland 2009-2013 25

2.9 Appendixes 27

2.10 Select Bibliography 40

Maryland, Bringelly, Contextual History Rosemary Broomham 2 2.0 Historical Context

2.1 Introduction

Figure 1: Maryland in on The Northern Road [Route 18] about half-way between Narellan and Luddenham. Google Maps

The property called Maryland is a remnant of a 3,000 acre grant that Governor Macquarie issued to John Dickson, an engineer who emigrated to New South Wales in 1813. Dickson’s land occupied a prominent position, east of Cobbitty in the Parish of Cook, County of Cumberland. It was surrounded by several other large grants to men who were regarded as settlers of the ‘superior class’.

Perhaps because of its position high above The Northern Road and the land surrounding it, perhaps because of its simple colonial style, Maryland homestead has been perceived as a fabled place by several writers through the years but few understood its heritage. Having written many stories about significant houses, G. Nesta Griffiths provided this description of Maryland in 1956.

Maryland stands high on its hill, overlooking the lovely sloping country around Bringelly and Cobbitty. To the north lie Wallacia and Mulgoa on the road to Penrith. To the south the rich pastures of Camden, all historic ground. A charming gatehouse of slightly later date than the old house guards the entrance to a steep drive where grand old trees give shade and shelter.’1

1 G. Nesta Griffiths, Maryland, Bringelly, 4-page typed MS signed ‘G. Nesta Griffiths June 1956’, SLNSW

Maryland, Bringelly, Contextual History Rosemary Broomham 3 Nesta Griffiths presented a romantic view of Maryland’s history that has confused later researchers. She believed that the grantee John Dickson had given his daughter Joanna ‘part of his Bringelly farm up on the hill henceforth known as Maryland’ as a wedding gift. However, Joanna, was not John Dickson’s daughter, but his niece and she did not receive a gift of land when she married his former apprentice, Thomas Barker in 1823.

Another enduring source of confusion has been the idea that John Dickson’s homestead on Nonorrah was on the same site where Maryland was built in the late 1850s and that the later house had part of the of the Nonorrah homestead within its walls. Several factors made this impossible.

The first was the construction of The Northern Road, shown on some early maps as ‘The Great North Road’ or ‘North Road’. This road was made some time between ca. 1826, when a surveyor drew a map titled ‘Parts of the Districts of Bringelly, Minto and Cook’, and 1834 when the map of the Cobbitty District was made. [See Figure 5]. This road divided John Dickson’s grant so that the site of Nonorrah homestead was on the eastern side of the road and the site of Maryland was on the western side.

The second major impediment to the idea that Thomas Barker built Maryland on the remains of Nonorrah homestead was that Thomas Barker did not ever own the site of Nonorrah.

A third misunderstanding was that while Thomas Barker was one of the trustees of Dickson’s assets after he left New South Wales and returned to England, Barker never lived on Nonorrah as a manager or in any other capacity. Any supervision or maintenance he organised for the property was done from Sydney.

A fourth problem has been created by some researchers relying on second-hand versions of information rather than the primary sources. This is particularly noticeable in relation to the information gleaned from David Lindsay Waugh, Three years’ practical experience of a settler in New South Wales: being extracts from letters to his friends in Edinburgh from 1834-1837. As this publication is a selection of letters rather than a diary, it is difficult to discern the time and place of Waugh’s scattered comments about particular properties and even more confusing second hand.

An additional problem with these letters is that those extracts published in local newspapers may not be exactly identical to those released in book form.

This history of Maryland aims to avoid conjecture by relying on primary sources wherever possible, and, in particular, through a careful study of the relevant land title records.

2.2 More numerous than expected – inland Aborigines of New South Wales The Europeans called the Aborigines who lived near Maryland the Cowpastures tribe; they were also identified as Dharawal, a description based on their language. Their territory covered an area between Botany Bay and the Shoalhaven River and they travelled widely in the south-western regions of the counties of Cumberland and Camden. Further inland were the Dharug people whose area covered land from the Hawkesbury River to places as far west as the mountains and south to Camden and Picton.2

2 Carol Liston, Campbelltown. The Bicentennial History, Council of the City of Campbelltown with Allen & Unwin Australia, Pty Ltd, North Sydney, 1988, p 1

Maryland, Bringelly, Contextual History Rosemary Broomham 4

James Cook’s belief, that most Aboriginal people lived near the coast because they depended on a seafood diet, was proved wrong as soon as early European exploration parties moved away from Sydney Cove. They discovered that inland Aborigines lived on small animals such as possums, ‘vegetable roots and native fruit seeds and berries, with mullet, eel and kangaroo as supplements’.3

From the arrival of the First Fleet in 1788, the official policy towards the indigenous people was conflicted. Although Governor Phillip had been advised to treat the original inhabitants with amity and kindness, as early as the third year of European occupation, he sent a punitive expedition to kill ten aborigines in revenge for the murder of his gamekeeper.4 Another Aborigine, Coleby, identified the warrior Pemulwy as the culprit and Phillip chose Watkin Tench to lead a party of soldiers to the land around the head of Botany Bay where Pemulwy was believed to live. Tench was able to persuade Phillip to lower the number of Aborigines captured or killed from ten to six. However, on two expeditions, he and his men were unable to find any Aboriginals at all.5

Settlers in the Parramatta area shot Pemulwy in 1802 but his son Tedbury continued his father’s war against the European invaders in 1805 and again in 1809 when Young Bundle helped him terrorise settlers near the Cook and Georges Rivers. Lieutenant governors and governors from 1790 vacillated between fleeting sympathy for Aborigines and ordering settlers to arm themselves and fire on them. Macquarie, who arrived in 1810, tried to encourage Aborigines to settle on land like Europeans but they were loath to do so.

The Cowpastures Frontier Europeans first entered the district known as the Cowpastures in 1795 when Aboriginals reported finding a herd of cattle there. These animals bred from the five that escaped from Farm Cove in 1788. By the time they were located, the herd had grown to 61 animals grazing on the south-west bank of the Nepean River. Aboriginal people knew the place as Baragil or Baragal but Governor Hunter called it the Cowpastures. Captain Waterhouse described it in a letter to John Macarthur in 1804.

After crossing the Nepean to the foot of what is called the Blue Mountains I am at a loss to describe the face of the country other than as a beautiful park, totally divested of underwood, interspersed with plains, with rich, luxuriant grass; but for want of burning off, rank, except where recently burnt. This is the part where the cattle that have strayed are constantly fed – of course, their own selection...it appears that some meadows bordering on the banks of the Nepean River are evidently at times overflowed from the river; but it is not very common and cannot be done without sufficient time to drive away any stock if common attention is paid.6

The area appealed to Europeans because there was little undergrowth to discourage the lush grasses that made it ideal for grazing cattle on the flats and possibly sheep on the hills towards the Razorback Range. Governors Hunter, King and Bligh ruled against European settlement on the Cowpastures, which was south-west of the Nepean River and outside the

3 Robert Murray and Kate White, Dharug to Dungaree. The History of Penrith and St Marys to 1860, Harreen Publishing Company with the City of Penrith,1988, p 20 4 Captain Watkin Tench, Sydney’s First Four Years, Library of Australian History, 1979 edition, pp 209-16 5 Ibid, pp 209-214 6 Cited in Robert Murray, Kate White, Dharug and Dungaree: The History of Penrith and St Marys to 1860, Hargreen Publishing Company with Council of the City of Penrith, North Melbourne, 1988, p 183

Maryland, Bringelly, Contextual History Rosemary Broomham 5 County of Cumberland. Even the north-eastern bank of the Nepean, opposite Cowpastures was deliberately kept from aspiring settlers, perhaps because of its remoteness.

Figure 3: The settlements identified on John Booth’s map of the settlements in New South Wales in 1810, were A Northern Boundaries. B Liberty Plains, C Banks Town, D Parramatta, E Ground reserved for Government Purposes (four reserves), F Concord, G Petersham, H Bulanaming I Sydney, K Hunters Hill, L Eastern Farms, M Field of Mars, N Ponds, O Toongabbie, P Prospect, Q Dundas [?], R Richmond Hill, S Green Hills, T Phillip, U Nelson, V Castle Hill and W illegible. The roughly shaped rectangles on the upper left side of the map on the Cowpasture Plains were the two grants to Macarthur and one to his friend Davidson. Most of the land north of the river was vacant. SLNSW

Having withdrawn a number of grants by Lt Governors Foveaux and Paterson when he restored order after the New South Wales Corps coup against Governor Bligh, Macquarie had James Meehan survey the Cook District (later Cook Parish) in the County of Cumberland opposite the Cowpastures to prepare it for settlement. Some of the grants he made there were of modest size but most were generous.

Conflict on the southern frontier From 1814 a drought led to serious violence in the more remote southern parts of the County of Cumberland. Lack of their traditional food brought Aborigines from the south coast and Gandangara from the mountains to raid the settlers’ crops. In Appin, three members of the Veteran Company militia fired on natives who were taking corn. The Aborigines retaliated. Too wounded to flee from their spears one militia man was abandoned and his body was found later without one of its hands. The Europeans avenged this death with unmitigated violence, murdering a woman and two children in their sleep and mutilating their bodies. These acts brought more Aboriginal retaliation. The following day they killed Mrs Macarthur’s Camden stock keepers. More aggressive than the local Dharawal, Aborigines from Jervis Bay and the mountains gathered in the Cowpastures in late May. It was rumoured that they no longer feared guns and would kill all white people. Two servants speared to death at Broughton’s farm at Appin in June, and the murder of James Daley’s children at

Maryland, Bringelly, Contextual History Rosemary Broomham 6 Bringelly in July, lent credence to that rumour.7 A party led by two Campbelltown men failed to capture the culprits.

In 1816 Aboriginal raiders killed four of G. T. Palmer’s men and three of Mrs Macarthur’s servants. A large party of farmers armed with muskets, pistols, pitchforks and pikes approached the Aborigines at Camden but were forced to flee when spears and stones rained down on them. The deaths of five more whites from Aboriginal attacks made Macquarie plan severe reprisals. He ordered soldiers to arrest all Aborigines in the southern districts. In April Lieutenant Dawes and the soldiers sent to capture Cowpastures Aborigines fired on them as they tried to flee, killing an unspecified number and leading to the capture an innocent boy.

Governor Macquarie sent Captain James Wallis to Airds and Appin with armed soldiers. In this war, Macquarie did not distinguish between the friendly and non-friendly Aborigines but some settlers actively protected their Dharawal friends. Their attitude enraged Wallis who had fruitlessly led his force to Minto, only to find that the person calling for help was no longer there. He then turned back to Appin and found the Aboriginal camp at Broughton’s farm abandoned.8

A child’s cry was heard in the bush, Wallis formed his men into a line and pushed through the thick bush towards a deep rocky gorge. Dogs barked in alarm and the soldiers started to shoot. It was moonlight and the soldiers could see figures bounding from rock to rock. Some Aborigines were shot, some met their death by rushing in despair over the cliffs. Two women and three children were all who remained ‘to whom death would not be a blessing’. Fourteen had died.9

Some bodies were hauled up the cliff and hung from trees on Broughton’s farm as a warning to others. Some were never recovered. The captured women and children were taken to Liverpool. As Carol Liston states in her history of Campbelltown, ‘The Appin massacre is traditionally remembered as the annihilation of the Aboriginal people of Campbelltown’.10

Wallis continued to search fruitlessly for Aborigines along the Georges River. He then joined other contingents at Narellan and they marched together to the Wingecarribee district. They spent another month patrolling but failed to find any of the wanted Aboriginals. Macquarie then issued a proclamation in May 1816 forbidding ‘gatherings of armed Aborigines within one mile of farms and villages.

After the frontier conflict of 1816 the Dharawal stayed in the Cowpastures under the protection of the Macarthurs. The family maintained friendly contact with them. They had surveyor James Meehan mark out some land at Camden Park for any who wished to live there. This action allowed a form of tribal life to continue and corroborees were held there and at Denham Court when other Aborigines visited.11

7 Carol Liston, op cit, pp 19-20 8 Appin Airds and Minto are south of Cook Parish. See Figure 9 Carol Liston, op cit, pp 22-3 10 Ibid, p 23 11 Ibid, p

Maryland, Bringelly, Contextual History Rosemary Broomham 7 2.3 John Dickson: a favoured immigrant John Dickson was a Scottish engineer who trained with his father John, who may have worked with the famous engineers Watt and Rennie. Born in 1774, he obtained his first patent for ‘steam engines, pumps and other hydraulic machines in 1798’ and gained a second for his design of ‘a stop cock’ for steam ten years later. 12

Dickson’s application to settle in New South Wales was received enthusiastically by the Colonial Office which recommended him to Governor Macquarie in advance of his arrival. Lord Goulburn wrote in November 1812, ‘Mr Dickson is possessed of considerable property and is an excellent engineer and millwright’. He instructed Macquarie to grant Dickson land in town and in the interior ‘and allow him all the privileges and encouragement which have usually been given to settlers of a superior class’, an order duplicated by Goulburn’s Under- Secretary the following April.13 Dickson’s steam engine from his factory in Southwark travelled to Sydney ahead of him in the Fortune.14

Macquarie reported Dickson’s arrival in the convict transport Earl Spencer on 9 October 1813 and wrote in more detail in 1814, about granting Dickson of ‘a liberal portion of land, namely three thousand acres...and ten government men on the stores’ for 18 months. Macquarie also presented Dickson with ‘a most convenient and eligible situation in the Town of Sydney’ for his mills, steam engine and other machinery.15 The 15 acre site for the mill was west of Sussex Street, on the waterfront at the southern end of Cockle Bay (Darling Harbour); a stream ran through it from Surry Hills. It included Dixon Street, the centre of present-day Chinatown. The grant was registered on 20 June 1816.16

Dickson’s prompt construction of flour and timber mills on his land persuaded Macquarie that the engineer was ‘a great acquisition to the colony’ because of his ‘considerable capital’, ‘enterprising spirit’ and ‘persevering industry’.17 An ‘impressive early industrial complex with its own wharf’, the mill was documented in Harper’s Survey of Sydney ca. 1823.18 However, by 1828 Dickson’s enterprise was struggling to become viable, leading him to engage in soap-making on a large scale in partnership with John Mackie. They used ‘soda’ extracted from mangroves around Sydney and Botany Bay. This short-lived partnership also established a brewery near the flour mill but broke up in 1829, the year that Dickson obtained a mortgage from Richard Jones, President of the Bank of New South Wales. Dickson added to his mill in 1831 but advertised the whole complex for sale in July 1833.19

Nonorrah, John Dickson’s country estate Dickson named his land in the Parish of Cook, Nonorrah and with the help of his convict labourers, promptly cleared some of the land. Apparently he ran a stud there. The Sydney Gazette advertised a Stallion ‘Contractor’ at John Dickson’s Farm Nonorrah available to mares at £3 per time and 5 shillings to the groom on Thursday, 18 September 1823.

12 G. P. Walsh, ‘Dickson , John (1774-1843)’, Australian Dictionary of Biography (ADB) Vol 1, p 306 13 Goulburn to Macquarie, 23 November 1812, HRA I, 7, p 677; Goulburn’s Under Secretary to Macquarie, 6 April 1813, HRA I, 7, pp 699-700 14 Goulburn to Macquarie, 23 November 1812, HRA I, 7, p 677 15 Macquarie to Bathurst, 1814, HRA I, 8, p 159 16 PA 14468, LPI 17 Macquarie to Bathurst, 1814, HRA I, 8, p 159 18 Casey & Lowe Pty Ltd, ‘History of Barker’s Mill Darling Harbour’, September 2002, p.2 19 Darling to Huskisson, 18 April 1828, HRA I, p 128

Maryland, Bringelly, Contextual History Rosemary Broomham 8 Figure 4: This map showing the extent of European settlement by 1820 is from Manning Clark’s History of Australia Volume 1. It shows the Cowpastures southwest of the Nepean River in the new County of Camden. Dickson’s Nonorrah was in Cook Parish on the other side of the river west of South Creek. Minto, Airds and Appin where most of the southern frontier war was fought are the most southerly parishes in the County of Cumberland.

Maryland, Bringelly, Contextual History Rosemary Broomham 9

Figure 5: Dickson’s (Dixon’s) 3000 acre estate Nonorrah, in the centre of this map of Cobbitty District in 1834, is only matched in size by Alexander Riley’s Raby. The Cobbitty District later became Cook Parish, Co Cumberland. SLNSW

The 1828 census listed Dickson’s properties as 17,000 acres of land in the Counties of Cumberland and Argyle including 15,000 acres cleared and 300 cultivated. Among the County of Cumberland properties he acquired were Netherbyres, Orielton, Moorfield and Eastwood, which together formed a diagonal line from Bringelly Road in the north to beyond Cobbitty Road in the south. At that time he owned 3000 cattle and 2000 sheep.20 However, the problems with his steam mills are reflected in the ‘Unlimited Mortgage’ he established to borrow £2,066. 5sh. 2p at 10 per cent per annum from Richard Jones on 1 April 1829 using all his landholdings as security – the 15a 3r 4p in Cockle Bay; Nonorrah Farm in the District of Cook; 500 ac in Bankstown; and Scotland Island, Pitt Water.21

By the early 1830s, the situation had worsened. Dickson ordered the sale of 600 Red Devon dairy cows, 50 heifers aged two to three years, twenty Red Devon bulls and fifteen ‘excellent horses’ on Friday and Saturday 7 and 8 February 1834.22 That, together with the divestment of his industrial assets and land in town signalled his return to England in 1834. Before doing so, he appointed three friends Thomas Barker, George Muckle, and Alexander Berry and his brother James Dickson, to sell and dispose of his real estate and effects ‘to pay his just debts and maintain and educate’ the three sons and four daughters from his relationship with his housekeeper, Susannah Martin.23 He revoked this trust on 14 August 1838 and entrusted the disposal of his Cowpasture Properties to Matthew Dysart Hunter the following day. Dickson made his home in Brook Street, Holborn, London where he died on 23 May 1843.24

20 G. P. Walsh, op cit 21 PA 14468, Old System No 169 Bk F, LPI 22 Sydney Herald, 20 January 1834; Sydney Gazette advertised a further sale of 800 dairy cows, heifers, bulls and steers of the Durham breed on 7 September 1837, Trove Newspapers 23 PA 14468, Old System No 430 Bk H 24 G. P. Walsh, op cit; Sale Dickson to M. D. Hunter 15 August 1838; Dickson appointed son-in-laws W. J. Dowling and Thomas Woore Power of Attorney

Maryland, Bringelly, Contextual History Rosemary Broomham 10

Figure 6: In this Plan of the Cowpasture Estates in 1847, the numbers show the allotments remaining after Moorfield and Orielton had been sold. SLNSW

Maryland, Bringelly, Contextual History Rosemary Broomham 11

Figure 7: In this detail of the Plan of the Cowpasture Estates published in 1847, the site of Nonorrah homestead is clearly shown on the eastern side of The Northern Road, Lot 7, the site of Barker’s Maryland is on the western side. SLNSW

Sale of Cowpasture Estates 1840 – 1854 A survey of John Dickson’s properties having been completed by 1840, Hunter attempted to sell all the farms he owned in the Parish of Cook on 16 July that year. For sale purposes the land was titled ‘Plan of the Cowpasture Estates, the property of M. D. Hunter, Esqr’ and the properties offered were Orielton, Nonorrah, Moorfield, Eastwood etc’.25 Orielton and Nonorrah were divided into smaller allotments to encourage buyers.

Sales were difficult to make as 1840 marked the beginning of a severe depression in New South Wales. However, Stephenson Atkin Bryant purchased the 87-acre property Moorfield and the 365-acre Lot 1 of Nonorrah, which had the homestead on it, taking out a mortgage of £2000 with Matthew Hunter on 13 July 1842, the purchase being confirmed on 28 July.26 A detailed description of Lot 1 accompanied the sale notices.

This 365-acre allotment ‘well-watered by South Creek and Lowes Creek’ contained Nonorrah homestead – ‘a substantial verandahed Cottage, containing six rooms, excellent hall, butler’s pantry, detached kitchen, brick-built store secure with iron-bound windows, dairy, cheese house, with several lever presses’. The land comprised eight cleared paddocks but also boasted ‘extensive and excellent stabling sufficient for sixteen horses, coach house, pig styes, commodious sheds for various purposes, stock and milking yards, men’s house [with] shingled roof...and an orchard of about 2½ acres.27

25 Sydney Monitor and Commercial Advertiser 16 July 1840, Trove Newspapers 26 PA 14468, Old System No 439 Bk 2; PA 14468, Old System No 438 Bk 2 27 Sydney Monitor and Commercial Advertiser, 16 July 1840

Maryland, Bringelly, Contextual History Rosemary Broomham 12

Hunter and Bryant sold Moorfield to William Carr on 9 August and Hunter alone sold Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of Nonorrah to Henry Clay Burnell on 27 August 1853. By that time, Bryant who had purchased Lot 1 earlier, owed M. D. Hunter £4,500 on his mortgage,which he was unable to pay.28

Figure 8: Lots 1 to 5 as marked on the plan of the Cowpasture Estates as sold to H. C. Burnell in 1853. No 160 Book 28 LPI

Sarah Lowe, having inherited the adjacent farm Birling after the death of her husband Robert, purchased Lots 6 and 7 of Nonorrah on 31 July 1842, relying on a mortgage of £1,753 plus interest to secure the 674-acre property.29 The description of these allotments was as follows.

Immediately opposite the estate of Mrs. Lowe...lot six contains more than a mile frontage to the Great North Road [The Northern Road], and comprises in all three hundred and forty acres – all girdled, and bounded on the north by Lowes Creek to the extent of half a mile; lot 7 contains three hundred and thirty-three and a half acres, nearly all girdled, and possessing three quarters of a mile frontage to Lowe’s Creek; the views from this particular spot are admirable; it also contains a valley of rich dark soil.30

On 7 July 1854 M. D. Hunter, now in Scotland, sold Lots 6 and 7 to Thomas Barker for £1,600, an action which suggests that Sarah Lowe’s mortgage had been foreclosed.31

A 40-acre grant made to Michael Dowdell by Governor Macquarie on 25 August 1812 was surrounded on three sides by Lot 6 of the Cowpastures Estate. This land had been bequeathed to Elisa Cordelia Walker, the married daughter of the Reverend Rowland Hassall whose small property Coventry was a little to the east on the northern side of Lowes Creek. Dowdell’s farm had passed down to Elisa’s son, Rowland Thomas Brisbane Walker who sold it to Thomas Barker on 17 December 1855.32 With its elevated knoll and extensive views, Lot 7 became the site of Thomas Barker’s ‘summit model’ homestead Maryland.

28 PA 14468, Old System No 911 Bk 27; PA 14468, Old System No 160, Bk 28 29 PA 14468 and associated Old System Files 30 The Sydney Monitor and Commercial Advertiser, 16 July1840, Trove Newspapers 31 PA 14468 and associated Old System Files 32 Refer to Appendix, Table 1 part 4

Maryland, Bringelly, Contextual History Rosemary Broomham 13

Figure 9: This detail, part of the plan of Lots 6 and 7 Cowpasture Estates, was attached to the conveyance from M. D. Hunter to Thomas Barker on 7 July 1854. However, it seems that the scale may be approximate. PA 14468, Old System, No 884 Bk 34, LPI

2.4 Thomas Barker – apprentice engineer to public figure Thomas Barker was an engineer, manufacturer, grazier and philanthropist. Born in 1799, he was orphaned at the age of nine, but his guardian organised his education at private schools before arranging his apprenticeship with the engineer John Dickson. He was sixteen when he came to New South Wales with Dickson on the Earl Spencer in 1813.

By his late twenties, Barker was regarded as a highly skilled engineer and millwright. With his partner John Smith, he erected two windmills near Elizabeth Point (later Darlinghurst) in 1826 on a grant he obtained there. A decade later he built his house Roslyn Hall on another grant of 16 acres of land nearby. Designed by the architect Ambrose Hallen, this grand villa was said to be ‘more like a palace’. He lived there with his first wife, John Dickson’s niece Joanna who he married in 1823 but there were no children from that marriage which ended when she died in 1851.

In 1828 Barker purchased Cooper and Levey’s steam flour mill next door to his Sussex Street house. The following year he purchased additional land to the west of his town properties, where Bathurst Street met the shore of Cockle Bay (Darling Harbour).33 In 1831 he consolidated his freehold and leases there in a grant of more than 8 acres. Hoping to retire, he leased his mill to the partnership of his brother James Barker and Ambrose Hallen while he visited England and Europe. However, Barker and Hallen were early casualties of the severe 1840s depression so Thomas Barker had to resume control on his return in 1842. While the mill was in receivership David Lanarch purchased its assets for the low price of £25,000. The money was used to invest in new stock for the mills but three months later Lanarch entered a partnership with Thomas Barker.34

Like many others at this time, Barker created a residential subdivision of his some of his land but, unable to sell many of the Sussex Street allotments, he partnered John Walker to use one of the mills for manufacturing tweed cloth. In 1848 he settled a five year lease with John Walker but, not long after making the agreement, he withdrew it. That was the year when his joint operation of the flour mill with Lanarch ended and he began another with his brother

33 G. P. Walsh, Barker, Thomas (1799-1875), ADB Vol 1, pp 57-8 34 Casey & Lowe Pty Ltd, ‘History of Barker’s Mill Darling Harbour’ from their ‘Cross City Tunnel Assessment’, September 2002, pp 8-9

Maryland, Bringelly, Contextual History Rosemary Broomham 14 James.35 However, ‘they leased the cloth mill to Malcolm Macintyre Campbell in June 1859 and the flour mill to their nephews George William Barker and William Craddock Barker in 1860’.36 Eight years later, Thomas and James Barker ‘sold both their mills to their lessees’ and retired from milling altogether.37

In his description of Maryland, James Broadbent makes the point that Thomas Barker made a fortune in the early 1830s but, having done so, he spent his later years in serving the community. His ‘earned a reputation for his honesty and reliability in business matters and became a respected figure in publis affairs’.38

Thomas Barker was one of the first to promote railways in New South Wales, sharing the cost of a survey for a line from Sydney to Goulburn by Thomas Woore. He was director and president of the Sydney Railway Company and became an honorary commissioner of railways after the New South Wales government assumed control in 1855. He held leading positions in the Commercial Banking Company of Sydney and the Royal Exchange and was trustee for the Savings Bank of New South Wales. He was a magistrate from 1834 and a warden for the Sydney Council from 1843. He acted as secretary for the committee petitioning the Queen for a new Constitution, was a member of the Legislative Council from 1853-1856 and represented the counties of Gloucester and Macquarie in the Legislative Assembly from 1856-7.

Barker had an enduring interest in education. A loyal Presbyterian – he was an elder of St Andrew’s Scots Church and trustee of the Presbyterian Burial Ground, Devonshire Street – he opposed the introduction of the Irish National school system in 1836. Instead, he supported the Denominational School Board, Sydney College, Sydney Grammar School and the Sydney Mechanics School of Arts. He presented a £1,000 scholarship in Mathematics to the University of Sydney and contributed to a window for the Great Hall. He was trustee for the Sydney Bethel Union; the Destitute Children’s Asylum benefited from his philanthropy, and the Sydney Female Refuge Society received help from him and his wife, Joanna.39

Thomas Barker – mentor to young, single immigrants Just after John Dickson had left New South Wales, a young Scot who wanted to settle in the colony – David Lindsay Waugh – wrote letters to his family and friends about his experiences. Extracts from these letters, published in the 1830s to encourage enterprising hardworking immigrants to come to New South Wales, have been used to provide information on Nonorrah and related properties.40

Waugh’s letters reveal a deeper sense of charity in Barker’s daily life. Waugh heard about Thomas Barker from an acquaintance he met on a ship from Hobart to Sydney. On his advice he visited Barker in his ‘splendid house on Sussex Street’ and enjoyed his hospitality for several days. He reported that Barker kept ‘a kind of open house for all the respectable young men of the town who were staying in lodgings. I got, through him, most respectable board

35 Ibid 36 Ibid, p 14 37 Ibid, p 17 38 James Broadbent, ‘Maryland New South Wales’, in Historic Homesteads of Australia, Australian Council of National Trusts, Cassell Australia, 1969-1976, p 70 39 G. P. Walsh, ‘Barker, Thomas (1799-1875)’, ADB Vol 1, pp 57-8; A. K. Weatherburn, Thomas Barker, pioneer Australian industrialist (1799-1875), self published, Ryde NSW, 1985 40 David Waugh, Three years’ practical experience of a settler in New South Wales: being extracts from letters to his friends in Edinburgh from 1834-1837, John Johnstone, Edinburgh, 1838, p 18, Mitchell Library SLNSW.

Maryland, Bringelly, Contextual History Rosemary Broomham 15 and lodgings with Mr Bass, shipbuilder, Darling Harbour’.41 It seems that Barker acted a mentor to many young men. Waugh reported that he had been ‘at Mr Barker’s at least once or twice a day by his kind invitation’ and had met politicians such as the Colonial Secretary Alexander Macleay and Colonial Treasurer Campbell Drummond Riddell and Mr Campbell, probably the merchant Robert Campbell.42

Waugh was interested in a career in the law but Barker and his friends advised him to go into the country. Barker, who had the ‘management of the most extensive farms’ said that ‘I might go and live at one of them as long as I liked; and while I should be at no expense, I should have an opportunity of learning the business’. Waugh then spent a month at the Nonorrah homestead but the published extracts offer no details about that property.43

After gaining additional experience at Orielton, near Nonorrah, Barker asked him to go to Mummel in the County of Argyle where he took charge of the harvest of 150 acres (61 ha) of hay and 350 acres (142 ha) of wheat. He told his parents, ‘and here I am at present furnishing stores of fifty men, keeping accounts, &c.’44

Eventually, Waugh accepted a permanent position as overseer at Mummel.

I go for good and all to Mummel, Goulburn Plains, Argyleshire...for the first year,–I am to get £40 and board and washing. The farm is 6,000 acres and has about 4,000 sheep and 1,500 cattle on it. There is another overseer from Ayrshire, with a good salary, –he has been twelve years here. He has, besides, a farm of his own, which he manages with an overseer.45

Waugh reported that he stayed briefly at Orielton in late 1834 before moving to Mummel in the County of Argyle in February 1835. Together with James Dickson (John’s brother), Liverpool flour miller George Muckle, and Alexander Berry Esq, Thomas Barker was a trustee of John Dickson’s colonial assets and shared Power of Attorney. However, in 1838 Dickson revoked that arrangement and gave Power of Attorney to W. J. Dowling and Thomas Woore. In a sense, Barker did manage Dickson’s farms in the early 1830s but Waugh’s account makes it clear that he did so from Sydney. By stating, ‘according to D. L. Waugh, [Barker] had three most extensive farms including Nonorrah (later Maryland) at the Cowpastures and Mummel on the Goulburn Plains’ in his Australian Dictionary of Biography entry, G. P Walsh has translated trusteeship into ownership but this claim is not supported by the land title records.46

Thomas Barker did not obtain any part of Nonorrah until 1854 and even then, he was not able to buy the land with the main dwelling on it. Nonorrah homestead, which was on the eastern side of The Northern Road, remained in the possession of the Burnell family until 1906. However, Barker did purchase other land in Cook parish. Oran Park and Netherbyres have his name as owner on a Lands Department map dated 1867. As to the grant in Yass, an 800- acre property called Evandale in Mummel Parish, County of Argyle bears the names of John Dickson original trustees, suggesting that it too belonged to Dickson rather than Thomas Barker.

41 Ibid, p 16 42 Ibid; Mr Campbell was probably the merchant Robert Campbell 43 Ibid, p18 ff 44 Waugh, op sit, pp 21-27; Waugh wrote this letter 45 Ibid, p 21 46 G. P. Walsh, op cit, p 58

Maryland, Bringelly, Contextual History Rosemary Broomham 16 Maryland, Thomas Barker’s country estate

Figure 10: The east-facing verandah of Maryland homestead looking south showing the flagstones and timber pillars. Photo R. Broomham 2014

In 1854 Thomas Barker purchased Lots 6 and 7 and from the Nonorrah Estate plan and Dowdell’s 40-acre farm lay between them. He named his purchase Maryland – possibly after his mother Mary Shuldham (or Schuldham) – and married his second wife Katherine Heath Gray in 1857 while the building was under construction. The couple lived permanently at Maryland before it was finished after Thomas Barker sold Roslyn Hall to Captain Russell from about late 1860 or early 1861.47 Their only child Thomas Charles Barker was born there on 20 September 1863.

The 1847 sale notice described the three hundred and thirty-three and a half acres of lot 7 as being nearly all girdled, or ringbarked as was customary at that time to kill the unwanted trees and make it easier to fell and burn them. Lot 6 had received similar treatment. However, Lot 7 seems the likely site of the Maryland homestead as it had ‘admirable views’ and a frontage to Lowe’s Creek that was three quarters of a mile long while the valley below had dark rich soil.48 While it is not known what kind of buildings may have been on Lots 6 and 7, given the terms of his grant, it is highly likely that there was a house on Matthew Dowdell’s forty-acre farm and that its land had been cleared and cultivated.

The Maryland homestead is of rubblestone construction, its thick walls rendered and marked to resemble regular ashlar blocks and later painted. Earlier techniques used in construction of the attached kitchen at the western end of the house suggest that this was part of an earlier building as were several utility buildings behind it.49

The homestead is located on a hill or knoll that rises so abruptly once the house and gardens were established, it became a prominent landmark, easily identified from The Northern Road and all the flats below. Its profile is characterised by ‘massed plantings of...araucaria Bidwellis (Bunya Bunya pines)’ whose tops show above the other large trees on the crest of

47 Information on back of Record No 34250, Vertical File, Sydney Living Museums, Caroline Simpson Library and Research Collection; Thomas Barker married Katherine Gray in 1867. 48 The Sydney Monitor and Commercial Advertiser, 16 July1840, Trove Newspapers 49 Personal comment, Heritage Architect Lester Tropman

Maryland, Bringelly, Contextual History Rosemary Broomham 17 the hill. To create a dense windbreak, they have been planted with ‘pines, cypresses,...camphor (laurels) and lophostemons’.50 Thomas Barker was a keen gardener, obtaining vine cuttings unusual exotic plants from the Botanic Gardens while building Roslyn Hall in 1832. His friendship with ‘Sydney’s first’ nurseryman, Thomas Shepherd, is indicated by his appointment as trustee to Shepherd’s will.51

The Horticultural Magazine and Gardeners’ and Amateurs’ Calendar described the scene from the top of the hill in 1870.

We might say ‘That a fairer scene we had ne’er surveyed, when gazing on the vale below’ with its large pool of water, enclosures planted with pines, and cattle peacefully browsing; the mowers cutting hay, the fine, commodious farmyard in the distance, while on the slopes of the hill were vineyards, orchards, kitchen gardens, plantations of ornamental trees, all forming a picture so complete as more likely to be seen on canvas than in reality.52

That publication mentioned dairy cows peacefully browsing near the pool or dam.

Figure 11: View of Maryland homestead and nineteenth century plantings from the flats near the farm buildings below. Photo R Broomham 2014

The ‘garden and vineyards were...surrounded by a strong fence, having two sets of gates’ and Katherine Barker was credited with the decorative plantings round the house and carriage drive.53

[A] neat border under the verandah, plentifully planted with choice dwarf plants of all kinds. On a wall on the northern side of the house, Bougainvillea splendens and spectabilis, Quisquales indica, Mandevillea, cloth of gold roses, Bignonia cherere...were exerting their powers to please the eye.54

There was an area near the homestead, deliberately designed to be wild, and ‘a rambling garden of oaks, olives, araucarias, plumbago hedges, geraniums’ surrounding the house, which includes ‘oxalis deliberately planted by Thomas Barker Snr’.55

50 Horticultural Magazine and Gardeners’ and Amateurs’ Calendar, 1870 51 Writer unknown, source, Len Fox, Old Sydney Windmills, self published, 1978 52 Horticultural Magazine and Gardeners’ and Amateurs’ Calendar, 1870 53 Horticultural Magazine and Gardeners’ and Amateurs’ Calendar 1870 54 Ibid 55 C. Morris & G. Britton/ NSW National Trust, Colonial Landscapes of the Cumberland Plain and Camden, NSW, 2000

Maryland, Bringelly, Contextual History Rosemary Broomham 18 Thomas Barker – grazier and wine producer According to A. K. Weatherburn, Barker began work on Maryland’s vineyard before the house was completed. He was able to consult James and William Macarthur whose family had been tending vineyards and making wine since 1817.56 He was friendly with the Macarthur family as can be seen in James Macarthur’s response to Barkers’s toast on Macarthur’s return from England in 1864.

Whilst in Sydney Mr Barker took a high place amongst those who represented the commercial interests of the colony, and since residing in the district he has done much for its advancement by the introduction of valuable stock, by the example of steady industry and by cultivation of a vineyard. In private life he is everything which we expect to find in a man and a gentleman; as a magistrate he has invariably acted according to the rules of justice.57

Although he ran cattle, Barker was more interested in viticulture. The facilities for producing Maryland wines included extensive cellars with a ‘huge wine press’ and ‘stone storage bins for casks’, together with a plant capable of bottling 120 gallons a day. There is ample proof that his wines were successful as they were sold commercially from 1867 and won prizes. The annual record of the Agricultural Society of New South Wales for 1868-69 lists Thomas Barker as a council member and refers to his production of a Red Hermitage and a Verdeilho [sic} at Maryland. In 1871 he was reported to have invented ‘a simple machine’ for diffusing sulphur in vineyards where powdery mildew or oldium, now known as Uncinula necator, needs to be eradicated.58

In 1862 Thomas Barker conveyed the 700 acre site of Maryland to a trustee, barrister Joshua Frey Josephson and his heirs, to ensure that it belonged to Katherine Heath Barker for her to use as she saw fit – ‘free from debts, control and engagements of Thomas Barker’.59 Thomas Barker died at Maryland on 19 March 1875 and was buried in Newtown cemetery, leaving the property in trust to his widow Katherine Heath Barker on his death.60

Figure 12: This old building is the kitchen on the western end of Thomas Barker’s Maryland homestead. The construction techniques used to fashion the roof and ceiling are earlier than the remainder of the house but its history is unknown. Photo R. Broomham 2014

56 A. K. Weatherburn, Thomas Barker, pioneer Australian industrialist (1799 to 1875), self published, Ryde, NSW, 1985, p 105 57 SMH 20 January 1865, p 7, cited in A. K. Weatherburn, op cit, p 106 58 SMH, 23 August 1871, in report on the Agricultural Society Exhibition 59 PA 14468, Old System No 71 Bk 81 60 PA 14468, Old System No 411 Book 734

Maryland, Bringelly, Contextual History Rosemary Broomham 19 Maryland in 1876 There seems to have been some problem with Thomas Barker’s plan for leaving the Maryland Estate to his wife Katherine. On 7 October 1876 the Australian Town and Country Journal published a Preliminary Notice of Sale by the Trustees of the Estate of the late Thomas Barker. It described Maryland as an estate that had been laid out and improved over the past twenty years by the late proprietor to create ‘one of the most charming country retreats’. It listed the improvements.

[A] stone-built mansion of 14 fine rooms with extensive outbuildings, garden, shrubbery and grounds...splendid, well-managed vineyard of about 20 acres in sound good order from which the celebrated Maryland red and white wines are produced and which yields a large annual return, orchard and orangery, massively-built stone wine cellars and other large buildings with perfect plant and appliances for the manufacture of wines, extensive stabling and coach-houses, underground water reservoirs, capable of holding about 10,000 gallons, farmhouse and other premises, paddocks – well-watered grazing and cultivation paddocks, two handsome lodges at the entrances on Bringelly and Cobbitty Roads &c. &c.61

The Sydney Morning Herald published additional information in late November 1876.

The whole of the above described buildings are very massively built of stone, and in thorough good order...The vineyards are planted with the choicest vines, now in full bearing, and under the careful skilled management of a German vigneron of long experience. Appliances for storing and bottling are complete. The wines on hand, about 12,000 gallons in wood and bottle, can be taken at a valuation. They are all superior 1872 to 1876 vintage, are in excellent condition, forming a valuable stock of matured wines, while the annual vintage will secure a handsome return on this portion of the estate. These wines have obtained prize medals wherever exhibited, and are favourably known both here and in Europe. The farmhouse and dairy farm, together with the barn &c, are let on lease, with conditions as to supply of produce required by the proprietor.62

In spite of the vigorous advertising campaign, Maryland was not sold in the late 1870s but it has not been possible to discover the reason for the attempted sale, nor why that was not achieved. However, an advertisement in the Sydney Morning Herald on 6 December 1880 suggests that the need for skilled help in the vineyard may have been a factor.

To Vignerons – Wanted, a thoroughly sober trustworthy MAN, who understands vineyard work and winemaking. For particulars apply Dr Liebius Royal Mint Sydney or Mrs Barker Maryland, Bringelly.

Mrs Barker and her son Thomas Charles Barker stayed at Maryland; the vineyard continued to thrive and both entered wines in shows. Mrs Barker received a mention in the Bordeaux Wine Exhibition of 1882 and her son obtained a ‘first order of merit for red wine at the Melbourne Centennial Exhibition’.63 Insurance helped them recover from a fire in the wine cellar in May 1899 although loss of wines and brandies was assessed at more than £1,200.64

61 Australian Town & Country Journal, 7 October 1876 and 4 November 1876 62 SMH, 25 November 1876, p 14 63 Australian Town & Country Journal, 28 October 1882; Sydney Mail and New South Wales Advertiser, 27 April 1889 64 Sydney Mail and New South Wales Advertiser, 20 May 1899

Maryland, Bringelly, Contextual History Rosemary Broomham 20 On 21 April 1903 Katherine sold Maryland to her son Thomas Charles Barker. This decision may have arisen from symptoms of the long illness that ended her life. Katherine Heath Barker died peacefully at Maryland on 2 June 1911 at the age of 91.65 As the local paper put it, ‘Although confined to her home for many years, she never failed to help, with her purse, many good causes’. Her funeral was held at St Paul’s Anglican Church, Cobbitty where she was laid to rest in the family vault. 66

Figure 13: The Maryland farm buildings can be seen on the river flats below the homestead from the grassy terrace in front of the house. Photo R. Broomham 2014

Figure 14: The stone stable in the group of farm buildings on the flats below the homestead. Photo R. Broomham 2014

65 Camden News, Thursday 4 June 1911, p 5 dates death as last Friday; Supreme Court of NSW as 2 June 1911 66 Camden News, Thursday 8 June 1911, p 5

Maryland, Bringelly, Contextual History Rosemary Broomham 21 2.5 Thomas Charles Barker Esquire, Maryland, Bringelly 1863-1940 Thomas Charles Barker was twelve when his father died. He followed his father in assuming responsibility for the winemaking activities on Maryland. He also adopted his dutiful attitude to community service, but in a different way. Whereas Thomas Barker was a trained engineer and earned his wealth through industrial investment and management in Sydney and served as a magistrate and a New South Wales parliamentarian, his son Thomas Charles Barker lived the life of a country squire. While the father continued as Scots Church Elder and his city trusteeships until the last years of his life, his son stayed within his local area and served it on the Nepean Shire Council.

On 10 November 1887, when he was in his early twenties, Thomas Charles Barker married Emily Macarthur Chisholm, daughter of James Kinghorne Chisholm of Gledswood, Narellan in St John’s Church at Camden.67 This union raised his social status as her father was the grandson of Mary Isabella Macarthur and James Bowman so the marriage linked him to the Macarthur dynasty. Emily’s home Gledswood had shared in the early days of Australian viticulture in which the Macarthurs were leaders. It was also admired for its garden as the Chisholms shared the Macarthurs’ passion for horticulture, an interest that Thomas Barker followed enthusiastically once he had the 15 acres of Roslyn Hall to beautify.68

James K. Chisholm and his wife Isabella Macarthur Bowman (1834-1883) had two sons and four daughters who survived to adulthood. When he died in 1912, James Chisholm bequeathed Gledswood and all its contents to his two spinster daughters Elizabeth Mary and Mary Macarthur Chisholm. The homestead was surrounded by 1,340 ac of land including garden, orchard and pastures. However, he expressed the wish that the property should eventually go to his only grandson James Chisholm Martin, son of Blanche Chisholm and husband Peter Martin.69 His other married daughter, Emily Macarthur and her husband had no children.

Clearly, the Barkers visited Gledswood frequently. In 1899, T. C. Barker even went so far to complain to the Under Secretary and Commissioner for Roads Robert Hickson about the poor state of the road from Narellan (Gledswood) to Bringelly (Maryland). He received a telegram assuring him that ‘liberal provision has been made on the schedule for this road, and instructions will be issued for works to be put in hand at once’.70

In 1906 Thomas Charles Barker was able to realise a long-held dream and purchase Lots 1 to 5 from the Cowpasture Estates plan, where Dickson’s landholdings began and where he built the Nonorrah homestead. Moorfield was also available. These purchases were made possible by the death of H. C. Burnell’s widow Sarah and the sale of the estate that had been held in trust for her during her lifetime. H. C. Burnell’s son, T. C. Burnell, conveyed these two pieces of land to Thomas Charles Barker on 19 July 1906 for the sum of £5,232. The following year Barker received the title for the consolidated properties – the 1303 ac of the recently purchased allotments and the 87 ac of Moorfield with the 721 acres of Maryland, a total of 2,024 acres excluding roads. On 11 June 1906 he also bought the 294-acre Lot 8 of the Cowpasture Estates that bordered the original Maryland property on the south.71

67 SMH, 12 November 1887 68 Note on Gledswood, Heritage Council of New South Wales, 2008 69 Camden News, 7 November 1912, p 6; familypedia.wiki.com, Isabella Macarthur Bowman 70 Official Correspondence, Public Works Department, Camden News, 10 August 1899 71 CT Vol 1339 Fol 134

Maryland, Bringelly, Contextual History Rosemary Broomham 22

T. C. Barker first raised a mortgage for these acquisitions from Charles Burnell of Bathurst and the Sydney solicitor Gustav Hugo Liebius but replaced that arrangement with another from the Commercial Banking Company of Sydney Limited in 1913.72 When he increased the size of Maryland’s land in this way, Thomas Charles Barker was 43 years old. Although he sometimes described himself as a grazier, he prefered to lease his pastures for others to work. In 1913, he resigned his position on the Nepean Shire Council in order to take a ‘tour to the Old Country’. Given the tensions in this, the year before the British declaration of war against Germany in August 1914, the timing may have been inauspicious.73

Figure 15: Thomas Charles Barker was twelve when his father died but in 1906 he added Lots 1-5 of the Cowpasture Estates plan and Moorfield to the 721 ac Maryland property. The additional 274 acres was immediately below the 721-acre farm and homestead of Maryland. CT Vol 1840 Fol 53, LPI

T. C. Barker returned to his seat on the Nepean Shire Council in 1916 where he followed the example of his father in adding £35 of his own money to the local main road fund. In March the following year he requested a council lamp near the four mile post on the road to Cobbitty.74 He and his wife Emily continued to live quietly at Maryland, with regular visits to Gledswood. That they enjoyed the help of domestic servants can be seen in Mrs Barker’s advertisments in the local paper in 1920. Her wanted ad in July asked for a general cook and explained that the job did not involve washing or ironing, as Maryland already had a housemaid and a parlour maid. In October she advertised for a girl to be a general help, offering ‘good wages for a suitable person’.75

In December 1934 the Sydney Morning Herald featured ‘A Visit to Maryland’ with photographs of the garden and homestead and some of its treasures. Perhaps it was the reporter who repeated the tale of Dickson’s daughter requesting ‘the pretty hill’ as a wedding gift when she married Thomas Barker Snr. However, the report states that it was Thomas Charles Barker who offered this published version of the family history. He began with his

72 CT Vol 1840 Fol 53 73 Camden News, 13 February 1913 74 Camden News, 16 March 1916, 18 January 1917 75 Camden News, 15 July and 7 October 1920

Maryland, Bringelly, Contextual History Rosemary Broomham 23 father’s arrival in New South Wales as a young lad in 1814 (sic) and moved directly to his home ‘with his people’ at Roslyn Hall in Darlinghurst standing in its own lovely gardens of 14 acres and built at the same time as the spacious neighbour Elizabeth Bay House’.76 He did not mention his father’s engineering skill or his industrial and commercial history. From that beginning, the story of Thomas Barker Snr’s life became more fabulous as Thomas Charles Barker recounted a tale of a journey his father made in 1838 to Asia and Europe in a chartered ship.

From Java to China, he loaded up the good ship with rice and other goods and set sail for Europe. The grand tour was the correct adventure for every Englishman, so plans were made for it but Mr Barker was also a practical Australian with farming ambitions, so he first moored his vessel at Leith and began to prepare for his future career! Cattle, sheep, farming machinery, seeds and provisions were chosen and ordered and Scottish shepherds engaged for their care, and then, his farming mind at rest, Mr Barker travelled and acquired furniture treasures for his future Australian home.77

He then ‘returned to his adopted country and his life at Maryland began’. (Maryland was built in 1858.) According to this report, all of the exotic and beautiful objects so admired by the Herald journalist were still set out as they had been ‘when Mrs Barker came from her own historic old home Gledswood as a bride’ some forty years earlier.78

Thomas Charles Barker died suddenly and unexpectedly on 9 January 1940 at the age of 76. As a Nepean Shire Councillor, ‘his interest in the affairs of the district was unflagging’. He refused to accept the allowance for councillors and made several donations for road maintenance. He was loyal to the local Anglican Church and belonged to the Camden Show Society. He was buried at St Paul’s Cemetery, Cobbitty.79

The fact that the Permanent Trustee Company lodged the Application by Transmission with the Registrar General on 24 July 1940 suggests that Thomas Charles Barker had not made a will. Neither had he discharged his mortgage on the Maryland Estate.80 The Permanent Trustee placed a Caveat forbidding registration of any dealing affecting the Certificates of Title 1840-53 and 1339-134 which Henry John Andrews, who described himself as a grazier from Northmead, and his wife Olive Annie Andrews were purchasing. These titles referred to the 2,024 acres attached to Maryland, consolidated in 1906; and the 274 acres 8 perches of Lot 8 on Hunter’s Cowpasture Estates plan Barker purchased on 11 June 1906. It appears that once the purchase was completed, the Permanent Trustee Company paid the outstanding £2,000 Mortgage which applied to both these titles.

76 SMH, 13 December 18238, p 10; Roslyn Hall was built in 1836 77 Ibid 78 Ibid 79 The Biz, Fairfield, 11 January 1940 80 Unfortunately the Application by Transmission was not filmed before it was destroyed.

Maryland, Bringelly, Contextual History Rosemary Broomham 24 2.6 Ninian Alan Thomson – Maryland, company director’s retreat On 17 September 1940, one month after their purchase had been finalised, Henry John Andrews and his wife Olive Annie Andrews subdivided the property that Thomas Charles Barker had created. They then sold the 721 acres that remained of the Maryland homestead and farm after main road changes to company director Ninian Alan Thomson. Thomson and his wife Janet (Jetta) Ievers came from ‘Cuppacumbalong’, a property on the Murrumbidgee River, now Tharwa, ACT.81 They had lived in the Sydney suburb of Double Bay since 1923 when Ninian Thomson had taken control of the family business Mauri Brothers & Thomson a merchant firm in Sydney after the death of his father Ninian Miller Thomson. When Thomson bought Maryland it comprised the homestead, garden, winery, and a farm that had been leased to dairy farmers. Thomson wanted to live in the country while running the business in the city.82 World War 2 had been in progress for a little over one year. 21

Figure 16: This aerial shows Maryland homestead in 1947. The dark line of trees at the top marks Lowes Creek, the northern boundary of Lot 2 in DP 218779; the double line of scattered trees on the right is The Northern Road which is the eastern boundary. The hill where the homestead is situated is the darker roughly triangular shape on the lower left hand side, the original entrance being by the road that shows as a diagonal white line through the trees at the upper end while the more recent access is the partly visible track looping up to the house from the centre of the lower edge of the image. LPI

In 1942 Ninian Alan Thomson suffered such a severe stroke that he was forced to retire from business. He died of a heart attack after a prolonged illness on 2 May 1952 leaving Maryland

81 NSW Environment & Heritage, Maryland Draft Listing, p 4 82 Harriet Veitch, ‘Dairy’s crème de la crème on city’s edge, Annie Thomson, 1921-2009’, 17 July 2009, brisbanetimes.com.au

Maryland, Bringelly, Contextual History Rosemary Broomham 25 to his widow Janet Ievers Thomson of Maryland, Bringelly and his older son Ninian Miller Thomson company director of Toorak, Victoria as joint tenants.83 2.7 Elizabeth and Annette (Annie) Thomson – dairy farmers of Maryland When their father retired, four years had passed after his second daughter Annette (Annie) had finished the Leaving Certificate at Frensham. As their brothers were working in the city, Annie and her older sister Elizabeth took over Maryland’s farm.84 They joined the Friesian Cattle Club in 1959, established a stud herd and entered some of their animals in local shows. They exhibited at the Sydney Royal Easter Show from 1964.85 It may have been from this time that Annie provided the commentary for the exhibit called ‘Milky Way’. This comprised a portable dairy where milkmaids in old fashioned costumes attended specially chosen docile cows while Annie explained milk production and processing. A comprehensive exhibition of the ‘Milky Way’ in the Lower Town Hall, Sydney had drawn large crowds in 1955. It was created to celebrate the sale of disease-free bottled milk, encourage people to drink more milk, and support the dairy industry. The Thomson sisters took the travelling exhibition to Sydney, Canberra, Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth. It was permanently installed in the Royal Agricultural Show ground after it moved to Homebush in 1998.86

Figure 17: This plan of DP 218779 shows the Maryland property subdivision that separated the homestead and its access road in Lot 1 (23a 2r 16p) from the Farm (692 ac) in Lot 2. The Northern Road on the right is of ‘variable width’. CT Vol 5148 Fols 22 and 23, issued 13 November 1963, LPI

Annie Thomson won multiple awards for her contribution to the dairy industry. They were life membership of the Holstein Friesian Association of Australia, 1988, Dairy Industry Merit Award 1993, life membership of the dairy industry 1994, the Dairy Research Foundation’s

83 SMH 2 April 1952; CT Vol 5146 Fol 105, LPI 84 Harriet Veitch, op cit; The Southern Mail, 18 January 1938 85 Harriet Veitch, op cit 86 Nepean Times 11 August 1955; The Farmer and Settler, 19 August 1955

Maryland, Bringelly, Contextual History Rosemary Broomham 26 Tetra Pak award and a Royal Agricultural Society contributor’s award 1997. In 2001 she was recognised as a Royal Easter Show Legend.87

Annie also loved horses and riding and helped establish the Cobbitty Pony Club which began in 1960 and held its activities on Maryland for many years. Instructing beginners until 1985, ‘she taught generations of local children to ride’.88

Giving this up, and later having to give up riding, were two of the hardest things and saddest things she had ever faced. Although she did not marry or have children of her own, she loved young people. Nieces and nephews, godchildren, family friends and children of farm workers were frequent visitors to Maryland.89

Indeed, Elizabeth and Annie Thomson ‘were the mainstay of their community’. Known locally as ‘the Girls’, they continued working well into their eighties. In 2004 both sisters were awarded the Medal Order of Australia ‘for their contributions to shows, the dairy industry and the community’. Even at that time they kept 120 dairy cows to show on their travels throughout New South Wales.90 Elizabeth died in 2006 and Annie in 2009.

Figure 18: Annie and Elizabeth Thomson on the lawn in front of the Maryland homestead in 2004. Photo Peter Morris

87 Harriet Veitch, op cit 88 Ibid 89 Ibid 90 Ibid

Maryland, Bringelly, Contextual History Rosemary Broomham 27 2.7 New owners for Maryland 2009-2013 When Annie died, the Thomson family hoped they would continue to own and manage Maryland. However, there have been two sales of the property in quick succession. The family placed a caveat on a contract to purchase but that was withdrawn on 1 November 2012 and Maryalan Pty Limited and Winbarra Pty Limited, the companies created by Annie and Elizabeth Thomson, transferred to Nonorrah Farm Pty Ltd and Maryland Homestead Pty Ltd. Just over three months after that transaction, Nonorrah Farm Pty Ltd and Maryland Homestead Pty Ltd sold Lot 1/DP 218779 and Lot 29/DP 872135 to Aitken Lawyers, the transfer being registered on 13 February 2013.91 Change is coming to Bringelly as Sydney takes more of the territory of the colonial country squires and their descendants.

91 Lot 1/DP 218779 and Lot 29/DP 872135 Auto Folios LPI

Maryland, Bringelly, Contextual History Rosemary Broomham 28 2.9 Appendixes Appendix 1: Summary of Maryland Owners

Date Name Description of Land

25 August 1812 Michael Dowdell 40 ac south of Birling Farm, centre of Maryland

20 June 1816 John Dickson Remainder of Maryland site, in 3000-acre Nonorrah unknown Eliza Cordelia Walker 40 ac south of Birling Farm, centre of Maryland

10 July 1835 Rowland Thomas Brisbane 40 ac south of Birling Farm, centre of Maryland Walker – Inheritance

24, 25 August 1838 Matthew Dysert Hunter 3000 acres granted to John Dickson divided for sale as the Cowpasture Estates

28 July 1842 Sarah Lowe Lots 6 and 7 of the Cowpasture Estates, most of Maryland

31 August 1842 Matthew Dysert Hunter Lots 6 and 7 of the Cowpasture Estates, most of Maryland Mortgage

7 July 1854 Thomas Barker Lots 6 and 7 of the Cowpasture Estates, most of Maryland

17 December 1855 Thomas Barker 40 ac south of Birling Farm, centre of Maryland

21 April 1862 Katherine Heath Barker, 714 ac comprising the 40 ac farm, and 674 ac of Lots 6 & 7 wife of Thomas Barker – all of Maryland

21 April 1903 Thomas Charles Barker 714 ac comprising the 40 ac farm, and 674 ac of Lots 6 & 7 – all of Maryland

11 February 1913 Commerical Banking – all of Maryland plus an additional 1310 acres Company Mortgage

16 August 1940 Permanent Trustee – all of Maryland plus an additional 1310 acres Company of NSW

17 September 1940 Henry John Andrews and – all of Maryland plus an additional 1310 acres wife Olive Annie Andrews

17 September 1940 Ninian Alan Thomson – all of Maryland – 721 ac

27 May 1953 Janet Ievers Thomson and – all of Maryland – 721 ac Ninian Miller Thomson

10 June 1958 Janet Ievers Thomson and – all of Maryland ex road – 629 ac Annette Lillie Thomson

19 July 1963 Elizabeth G Thomson and – all of Maryland ex road – 629 ac Annette L Thomson

1 November 2012 Nonorrah Farm P/L and Lot 1/DP 218779 and Maryland Homestead P/L Lot 29/DP 872135

12 February 2013 Aitken Lawyers Lot 1/DP 218779 and Lot 29/DP 872135

Maryland, Bringelly, Contextual History Rosemary Broomham 29 Appendix 2: Table 1 – Owners of the Maryland Estate

The Maryland Estate is defined as the land Thomas Barker bought in 1854 and the site of the country homestead he built there in 1858.

Dates Names Description of Land

25 August 1812 Michael Dowdell 40 ac south of Lowe’s Birling Farm in the District of Cook PA 14468

20 June 1816 John Dickson 3,000-acre Crown grant in the District of Cook issued by Governor Macquarie

date unknown Eliza Cordelia Walker, daughter of Dowdell’s Farm – 40 ac south of Lowe’s Thomas Hassall, Cobbitty – Bequest Birling Farm PA 14468

10 July 1835 Rowland Thomas Brisbane Walker Dowdell’s Farm – 40 ac south of Lowe’s Inheritance Birling Farm PA 14468

15 August 1838 Matthew Dysert Hunter 3,000-acre Crown grant issued to John Dickson by Governor Macquarie

24 & 25 August 1841 Matthew Dysert Hunter 1,833 acres released by Trustees including Lots 6 and 7 of the Cowpasture Estates PA 14468

28 July 1842 Sarah Lowe Lots 6 and 7 of the Cowpasture Estates Conveyance $2,192 PA 14468

31 July 1842 Matthew Dysert Hunter Lots 6 and 7 of the Cowpasture Estates Mortgage of £1,753 with Interest PA 14468, Old System, No 212 Bk 4

7 July 1854 Thomas Barker Esq 674 ac 2 r Lots 6 and 7 on the Registered Conveyance £1,600 Cowpasture Estates together with all 22 November 1854 houses outhouses edifices and buildings therein erected and built... PA 14468, Old System, No 884 Bk 34

17 December 1855 Thomas Barker Dowdell’s Farm – 40 ac south of Lowe’s Conveyance £120 Birling Farm between Lots 6 and 7 on ‘Plan of the Cowpasture Estates’ PA 14468, Old System No 706 Bk 41

21 April 1862 Katherine Heath Barker wife of Thomas 1. 674 ac with all buildings, Lots 6 and 7 Barker in trust of the Cowpasture Estates and Thomas Walker conveyed the land to J. 2. 40 ac, Dowdell’s Farm F. Josephson in exchange for 10 sh to the Total 714 acres use of Katherine Heath Barker PA 14468, Old System No 71 Bk 81

21 April 1903 Thomas Charles Barker 1. 674 ac with all buildings, Lots 6 and 7 of the Cowpasture Estates and 2. 40 ac, Dowdell’s Farm Total 714 acres, PA 14468

Maryland, Bringelly, Contextual History Rosemary Broomham 30

Dates Names Description of Land

20 July 1906 T. C. Burnell and Gustav Hugo Leibius 1. 674 ac with all buildings, Lots 6 and 7 Equitable Mortgage of the Cowpasture Estates and 2. 40 ac, Dowdell’s Farm, south of Discharged Paid 8 March 1911 Lowe’s Birling Farm PA 14468

11 February 1913 Commercial Banking Company of 40 ac grant (Ptn 46); part of grant of Sydney Limited 1,000 ac to Robert Lowe (Ptn 50) and Mortgage C 926552 part of 3,000 ac (Ptn 45); 87 ac (Ptn 57) of Cook Parish. Total 2,024 acres CT Vol 1840 Fol 53

9 July 1940 Death of Thomas Charles Barker

13 August 1940 Mortgage C 926279 discharged

16 August 1940 Permanent Trustee Company of New 40 ac grant (Ptn 46); part of grant of South Wales 1,000 ac to Robert Lowe (Ptn 50) and part of 3,000 ac (Ptn 45); 87 ac (Ptn 57) of Cook Parish. Total 2,024 acres CT Vol 1840 Fol 53

17 September 1940 Henry John Andrews and wife Olive 40 ac grant (Ptn 46); part of grant of Annie Andrews 1,000 ac to Robert Lowe (Ptn 50) and part of 3,000 ac (Ptn 45); 87 ac (Ptn 57) of Cook Parish. Total 2,024 acres CT Vol 1840 Fol 53

17 September 1940 Ninian Alan Thomson company director 721 ac being land originally granted as – CT Vol 5146 Fol 105

2 May 1952 Death of Ninian Alan Thomson

27 May 1953 Janet Ievers Thomson Bringelly and 721 ac being land originally granted as – Ninian Miller Thomson, her son CT Vol 5146 Fol 105

10 June 1958 Janet Ievers Thomson widow and 721 ac being land originally granted as – Annette Lillie Thomson , her daughter CT Vol 5146 Fol 105

13 November 1960 Janet Ievers Thomson widow and 692 ac ex road, Lots 1 and 2 in DP Annette Lillie Thomson 218779 CT Vol 9568 Vols 22 & 23

19 July 1963 Elizabeth Gillies Thomson 721 ac being land originally granted as – and Annette Lillie Thomson CT Vol 5146 Fol 105

23 July1963 Maryalan Pty and Winbarra Pty Limited 721 ac being land originally granted as – owned by Elizabeth and Annette CT Vol 5146 Fol 105 Thomson

1 November 2012 Nonorrah Farm Pty Ltd and Maryland Lot 1/DP 218779 and Homestead Pty Ltd Lot 29/DP 872135 Auto Folio

12 February 2013 Aitken Lawyers Lot 1/DP 218779 and Lot 29/DP 872135

Maryland, Bringelly, Contextual History Rosemary Broomham 31 Appendix 2: Table 1 – Chronology of Ownership Part 1 – Nonorrah

Date Owner Description 20 June 1816 John Dickson (Dixon) 3,000 acres in District of Cook Crown Grant PA 14468 1 April 1829 Richard Jones, President, Bank of 3,000 acres in District of Cook by name of NSW Dickson’s Farm, including all buildings etc Unlimited Mortgage, PA 14468, Old System No 3 Bk C £2,066.5sh.2p @ 10 % per annum 1 & 2 July 1833 John Dickson to All his property – Thomas Barker, James Dickson, 15a 3r 4p in Cockle Bay and Nonorrah George Muckle, Alexander Berry Farm in the District of Cook, and 500 ac in in Trust Bankstown, also Scotland Island, Pitt Water Lease and Release PA 14468, Old System No 169 Bk F 12 July 1833 Deed Poll and Power of Attorney John Dickson to Thomas Barker, James Dickson, George Muckle, Alexander Berry To sell & dispose of estate and effects for payment of the just debts and maintenance and education of the children of the said John Dickson PA 14468, Old System No 430 Bk H 3 & 4 November 1834 Richard Jones Esq All Dickson’s Farm of 3,000 acres in the to Thomas Barker, James Dickson, District of Cook bounded on south by George Muckle and Alexander Netherbyres, Orielton and Hooks Farm to Berry the west, on the north by Lowe’s Birling, £700 Hassall’s Coventry with South Creek and Memorial Molle’s Catherine Field on the east. Lease and Release PA 14468, Old System, No 598 Bk G 14 August 1838 Revocation and New Appointment by John Dickson PA 14468 15 August 1838 Contract for Sale John Dickson to M. D. Hunter PA 14468 15 August 1838 Attested Copy – Power of Attorney J. Dickson to W. J. Dowling and Thomas Woore PA 14468 27 August 1853 Conveyance Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 Nonorrah, Part of M. D. Hunter to H. C. Burnell Dickson’s 3,000 ac District of Cook, with Right of Way to lots 2, 3, 4.& 5

PA 14468, Old System No 160 Bk 28

27 August 1853 Statutory Declaration of Thomas Lots 1-5 of Nonorrah with RoW Barker PA 14468

3 September 1853 Covenant Lots 1-5 of Nonorrah with RoW J. Thacker to H. C. Burnell PA 14468

7 September 1853 Covenant Lots 1-5 of Nonorrah with RoW Thomas Barker to H. C. Burnell PA 14468

18 February1854 Deed of Confirmation Lots 1-5 of Nonorrah with RoW M. D. Hunter to H. C. Burnell PA 14468

Maryland, Bringelly, Contextual History Rosemary Broomham 32 Table 1: Maryland – Chronology of Ownership Part 2 – Moorfield

Date Owner Description 25 August 1812 Crown Grant - Attested Copy 87 ac –District of Cook to Thomas Moore PA 14468 1830 Bargain and Sale 87 ac, Moorfield – District of Cook Thomas Moore to John Dickson PA 14468, Old System No 238 Book T 15 August 1838 Power of Attorney – Attested Copy J. Dickson to W. J. Dowling and Thomas Woore PA 14468 24 & 25 August 1841 John Dickson of London GB – 1st 87 ac, Moorfield –District of Cook Thomas Barker Sydney – 2nd together with all and singular buildings, George Muckle Liverpool NSW waters etc Alexander Berry MD Hunter Sydney Merch’t – 3rd £200 PA 14468, Old System No 657 Bk 1 13 July 1842 Release by Mortgage Moorfield 87 ac –part of Dickson’s land in Stephenson Atkin Bryant the district of Cook, west side of South Mortgager Creek, north of Molle’s Catherine Field Matthew Dysert Hunter Mortgagee and 365 ac – Lot 1 of Nonorrah – 3,000 ac £2000 [interest not declared] PA 14468, Old System No 439 Bk 2 28 July 1842 Matthew Dysert Hunter Vendor Moorfield 87 ac –part of Dickson’s land in Stephenson Atkin Bryant the district of Cook, west side of South Purchaser Creek, north of Molle’s Catherine Field £2000 and 365 ac – Lot 1 of 3,000 ac, District of Indenture of Release Cook PA 14468, Old System No 438 Bk 2 9 August 1853 Matthew Dysert Hunter 1st part Moorfield 87 ac District of Cook Stephenson Atkin Bryant together with all and singular buildings, Melbourne 2nd part waters etc to William Carr Sydney 3rd part PA 14468, Old System No 911 Bk 27 Matthew Dysert Hunter 4th part Conveyance by Hunter and Bryant £200 2 February 1855 Power of Attorney – Attested Copy M. D. Hunter to A. C. Daniell & S. A. Donaldson PA 14468 18 October 1855 Conveyance 87 ac, Moorfield –District of Cook Michael Dysert Hunter to Henry together with all and singular buildings, Clay Burnell waters etc with right of way to Bringelly Rd £191 PA 14468, Old System, No 607 Bk 41 18 May 1867 Settlement 365 ac – Lot 1 of 3000 ac originally granted H. C. Burnell with Sarah Burnell to John Dickson and known as Nonorrah as Trustee and 829 ac collectively Lots 2, 3, 4, and 5 and Alexander Dick & Adolph of Nonorrah Leibius and Sarah released her right to her 87 ac, Moorfield inheritance of 16 parcels of land so all District of Cook Henry Burnell can convey them to PA 14468, Old System, No 638 Bk 103 A. Dick and A. Liebius in Trust but Sarah and her children retain freedom to use of the land 3 August 1868 Appointment of New Trustee Sarah Burnell & A. Liebius –1st pt George Adolphus Allen – other pt PA 14468, Old System, No 991 Bk 109

Maryland, Bringelly, Contextual History Rosemary Broomham 33 Table 1: Maryland, Chronology of Ownership Part 2 Moorfield (continued)

Date Owner Description 26 October 1870 Appointment of New Trustee Land in Settlement of 18 May 1867 – Endorsed on Deed No 638 Bk 121 (as described in Schedule above) Sarah Burnell 1st conveyed to uses as the Trust sees fit Adolph Liebius & G. A. Allen 2nd Thomas Barker of Maryland 3rd *George Allen no longer Trustee of Settlement PA 14468, Old System, No 874 Bk 121 1871 Appointment of George Allen by Sarah Burnell PA 14468, Old System, No 292 Bk 488 9 April 1875 Appointment of New Trustee Land in Settlement of 18 May 1867 – S. Burnell and A Liebius – 1st (as described in Schedule above) T. C. Burnell, Manager of Bank of conveyed to uses as the Trust sees fit NSW – the other part

Thomas Barker departed this life on or about 12 March 1875 PA 14468, Old System, No 774 Bk 156 7 March 1894 Appointment of New Trustee Sarah Burnell and T. C. Burnell 1st G. H. Liebius – the other part PA 14468, Old System, No 689 Bk 535 25 September 1896 Probate of Will of Sarah Burnell PA 14468 19 July 1906 Conveyance Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, Nonorrah, Part of T. C. Burnell and G. H. Liebius to Dickson’s 3,000 ac District of Cook, with Thomas Charles Barker Right of Way to lots 2, 3, 4.& 5 £5,232 and 87 ac, Moorfield all in District of Cook County of Cumberland PA 14468, Old System, No 738 Bk 809

Maryland, Bringelly, Contextual History Rosemary Broomham 34 Table 1: Maryland, Chronology of Ownership – Part 3 Lots 6 & 7 of Cowpasture Estates

Date Owner Description 24 & 25 August 1841 Conveyance 1,833 acres released by Trustees including John Dickson and others to Lots 6 and 7 of the Cowpasture Estates Matthew Dysert Hunter PA 14468 28 July 1842 M. D. Hunter to Sarah Lowe 1,833 acres released by Trustees including Conveyance Lots 6 and 7 of the Cowpasture Estates [Released by trustees on 1 & 2 Hunter agreed to pay $6,500 and Sarah July 1842] Lowe agreed to pay $2,192 for Lots 6 and 7 PA 14468 31 July 1842 Mortgage of £1,753 with Interest Lots 6 and 7 of the Cowpasture Estates Sarah Lowe to M. D. Hunter PA 14468, Old System, No 212 Bk 4 7 July 1854 Conveyance 674 ac 2 r Lots 6 and 7 on the Cowpasture M. D. Hunter of Antons Hill, Estates together with all houses outhouses Received 22 November County Berwick, Scotland Vendor edifices and buildings therein erected and 1854 to Thomas Barker Esq Purchaser built... £1,600 PA 14468, Old System, No 884 Bk 34 2 November 1854 Conveyance 674 ac 2 r Lots 6 and 7 on the Cowpasture Thomas Barker to H. C. Burnell Estates £5,000 paid by Burnell. According PA 14468, Old System, No 885 Bk 34 to indenture of 7 July 1854 he had agreed to pay £2,000 but has now paid £5,000 to the Estate administrators 19 June 1855 Conveyance 674 ac 2 r Lots 6 and 7 as on ‘Plan of the H. C. Burnell to Thomas Barker Cowpasture Estates’ £2000 PA 14468, Old System, No 224 Bk 38

Table 1: Maryland – Chronology of Ownership – Part 4 Dowdell’s Farm & Lots 6 and 7 Cowpasture Estates

Date Owner Description 25 August 1812 Michael Dowdell 40 ac south of Lowe’s Birling Farm in the Crown Grant from Governor District of Cook –to cultivate 12 acres Macquarie within 5 years or grant will be voided PA 14468 7 December 1855 Statutory Declaration Thomas Dowdell’s Farm – 40 ac south of Lowe’s Hassall of Cobbitty. The farm was Birling Farm in the District of Cook bequeathed to Hassall’s daughter PA 14468 Eliza Cordelia Walker 25 February 1855 Certificate of Burial of Elisa Ralph’s Plains, Bathurst 10 July 1835 Cordelia Hassall, wife of Wesleyan Minister William Walker, age 31 PA 14468 20 October 1855 Certificate of Marriage of William Married at Parramatta by Rev Samuel Walker with Elisa Cordelia Hassall Marsden on 14 May 1823 PA 14468 20 October 1855 Certificate of Baptism of Rowland Baptised at St John’s Parramatta on 25 Thomas Brisbane Walker January 1828, born 3 January 1828 25 February 1855 Certificate of Burial of Elisa Ralph’s Plains, Bathurst 10 July 1835 Cordelia Hassall, wife of Wesleyan Minister William Walker, age 31 PA 14468

Maryland, Bringelly, Contextual History Rosemary Broomham 35 Table 1: Maryland – Chronology of Ownership – Part 4 Dowdell’s Farm & Lots 6 and 7 Cowpasture Estates (continued)

Date Owner Description 17 December 1855 Conveyance Dowdell’s Farm – 40 ac south of Lowe’s Rowland Thomas Brisbane Walker Birling Farm in the District of Cook to Thomas Barker PA 14468, Old System No 706 Bk 41 £120 21 April 1862 Thomas Barker 1st, wife Katherine 1. 674 ac with all buildings, Lots 6 and 7 of Heath Barker 2nd, to barrister the Cowpasture Estates and Joshua Frey Josephson 3rd, and heirs 2. 40 ac, Dowdell’s Farm, south of Lowe’s as Trustee to the uses of the said Birling Farm in the District of Cook Katherine Heath Barker free from debts, control and engagements of PA 14468, Old System No 71 Bk 81 Thomas Barker 1. Whereas indenture 19 June 1855 between H. C. Burnell conveyed the land described to Thomas Barker and his heirs for ever and 2. Whereas indenture on 17 December 1855 between R. B. T. Walker conveyed the land described to Thomas Walker Here, Thomas Walker conveys the land described to J. F. Josephson in exchange for 10 sh to the use of Katherine Heath Barker 21 April 1903 Indenture 1. 674 ac with all buildings, Lots 6 and 7 of between Katherine Heath Barker the Cowpasture Estates and widow of Maryland Bringelly and 2. 40 ac, Dowdell’s Farm, south of Lowe’s Thomas Charles Barker of the same Birling Farm in the District of Cook place agree to continue lease to Josephson and heirs during their joint lives and to Katherine after PA 14468, Old System No 411 Book 734 death of Thomas Charles Barker or to the latter if Katherine died first

Thomas Barker Snr died on 12 March 1875 and the land described was already left in trust to Katherine Heath Barker.

Conveyance Katherine Heath Barker to Thomas Charles Barker 20 July 1906 Equitable Mortgage 1. 674 ac with all buildings, Lots 6 and 7 of Thomas Charles Barker to T. C. the Cowpasture Estates and Burnell and Gustav Hugo Leibius 2. 40 ac, Dowdell’s Farm, south of Lowe’s Birling Farm in the District of Cook PA 14468

Maryland, Bringelly, Contextual History Rosemary Broomham 36 Table 2: Maryland Estate, Chronology of Ownership – Part 1 Thomas Charles Barker

Date Owner Description

21 April 1903 Conveyance 1. 674 ac with all buildings, Lots 6 and 7 of Katherine Heath Barker to Thomas the Cowpasture Estates and Charles Barker 2. 40 ac, Dowdell’s Farm, south of Lowe’s Birling Farm in the District of Cook

19 July 1906 Conveyance Lot 1, Nonorrah, Part of Dickson’s 3,000 ac T. C. Burnell to T. C. Barker District of Cook together with Lots 2, 3, 4 £5,232 and 5 with Right of Way to lots 2, 3, 4.& 5 and Moorfield being 1303 acres

PA 14468 No 738 Bk 809

17 December 1907 Consolidation 40 ac grant (Ptn 46 of Cook Parish); part of Thomas Charles Barker grant of 1,000 ac to Robert Lowe (Ptn 50) and part of 3,000 ac (Ptn 45); 87 ac (Ptn 57 of Cook Parish). Total Area 2,024 acres CT Vol 1840 Fol 53

9 September 1907 Mortgage No 480433 Part of the 2,024 acres Thomas Barker to Charles Burnell Paid 8 March 1911 of Bathurst and Gustav Hugo CT Vol 1840 Fol 53 Liebius Sydney solicitor

11 February 1913 Mortgage C 926279 Commercial Banking Company of Sydney Limited CT Vol 1840 Fol 53

9 January 1940 Thomas Charles Barker Sydney Morning Herald, 10 January 1940 Death At the time of death, Mortgage C926279 had not been paid

24 July 1940 Application by Transmission Dealing not available as it was destroyed No C 926552 before filming by

24 July 1940 Caveat C 926553

13 August 1940 Mortgage C 926279 discharged

4 September 1940 Caveat C 926553 withdrawn

16 August 1940 Transfer 40 ac grant (Ptn 46 of Cook Parish); part of Permanent Trustee Company of grant of 1,000 ac to Robert Lowe (Ptn 50) New South Wales to and part of 3,000 ac (Ptn 45); 87 ac (Ptn 57 Henry John Andrews, Northmead of Cook Parish). Total Area 2,024 acres grazier and wife Olive Annie CT Vol 1840 Fol 53 Andrews as Joint Tenants

Maryland, Bringelly, Contextual History Rosemary Broomham 37 Table 2: Maryland – Chronology of Ownership Part 2 – Thomas Charles Barker – Maryland Estate

Date Owner Description

17 December 1900 Edward Charles Lusted 294 ac 8 p – Lot 8 Cowpasture Estates and Campbelltown Contractor and his Part of 3,000 ac grant to John Dickson wife Agnes Lusted (Portion 45) Cook Parish and also part of 1,000 ac grant to Robert Lowe (Portion 50) CT Vol 1339 Fol 134

22 December 1901 Transfer 294 ac 8 p – Lot 8 Cowpasture Estates and Charles Smith, Bringelly Esquire Part of 3,000 ac grant to John Dickson (Portion 45) Cook Parish and also part of 1,000 ac grant to Robert Lowe (Portion 50) CT Vol 1339 Fol 134

11 June 1906 Transfer 294 ac 8 p – Lot 8 Cowpasture Estates and Thomas Charles Barker Esq Part of 3,000 ac grant to John Dickson (Portion 45) Cook Parish and also part of 1,000 ac grant to Robert Lowe (Portion 50) CT Vol 1339 Fol 134

11 February 1913 Mortgage 294 ac 8 p – Lot 8 Cowpasture Estates and Commercial Banking Company of Part of 3000 ac grant to John Dickson Sydney (Portion 45) Cook Parish and also part of Amount £2,000 1,000 ac grant to Robert Lowe (Portion 50) Rent (Interest) of £160 per annum CT Vol 1339 Fol 134 to be paid by equal half-yearly payments

24 July 1940 Application for Transmission Several parcels of land in the Shire of C926552 Nepean, Parish of Cook, County of by Permanent Trustee Company Cumberland as defined in the titles listed below Not Available – This C Dealing Transmission Application was CT Vol 1339 Fol 134 and destroyed before filming CT Vol 1840 Fol 53

17 Deptember 1940 Transfer 40 ac grant (Ptn 46 of Cook Parish); part of Permanent Trustee Company to grant of 1,000 ac to Robert Lowe (Ptn 50) Henry John Andrews grazier, and part of 3,000 ac (Ptn 45); 87 ac (Ptn 57 Northmead and wife Olive Annie of Cook Parish). Total Area 2,024 acres Andrews CT Vol 1840 Fol 53

Maryland, Bringelly, Contextual History Rosemary Broomham 38 Table 3: Maryland – Chronology of Ownership – Part 1 Thomsons Maryland homestead and farm

Date Owner Description

17 September 1940 Transfer 40 ac grant (Ptn 46 of Cook Parish); part of Henry John Andrews and wife grant of 1,000 ac to Robert Lowe (Ptn 50) Olive Annie Andrews to and part of 3,000 ac (Ptn 45); 87 ac (Ptn 57 Ninian Alan Thomson of part of Cook Parish). Total Area 2,024 acres CT Vol 1840 Fol 53

17 September 1940 Ninian Alan Thomson company 721 ac being land originally granted as – director 40 ac grant (Ptn 46 of Cook Parish); part of grant of 1,000 ac to Robert Lowe (Ptn 50) Mortgage and part of 3,000 ac (Ptn 45); 87 ac (Ptn 57) of Cook Parish CT Vol 5146 Fol 105

28 September 1942 Mortgage with AMP No D 158028

19 January 1953 Application by Transmission 721 ac being land originally granted as – Janet Ievers Thomson Bringelly 40 ac grant (Ptn 46 of Cook Parish); part of widow and grant of 1,000 ac to Robert Lowe (Ptn 50) Ninian Miller Thomson Toorak and part of 3,000 ac (Ptn 45); 87 ac (Ptn 57) Victoria company director of Cook Parish Joint Tenants CT Vol 5146 Fol 105

8 September 1955 Notice of Resumption Commissioners of DMR

27 May 1953 Caveat F864027 Part of the land described coloured pink Withdrawn 20 October 1958

10 June 1958 Transfer 721 ac being land originally granted as – Janet Ievers Thomson widow and 40 ac grant (Ptn 46 of Cook Parish); part of Annette Lillie Thomson spinster, grant of 1,000 ac to Robert Lowe (Ptn 50) both of Bringelly and part of 3,000 ac (Ptn 45); 87 ac (Ptn 57) as Joint Tenants of Cook Parish CT Vol 5146 Fol 105

28 October 1958 Caveat No H 64758 CT Vol 5146 Fol 105

8 November 1960 Mortgage No D 158028 discharged CT Vol 5146 Fol 105

8 November 1960 Whole Deed (ex road) 721 ac, Lots 1 and 2 to DP 218779 CT Vol 9568 Vols 22 & 23

13 November 1960 Janet Ievers Thomson widow and 692 ac ex road, Lots 1 and 2 in DP 218779 Annette Lillie Thomson spinster, CT Vol 9568 Vols 22 & 23 both of Bringelly as Joint Tenants

19 July 1963 Application by Transmission by 692 ac ex road, Lots 1 and 2 in DP 218779 Elizabeth Gillies Thomson and CT Vol 9568 Vols 22 & 23 Annette Lillie Thomson

Maryland, Bringelly, Contextual History Rosemary Broomham 39 Table 3: Maryland – Chronology of Ownership – Part 2 Thomsons Maryland homestead and farm

Date Owner Description

19 July 1963 Elizabeth Gillies Thomson and 692 ac ex road, Lots 1 and 2 in DP218779 Annette Lillie Thomson CT Vol 9568 Vols 22 & 23

23 July 1963 Maryalan Pty and Winbarra Pty 692 ac ex road, Lots 1 and 2 in DP218779 Limited CT Vol 9568 Vols 22 & 23

23 July 1963 Transfer Right of Way affecting the site of the proposed right of way 100 links shown in Plan hereon

19 September 1963 Mortgage to CBA Discharged

5 September 1985 Mortgage to NAB Discharged

16 May 1988 Cancelled/ See Auto Folio CT Not Issued

21 August 1998 Deposited Plan DP8722135

1 November 2012 Caveat AH 349705 Re contract to purchase Maryalan Pty Limited and Withdrawn J408927 Winbarra Pty Limited to Nonorrah Farm Pty Ltd and Maryland Homestead Pty Ltd

12 February 2013 Transfer Lot 1/DP 218779 and Nonorrah Farm Pty Ltd and Lot 29/DP 872135 Maryland Homestead Pty Ltd to Auto Folio Aitken Lawyers

Maryland, Bringelly, Contextual History Rosemary Broomham 40 2.10 Select Bibliography

Primary Sources

Title Search Old System and Primary Application Packet Land & Property Information (LPI)

Maps and Manuscripts Mitchell Library, State Library of NSW

Primary Sources –Texts

G. Nesta Griffiths, Maryland, Bringelly, 4-page typed MS signed ‘G. Nesta Griffiths June 1956’, SLNSW

Historical Records of Australia (HRA)

Horticultural Magazine and Gardeners’ and Amateurs’ Calendar, 1870

Record No 34250, Vertical File, Sydney Living Museums, Caroline Simpson Library and Research Collection

Watkin Tench, A Narrative of the Expedition to Botany Bay and A complete Account of the Settlement at Port Jackson 1788-1791, reprint, Library of Australian History, Sydney, 1979

Trove Newspapers National Library of Australia (NLA)

David Lindsay Waugh, Three years’ practical experience of a settler in New South Wales: being extracts from letters to his friends in Edinburgh from 1834-1837, John Johnstone, Edinburgh, 1838

Secondary Sources –Texts

James Broadbent, ‘Maryland New South Wales’, in Historic Homesteads of Australia, Australian Council of National Trusts, Cassell Australia, 1969-1976

Carol Liston, Campbelltown. The Bicentennial History, Council of the City of Campbelltown with Allen & Unwin Australia, Pty Ltd, North Sydney, 1988

Casey & Lowe Pty Ltd, ‘History of Barker’s Mill Darling Harbour’, September 2002

Environment and Heritage Office, ‘Maryland, Bringelly’ Draft Statement of Significance and related texts

Heritage Council of New South Wales, ‘Gledswood’, 2008

C. Morris & G. Britton/ NSW National Trust, Colonial Landscapes of the Cumberland Plain and Camden, NSW, 2000

Maryland, Bringelly, Contextual History Rosemary Broomham 41 Robert Murray and Kate White, Dharug to Dungaree. The History of Penrith and St Marys to 1860, Harreen Publishing Company with the City of Penrith,1988

Harriet Veitch, ‘Dairy’s crème de la crème on city’s edge, Annie Thomson, 1921-2009’, 17 July 2009, brisbanetimes.com.au

A. K. Weatherburn, Thomas Barker, pioneer Australian industrialist (1799 to 1875), self published, Ryde, NSW

G. P. Walsh, ‘Barker, Thomas (1799-1875)’, Australian Dictionary of Biography Volume 1

G. P. Walsh, ‘Dickson , John (1774-1843)’, Australian Dictionary of Biography Volume 1

Maryland, Bringelly, Contextual History Rosemary Broomham 42