DOCSLIB.ORG

Davince Tools Generated PDF File

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Davince Tools Generated PDF File ,.--------.r--------------------.... '-AR .s, ~RRmREE J • .. February 2000 ---~------------------- , Thorp Cultural"Re~9f1tr~~ir.N(~!1agement • « L ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT HEREFORD HOUSE & KERRIBREE 53,55 HEREFO.RD STREET February 2000 Prepared for Perumal Murphy Wu WendyThorp Cultural Resources Management Archaeological Assessment: 53-55 Hereford Street, Glebe ICONTENTS OF THE REPORT 1.0 PRECIS OF THE REPORT. ... 1 1.1 . The Site and the Work . 1 1.2 Historical Context . 1 1.3 The Archaeological Resource 2 1.4 Cultural Significance . 3 1.5 The Proposal and Its Impact 3 1.6 Management ........ 3 2.0 THE INVESTIGATION ........... 4 2.1 The Study Area and.Subject 4 2.2 Status of the Site ... 4 2.3 Methodology ........ 5 2.4 Objectives and Tasks .... 5 2.5 Authorship, Client and Acknowledgements 5 2.6 Abbreviations Used in the Text .... 6 Figure: The Study Area ........ 6 Views: Hereford House and Kerribree 7 3.0 HISTORICAL ANALYSIS 8 3.1 The Pre-European Environment and Aboriginal Occupation. 9 3.2 . The Clergy and School Lands Corporation & Subdivision 10 Undated Plan of Glebe Lands ............ 11 Plan ofForest Lodge Allotments 1845 3.3 William Bull and Hereford House: 53 Hereford Street 12 Plan ofHereford House in 1888 . 13 Plan ofHereford House in 1926 ......... 14 3.4 Joseph Leeds and Kerribree: 55 Hereford Street 15 Plan ofKerribree 1896 3.5 Camden College . 16 View ofKerribree and Dormitory 1915 18 3.6 The NSW College of Nursing . 19 4.0 THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE .. 20 4.1 Assessing the Resource 20 4.2 The Site . 21 4.3 The Buildings . 22 4.3.1 Hereford House . 22 4.3.2 Kerribree . 24 4.3.3 Katie Zepps Library Building 26 4.3.4 Class Rooms . 28 4.4 Archaeological Sites . 29 o Archaeological Assessment: 53-55 Hereford Street, Glebe 4.4.1 Hereford House . 29 4.4.2 Kerribree .... 32 Site Plan 4.5 The Potential Archaeological Resource 33 5.0 CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE . 34 5.1 Evaluation Criteria ..... 34 5.2 Assessment of Significance . 35 5.2.1 Nature of Significance .... 35 5.2.2 Comparative Significance .. 36 5.3 Statement of Cultural Significance 37 6.0 IMPACT AND MANAGEMENT .. .... .. 38 6.1 The Proposal and Its Impact ... 38 6.2 Management of the Archaeological Resource 39 7.0 DOCUMENTATION 40 8.1 Endnotes .. 40 8.2 Bibliography. .. '.' 43 ------------------------------ ~~ Archaeological Assessment: 53 - 55 Hereford Street, Glebe SECTION 1.0 IPRECIS OF THE REPORT 1.1 The Site and the Work The subject of this report is the land and buildings at 53 - 55 Hereford Street, Glebe. This site is occupied by two late nineteenth century free-standing houses and twentieth century out-buildings 'added to accommodate later, non-residential uses of the site. The objective of the work has been to determine the extent, nature, integrity and significance of any archaeological evidence and to provide recommendations for its future management. The historical narrative is also intended to inform and support the heritage impact assessment made of this place. 1.2 Historical Context Originally characterised by an environment of tall eucalypt and angophora forest the study area was first alienated for European purposes in 1790 as part of a four hundred acre Church Glebe. It remained relatively untouched until the later 1820s. At that time the entire, estate was put to public auction. The study area was contained in Portion 15 which was purchased by A. K. Mackenzie in May 1828. Mackenzie resubdivided the land and auctioned it in 1829. The majority of the propertywas purchased by Frederick Unwin. In 1831 he sold a portion which included the study area to John Wood. Wood's son John William bought it from his father in 1834. Woods retained ownership of this property until his death in 1875. His house was close to the study area and the latter may have been part of a garden or orchard. The entire property was subdivided and put to auction as the Glenwood Estate in 1875. William Bull paid 320 pounds for allotments 4 and 5 of the estate being both the present-day 53 and 55 Hereford Street. Bull used part of his land almost immediately to build Hereford House. It was sold to the Goldsmith family in 1909. Thereafter, until 1981, it was occupied by two other families. In 1981 it was purchased by the NSW College of Nursing. William Bull sold the vacant allotment adjoining his house to Joseph Leeds in 1888. The house, Kerribree, was built in 1888/89 for Leeds to a design by architect John Kirkpatrick. It was occupied by the family until 1907 and then leased for a few years. It was sold to a consortium intending to use it as an immigrant hostel in 1913. The proposal did not proceed and it was sold in 1914 to Camden College, a theological college established in the later nineteenth century. By the end of 1914 a new building had been constructed behind Kerribree to provide for additional college needs. This is the Katie Zepps building. The buildings and grounds were subject to a constant programme of renovations and repairs until their sale in 1975 to the NSW College of Nursing. CRM for Perumal Murphy Wu Pty Ltd Page 1 Archaeological Assessment: 53 - 55 Hereford Street, Glebe The College was established in the 1940s and by the 1950s had acquired property in Alien Street Glebe. It was here that most work was conducted until the purchase of Kerribree in 1974. In 1977 an extensive programme of maintenance and restoration was carried out on the house and in 1979 a demountable classroom was added to the site. Hereford House was the subject of an immediate programme of renovation on its purchase in 1981 and it, too, acquired a separate demountable class room in 1985. The grounds of both houses have been relandscaped on several occasions and neither retains the nineteenth century out-buildings. 1.3 The Archaeological Resource The potential archaeological profile of the study area may be characterised as follows: • evidence of the pre-settlement landscape in remnant soil profiles and of the burning or stumping to remove it • remnant evidence in the soil profile of the use of the land as part of garden or orchard from the 1830s • Hereford House largely retains its original 1870s envelope; there is unlikely to be a sub-floor archaeological resource • the foundations and part of one wall remain of stables built at the same time as Hereford House. There is no evidence of the additions to it at either end • some of the brick walls remain of out-buildings added to Hereford House by the 1920s along the Kerribree House boundary and the fence bordering Wigram Lane. The remainder of these sites has been levelled and landscaped for car-parking. Some elements of the earlier buildings may remain but are likely to have been disturbed by the later work • Kerribree House remains largely within its original envelope of 1888/89. It is unlikely to have a sub-floor archaeological resource • there is no evidence of the only known out-building to Kerribree and this site has been landscaped. Some evidence may remain but it is likely to be disturbed. There is no evidence of any other out-building • both Kerribree and Hereford House are likely to have tanks and/or wells close to the back of the buildings • evidence of earlier landscape components such as paths or gardens is likely to be contained within the site • there is unlikely to be a substantial accumulation of artefacts within the site. CRM for Perumal Murphy Wu Pty Ltd Page 2 Archaeological Assessment: 53 - 55 Hereford Street, Glebe 1.4 Cultural Significance The land at 53-55 Hereford Street Glebe has important historical associations for the area but it has been assessed to have a low degree of local cultural significance for research purposes. This assessment has been made because there is unlikely to be a substantial archaeological resource within it capable of addressing or interpreting these historical associations and/or the occupation and use of the site in any way that will substantially add to or amend archival evidence for the place. Issues of technical and aesthetic value and community value are best addressed through the standing buildings and their role in the streetscape. 1.5 The Proposal and Its Impact The proposed development seeks to demolish the out-buildings except the Katie Zepps building, adapt Kerribree for new purposes and construct town houses and basement car parking on part of the site. Any remnant archaeological material will be destroyed or disturbed by this work. 1.6 Management This assessment has concluded that it is likely that the workwill disturb archaeological relics but these will have limited capacity to more accurately record on interpret the European associations and development of this site. It is proposed to apply for an Excavation Permit from the Heritage Council of NSWwith provisions for monitoring and recording any significant archaeological material unearthed during the course of redevelopment. CRM for Perumal Murphy Wu Pty Ltd Page 3 Archaeological Assessment: 53 - 55 Hereford Street, Glebe SECTION 2.0 ITHE INVESTIGATION 2.1 The Study Area and Subject This report addresses the history of the land and buildings at 53 - 55 Hereford Street, Glebe and the archaeological resource which may be encompassed by this place. In this report it is referred to as "the study area". The site is contained within the block bound by Hereford Street, Walsh Avenue, Wigram Lane and Glebe Point Road. It is located on the north-western side of Hereford Street and has street frontages to that street, Walsh Avenue and Wigram Lane.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Research Your House Online
    If you are lucky you might find a picture of your house online, either on its own, part of a streetscape or in the background. The State Library of NSW holds this image of Bellevue at Glebe Point, saved more than once from demolition. The photo was taken in 1899 soon after it was built. The occupier is posing for the shot, indicating it’s for a family album. 1 Also digitised by Mitchell Library are Edith Blacket’s sketchbooks. The daughter of architect Edmund Blacket, Edith spent a lot of time walking around Glebe with her pencil and pad. This is The Retreat on Blackwattle Bay, drawn in 1867, a sandstone house still standing. 2 Also held by the SLNSW is this 1872 photo of twin houses in Derwent Street. This area close to Parramatta Road filled up more quickly than the Glebe Point estates. 3 55 Glebe Street, photographed in 1962, an image online. 4 As is this, perhaps not the same shop, but the characteristic corner door and stone step and display windows are the same. The inner west corner store is nearly always a domestic building today. 5 Your house may have been mentioned already in a Glebe Society Bulletin. To check old issues, Google Glebe Society. There’s a search pane. 6 A useful starting point is the City of Sydney archives. The collection is constantly being added to. You can check its catalogue and search tools. 7 Starting with its Investigator which will give you an idea of what’s held. I typed in Boyce Street Glebe and these items came up.
    [Show full text]
  • Attachment B
    ATTACHMENT B ATTACHMENT B INTERPRETIVE SIGNAGE AND TIMELINE ATTACHMENT B FOLEY PARK INTERPRETIVE OVERLAY STAGE 2 ISSUE: 22/06/2011 REVISION:C Project: 3224#_ASP_FOLEYPARK Attention: Kate Luckcraft Aspect Studio’s Studio 61, Level 6 61 Marlborough Street, Surry Hills, NSW, 2010 P +61 2 9699 7182 F +61 2 9699 7192 M 0439 800 460 [email protected] Suite 67/61 Marlborough Street Surry Hills NSW 2010 Australia Telephone +61 (0)2 9699 9710 www.deucedesign.com.au ATTACHMENT B FOLEY PARK INTERPRETIVE OVERLAY _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ INTRODUCTION In 2006, Deuce Design were commisioned to develop an interpretive overlay strategy for Foley Park. The strategy was endorsed in 2007 and the tender package was issued in September 2008. From the original scheme only the Park entry signage and the interpretive panel for the Wireless House were produced in 2010. 1B In March 2011, Deuce Design was re commisioned to amend the original material so it could be applied using the new City of Sydney Park signage system. The items covered in this new strategy are: > 2 X Interpretive panels (COS style guide) > History timeline (Ground plane) - Revision of item 08 from the original scheme All content used in this document has been previously endorsed in the stage one strategy. All amendments to 2 1A the original material have been made purely to fit into the new interpretive media formats.
    [Show full text]
  • Mayhem on Broadway Or Sharing the Pain
    C • Bay St. Mountain St. +- \ \ I> ::, m The Broadway Shopping Centre Mayhem on Broadway or sharing the pain raffic flow around The Broadway Shopping Centre continues to be a major · Tconcern. Leichhardt Council provided an extensive submission about Francis Street to the RTA and South Sydney Council made a similar submission. The latest report is that the RTA has decided to "share the pain" between the two Councils and Leichhardt Council is awaiting formal notification that Francis Street is to be opened to two-way traffic with left turns both into and out of Glebe Point Road. The key to the RTA's decision lies at the Mountain/ Broadway intersection. The RTA felt Council's suggestion to introduce two right rurn lanes from Mountain Street into Broadway was not achievable because of: • insufficient room for heavy vehicles turning out of Mountain Street; • inability to change the traffic light phasing at Mountain Street (involving more right turn green time) without congesting the City Road/ Broadway intersection; and • pedestrian demand being for the pedestrian crossing on the west side of Mountain Street. It was believed that if forced to cross Broadway on the east side, pedestrians would only cause more conflict when crossing back from the east side to the west side of Mountain Street. The RTA has, however, concurred with other Council suggestions such as: • traffic light phasing improvements at the carpark/ Bay/ Smail Streets intersection [Smail connects carparkexit to Mountain Street]; • larger pedestrian lanterns; • traffic priority change at the Smail/ Mountain Street intersection; • internal carpark changes; and • staggering cinema finishing times etc.
    [Show full text]
  • The Demise of the Community Reference Group? the Bays Precinct CRG Has Run Its Designated Two-Year Term
    Sadly, the answer to the above is no. The original bid to locate its main offices in White sudden death of UrbanGrowth as a strategic Bay. player following its brave (and apparently The dominance of WestConnex and the need to justified) refusal to accept any of the developer finalise decisions relating to the new City metro proposals for the White Bay power station site have overridden the possibility of coherent has returned the Bays Precinct to uncoordinated transport planning relating to the Bays Precinct. development lacking visible strategic coherence. The most recent (23 March) communication from The left-over bit of UrbanGrowth-as-developer UrbanGrowth indicates that there might now be only retains responsibility for the Blackwattle Bay some action on this – ‘We’re continuing to work development – so there is, once again, no one closely with Transport for NSW and Sydney agency with strategic oversight of the Metro on planning for a metro station at The development of this extraordinary area of Bays Precinct.’ publicly owned harbour foreshore. However, I would guess this is more a matter of UrbanGrowth being told rather than participating in decision making. The demise of the community reference group? The Bays Precinct CRG has run its designated two-year term. I – like others – did not attend the last meeting. It was never able to function as a The area contained within the ‘Bays Market District’ meaningful consultation process because there (image: thebayssydney.nsw.gov.au/destinations/bays- was such a tight restraint (almost certainly from market-district/) the Government) on UrbanGrowth sharing ANY The Government’s failure over recent years to useful information with the Group.
    [Show full text]
  • Glebe Conservation Area Study Report
    ATTACHMENT A ATTACHMENT A GLEBE CONSERVATION AREA STUDY REPORT ATTACHMENT A City of Sydney Glebe Conservation Area February 2008 Study Report ATTACHMENT A © City of Sydney. All rights reserved. No part of this work will be reproduced, translated, modified, transmitted or stored in any form or by any means without the prior permission of the City of Sydney. ATTACHMENT A Table of Contents 1 Introduction 1 2 Methodology 2 Investigation of Signifi cance 2 Fieldwork 2 Public Consultation 2 Assessment of Signifi cance 3 Management of Signifi cance - Policy 3 3 Historical Background 4 Land Grants 4 1828 Subdivision of The Glebe 4 Subdivision of Church Estates 5 Subdivision of Villa Estates 6 Victorian and Edwardian Development 7 The Interwar Period 8 Postwar Glebe 8 Conservation and Gentrifi cation 9 4 Fieldwork 10 Overview and Street Rating 10 Component Contribution and Height 10 Public Domain Items 11 Review of Heritage Items in Glebe Point Road and 12 Potential Heritage Items 11 5 Signifi cance 12 Aspects contributing to the heritage signifi cance of Glebe 12 Statement of Cultural Signifi cance of Glebe Point Road 12 Shopfronts 13 Archeological Signifi cance 13 6 Constraints Arising From Signifi cance 14 Conservation Areas 14 Toxteth Conservation Area 14 Lyndhurst Conservation Area 15 Hereford and Forest Lodge Conservation Area 15 St. Phillips Conservation Area 15 Bishopthorpe Conservation Area 16 Hughes Conservation Area 16 Glebe Point Conservation Area 16 Heritage Streetscapes 17 Heritage Items 17 7 Management Of Signifi cance - Policy 18 Recognise The Historical Layers 18 Protection Of Signifi cance 19 Enhance Signifi cance 19 Specifi c Policies 20 Recommendations For LEP Protection 22 8 Policy Recommendations For Conservation Areas 23 9 Implementation 24 10 Conclusion 25 ATTACHMENT A Table of Contents (continued) List Of Appendices 26 Appendix A - Grading of Streets 27 Appendix B - Grading of Lanes 29 Appendix C - Public Domain Items 31 Appendix D - Summary Heritage Items 34 Appendix E - Conservation Area Boundary Justifi cation 38 Toxteth 38 Lyndhurstv 39 St.
    [Show full text]
  • Safety Plan Glebe Community Complete Report
    Glebe Community Safety Plan 2009–2012 May 2009 Policy Owner: Safe City Unit TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 1.0 INTRODUCTION 4 2.0 BACKGROUND 5 2.1 The Role of Local Government in Responding to Crime 5 2.2 Legislative and Policy Context 5 2.3 The Safe City Strategy 2007–2012 6 2.4 Interrelated Plans and Strategies 8 3.0 GLEBE PROFILE 9 3.1 History 10 3.2 Glebe Demographics 12 4.0 CRIME PROFILE 16 4.1 Introduction 16 4.2 Crime and Safety in Glebe 16 4.3 Assault 17 4.4 Robbery 21 4.5 Steal from Person 24 4.6 Steal from Motor Vehicle 26 4.7 Malicious Damage 28 4.8 Responding to Crime and Safety Issues in Glebe 30 5.0 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION 32 5.1 Key findings 32 5.2 Other community consultations 34 5.2.1 2005, 2006, 2007 City of Sydney Community Satisfaction Survey 34 5.2.2 Local Area Action Plan North West 2007 35 5.2.3 Glebe Business Precinct Strategy 2007 36 5.2.4 A Survey of Community Services in Glebe and Forest Lodge 2004 36 5.2.5 The Village of Glebe – Commercial Renewal Study 2003 37 5.2.6 Key Issues for consideration in Glebe 37 6.0 GLEBE COMMUNITY SAFETY PLAN 2009–2012 38 6.1 Social Crime Prevention 38 6.2 Opportunity Reduction Approaches 38 6.3 Aim 39 6.4 Objectives 39 6.5 Guiding Principles 40 Objective 1 – Reducing crime and anti-social behaviour 40 Objective 2 – Addressing school retention, capacity building and diversionary issues for local young people 42 Objective 3 – Developing community capacity building projects with the broader community 48 Objective 4 – Tackling crime and safety in Public Housing 51 Objective 5 – Improving the look and feel of the physical environment 55 Objective 6 – Supporting ex-offender reintegration into the Community 59 7.0 MONITORING AND EVALUATION 60 References 61 Appendices 62 Glebe Community Safety Plan 2009–2012 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Glebe is an inner City suburb of Sydney renowned for its historic built and natural environment which is reflective of its role as Sydney’s first suburb.
    [Show full text]
  • Sydney Directory, for 1858-9
    SANDS COMMERCIAL AND GENERAL SYDNEY DIRECTORY, FOR 1858-9 INOLUDINO— j BALMAIN, BISHOrTHORPE, BONDI, OAMPERDOWN, COOGEE, COOK'S; RIVER ROAD, DARLING POINT, DOUBLE' BAY, GLEBE, NEL- - ^ SON'S BAY, NEWTOWN, NORTH SHORE, O'CONNELL', ]l '*'• vl TOWN, PADDINGTON, RANDWICK, REDFERN,' '",'" % . ROSE BAY, RUSHCUTTER'S BAY, SOUTH > ^ HEAD ROADS, ST. LEONARD'S. •'--•.*' WATSON'S BAY, WAVERLEY. >'. FIRST YEAR OF PUDLICATION. SYDNEY: SANDS AND KENNY, U92, GEORGE STREET, AND -1(5, COLMNB STIIKET, MI'.I.UOUHNE. s 18 58. V »; Vv. - .'.. y ' •?*-'' J <*' ^•5. PREFACE. A DinRCTOiiY that shall combinu the cssontinl eloinonts of exactness and com­ pleteness, requires but littlo to bo said (tho necessity thereof being so obvious) iu the shape of recommendation to tho Inhabitants of this groat commercial City. In compiling this important work, it has been tho anxious dosiro of the Publishers to rentier in tho most portable form all needful information; and in now submitting tho work to tho suffrages of tho Public, thoy would indicato tho loading foaturos of tho modo of compilation adopted. grower: As far as practicable, intelligence has been obtained from individuals, at i'uixTfD ay r. LTXSIXOIIAME, KINO STREET. their private residences, or at their accustomed places of business, bycomp6tenfc • parties, who have boon both diligent and careful. •c* Tho whole of their labour has undergone subsequent revision,—a process involving considerable delay and additional expense; ^ No slight difficulty aroso during tho progress of classification, owing to the rc-numbcring of houses; soma inaccuracies may, in consoquonco, bo perceptible in tho "Stroct" portion of tho Directory; but, generally, theso havo been amendod in tho Alphabetical arrangomont of tho names.
    [Show full text]
  • Glebe Society Bulletin 2005 Issue 09
    Glebe Conservation Area Study Residents of Glebe and Forest Lodge were invited to attend a Community meeting, on Wednesday 26 October at the Glebe Town Hall, to introduce the Glebe Conservation Area Study which is being undertaken for Council by the consultancy Architectural Projects. The Lord Mayor, Clover Moore, welcomed Councillors Robyn Kemmis and Verity Firth, and about 45 other residents who attended the meeting. Here is the text of her welcoming speech. Glebe’s Heritage Importance grand buildings, like Lyndhurst and Toxteth House, as well as the Victorian In the 1960s, Glebe’s residents were and Edwardian terraces that give Glebe among the first in NSW to resist un- and Forest Lodge their distinctive checked developments in our city. character. During the 1970s, the Glebe Society The City is committed to continuing to prepared a masterplan that led to Glebe preserve Glebe’s heritage and promote its being listed as a conservation area. rich history. Thanks to these efforts the community We’re here tonight to explore ways to stopped the wrecking ball and slowed the continue to preserve Glebe’s living damaging expansion of freeways and heritage and to get your input into the high rise buildings over heritage and Glebe Conservation Area Study. residential amenity. 9/2005 October/November Purpose of the Glebe In Glebe, the community fought to preserve whole sections of the neighbour- Conservation Area Study hood and its streetscapes, unlike other The Study seeks to expand our under- parts of the city, where preservation was standing of heritage values in the Glebe often piecemeal or an afterthought.
    [Show full text]
  • THE GLEBE SOCIETY BULLETIN Box 100, Glebe 2037 2 /1981
    THE GLEBE SOCIETY BULLETIN Box 100, Glebe 2037 2 /1981 PARKS A sub-committee has been fonned to draw up The Glebe Society's policy on parka. It is intended that the policy statement developed by this group will be not only comprehensive, but the definitive policy of the Glebe Society on parks. What the Management Committee Did Naturally this committee will draw on (rely on to a large degree) earlier submissions presented to ~: Alan Robertson is compiling his work in preparation for the Society to put its policy to Council, and it is hoped that the authors of these Leichhardt Council"s Parks and Open Space Committee. earlier submissions will lend their services to the Gideon Rutherford noted that there had been a committee. meeting every 2½ days over the last 9 weeks at Earlier submissions to Council and other authorities Harold Park. The Glebe Society would be represen­ tended to identify specific park needs in Glebe and ted at a meeting called by Council to discuss the problems of traffic associated with Harold Park develop a policy to overcome that need. In this new meetings. vein impressive proposals have been made for Bl.aok­ wattle Bay Park, a waterfront park in Rozelle/ Bla.ckwattle ~ foreshores, the Johnston Valley and General Meeting, LRT proposal, House Inspection, Wine bottling; see articles in this issue. the Glebe Estate. It is unlikely that the Committee could improve on Pla.nping1 The Committee reinforced Alan Robertson's any of these proposals, but the Society does need positiom as· the Glebe Society's Planning Convenor.
    [Show full text]