I I

I HISTORICAL ANALYSIS I AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT I

I THE HOMESTEAD

I CHIPPING NORTON I I I I I I I I I

I May 2004 I Cultural Resources Management I I I I I

I HISTORICAL ANALYSIS I AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT I

I THE HOMESTEAD

I CHIPPING NORTON I I I I I I I I I I. May 2004

I Cultural Resources Management 1 il I I I I CONTENTS OF THE REPORT I

1.0 PREFACE TO THE REPORT ...... 01· I 1.1 Context ...... 01 1.2 The Study Area ...... 01 1.3' Status of the Study Area ...... 01 I 1.4 Prior Investigation ...... 01 1.5 Objectives and Tasks ...... 01 I 1.6 Authorship ...... 02 2.0 HISTORICAL ANALYSIS ...... 04 2.1 The Pre-Settlement Landscape ...... 04 I 2.2 Indigenous Occupation .... , ...... 05 2.3 The Context of Settlement ...... 06 2.3.1 Early Exploration ...... 06 2.3.2 First Grants ...... 06 I 2.3.3 Moorebank ...... 06 2.3.4 "A Beautiful Providence" ...... 07 2.3.5 Suburban Landscape ...... 07 I 2.4 The Chipping Norton Grants ...... 09 2.4.1 George Johnston ...... 09 2.4.2 Thomas Rowley ...... '" ... 09 I 2.5 Robert Campbell, Samuel Bowler and Alfred Smart ...... 10 2.6 William Long ...... 11 2.6.1 The Long Family Arrive in Australia ...... 11 I 2.6.2 William Long's Early Career and Politics ...... 11 2.6.3 Early Horse Racing Associations ...... 11 2.6.4 Establishing Chipping Norton ...... 12 I 2.6.5 Extending Chipping Norton ...... 15 2.6.6 Downturn ...... 15 2.6.7 The Death of William Long ...... 16 I 2.7 New Directions ...... 18 2.7.1 Colin Smith: Vineyard and Orchards ...... 18 2.7.2 Robert Gagie ...... 18 2.7.3 Isabella Gay and WWI: Dairy ...... 18 I 2.7.4 Henry Gollan ...... 21 2.8 Chipping Norton Soldier Settlement...... 22 2.8.1 The Soldier Settlement Scheme ...... 22 I 2.8.2 The Purchase of Chipping Norton ...... 22 2.8.3 Subdivision ...... 24 2.8.4 Additions and Alterations ...... 25 I 2.8.5 Ted Brennan ...... 25 2.9 Depression and War ...... 28 2.9.1 Mr Wade ...... 28 I 2.9.2 Horace Elliot ...... 29 I I I I I 2.9.3 Military Occupation ...... 29 2.9.4 The Fairalls ...... 31 I 2.10 Government Ownership .... '" ...... 33 2.10.1 The Department of Environment and Planning ...... 33 I 2.10.2 Chipping Norton Lakes Authority and Liverpool Council ...... 33 3.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT ...... 35 3.1 Definition ...... 35 I 3.2 The Potential Archaeological Resource ...... 35 3.2.1 The Pre-Settlement Landscape ...... 35 3.2.2 Indigenous Culture ...... '" ...... 35 I 3.2.3 Earliest Grants and Early-Mid Nineteenth Century Occupation ...... 36 3.2.4 William Long ...... 36 3.2.5 Vineyards and Orchards ...... 37 3.2.6 The Dairy ...... 37 I 3.2.7 The Soldier Settlement ...... 38 3.2.8 Depression, War and Residential Use ...... '" ...... 38 3.2.9 Government Uses ...... 39 I 3.3 The Survey ...... '" ...... 42 3.3.1 The Homestead ...... 42 3.3.2 The External Kitchen ...... 46 I 3.3.3 Homestead Well ...... 50 3.3.4 Homestead Tank? ...... 51 3.3.5 The Stables and Coach House ...... 52 I 3.3.6 Windmill and Pump ...... 52 3.3.7 Underground Tanks ...... 52 3.3.8 Servants' Quarters ...... 57 I 3.3.9 Long Period Out-Buildings ...... 57 3.3.10 Carriage Drive ...... 58 3.3.11 Landscape Features ...... 58 I 3.3.12 Race-Track ...... 58 3.3.13 Tennis Court ...... 58 3.3.14 Dairy Buildings ...... 60 I 3.3.15 Stock Yards ...... 60 3.3.16 Farm Hand's Cottage ...... 60 3.3.17 Tank Stand ...... 60 3.3.18 Soldier Settlement Office ...... 61 I 3.3.19 Manger's Residence and Office ...... 61 3.3.20 Epsom Road ...... ; ...... 61 3.4 Conclusions ...... 62 I 3.5 Management Issues ...... 62 3.5.1 Excavation Permits ...... 62 I 3.5.2 Curtilage ...... 63 4.0 CULTURAL SiGNIFiCANCE ...... 65 4.1 Evaluation Criteria ...... 65 I 4.2 Assessment of Significance ...... , ...... 67 4.2.1 Historic Evolution ...... 67 4.2.2 Historic Associations ...... 67 I' 4.2.3 Technical and Research Values ...... 67 I I I I I 4.3 Statement of Significance ...... 67 I 5.0 REFERENCES ...... 70 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Historical Analysis and Archaeological Assessment: The Homestead, Chipping Norton

SECTION 1.0 PREFACE TO THE REPORT I 1.1 Context

I This report has been written to assist in the development of a conservation plan for the Homestead, Chipping Norton. It contributes to a multi-disciplinary investigation that encompasses an analysis of the structures, landscape and potential I archaeological resou rces of the place.

I 1.2 The Study Area This report addresses the property known as "The Homestead" located off Charlton Avenue, Chipping Norton, on the southern shore of the Chipping Norton Lake I system. It may be identified as Lot 2 Portion 354 Parish of Holsworthy, County of Cumberland and specifically Lots 1 and 2 in DP 644571. It is within the Local Government Area of Liverpool City Council. The investigation encompasses the I structures and land immediately surrounding the house defined on the accompanying map. I 1.3 Status of the Study Area The Homestead property was in private ownership until 1978 when it was acquired by the Department of Environment and Planning as part of a larger acquisition I designed to facilitate the development of the Chipping Norton Lakes Scheme. Liverpool City Council has since acquired the site. A Permanent Conservation Order was placed on the property in 1983. This has since been superseded by its inclusion in the State Heritage Register. Further, it was recognised as an item of cultural I significance in the Macarthur Region Heritage Study of 1985. It is included on the Register of the National Estate and is classified by the National Trust of Australia I (NSW). 1.4 Prior Investigation

Very little research or investigation has been made of The Homestead. In 1981 some I 1 researc h was undertaken as part of a student thesis for an architecture degree . Until the present report this has been the principal source of information for the site. In 1985 a preliminary archaeological assessment was made of the site and an 2 I evaluation of the archival sources available to provide further evidence for the site . No further archaeological work or evaluation has been undertaken until the present report.

I 1.5 Objectives and Tasks

The principal objective of the archival analysis has been to identify and collate I archival resources pertinent to the development and associations of The Homestead. This information is intended to inform evaluations of the standing structures,

I 1 Sulev Kalamae, Chipping Norton Its History, Conservation and Restoration. BA Thesis. 2 Wendy Thorp (CRM), Chipping Norton Preliminary Archival Assessment and Archaeological Survey.

I Cultural Resources Management Page 1 I I I Historical Analysis and Archaeological Assessment: The Homestead, Chipping Norion I landscape and its component elements and potential archaeological sites. This analysis will contribute to developing a statement of cultural significance for the property. This statement will form the basis for future management decisions. The I archival analysis has encompassed a thorough investigation of the following resources:

I • Mitchell and State Libraries including maps and plans, Small Picture File, Manuscripts, newspaper indexes and general catalogues

I • Land Titles Office for property ownership details

'" Water Board Archives

I • Lands Department Maps Room I • State Archives for evidence of the Soldier Settlement • National Archives for evidence of war-time occupation

I • Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources (Sydney South Coast Region) for pictorial evidence. I • Local Studies Collection. The archaeological assessment encompassed a new survey of the property comparing the results to the survey evidence recorded in 1985. Evidence from aerial I photographs has been used to assist in the survey. No physical investigation has been made within the property. I 1.6 Authorship This report, the research and archaeological survey were all undertaken by Wendy I Thorp of Cultural Resources Management. I I I I I I

I Cultural Resources Management Page 2 I I I I The Homestead, .fllflfllrlfl Norton I ! t" t ) 1 f i J; I I I I I I J ' , ' i I I I I I I I I

I Location of The Homestead and a view of the front of the house.

I Cultural Resources AII::.n::.,... ",nnt=>n 3 I I I Historical Analysis and Archaeological Assessment: The Homestead, Chipping Norion I SECTION 2.0 I HISTORICAL ANALVSIS I 2.1 The Pre-Settlement Landscape

I The Homestead is located in a landscape based on geology of undulating Wianamatta Shale. Later evidence described the place as relatively flat with only a few undulations. The soil was described as sandy and of a fairly good depth. 3 When i Governor Macquarie toured the district in the early nineteenth century he saw much of it in its natural state. The land near Liverpool was generally of open eucalypt forest. The river banks were still largely covered with native willows and mimosa. The principal trees were of Grey Box and Forest Red Gum. On better soils in alluvial I places were forests of Cabbage Gum, Rough Barked Apple and sometimes Swamp 4 Oak. The ground was generally covered in native grasses •

I Along the banks of the Georges River were estuarine and freshwater swamp areas. These would have supported Swamp Oak separated from the river by a narrow band 5 of mangroves . There was at least one natural spring on the Chipping Norton 6 property close to the house . A survey of 1919 recorded a shallow, low-lying I watercourse running north-south to the south of the Homestead site. This same survey also noted a number of depressions in the land surface throughout the 7 estate . A slightly earlier survey records that one of these depressions in the northern I part of the estate was an old waterhole, another to the north-west of the house was a shallow lagoon and well west of the house was another water holeS. The land to the south-east of the house adjoining the river appears to have been the most flood I prone. The same survey records that there was a swamp, now dry, in this location as well as the remainder of shallow drains intended to manage the former wetland and an embankment near the river.

I From very early in the nineteenth century strenuous efforts were made to clear the land in the Liverpool district by both convict labour and private effort. Much was burned to the ground. The situation with respect to the Homestead site is unclear. I Certainly the site was largely cleared by the 1880s when the Homestead and the racetrack were built upon it. The documentary evidence, though, is insufficient to determine how much earlier the process of deforestation may have occurred and who may have been responsible for it, if this land was cleared before William Long I purchased it. It is likely to have occurred earlier in the nineteenth century.

The most substantial change to the pre-settlement landscape, apart from clearing the I vegetation, occurred in the 1980s. The implementation of the Chipping Norton Lakes scheme meant that the land originally bound by the curve of the Georges River, including a large part of the Homestead Racetrack, was submerged to provide for I this scheme. It has substantially changed the cultural landscape that was associated with Chipping Norton Homestead throughout the nineteenth and most of the I twentieth centuries. 3 Insectors report Chipping Norton Estate 30 January 1918. SRO File 10/1730 4 Benson and Howell, Taken For Granted the Bushland of Sydney and Its Suburbs: 81 5lbid: 82 6 Insectors report Chipping Norton Estate 30 January 1918. SRO File 10/1730 I 7 Chipping Norton Soldier Settlement Area Survey 1919. SRO File 10/1730 B Plan Showing Complete Survey of Chipping Norton Estate March 1919 SRO File 10/1730

I Cultural Resources Management Page 4 I I I Historical Analysis and Archaeological Assessment: The Homestead, Chipping Norton I 2.2 Indigenous Occupation

The Liverpool district was home to the Cabrogal clan of the Dharug Tribe. The I Dharug were essentially a "woods" based people with the George's River providing a natural boundary between them and the neighbouring Tharawal tribe who were I focussed on coastal resources. The Cabrogal made much use of fire to trap game and promote new growth. It was one of the reasons for the "park-like" qualities of the area commented upon by many Europeans seeing the area for the first time. The district provided an abundance of I natural resources ranging from fresh and salt water species of fish and birds to game such as kangaroos, possums and gliders and a wide variety of seasonal plants found in the forests. It is likely that the Dharug took their name from the yams harvested I along the banks of the rivers and creeks. Mineral resources were also widespread including silcrete, ochre, quartz and basalt. I Some of the earliest known sites of Aboriginal occupation have been found within the gravel beds of the Cumberland Plain providing evidence that Aboriginal people moved through this landscape at least 28,000 years BP and possibly up to 40,000 years BP. Within the Holsworthy firing range there are over four hundred significant I Aboriginal sites including art work depicting four masted ships from the period of 9 earliest European exploration • There are no known sites of Aboriginal occupation I within the present curtilage of The Homestead or its near environs. I I I I I I I I I 9 Christopher Keating. On the Frontier: 6

I Cultural Resources Management Page 5 I I I Historical Analysis and Archaeological Assessment: The Homestead, Chipping Norton I 2.3 The Context of Settlement I 2.3.1 Early Exploration The first Europeans to sight the area of present-day Chipping Norton are said to have been George Bass and Mathew Flinders. On an exploratory trip along the Georges I River they landed here to take on fresh water. The two men were to explore most of the river's length from Botany Bay to Glenfield. After this initial trip several other explorations were made including one by Governor Hunter in 1797 from Parramatta I to the junction of the Georges River and Prospect Creek. The quality of the land impressed many early observers. As well, the river access I was an added bonus. La nds grants were made here from the later 1790s. I 2.3.2 First Grants The significant factor in the allocation of grants in this area was a frontage to the river. It not only provided water but the only reliable means to travel to the main settlement. For nearly two decades after the first grants were awarded the river I remained the principal means of travel.

One of the first settlers in the region was George Johnston a Captain in the NSW I Corps. Johnston had accompanied Hunter on his exploration in 1797. In 1798 Hunter awarded Johnston a sUbstantial grant at the junction of the two waterways. Johnston's homestead, Georges Hall, was built on a rise overlooking the river. After I its construction it became the headquarters for government authority in the district. A military detachment was stationed there. The house was subject to flooding and for this reason, in the 1830s, Johnston's son built a new house behind the original. This I house still stands on the site across the river from the Homestead. Johnston was typical of one group of early settlers in this district. Kass in his Liverpool study noted a pattern of distribution based on social and economic factors. I Large grants were awarded to favoured members of the civil and military elite. This reflected more than privilege; these were men who could afford to expend large capital amounts on their properties. Lesser persons were awarded smaller grants in line with their status and economic capabilities 1O. The grants associated with the I Chipping Norton property were generally of the latter type.

I 2.3.3 Moorebank

The earliest name for the area now known as Chipping Norton was Moorebank, taken from the largest land holding in the district the Mooreban k Estate. This property I was founded on a grant of seven hundred and fifty acres given in 1805 to Thomas Moore, the Master Ship Builder of the colony. Located south of the study area and extending as far as the town of Liverpool Moore built his house on the land in 1808. I In 1810 Governor Macquarie and his wife stayed there as guests during an inspection tour. At this time they named the district Liverpool in honour of the Earl of Liverpool. At that time, apart from the small town of Liverpool and the cultivated I . areas around the farms most of the district was still undeveloped. I 10 Terry Kass, Liverpool Heritage Study Thematic Historv: 3.13

I Cultural Resources Management Page 6 I I ------I------~---

Historical Analysis and Archaeological Assessment: The Homestead, Chipping Norton I 2.3.4 "A Beautiful Providence"

For most of the nineteenth century the district around Liverpool and Moorebank I remained a rural area noted for its orchards and vineyards. The presence of the railway close-by gave it the potential for development although this was still viewed in terms of agricultural development. Speculative pamphlets claimed that the district I was meant for,

"Honest, Intelligent, Sterling Agriculturalists, men of backbone and perseverance who I wrestle with the land until it gives up to mankind its unbounded treasures provided by a beautiful Providence. When· it is considered that this Land Possesses all the Nutritive Qualities for the production of cereals, fruits and produce that can be grown so luxuriantly and prolifically in the rich chocolate alluvial abounding through the I estate it naturally follows that intelligent farming and industry wi/l pour wealth and prosperity into the coffers of those who avail themselves of its resources,,11

I All for the modest sum of £15 to £30 per acre. Little changed in this rural idyll, except for the construction of the Holsworthy Military Camp, until the post-war years. The creation of the Soldier Settlement on the I Chipping Norton property in the 1920s consolidated this as a pre-eminently agricultural area with most of the properties devoted to vineyards and orchards I interspersed with poultry farms. The relatively remote and isolated character of the district was one of the decisive factors in its choice by William Long for his training establishment. It provided a I sense of privacy and security discouraging his competitors from spying on his methods and horses.

I 2.3.5 Suburban Landscape

The post-war years were characterised by a period of rapid residential I redevelopment of the former orchards and farmlands. This growth has gradually moved north from Newbridge Road up to the northernmost tip of the Moorebank estate and beyond. The area beyond Newbridge Road is known in its own right as I the suburb of Chipping Norton. I I I I I 11 Moorbank Album 1888: 13

I Cultural Resources Management Page 7 I I I Historical Analysis and Archaeological Assessment: The Homestead, Chipping Norton I

l.'1prd. f.'L .. I !.. Jan.r ,k,'} \ I

I.' I f."", /. ~ ,'.\ 1',,// .... ·rt I ,.. I I I I I I I I I J

I .<. I Detail of parish map, Parish of Holsworthy, showing the Rowley and Johnston grants in the bend of the river, later to be acquired by Alexander Long. I (Source: Surveyor General Sketch Books, Volume 4 Folio 173: SRO Reel 2779)

I Cultural Resources Management Page 8 I I I I Historical Analysis and Archaeological Assessment: The Homestead, Chipping Norton 2.4 The Chipping Norton Grants I 2.4.1 George Johnston In the same year that George Johnston was given his Georges Hall grant he was also awarded ninety acres on the other side of the river. This land had a wide river I frontage along its western boundary.

George Johnston Senior had an active military career before his arrival in Sydney I serving in the American colonies and the East Indies. He arrived with the First Fleet and was reputed to be the first man to step ashore at Port Jackson in January 1788. He was appointed Major in 1800 and served in many positions of responsibility. He was responsible for suppressing the convict rising at Vinegar Hill in 1804. Major I Johnston was the principal officer involved in deposing Governor Bligh and assuming the Lieutenant Governorship of the Colony. He was relieved of the position in 1808 and was court martialled in the same year. He returned to NSW in 1813 as a free I settler. Johnston had three sons and four daughters by a convict woman Esther 12 Julian Johnston. George Johnston died in 1823 . I Johnston was given his first grant of land, 100 acres at Annandale in 1793. This was his principal residence. By 1801 he had 602 acres at Annandale and Bankstown. He received another 2000 acres at Cabramatta in 1804 and a further 1500 acres at Lake IIlawarra. It is uncertain what improvements were made on the Georges River I property but it seems likely that, at the least, the land was cleared and used for pasturage. I 2.4.2 Thomas Rowley When Johnston was given his ninety acres on the river bank the land adjoining his to the east, eight-five acres in a crook in the river, was granted to Thomas Rowley also I 13 a Captain in the NSW Corps on 14 August 1798 . Rowley was also granted land at Liberty Plains 14.

I Rowley arrived as a Lieutenant in NSW in 1792. He was promoted to Captain in 1796. He remained in Sydney until 1799 when he left on a tour of duty at Norfolk Island. He remained there, in charge of the penal establishment, until 1800. He resigned his commission in 1802. He was appointed to manage the civil and military I barracks in Sydney and became the Commandant of the Sydney Loyal Association. He became a magistrate in 1804.

I After he had received his first grant in 1793 he acquired land at a fairly rapid pace principally at Bankstown, Petersham and Liberty Plains (near Concord). By 1805 he I was in possession of 1975 acres largely devoted to grazing sheep. Thomas Rowley died of consumption in May 1806. His property was left in trust for his three daughters and two sons and a convict mistress Elizabeth Selwyn, mother of I four of his children 15. The Liberty Plains farm appears to have been his principal home and farm. It is unclear what work was carried out at his Chipping Norton grant although it is likely to I have been cleared and possibly devoted to grain or hay production or pasturage.

12 Australian Dictionary of Biography Volume 2: 21-22 13 LTO, Old Systems Grants Register 1798: 262 I 14 HRA Volume 11: 460-462 15 Australian Dictionary of Biography Volume 2: 403

I Cultural Resources Management Page 9 'I I I Historical Analysis and Archaeological Assessment: The Homestead, Chipping Norlon I 2.5 Robert Camp bell, Samuel Bowler and Alfred Smart

At some date Robert Campbell Junior became the owner of Rowley's grant. It was 16 I leased to him and one other in November 1822 . At some time Campbell acquired full possession. The chain of title cannot be established for the property in this period and later documentation states that there were questions regarding Campbell's right I to the property. The absence of title suggests that these doubts may have had some substance. Campbell remained in possession until 1837 when he sold it to Samuel 17 Bowler for £555 . In fact, a later statutory declaration made by Bowler, indicates that he had leased the land for at least three years, from 1834, before purchasing it in I 183718

Nothing is known of Samuel Bowler. There is no indication as to whether Campbell I made any improvements to this property although the sale price suggests that some substantial improvements had been made to it by this date. Similarly there is no evidence to show what, if any, changes or additions Bowler made to the land. The I length of Bowler's ownership, nearly thirty years, suggests that he did use this land, most probably as a farm, but there is no evidence to show for what purpose or how the land was utilised in this period.

I Samuel Bowler sold the former Rowley grant to David Johnston in 186519 thus consolidating the two grants at the bend of the Georges River within the one family ownership. In 1870 the executors of the will of David Johnston of Georges Hall, who I died in 1866, passed it to G.R. Johnston for £2002°. The price suggests that there was little if anything in the way of improvements made to the land. In 1875 A. A. Johnston was also given a share on consideration of £200. The Johnston family I retained possession until 1883 when they sold the former Rowley grant to Alfred Smart for £1020. Smart had also acquired the adjoining Johnston grant some time earlier. Smart sold both former grants to William Long in 1884.

I It is possible that some of the earthworks. designed to manage the wet lands, particularly in the south-eastern part of the property, recorded on early twentieth century surveys may have been commenced in this period but there is no evidence I to confirm this possibility. I I I I I 16 LTO, Primary Application Packet 8313 17 LTO, Old Systems Memorial Book L No. 123 and Primary Application 8313. 18 Statutory Declaration Samuel Bowler 10 June 1865. Primary Application Packet 8313. I 19 LTO, Primary Application 8313 20 LTO, Old Systems Book 172 No. 891

I Cultural Resources Management Page 10 I I I Historical Analysis and Archaeological Assessment: The Homestead, Chipping Norton I 2.6 William Long I 2.6.1 The Long Family Arrival in Australia The man who was to build Chipping Norton was the son of a convict sentenced to transportation who arrived in Sydney in 1815. William Senior and his brother I Alexander were both transported aboard the Baring. William Senior completed his sentence and founded a very profitable wine and spirit business in the new colony. By 1828 he was the licensee of an inn, the Saracen's Head, in The Rocks. By 1831 I he had taken over another Tavern in the same area. He constructed extensive stores in Millers Point. He was so successful he was able to fund the construction of the mansion Tusculum in Potts Point.

I William Long Senior had three daughters borne in 1832, 1842 and 1844. His only 21 son, William, was borne on July 21, 1839 • I 2.6.2 William Long's Early Career and Politics

Little is known of William Junior's childhood. In the 1850s he was sent to England I 22 where he studied law at Oxford • It is generally thought that Long spent some of his time while in England at the small town of Chipping Norton outside of London. William Long was admitted to the Bar in 1862. He returned to Australia aged twenty­ 23 I three. He was admitted to the Bar here in December 1862 • Long did not have a

spectacular career as a barrister. He !I" .never went out of his way to seek briefs; he belonged to a family too rich to be bothered with other people's troubles for a fee,,24. Very soon he gave up all pretence of practicing law in favour of his passion for horse I racing.

Although abandoning law, though, Long did establish a not especially glorious I political career. At the age of thirty-six, in 1875, he entered politics as the Member for Cumberland in the NSW Legislative Assembly. He was returned to Parliament in the seat of Parramatta and was appointed Colonial Treasurer in the short-lived Ministry I (five months) of 1877. It was reported in The Illustrated Sydney News "Mr Long's appointment to this office is looked upon as a gross mistake, notwithstanding the support proffered him for private reasons,,25. Long's brother-in-law was the Attorney General. Long was defeated in the general elections of 1880 but his brother-in-law I 26 later arranged for his nomination to the Legislative Council in 1885 .

I 2.6.3 Early Horse Racing Associations

The few times that Long made a presence in Parliament it was generally concemed with issues associated with horse racing. He argued that breeding thoroughbreds I improved the quality of carriage, saddle and buggy horses and he argued against 27 betting restrictions .

I His interests and ambitions in this direction were furthered when he inherited an estate of more that £100,000 on the death of his father in 1876. He established a

I 21 Australian Dictionary of Biography Volume 5: 100 22 J. M. Forde, Newspaper Cuttings Volume 167: 102 23 Ibid. 24 The Bulletin 15 July 1915 25 Illustrated Sydney News 18 August 1877 I 26 ADB Volume 5: 100 27 Ibid.

I Cultural Resources Management Page 11 I I I Historical Analysis and Archaeological Assessment: The Homestead, Chipping Norton I racing stable at Warwick Farm on the Georges River. This private course and training facility met with considerable success. In 1880-81 one of his horses won the Melbourne Cup, The Victorian Derby and the AJC Derby. Long became a recognized I judge of horses and one of the most famous racing identities in Australia. As well as the training course Long built a private house on his property, Warwick Farm 2B I Homestead. It is still located within the race grounds • Long sold the Warwick Farm racecourse in 1882. He appears to have returned to England for some time after this; he is reported to have raced in the Liverpool and 29 I Cambridgeshire Cups in 1883 . I 2.6.4 Establishing Chipping Norton On his return from England Long decided to establish a new private racecourse for himself. This racecourse was one of several that had a long history of association I with the Liverpool district. The earliest was established in 1832 by the Sydney Turf Club. By the 1880s a Liverpool Turf Club had been formed and it held races at the Woodlands course near O'Brien Parade. By 1892 this was known as the Liverpool Horse and Galloway Racing Club. Warwick Farm had been established in the I 30 1870s .

Long chose a site for his new course across the river from his first property at I Warwick Farm. On 29 April 1884 he purchased two adjoining properties from Arthur 31 Smart • The combined land, the former Rowley and Johnston grants, encompassed 32 226 acres. The price for the land was £1738 .

I On the eastern part of the property, on a small rise overlooking the Georges River, Long built a homestead that he called Chipping Norton. Near to the house and behind it he constructed a large timber stables and other out-buildings to I accommodate his staff and trainers. On the western section of the property, the former Johnston grant, he established a full-scale private racecourse. I A new road was built to lead into the property from its southern end. It was named Epsom after the famous English horserace. The road skirted the southern end of the race-track, ran along the home straight and ran around in a curve on the western side of the house. Exotic trees, including Himalayan Cedar and Monterey Pine, lined I both sides of the road. The earliest aerial photograph, dated 1947, indicate that there was a branch off the drive leading directly to the stables. I The architect and builder for the project are unknown as is the precise date of construction although it is likely to have been soon after the purchase date in 1884. The contractor for the racecourse is known. This was a local man from Liverpool, I James Flood. It was reported in 1888 that, "Mr Flood personally superintends and lays out all his undertakings, and has done all the Hon. W. A. Long's work, as also a large amount of that of Mr W. Forrester, 33 I making improvements and laying out racecourses for both these gentlemen ".

I 26 Ibid. 29 The Bulletin 11 December 1915 30 Christopher Keating, On the Frontier A Social History of Liverpool: 116 31 LTO, CT Volume 696 Folio 210 I 32 LTO, Old Systems Book 287 Folio 617 33 The Aldine Centennial History of NSW, 1888: 74

I Cultural Resources Management Page 12 I I Historical Analysis and Archaeological Assessment: The Homestead, Chipping Norton

The course was approximately 2.25 kilometres in length. It was a flattened oval shape twenty-seven metres wide. It was lined either side by post and rail fencing. I The course was mainly used to train the horses stabled on the property. The single-storey house, situated on a low rise facing the river, was designed in the most up-to-date Italianate architectural style. A tiled verandah wrapped around two I sides of the building with the ceiling supported by cast iron columns with decorative brackets. The bedrooms and public rooms surrounded an ornate billiard room in the centre of the house. It had a tiled floor, clerestory roof and stained glass panels at the ends of the room. The kitchen, laundry and other offices were detached behind the I house. Later evidence indicates that there was a small building close to the kitchen that served as a servant's quarters. It was described as a three bedroom I weatherboard cottage. The earliest view of the property is from 1888. It is a long view across the racecourse and shows that the homestead, stables and a large collection of timber buildings, I approximately six or seven, near the latter and south of the Homestead were all present by that date. The view also seems to show an extension to the house behind and attached to it. The trees lining the entrance road are clearly visible in this view. I The remainder of the property appears to be completely cleared of vegetation. It is claimed, probably with justification, that Long grew oats and hay on the property 34 to supply the horses • The early twentieth century surveys of this place show land in I the northern and southern extremities to have been cultivated. The majority of the estate, though, was devoted to paddocks and grazing land. I I I I I I I I I 3' Sulev Kalamae, Chipping Norton Its History, ConselVation and Restoration: 31

I Cultural Resources Management Page 13 I I I

l-listorical VIU'U/vCl/ Assessment: The Homestead, Chipping Norlon I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I Earliest view of The Homestead looking across the race track to the house and out-buildings in 1888.

I Cultural Resources Page 14 I I I Historical Analysis and Archaeological Assessment: The Homestead, Chipping Norlon I 2.6.5 Extending Chipping Norton

Between 1888 and 1893 William Long more than doubled the size of the Chipping I Norton Estate. He did so by purchasing adjoining land to a total of 276 acres. This consisted of three separate purchases as follows:

I • In 1888, to the south of the racecourse, 49 acres and 1 rood originally granted in 1809 to Alexander Ilkin and Thomas Andlezack in 1810, were bought from 35 I Mr E.J. Ashcroft . • In 1890, a total of 219 acres 2 roods and 22 % perches comprising two parcels of 22 acres 3 roods 17 Yz perches and 196 acres 3 roods 5 % perches originally granted to Richard Glinch in 1800, Thomas Andlezack in 1810 and I 6 Thomas Moore in 1818, were bought from Augustus Healel . This was the northern part of the Mooreban k Farms Estate offered for sale in 1888. This I land was located south of both the race-track and the Homestead complex. • An "unnecessary road" bordering the southern limits of the property totalling 7 37 I acres and 2 roods for a price of £907-10-0 • By 1893 the Chipping Norton estate had reached its maximum extent encompassing over five hundred acres of land. It was one of the largest private estates in the 38 I district. It 1891 it had been valued at £6400 • 2.6.6 Downturn I Although a successful trainer Long lost heavily both through betting and his interests in other stables. In 1890 he had acquired an interest in the Hobartville stable. It was a poor time to do so; horses were selling badly and the stable was overstocked. It was 39 I noted that the connection must have proved costly for Long • In 1893 Australia entered one of the most severe economic recessions in its history. Banks closed and many investors lost everything. William Long was particularly hard I hit by the recession. He possessed large interests in the Australian Joint Stock Bank and was a member of the Board of Directors for many years. In 1893 the AJS Bank closed and its investors lost all. It was later noted that, "the bank crisis of the 1890s ... I hit Mr Long heavily, and it is said he allowed all his money to go to save the investments of his three sisters,,4o. The family even appears to have lost Tusculum in 41 Potts Point; they are no longer recorded in occupation after 1895 •

I By 1899 Long was in severe financial difficulties. He was forced to mortgage the 42 entire Chipping Norton Estate . It was from this time that Long reduced his interests in the racing world. He continued to serve as the Chairman of the Australian Jockey I Club until 1900, having been elected to the position in 1898 but he gradually sold all the horses stabled at Chipping Norton. One of his greatest champions, Grand Flaneur, is said to have died at the stable and is buried under one of the trees close 43 I to the Homestead •

35 LTO. CT Volume 1012 Folio 173. 36 LTO, CT Volume 990 Folio 93. 37 LTO, eT Volume 1095 Folio 197 I 38 LTO, Primary Application 8313 39 The Australasian 11 December, 1915 40 The Sydney Mail 15 December 1915. 41 Sands Directory listings. I 42 LTO, eT Volume 696 Folio 210, mortgage dated 29 April 1899. 43 Local anecdotal material quoted by Sulev Kalame, Op Cit: 35

I Cultural Resources Management Page 15 I I I Historical Analysis and Archaeological Assessment: The Homestead, Chipping Norton I In 1901 the sixty-two year old William Long returned to England where he remained for several years. After he left a caretaker, Mr Douglas and his family, were left to I maintain the property44. In 1902, the mortgagee for the estate sold Chipping Norton. I 2.6.7 The Death of William Long Long returned to Australia after the sale of Chipping Norton but he was in much reduced circumstances. Despite his financial situation his love of racing remained 45 I and it was reported that he rarely missed a race meeting of any note . In 1909, aged seventy-five, Long retired from the Legislative Council after a term of twenty-four years. He had little in the way of income but was provided with an annuity of £500 by I his cousin W.E. Sparke46 . William Long died at the Lewisha m Private Hospital on 30 Novem ber 1915 leaving an estate valued in total at £25047 . He was buried in the family vault at St Judes I Cemetery Randwick.

The many testimonials printed at the time of his death suggest Long was a difficult, taciturn man though one of considerable generosity. He was one of the founding I fathers of the Australian racing industry. I I I I :I I I I I

44 S. Kalamae, Op Cit: 39 45 The Daily Telegraph I 46 The Bulletin 47 NSW Supreme Court, Last Will and Testament ofW.A Long

I Cultural Resources Management Page 16 I I I

I •• : I ':". , \1' I or , I ", ~.... T. Rowley 8Sac U I '".. , . I ------

cV .,. T 708.3 0

30aL. 24 7' 7" I 7 o

I 7..7 L \. I Survey showing the extensions to the estate; the L-shaped property marked A.llkin was acquired in 1888. Above it, marked T.Andlezack, a property acquired in 1890. The reserved road running across these lands was bought in 1893. I (Source: LTO, Volume 1012 Folio 173)

I Cultural Resources Management Page 17 I I I Historical Analysis and Archaeological Assessment: The Homestead, Chipping Norton I 2.7 New Directions I 2.7.1 Colin Smith, 1902 -1911: Vineyard and Orchards When the AJS BANK put Chipping Norton up for sale in 1902 Colin Smith purchased 48 it in May of that year for £6500 . Little is known of the new owner. It is unclear if he I had racing interests; he is reputed to have built a dog-track on the property without 49 any great success • It is equally unclear what if any changes were made to the Homestead and its out-buildings during this period. Smith took out two mortgages on the property, one in 1902 and the second in 19045°. These may indicate periods of I development associated with Chipping Norton. The same may be said of another two 51 mortgages ta ken out by Sm ith in 1908 and 1910 •

I A report in 1918 states that there were substantial vineyards and orchards on the property and it is most likely that Smith was responsible for their development. There is no evidence that Long made any attempt to cultivate his property in this manner and the subsequent owners, after Smith, were more concerned with developing a I dairy. A sketch plan of c. 1920 shows a substantial "old vineyard" behind, to the east, 52 of the Homestead • A report of 1942 refers to the property having been developed I "some years ago" as a vineyard. I 2.7.2 Robert Gagie: June - September 1911 Colin Smith sold Chipping Norton in June 1911 to Robert Gagie Senior, a grazier, for £450053 making for a considerable loss on his purchase price. Gagie only owned it 54 I for three months before selling it in September 1911 . I 2.7.3 Isabella Gay and WWI,1911-1919: Dairy Isabella Gay of Kensington purchased the property from Gagie in September 1911 55 for £5000 . The Gay family stayed for eight years at their new home. Under their management Chipping Norton was run as a dairy supplying milk to the nearby I Holsworthy m ilitary camp. A mortgage taken out in 1911 by Isabella may have helped 56 to fund this transformation •

I Later evidence gives some indication of the extent of the works undertaken by the Gay family. They are likely to have been responsible for the bulk stable, stalls and bail located to the south-east of the main house recorded on a sketch plan of c. 1920 57 I and estimated to be of the value of £140 in 1922 . Beyond these buildings, between them and the river, were stock yards. Next to these yards and close to the river was a weatherboard cottage used by a farm hand.

I The Gays were responsible for reducing the size of the estate. In May 1913 thirty acres located in the south-eastern corner of the property were sold to a neighbour, I 48 LTO, CT Volume 1012 Folio 173 49 S. Kalamae, Op Cit: 39 50 LTO, CT Volume 1012 Folio 173 51 Ibid. I 52 Sketch of Homestead property c. 1920. SRO File 10/1730 53 Department Lands to Director Soldier Settlements Memorandum 7 February 1919. SRO File 10/1730 54 LTO, CT Volume 1012 Folio 173 55 Ibid. I 56 Ibid. 57 SRO, Valuation of Chipping Norton Soldier Settlement Original Buildings Inspected 19.8.22 File 10/1730

I Cultural Resources Management Page 18 I I I Historical Analysis and Archaeological Assessment: The Homestead, Chipping Norion I 58 Mr Franklin for £628-15-0 • The Franklin family developed this as a vineyard named I Riversdale. During World War I it is claimed that Chipping Norton was used as a remount depot. Horses were trained here and prepared for overseas conditions before being shipped to Europe. This occupancy, if not the precise details, is confirmed by correspondence 59 of 1918 that states the military were tenants for some considerable period • No contemporary documentation has been found of this military association. I The Gay family may have been experiencing some financial difficulties towards the end of World War I or they may have felt the land was too big for their needs. From later 1917 there is evidence that the family was trying to dispose of some or all of the property. In 1917-1918 they were responsible for the construction of four cottages I 60 that were to be leased out with each having a small amount of land for farming . These had frontages to Epsom Road, now approximately Ascot Drive.

I These cottages were recorded in plan and photograph in 1922. These records show them to be well-built, quite spacious cottages with bull-nosed verandahs and some decorative detailing. They generally comprised three bedrooms, a living room, kitchen and laundry. They were set in fenced enclosures and had a number of out­ I 61 buildings .

In January 1918 the property was inspected with a view to sell it. The report provides I a good summary of those improvements that existed on the site at this time. It noted that the property was separated from the Moorebank estate by an uncleared road, I "The land is nearly all cleared and is practically flat with the exception of slight undulations. The soil is chiefly of a sandy nature and of fairly good depth.

"The city water supply is not extended but a supply is provided by a spring on the I property and a windmill is installed for pumping the water for supplying the house and dairy.

I 'The improvements are considerable and cons ist of the following:

"Main residence of brick and stone contains about thirteen rooms and outhouses with I a three roomed cottage adjoining which has been used as a servants quarters. '~ small weatherboard cottage a little far away occupied by a farm hand.

I "4 x 2-6 roomed cottages along the road frontage which have been erected with the idea of leasing with a block of land as small farms. These are only just being completed. One is built of brick, 3 of weatherboard partly new and partly 2nd hand I materials used in their construction. " 4 x long sheds of which mainly built of galvanised iron. These are used for stables, I vehicle shed, garage, engine room etc and dairy, hay sheds, cow bails etc,,62 I 56 LTO, eT Volume 1012 Folio 173 59 Raine and Horne to Valuer General 4 December 1918. SRO File 10/1730 60 Report of Inspection 30 January 1918. SRO File 10/1730 I 61 Records of improvements Chipping Norton Estate 1922. SRO File 10/1730 62 Report of Inspection 30 January 1918. SRO File 10/1730

I Cultural Resources Management Page 19 I I I Historical Analysis and Archaeological Assessment: The Homestead, Chipping Norton I The estate agents Raine and Horne were invited to inspect Chipping Norton in December 1918. They noted it as a potential site for a settlement scheme and I reported as much to the Valuer General. The estate agents reported as follows: '~ large sum of money has been spent in improving this property which is now in first class order. The orchards and vineyards adjoining have proved the quality of the soil I and the property is one that would subdivide easily - occurs might bring it to notice of Government with a view to purchase - we know they are looking for properties for returned soldiers. Military authorities might also be interested and they will have full I particulars as they were tenants of the property for some considerable time ,133. The price per acre was estimated to be £25. The Valuer General considered that the 64 property could be purchased for between £6000-£7000 . This was the beginning of I a lengthy disagreement concerning the value of the property. The Valuer General considered a price of between £15-£20 per acre to be fair with the estate to be worth 65 I £5000 . I I I I I I I I I

Following pages: Survey of the Chipping Norton estate in March 1918 I (Source: SRO File 1011730)

63 Raine and Horne to Valuer General 4 December 1918. SRO File 10/1730 I 64 Valuer General Memorandum 20 December 1918 SRO File 10/1730 65 Note Valuer General. SRO File 10/1730

I Cultural Resources Management Page 20 I I She win () ,.::;'urvev or· ~.' C.H I PPI Ne .\ ES TJ\TE

1'-(:' h ::.. ~ Curn,be.rland .~- ~ ""~... ; ... Holsvv'brthy

~--. -. Parram ana; Sydney

'1'0 I inch

.. . ..

. .. ,' '--:-' '._. __ .. .-~':'':'''-':i":.....-.: ---...... ___-" .- ----.... ~ :- - .

....

i I /' .'.

..---~---.--.--- ... --.-....---//

i" _. At~. i RD .. L.J' .. _ "ij .! III al J '1 o I. 0 :' l~) i::t o I· ~4- , . '2." t,l, 3 ! ,(~J ...~ J ...... '1.1 '/.:; 1.\. 14 ~lJ-!; .' . 1.? L~ ·0 1"=;"1- :~ ...... , ,:; ,,~ ~ 8.·, r, .. ' '1.4 31 1. 31 r If!:..... ~ :." . '1.S 35 o t~, 17. ~

... :~. 'r: -- .. :.--"-'1-:-'-"·:"'--' --~.--- "-- .. , , :,!. ,. i . IZ' ,,, J • ":" ~: • ; 1',- .d.\\ ·~re,~ < 4~;4 0/4- .-;- , .. ••.• "1',,; , .. :,: ~. ; . i f. -:; I, _-; __ ". 1 . . _i ...... 1.. / .. ~~ ./ ..~ .. ~~ , .~'. , ,_.-.-. - ~ :) : .. -"-":. ~ . -.; ...... : '. \ ., ....';,.. ~.>,-,.<::. '-,.--.-.:.. :-,'::",0 ';~~::~:~'~~~~:::"t'~il ,"'. ·':::-!?;:·:.4~..,'f51i..tiq·,'~:~;~~~!::~~~:~~L~~~;f:+?~;ff;;·;·'.~!. ~.~:.t~~:::.;!~~~r: . . Tv! ,\! ·~t·ed. i 4(,4,! Itf4. : -:.' I~._·~_ ...... _." L .. .L ". _"_,,.i.. ... _,;. .. -... _._"

!./ .. .' ! I" l'i ., • ~ I ...... :- (;.{..... / ..:, " : ~ "'., .. (=:': ..~"'~:-=::.': V4.!,::~,=..-:';"·:~':.~::;JJ±~b·,n:;!.!?'7~'r;?i;·-'"i -')~~~~~~?~; '-1 '·;.~t;: ~. ;.~ -, ; ....), $

c· 't-,\tJ ·f I 17.",0.1:,,,, Q., ,;,k" :

::~: ,;.tl 'Lot 'C.~. ,,4' !'.(.. .f";...... C.' ! ',A' "0 10 .,, ! .11!.------.-- --''''''-' ~-'-" .: ,," I' Cl)

M oore ba n k l· ,/ .'\,

.... '-~ /'} -' .. '""- --.,~ ~:-=---. -0 ... '..: .: :

NOT~

J, ,', " I' "bouf 40 ac;res.l //ldly 1(1 be ;,:w:id3teeJ-:iT-flov(jS DlueI'

••'~-- '!:..-" .--: .... '., .~ " .

.-. .... --';---..... ' ... " tli ..;' ( .-.r:" ;: If., ./t-.,.' ....rh Jl. . ... ,1')-0'" ,,-,

,.'

·..... 0- ...... ,":

1.1 'A,;:., .:~:.. :; ",:. I Historical Analysis and Archaeological Assessment: The Homestead, Chipping Norton I 2.7.4 Henry Gollan: January-May 1919

Before the Commonwealth could purchase the site Oswald Henry Gollan, a grazier I 66 from Bonalbo, purchased Chipping Norton in January 1919 • Gollan continued to run the estate as a dairy until the Commonwealth Govern ment purchased it later in 1919.

I A survey of the property was prepared in March 1919. This survey records that in the north-eastern part of the estate, in the bend of the river, the land had been "formerly cultivated". Near a waterhole was an "old tank on a stand". The land was divided by I old fences running up to the racetrack. At the southern end of the racetrack, inside the curve, in a fenced enclosure was a well and pump.

The house, out-buildings, tennis court and trees are recorded as well as the barn, I dairy and piggery to the south and east of the house. There was a weatherboard cottage associated with the dairy close to the river. Well south of the piggery was 67 another well and cement trough • The details suggest that after Long disposed of the I property the several subsequent owners had made much greater use of the land surrounding the Homestead for agricultural purposes than had been the case in the I nineteenth century. I I i I I I I I I I

I 66 LTO, CT Volume 1012 Folio 173 67 Plan showing Complete sUlvey of Chipping Norton Estate March 1919. SRP File 10/1730

I Cultural Resources Management Page 21 I I I I Historical Analysis and Archaeological Assessment: The Homestead, Chipping Norton 2.8 Chipping Norton Soldier Settlement

2.8.1 The Soldier Settlement Scheme

The return of so many men after the cessation of the 1914-1918 war caused concern about their future employment. A scheme was adopted whereby the Government was to purchase land that would be let or sold to returned servicemen. It was intended to provide employment and homes for these men at the same time as boosting the nation's output of primary goods. Chipping Norton was one of several established in the metropolitan area in this period.

I 2.8.2 The Purchase of Chipping Norton Chipping Norton was brought to the attention of the Government as a potential site for this purpose early in 1919. Officials from the Returned Soldiers' Settlement I Branch were sent to inspect the estate. Their report provides a more detailed analysis of the extent and scale of the property than that reported by Raine and I Horne in the previous year. In part it read; "(It) has been inspected by Mr Inspector Hadlington who reports that the land is nearly all cleared and is practically flat, with the exception of slight undulations. The soil is chiefly of a sandy nature, and of fairly good depth. The City Water Supply is I not extended to the property, but a supply is provided by springs, and a windmill is installed for pumping the water for supplying the house and dairy, for the lighting of which an electric plant is installed. As far as the soil is concerned Mr Inspector I Healington considers the property would be suitable for poultry farming.

"Structural improvements on the property are very considerable and valuable consisting mainly of a homestead, brick on stone, containing ten rooms, tile I verandah, steel ceilings etc. 4 wood and iron cottages, one brick with slate roof, 4 rooms etc, one old Wand I cottage 4 rooms, kitchen and verandah, two large sheds 60 x 100 - about 480 sheets of iron, cow sheds and bails 54 x 15, W.B. and iron I stables, coach house and feed rooms with cement floor - useful for store or could be pulled down and material used for other buildings, and two windmills for pumping I water to garden and house. 'The principal house (10 rooms) is stated to be very much too good for requirements, and only an estimated value for the purpose of a settlement can be placed thereon, this also applies to some of the other improvements, viz: stables, sheds, milking I yards, etc.

"In the opinion of the Metropolitan District Surveyor the property is well suited for a I soldier settlement and has great advantage in being cleared and ready for immediate occupation ... ,,68.

Of the 478 acres purchased it was noted that thirteen acres had been absorbed in I roads. A more detailed report lists all the improvements on the site as follows:

1. W & I cottage lined and ceiled 4 rooms and verandah on brick pillars. 600 gal I tank and WC. 2. brick and slate roof pointed with tiles, 4 rooms also WB, kitchen front and I back verandah. Tank on stand and WC. 68 State Records. Chipping Norton Soldier Settlement 10/13730.

I Cultural Resources Management Page 22 I I I Historical Analysis and Archaeological Assessment: The Homestead, Chipping Nor/on I 3. WI cottage lined and ceiled with four rooms and verandah. Tank and WC. 4. W.I 5 rooms lined and ceiled. Tank on stand, WC. 5. Principal residence contains ten rooms, brick on stone, well finished, tile I verandah, sheet ceilings. Also brick kitchen, laundry and lav. Etc. 6. 3 rooms Wand I on brick - good order suitable for removal. 7. Old Wand I cottage 4 rooms, kitchen and verandah. I 8. 2 large sheds 60 x 100. 9. Cow sheds and bails 54 x 15. 10. W.B. and iron stables, coach house and feed room with cement floor. I 11. 2 windmills for pumping water to garden and house. 12. Electric light plant.

69 I Total Value and land £9750 • On the basis of this favourable report in May 1919 the Commonwealth Government 7 I purchased the Chipping Norton Estate from Henry Gollan for the price of £9966.1.3 °. A survey was made of the property in October 1919. It confirms many of the details of the earlier March 1919 survey but shows that some changes had been made in I the intervening months. It shows the subdivision of the Chipping Norton Estate into the new farm allotments but it also records the disposition of the existing improvements. The racecourse is I clearly defined, described as being surrounded by a two-rail post and rail fence. At the very southern curve of the course, inside the track, there was fenced enclosure with a windmill. This appears to have replaced or supplemented the old well and I pump recorded on the earlier survey of 1919. The land to the south of the course was divided into a number of paddocks by post I and rail fencing. The Homestead is shown with a number of out-buildings and a tennis court to the south-west. The land immediately surrounding the house is divided into small I allotments. The barn, bails and dairy are located at some distance to the south-east. There is a piggery to the south of the barn.

The land in the southern part of the estate is partly divided into paddocks by fences. I Two weatherboard cottages were recorded on the Epsom Road entrance. A shallow watercourse ran north-south from the southern part of the estate towards the Homestead. A number of substantial depressions were noted in the topography 71 I throughout the estate . I I

I Following pages: survey of the Chipping Norton Estate in October 1919 (Source: SRO File 1011730)

69 List of Improvements for Chipping Norton Soldier Settlement 25 March 1919. SRO File 10/1730 I 70 Ibid. 71 Chipping Norton Soldier Settlement Area Survey 1919. SRO File 10/1730

I Cultural Resources Management Page 23 I I

I Historical Analysis and Archaeological Assessment: The Homestead, Chipping Norton 2.8.3 Subdivision I After the purchase of the estate the new owners subdivided it into forty-four small. farms. These comprised twelve viticultural properties, three market gardens, eleven 72 pig farms and eighteen poultry farms .

I Most of the new farms were improved by the addition of a small house, farm buildings and a supply of stock and seed. Although initially devoted to viticulture, pig or poultry farming in time a number diversified to orchards or agricultural produce I such as pumpkins or watermelons. Generous loans were available from the Government for the ex-servicemen to help them establish their new lives on these farms. If they were successful on their farms, in time, the occupants could purchase i them from the Government. The Homestead and its immediate out-buildings was included within Block 354. This was dedicated to the use of the settlement's first manager, Mr Ted Brennan, and his I family. The race-track was divided between nine separate farm allotments. The 73 former paddocks were also divided between the new allotments . A new road was built north-south through the middle of the former race-track with a branch leading I east towards the river and south of the Homestead ground. The Hom estead was recorded in 1922 by plan and several photographs. This record provides the best record of its use as it probably had been in the later nineteenth and I early twentieth century.

From the front tiled verandah an entrance hall provided access to the large room with I a bay window described as a reception room. Adjoining it was a bedroom. On the other side of the hall were two more bedrooms. The hall gave access to the large billiard room in the centre of the house. This had a lantern roof, tiled floor and stained glass in one end wall. The billiard room gave access to two bedrooms on either side I and a linen room on one side and a bathroom on the other. At the back of the house was another central hall giving access to a drawing room and a dining room.

I At the back of the house was a "cement floor". This is likely to have been a relic of an extension of the house that appears to be shown on Brennan's c. 1920 sketch. It presumes, therefore, that this structure was demolished between c. 1920 and 1922. I A detached kitchen, laundry and urinal are set at the north-eastern corner of the house. This building was described as being built of brick "with kitchen roof falling both ways from parapet walls to box gutter centre. Lean-to over laundry and no roof I over urina/,,74. The photographs of the Homestead show it to be set in a sparse environment. The trees of the old drive are visible but only one other mature tree, near the kitchen I block seems to be in the immediate environs of the house. There is a small tree planted behind the house. Apart from a few shrubs there appears to be no established plants near the house, only grass. The house is surrounded by a post I and rail fence that gave way to a picket fence at the north-western corner. Two windmills are visible in these photographs. One is located to the north-east of the main house, beyond the kitchen block. The second is east of the house near the I stables. There is also one photograph of this building at the same time in 1922.

72 Memorandum Facts conceming Chipping Norton Soldier Settlement (undated) SRO File 10/1730 I 73 Plan of Chipping Norton Soldier Settlements Area: 1919 74 Record of Homestead 1922 SRO File 10/1730

I Cultural Resources Management Page 24 I I I

-I

I; ( , , I, I{I

, I

I I I

I I

I " I

The Homestead recorded in 1922 '1""~~L'7~"~ ,-' ' I -,.- -- -I ------

1·

1:1'\ ---t-t f

~,\I~' ~\1t~· ~ I~~tIG ,~t~ ~ l ; ~~

The stables and bulk store near the Homestead (below) and two of the cottages built by the Gay family on Epsom Road (above) (Source. SRO File 1011730) I, 1

1 I, " 11-I I ~~ I I 1" 1 r I! -r ~ "'- I .. 1* ~

ion IJl'i.C]- 1;'lC.lj. 1 t I 1 I t,r) I I

1 11 I I I I I Historical Analysis and Archaeological Assessment: The Homestead, Chipping Norton I 2.8.4 Additions and Alterations I By June 1922 it was reported that the development work on the poultry and pig farming blocks had been completed but there was still considerable work to be done 75 on the viticulture blocks .

I There were other sUbstantial changes made to the site immediately surrounding the Homestead in the early years of the new settlement. A small weatherboard cottage was built to the south of the stables. It served as a new office. A cottage was built I some distance to the south-west of the Homestead on what had been part of the racetrack. The storekeeper initially used it as his home but it became the Manager's 76 residence after c. 1924. A barn was reconstructed to serve as a bulk store .

I In 1920 the coach house at the end of the stables was converted for use as temporary accommodation for the first school at Chipping Norton. It was poorly ventilated, dingy and it leaked. Later another school was constructed in Central 77 I Avenue. The old stables reverted back to their former use .

I 2.8.5 Ted Brennan Ted Brennan, the first Manager of the Chipping Norton Soldier's Settlement resigned from his position in 1921. As early as 1920 he had been planning to purchase the I Homestead Block from the Government. In a memorandum to the Director of the Soldier Settlement in August 1920 he requested the allocation of all the land immediately around the Homestead except for any that may be required for the I administration buildings in its near vicinity being the general store, storekeeper's 78 cottage, office, bulk store and stables .

Brennan had some difficulty in acquiring his home. An architect from the Soldier I Settlement Branch was sent to Chipping Norton in 1922 to inspect the buildings. He described the Homestead as follows:

I "Brick cemented as masonry - plastered throughout. Slate main roofs with iron on insides from Billiard Room which has a glass lantern light. Stained glass and grill between Billiard Room and 0.0. and Halls. Figured tile front verandah - tile floor to Billiard Room. Four carved and moulded mantelpieces, 3 in white and one in black I marble, and all with fine tile fire cheeks, sides and hearths - open fires. All work of residence of finest description and in general good order. Detached kitchen wing in brick with Kitchen roof falling both ways from parapet walls to box gutter centre. I Lean-to over Laundry and no roof over urina,,79.

The value of the Homestead was estimated to be £1392 but it was noted that four of I the marble mantelpieces alone were worth half of the valuation price. The detailed valuation of the Block 354 gives the best indication of what improvements existed around the immediate environs of the homestead in 1922. The valuation with the I particular improvement and its estimated cost was as follows: Residence £1392 I Laundry 75 Office memorandum 29 June 1922. SRO File 10/1730 76 Memorandum Facts concerning Chipping Norton Soldier Settlement (undated) SRO File 10/1730 77 B. S. Cowling, Chipping Norton A Short History: 17 I 78 Memo Brennan to Director Soldier Settlement 19.8.1920 SRO File 10/1730 79 State Records, Chipping Norton Soldier Settlement File 10/13730

I Cultural Resources Management Page 25 I I I Historical Analysis and Archaeological Assessment: The Homestead, Chipping Norion I Office-Cottage £324 Sheds Not Now in Existence £20 Bulk Stable, Stalls, Sheds and Bails £504 I Coach house and stables £140 Windmills only 1 can be repaired For use £7 I Electrical Light Plant £37 I Homestead Block Total £156480 The description also included a substantial brick cottage on Epsom Road at the southern end of the old estate. It was described as follows:

I "Central pOriion brick walls, slate roof with tiled hips and ridge. Plastered inside and metal ceilings. Other poriions include weatherboard on brick with iron roof (screwed English) wood linings and ceilings. Laundries unlined. Bull nosed iron roofs to front I verandahs. Detached weatherboard pan closets with wood floors,,81. It was not until 1923 that the decision was made to sell several blocks including the I Homestead site82 and it was not until January 1924 that the Department agreed to Brennan's request83 .

A sketch plan was prepared of Block 354 by Brennan in about 1920 to aid in the I determination of his request. It provides the most detailed view of the immediate environs of the Homestead in the early twentieth century. The house is shown to adjoin to the east a large plot described as "old vineyard". This was probably I developed by Colin Smith in the early years of the twentieth century. Adjoining and south of the vineyard apparently set in fenced enclosures are the "old stables" and, further south, the office. An "old fence" runs along the southern side of the stables I west towards the road. East of the old stables and office, also in an enclosure, are stables, store and depot. I Beyond these, close to the river, are "old stockyards. West of the old stables and office is a tennis court and running close to this is a fragment of what is described as " old carriage drive". West of this, on the old I racecourse, is a storekeeper's cottage and general store. The land nort h of the homestead is described as "suitable for cultivation,,84. I I I I 60 SRO, Valuation Chipping Norton Soldier Settlement Original Buildings Inspected 19.8.22 File 10/1730 61 Ibid. 62 Memo re sale of lots Chipping Norton Soldier Settlement SRO File 10/1730 I 63 Memorandum re sale to Brennan 31 January 1924 SRO File 10/1730 64 undated sketch plan of Block 354. SRO File 10/1730

I Cultural Resources Management Page 26 I I I Historical Analysis and Archaeological Assessment: The Homestead, Chipping Norton I I I

...... ~ ..

I I I

Sketch prepared by Ted Brennan ofthe Homestead and its immediate environs in c. 1920 I (Source: SRO File 1011730)

I Cultural Resources Management Page 27 I I I

lJltJUlLdi Assessment The Norton I Historical Analysis and 2.9 Depression and War I 2.9.1 Mr Wade After Ted Brennan there is a period of uncertainty regarding the ownership of the house. It is possible that Brennan leased the property to a Mr Wade. A local historian I has put the name forward. The latter also suggested that the Homestead began to deteriorate, possibly due to a period of vacancy, before a new owner took charge of 86 I it85 . In 1932 the Lands Department valued the property at £1200 . I I I I I I I I I I I

I View of the main house probably taken in the later 19208 or 19308 (Source: ~fB!I.:!!Il!Wl~IfllI.~IJ,H;.~U!E.[l!1!!Jiflll:!1fLE!E.ill[j~@§!2YL~

I 8.S. Cowling, Op Cil 11 Supplementary Report to Inspection 8 February 1942. Commonwealth Hrings Service. NA C 3629

I Cultural Resources I I I I Historical Analysis and Archaeological Assessment: The Homestead, Chipping Norton 2.9.2 Horace Elliot I Mr Horace Elliott purchased the Homestead in October 1933. He is said to have begun to restore the interiors and rebuilt the stables to further his interests in horse breeding87 . A number of photographs from this period show the house and its immediate environs. From 1942 to 1943 the Defence Force appropriated The I Homestead. Mr Elliot was sent to Throsby Park At Moss Vale. He returned to Chipping Norton in later 1943 and remained there until 1969. I 2.9.3 Military Occupation

th In April 1942 the Homestead was requisitioned for war-time occupancy by the 6 I Anti-aircraft Battery88. The position of the Chipping Norton property in relation to the Holsworthy Army Base was a prime consideration in this action. The Elliott's were notified of this emergency measure and were requested to remove themselves and their possessions as soon as possible. The length of the occupation was stated to be I 9 of an indefinite period 89 . The Elliot's relocated to Throsby Park on 8 May 1942 °.

The family was to be compensated for this relocation on the basis of the improved I 91 capital value of the place estimated at the beginning of the occupancy as £2000 . The structures were said to be in good condition internally and externally. The grounds and fences were also inspected and reported to be in good order. The I electrical, water and septic systems were in good condition. It was generally concluded by the army inspectors that, "the house was left in good condition and fit for immediate occupation. The garden beds and lawns were in good orde(' 92. Only I minor defects were noted as follows: • In the central room (former billiard room): a small section of the beading on I the roof was rotted and the skylight had two tin panels rather than glass. • In the wash house the roof leaked due to defective construction; the iron I sheeting was too short. • In the stables and outhouses the doors and windows were in a generally 93 dilapidated condition due to their age . I A more detailed description of the im provements to the property was as follows: Description of Buildings

I 1. Brick cottage cement rendered, slate roof 2. Brick building I 3. WB Stable. Age about 60 years No. of Rooms I Ten rooms, kitchen, bathroom, verandah, detached laundry, lavatory.

I 87 Sulev Kalamae, Op Cit: 57 88 Requisition for Property Commonwealth of Australia Hiring Service 28/4/1942. NA C3629 89 Ibid. 90 Australian Military Forces Marching In Certificate 10 May 1942. NA C 3629 91 Ibid. I 92 Australian Military Certificate Marching In Order 10 May 1942. NA C3629 93 Ibid.

I Cultural Resources Management Page 29 I I I I Historical Analysis and Archaeological Assessment: The Homestead, Chipping Norton Other Remarks I Building 2 contains a large room original kitchen, a small room, the laundry and lavatory. I General Condition Cottage badly infected by white ants, otherwise fair order. Stables in poor condition.

I Fences I Post and wire: condition - fair. Split rail Water Supply

1. City I 2. Bore 3. Well

I Sanitation

Septic Tank

I Electric light Power I Adequate Market Value

UCV £425 I Improvements £920 94 ICV, say £1350 . I A supplementary report attached to this stated that,

'The property is situated in the centre of and is included in a soldiers settlement. The I surrounding properties are orchards, vineyards and poultry farms occupied on similar acreages. "The land was used some years ago as a vineyard. The land is now cleared and I used by the present owner for grazing show ponies. "In relation to the surrounding homesteads the replacements costs would be in the I vicinity of £750 to £1000. The property is over-improved. "The property was assessed by the Lands Department in 1932 at the value of £1200,115.

I There was some correspondence regarding the appropriate amount of compensation to be paid to the Elliots for their house. Ultimately they were compensated for moving their horses (they used much of the property for agistment of show ponies), their I vehicles, storage of furnitureand a house rental of £140 per annum. It was noted in

I 94 Commonwealth of Australia Hirings Service Report of Inspection 8 February 1943. NA C3629 95 Ibid.

Page 30 I Cultural Resources Management I I I I Historical Analysis and Archaeological Assessment: The Homestead, Chipping Norton the calculation that Horace Elliot had cUltivated between 8-10 acres of his land with 6 I crops of oats and barlel . In August 1943 it was determined that the military occupation of the Homestead would soon cease and the Hirings Service was requested to arrange the return of the 97 property to the Elliots . The Marching Out Certificate was completed on 20 August I 1943. At that time the structures were said to be in good order internally and externally. The grounds and fences also were in good order. Generally it was said, "the house was left in good .condition and fit for immediate occupation. The garden I beds and lawns were in good order. The central room contains an electric light and power point installed by the Army,,98. I The Army noted that only minor damages had occurred during the military occupation, for example, in the kitchen two sheets of fibro cement had been 99 broken . The Elliots were informed that the handover of their property would be on 100 I 31 August 1943 . It is clear from aerial photographs dated 1947 and 1951 that by the time of the Elliotts occupation or during their period of residency some of the structures associated with I The Homestead had been demolished. There is no evidence in these photographs of the office constructed to the south of the stables for the soldier settlement although the enclosure for this site, abutting the stables, is still clear. Likewise the bulk store and stables constructed by the Gay family for their dairy had also been removed by I this date. The farm hand's cottage, close to the river, though may have survived. A building is shown on this location in a later photograph of 1970.

I The photographs particularly demonstrate how the original subdivision pattern of the 1920s was still maintained in this period and up to the 1970s. They also show how the history of ownership and use of the Homestead and Block 354 differed from the surrounding allotments. The latter were still heavily CUltivated for orchards and crops. I But there is little evidence of any particular use of the land east of the house up to the river and defined by the road to the south with the exception of some cultivation east I of the olive embankment on land fronting the river. I 2.9.4 The Fairalls Freda and Noel Fairall purchased the Homestead in 1969. Mrs Fairall had been involved with the horse-training programme undertaken by the previous owner Mr 101 Elliott from about 1934. The Fairalls owned the property until 1978 . In 1975 the I National Trust of NSW classified the property for its cultural and architectural significance.

I An aerial photograph of the property in 1970 shows little change to those of 1947 and 1951 with the exception that excavation had already begun for the development of the lake on land to the north-east of the house over part of the site of the former race­ I track. I 96 Cullen Ward Chartered Accountants to Major Martin 13 May 1942. NA C3629 97 Minute 23 August 1943 Commonwealth Hirings Service. NA C 3629 9B Marching Out Certificate 20 August 1943. NA C 3629 I 99 Ibid. 100 Major Martin to Cullen Ward Chartered Accountants 28 August 192. NA C 3629 101 Ibid: 60

I Cultural Resources Management Page 31 I I I I Assessment: The Homestead, Chipping Norton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Aerial photographs of January 1947 (above) and 1951 (below) showing how the 1920s subdivision pattern was still intact with Block 354 of The Homestead standing out for its different pattem of development and cultivation I (Source,' Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources), I Cultural Resources Management I I il 1 Historical Analysis and Archaeological Assessment: The Homestead, Chipping Norton 2.10 Government Ownership I 2.10.1 The Department of Environment and Planning The Homestead was acquired by the Department of Environment and Planning in 1978 as part of a larger acquisition designed to facilitate the Chipping Norton Lakes I scheme. This was preceded by a planning study in 1977 that recommended the conservation of the Homestead with a future use for recreational and administrative I purposes. M r Fairall was left to stay on as a tenant in the property. In 1983 a Permanent Conservation Order was placed in the property1°2. Despite this, the wooden stables and coach house behind the house were demolished in 1990. In 1985 the Homestead was included as an item in the Macarthur Region Heritage I Study. An aerial photograph of 1986 shows the impact of the Lakes scheme on the earlier landscape of the Homestead. The present road had superseded the road established in the 1920s to the south of the property, car parks had been established I including one on the site of the former bulk store and stables. The storekeeper's cottage and general store on part of the former race track that had survived up to the 1 1970s had been demolished. After a period of renovation carried out by the NSW Department of Public Works the property was leased as a restaurant and entertainment facility. This required a number of alterations and additions to be made to the site. These included the I construction of a garage on the eastern side of the house. The lease expired in 1998. At that time most of the additions made to the site for the restaurant were removed I from the house. 2.10.2 Chipping Norton Lakes Authority and Liverpool Council

I It is unclear when the Chipping Norton Lakes Authority assumed authority for the house although, probably, it was during the 1980s. In April 1987 the land surrounding the house was gazetted for public recreation with Council acting as Trustee. In 1990 I the Lakes Authority gave a lease over The Homestead and its curtilage to Georges 103 River Queen Tours Pty Ltd • In April 1992 the Homestead property was added to Reserve 100090 for Public Recreation. Liverpool City Council as Trust manager for 104 the Reserve became the lessor of the lease . The lease with the Georges River I 105 Queens Tours Pty Ltd was formally transferred to Council in December 1992 . In 1993 Council developed a Draft Plan of Management for the lands within the Chipping Norton Lakes Scheme. This document recommended the preparation of a I conservation plan for the house.

Concerns regarding the arrangements with this tenant led to Council investigating 106 1 alternative tenants for the place . The house is now maintained by a caretaker. The most recent aerial photograph of the site shows the full impact of the changes made to the landscape in the last twenty years. It also demonstrates that the planting around the house, particularly the trees lining the drive, have been reduced in this 1 period. I

102 NSW Government Gazette 32: 18 February 1983 103 Memorandum: Land and Water Conservation to Chipping Norton Lake Authority 27 February 1997. 104 Ibid. I 105 Ibid. 106 Liverpool City Council Property Officer to Chipping Norton Lakes Authority: 4 February 1998

I Cultural Resources Management Page 33 I I I Historical Analysis and Archaeological Assessment The Homestead, Chipping NoTion I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

1994 aerial photograph showing the massive change to the cultural landscape through the creation of I Chipping Norton Lakes and residential subdivision.

I Cultural Resources Management Page 34 I I I Historical Analysis and Archaeological Assessment: The Homestead, Chipping Norton I SECTION 3.0 I ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT I

3.1 Definition

I The NSW Heritage Act defines archaeological evidence as any structure, feature, relic or deposit of fifty or more years in age relevant to the non-indigenous occupation of NSW. The value of archaeological evidence lies in its ability to either compliment I or expand the evidence provided by archival sources for an historic place as well as address issues that rarely, if ever, are mentioned in documents.

I 3.2 The Potential Archaeological Resource

The "potential" archaeological resource may be explained as the largest assemblage I of sites, features, relics and deposits that can be defined by reference to the specific archival references to a place and/or evidence from sites of a sim i1ar type. The potential resource is defined irrespective of factors or forces that may have acted to I remove or substantially destroy those archaeological sites. With reference to the preceding historical analysis the following potential sites have been defined for the Homestead according to the historical phases developed for that discussion.

I 3.2.1 The Pre-Settlement Landscape

The Homestead was built on land that, prior to European settlement, was largely I characterised by open eucalypt forest with swamp areas along the river. There were a number of water holes and at least one spring located about the property. None of the latter is known to have been located within the present curtilage of The Homestead. The pre-settlement vegetation is likely to have been cleared quite early, I almost certainly by the early years of the nineteenth century. The river frontage has been almost completely lost through the development of the lakes system. Despite this massive environmental change, and subsequent impacts caused through I European intervention it is still possible that traces of the pre-settlement landscape may be preserved within intact soil profiles. Fossil pollens and spores are very hardy and may be used to recreate specific micro-environments of places. It is very likely I that this evidence may be preserved within places surrounding The Homestead. ~ I 3.2.2 Indigenous Culture There are no identified sites of Aboriginal occupation within The Homestead and its near environs. However, it has been shown on many sites within the Cumberland Plain that despite extensive change caused by European occupation small evidences I of indigenous occupation often survive, for example, small tools or flakes preserved within intact soil profiles. The position of The Homestead on a small rise close to the river makes it a very likely site of past Aboriginal interest. There is the potential for I relics of indigenous occupation to remain with the curtilage of The Homestead. I

Page 35 I Cultural Resources Management I I I I Historical Analysis and Archaeological Assessment: The Homestead, Chipping Norion 3.2.3 Earliest Grants and Early-Mid Nineteenth Century Occupation I The earliest alienation of The Homestead site for European occupation in the later years of the eighteenth century is poorly documented. On the basis of what is known of Johnston's and Rowley's activities as well as the more general pattern of documented occupation in this period it is unlikely that substantial dwellings were I erected on either property. The earliest use of the site, after both grants were cleared, probably was for pasturage and/or agricultural development, grain or hay crops. It is possible that some small huts used by convict workers managing these I activities were erected on the properties. This was a common practice. One likely position for construction of this type could encompass the area of The Homestead because of its position on a rise. There is no evidence to prove any of these I assumptions. Archaeological evidence that could be contained within the site to demonstrate or confirm these possibilities would include impacts on the soil profiles through land I clearance. Generally this was undertaken by burning the existing vegetation. This leaves distinct evidence within the soil of charcoal and ash and occasionally burnt tree roots. Crop activity could be evidenced by additions to the soil profile as well as I fossil pollens. Huts constructed for farm workers in this period were generally made of bark on a timber frame. This can leave evidence of post-holes, tamped floors and possibly some artefacts. Because these grants probably functioned as secondary properties to the main farm interests it is unlikely that any buildings that may have I been erected upon them would have been of more permanent materials such as brick or stone. I The use of the site from the 1830s to the 1870s is unknown. It is possible that the land remaining in the Johnston family possession continued to be used in the same manner. The Rowley grant came into the ownership of Samuel Bowler who kept it for nearly thirty years. This length of time suggests that Bowler was using the property, I probably as a farm. There is no evidence to prove that this was the case or, if it was, what sorts of farm activities were undertaken. It is perhaps not insignificant that the early twentieth century surveys of the property show substantial earthworks on the I former Rowley grant along the river-bank obviously designed to manage potential flooding and swamp areas. It is also unknown if and where Bowler would have established a house if he resided on the property. As before, the position of the I Homestead on a rise above the river makes it a potential occupation site.

I 3.2.4 William Long Long's activities were centred on The Homestead but there is little evidence to define the extent of these activities except in the broadest terms. To the west was the I racetrack, now no longer in existence with the majority of the site submerged below the lakes. To the south-east were the stables, coach house and feed rooms all housed in the one building. Pictorial evidence indicates that there were other service I buildings in this area, as many as six or seven. The house had a detached kitchen/laundry/lavatory. There appears to have been an extension to the house, attached to the rear fagade, probably demolished between c. I 1920-1922. It is possible that there was a weatherboard cottage close to the kitchen that served as a servant's quarters. This building appears to have been a three room weatherboard cottage. It may have survived up to the 1940s. A badly white ant I infested cottage is mentioned in military reports of 1942.

I Page 36 Cultural Resources Management I I I I Historical Analysis and Archaeological Assessment: The Homestead, Chipping Norton The house was reached by a carriage drive coming from the southern part of the estate running along part of the racetrack. Trees bordered the drive but apart from a I small garden that is likely to have surrounded the house little is known of the landscape on the rest of the property. It appears to have been largely divided into paddocks with perhaps some cultivated for grain or hay crops.

I Some of the most sUbstantial features of Long's development of the property remain, principally the main house and its detached kitchen. The site of the stables is well­ defined by a concrete slab but many of the elements of Long's landscape have now I been lost including the racetrack, the driveway and the service buildings to the east of the house. I Water for the property appears, on the basis of later evidence, to have been drawn from a natural spring via means of a windmill, possibly two, and pump located to the east of the house. There is likely to have been a well associated with the stables. The I principal source of power appears to have been gas. I 3.2.5 Vineyard and Orchards For approximately the first twenty years of the twentieth century the evidence for the development of The Homestead is limited to only a broad understanding of the new uses to which the site was put and some of the improvements associated with those I uses. Virtually nothing is known of what may have been added to or changed of the pre-existing structures and features.

I It is likely that Colin Smith developed the place as a vineyard and orchard between 1902 and 1911. A vineyard is known to have existed to the east of the house adjoining the old stables. The olive hedge is likely to define the boundaries. The field might be identifiable as changes in the soil profile and post holes from the fences I required to support the vines. The location of the orchard is unknown but is more likely to have been to the north-east of the house now in an area submerged by the lakes. This was described on a 1919 survey as "formerly cUltivated. There was a tank I stand in this area and this site would also now be lost under the lakes. Another pump and well that may also have been associated with Smith's cultivation was located inside the southern curve of the racetrack. This would be approximately in the area of I the car park adjacent to Homestead Beach Park. The well was later superseded by a windmill and pump.

Surveys of c. 1920 demonstrate that there was a tennis court located at some I distance from the house to the south-west close to the carriage drive. It is unknown when this court was formed although it is more likely to have been around this period of development. There is no evidence to show whether it was a grass or hard court I but some evidence may survive as a formed surface.

I 3.2.6 The Dairy SUbstantial additions were made to the Chipping Norton Estate during the nine years it functioned as a dairy between 1911 and 1919. In particular the dairy, barn and I other sheds were erected well east of the house in approximately the area of the present day car park. These were described as two large sheds 60 x 100 - about I 480 sheets of iron, cow sheds and bails 54 x 15.

I Cultural Resources Management Page 37 I I I I Historical AnalySis and Archaeological Assessment: The Homestead, Chipping Norton Beyond them, up to the river, in the area of the present day park were stock yards and a small building close to the river. A small cottage referred to as being used by a I farm hand is stated to have been located a little way from the house. It may be the small building close to the river. It is likely to have been the structure described in later reports as a four-room cottage with kitchen and verandah. It is unknown whether Smith or the Gay family built it although the latter seems more likely to have I been the case. This cottage may have survived up to the 1970s. It has since been demolished. Immediately south of the dairy was a piggery, now south of the car park, I and beyond this was another well. The Gay family was also responsible for the construction of four cottages with out­ buildings each property designed to be leased. These were all located outside the I area of the present curtilage along what was Epsom Road, now approximately Ascot Drive. None of them remain.

By the 1920s electricity had been brought to the site and it is likely that the Gay I family were responsible for this innovation.

I 3.2.7 The Soldier Settlement The principal impact of the development of the soldier settlement was the subdivision of the estate into small farms. This established the first well-defined curtilage around I The Homestead. Block 354 encompassed the house and its out-buildings, the vineyard, stables, former dairy, stock yards and farm hand's cottage up to the river front. A new road was formed to provide the southern boundary. This has since been I replaced by Homestead Drive that is placed well south of the former road alignment.

Generally all of the existing buildings were reused; for example, the old dairy barn was reconstructed to serve as a bulk store. Within the house, fabric from this period I is likely to more accurately define the changes that were made to it to make this building serve as the new Manager's residence and office and subsequently his home. There is no documentation to identify these changes other than an inference I from contemporary surveys that an extension to the back of the house may have been demolished between c. 1920-1922. I One definite addition to the Homestead in this period was the construction of a new office south of the stables. This building had been demolished by the 1940s but there may be evidence of it retained as structural material, deposits and relics within the soil profile. To the west, on the curve of the old race course a storekeeper's cottage I and general store were built; they were demolished in the 1970s-1980s. These were weatherboard buildings and their sites are now in the area of Homestead Park. I 3.2.8 Depression, War and Residential Use

There is virtually no evidence for what changes may have been made to the site for I nearly half a century, from the 1920s to the 1970s. What can be inferred, comparing what is known of the site at the beginning of the 1920s and from the later 1970s, is that many of the older buildings were demolished. These include the servant's I quarters adjacent to the kitchen, the dairy buildings and stock yards and the office. The only impact that this is likely to make in the archaeological profile is the creation I of areas or lenses of debris.

I Cultural Resources Management Page 38 I I I Assessment: The Homestead, Chipping Norton I Historical Analysis and Archaeological 3.2.9 Government Associations that this change As for the preceding period there is little evidence for the impact I of The Homestead. from private to statutory control had for the house and grounds The farm hand's Certainly the wooden stables were demolished early in this period. during this cottage, general store and storekeeper's cottage were also demolished result of the use of I time. The other principal changes appear to have occurred as a and a kiosk and the house as a restaurant. Some changes were made to the house of the house. I garage appea rs to have been added to the immediate eastern side and its immediate The potential archaeological resource of The Homestead I curtilage may be summarised as follows: within intact soil • Evidence of the pre-settlement landscape may be retained be used to profiles as micro-flora, fossil poll ens and spores. These could I define the specific landscape characteristics of The Homestead site. within the • Evidence of indigenous culture and occupation may be retained artefacts. I curtilage of the Homestead. This could encompass remnant stone within soil • Evidence of first European land clearance may be contained I profiles as deposits of charcoal and ash and/or burnt tree roots. activity • Evidence of later eighteenth and early nineteenth century agricultural pollens. I could be recognised through additions to the soil profile and fossil early nineteenth • Evidence of buildings associated with later eighteenth and It is century farming may comprise post-holes, tamped floors and artefacts. as masonry less likely to comprise more solid structural evidence such I site of this foundations. It is impossible to define specific locations for any grants. nature or to confirm that sites of this type were constructed on the be similar to I • Evidence of mid-later nineteenth century farming activities would those of the early nineteenth century and are unlikely to be distinguishable I from the earlier work. of the early-mid • There may be some possibility of finding domestic occupation there is no nineteenth century in the area of The Homestead although encompass I archival evidence to show this to be the case. At best this could structural evidence or artefact deposits. development of • The Homestead is the principal artefact of William Long's I Chipping Norton. It may contain sub-floor deposits as well as archaeological to have evidence of at least one extension to the back of the building likely will also been demolished between c. 1920-1922. The building fabric since the I demonstrate evidence of changes and additions made to the house initial construction for which there is virtually no extant documentation. is likely to be • . In addition to the visible evidence of the stables there period of I archaeological evidence of other service buildings of the Long may include development to the east and south-east of the house. These buildings I relics of servants' quarters close to the kitchen and other service

Page 39 I Cultural Resources Management I I I I Historical Analysis and Archaeological Assessment: The Home~tead, Chipping Norton closer to the stables. This may encompass structural evidence as well as I deposits and relics. • There is likely to be evidence of the carriage drive and a branch road to the stables probably a formed and cambered surface with possible hard edging I and drainage. • There may be evidence of landscape features in the area of the house including garden beds, paths and yard surfaces that relate to both the Long I period of development as well as subsequent landscape improvements.

• There is likely to be evidence of the water supply, power and drainage for the I house and out-buildings from the Long period of development. This may encompass a well, close to the stables, drains and pipes. There is likely to be evidence of up to two windmills close to the house. At least one other well I may be in the area of the car park south of the house. • There may be some evidence of the racetrack identifiable as a formed surface but the majority of this feature has been redeveloped to the west of I the house.

• Relics of the period of use associated with Colin Smith and his vineyard, I 1902-1911 may be found within the fabric of the house, however, the principal evidence is likely to be of a vineyard to the east of the house and kitchen visible as changes to the soil profile and, possibly, post holes from fences I supporting the vines. • There may be evidence of a tennis court located to the south-west of the house, adjacent to the former carriage drive identifiable as a formed surface I in the soil profile.

• The principal archaeological evidence associated with the period of use as a dairy, 1911-1919, apart from fabric contained within the house is likely to lie I within the area of the car park. This may encompass foundations of the dairy and other farm buildings as well as hard surfaces and some artefacts as well as drainage and other services. Evidence of the demolition of these buildings I in the mid-twentieth century may also be found as lenses of debris.

• Additional sites associated with the dairy but beyond the present curtilage I may lie further east within the park. There may be evidence of the old stock­ yards evident as formed surfaces within the soil profile and, possibly, postholes. The piggery site is likely to lie south of the car park. The site of the farm hand's cottage is likely to be approximately within or close to the site of I the car park abutting the Georges River well to the east of the Homestead site. Evidence of the demolition of these buildings and sites in the mid­ twentieth century may be present as lenses or areas of debris within the soil I profile.

• Apart from alteration and addition of fabric to the house and kitchen the I principal evidence of the period of use associated with the Soldier Settlement may be evidence associated with the office (south of the stables), general store and storekeeper's cottage (both west of the house within Homestead I Park). This could take the form of structural evidence, services, deposits and

I Cultural Resources Management Page 40 I I I I Historical Analysis and Archaeological Assessment: The Homestead, Chipping Norton relics as well as lenses and areas of debris associated with their demolition in I the mid-twentieth century, • Apart from evidence of change within the main house there is unlikely to be any specific site associated with the long period of twentieth century residential use, After Brennan the subsequent owners appear to have reused I the existing buildings and demolished others,

• There is unlikely to be any specific evidence of any period of military use of I the site.

• The last periods of use associated with statutory authorities are largely to be I represented by existing structural and landscape features. I I I I I I I I I I I I Long's stables during demolition in 1990

I Cultural Resources Management Page 41 I I ------~ I I Historical Analysis and Archaeological Assessment: The Homestead, Chipping Norton 3.3 The Survey I In 1985 a preliminary archaeological survey was commissioned by the NSW Department of Public Works107. This survey was able to identify more features than are now visible with the passing of nearly twenty years. The results of the two I surveys of 1985 and 2004 are discussed in the following sections. 3.3.1 The Homestead

I There is clear evidence at the back of the house that there was a substantial extension made to the rear wall. In 1985 this was only visible as a grass covered mound. Now it has been cleared back and brick footings with a slate damp proof course are clearly visible forming what appears to have been a sUbstantial extension I to the back of the house. There was an L-shaped extension that wrapped around the south-western corner of the building and appears to have run along the entire back wall of the house. At the longest western wall it is approximately ten metres wide, with the internal rooms along the back of the main house approximately four metres wide. This appears to have encompassed three rooms. I Separated from this feature by a cement path or floor, approximately 1.2 metres wide, are what appear to have been another three rooms, or two rooms with a central hall. These rooms are approximately five metres wide, north-south, and are the same length as those added to the back of the house. Both end at an addition made to the I kitchen wing (Section 3.3.2).

On the basis of this evidence it is impossible to be sure if these features represent a I single substantial extension of approximately six rooms or two separate additions, one attached to the house and one free-standing. In the case of the former the central east-west path would be an internal corridor and in the case of the latter it would be a path between the two buildings. The plan of the house in 1922 records I that there was a "cement floor" running along the back of the house in that year. It was as wide only as the foundations now visible abutting the house. This suggests that the foundations represent two separate structures with a central path between I them. The latter has an iron drain set into it.

Intersecting both of these sets of foundations and path/corridor is a north-south path that leads from the back door of the main house. It seems likely that this is a later I addition made after the demolition of the two (or one) extensions to the house. The only way to provide a clearer chronology for the relationship and development of I these features would be to undertake archaeological investigation. There is no clear evidence now available for what this substantial addition or additions were used for originally or subsequently. The date of construction, also, can I only be inferred from the materials and the documentation. Certainly this was not part of the original construction. The dry pressed bricks and slate damp course though do suggest a later nineteenth or early twentieth century period of construction. It is likely that it was built either by Colin Smith or the Gay family between 1900 and c. 1911. It I appears to have been demolished between c. 1920 and 1922. If the path from the back door was laid after these structures were demolished it suggests that this was I formed in the 1920s or later. I 107 Wendy Thorp (CRM). Chipping Norton Preliminary Archival Assessment and Archaeological Survey: 19-23

I Cultural Resources Management Page 42 I Historical Analysis and Archaeological Assessment: The Homestead, Chipping Norton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I View (above) the foundations abutting the house at its south-western corner. I View (below) of the second set of foundations, separated from those shown above by a path/corridor).

I Cultural Resources Management Page 43 I I I I Historical rC/la{WIOQ,rCai Assessment: The Chipping Norton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

View east of the path/corridor separating the two sets of foundations behind the house (above), I The drain set into this path!corridor (below)

I Cultural Resources Management Page 44 I I ------I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Two views of the that runs from the back of the house, probably laid after the demolition of the two I additions to the house. Above, a view west and, below, looking along the path to the house.

I Cultural Resources AII~If1"',n""rn<>r1 45 I I I I Historical Analysis and Archaeological Assessment: The Homestead, Chipping Norton 3.3.2 The External Kitchen

I The footings described in 3,3.1 abut an addition that was made to the free-standing kitchen/laundry after 1922, This addition occupied the space between the western wall of the kitchen/laundry and the former additions at the back of the house.

I Entry to the new structure was by a stone step. This was at the eastern end of the cement path between the additions at the back of the house. The floor of the addition was brick paved, but is now covered in cement There is evidence within the floor of I four room divisions. There is no evidence to suggest what this addition may have housed or been u sed for. I On the eastern side of the kitchen there is a poured cement slab. It is unclear if this was the base of another addition to the kitchen or an external floor. The latter seems I more likely to have been the case. I I I I I I I I I I

View of the floor of the kitchen addition looking north towards the house showing how it bridged the I space between the kitchen and the house.

I Cultural Resources Management Page 46 I I I Historical I and Archaeological Assessment. The Homestead, Chipping Norton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

View south-east showing the raised floor of the addition in relation to the kitchen (above). I Closer view of the floor surface showing the brick paving under the cement surface.

I Cultural Resources Management Page 47 I I I I Historical Analysis and Archaeological Assessment The Homestead, Chipping Norton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

The stone step (above) that provided access to the kitchen addition. I The cement paved area on the eastern side of the kitchen (below)

I Cultural Resources Management Page 48 I I ------' 'if I 103. I

I o o I

I o o I i" I I I I I I 1:===== I 11 11 11 I ·11 11 11 I 11 . I I n11 old ~octirg)11, . If':- 350 I J I I 1 . n 11 state . 1 1 1 ~ dafT1' p-oof I Il _____ 11 course I cerT)ert path r----.--, r------11 I. . 3SO I 11 old footj~l k . concrete 11 .' ----r ftoc:r slab . 11 11 . 11 . . . I1 . .' I 1'-___ L ______:-...1 L ______.

I PLAN - REAR OF HOMESTEAD

Drawing of the foundations at the back of the Homestead recorded in 1980 I (Source: S. Ka/amae; 103) I Cultural Resources Management . Page 49 ------. I I Historical ae(Jloqlcal Assessment. The Homestead, Norton 3.3.3 Homestead Well I There is no docu mentary evidence to show that a well serviced the house. I n fact, the primary sources suggest that water was obtained by means of a wind mill and pump from a natural spring located some distance from the house. The circular brick structure at the back of the house, therefore, that appears to be an infilled well is I doubtful with respect to use. It may be an infilled tank. Without further inspection it is impossible to define its function or period of construction. I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I View of the back of The Homestead showing the white-painted circular well or tank in the foreground.

I Cultural Resources Management Page 50 I I I I Historical Assessment. The Homestead, Chipping Norton 3.3.4 Homestead Tank? I Water pumped to the house and kitchen by the windmill would have had to be stored for domestic use. Setting aside the question of the possible well or tank described above there does appear to have been a possible undergrou nd tank located adjacent to the house on the east and just north of the kitchen. This site is now covered by an I octagonal wooden platform that was probably the base of a structure associated with the restaurant use. However, the concrete under the platform also is shaped in this configuration and it is much older than the timber platform. Further investigation I would be required to confirm this as a potential tank site. I I I I I I I I I I I I

I The possible under-ground tank site looking south

I Cultural Resources Management Page 51 I I I Historical Analysis a.nd Archaeological Assessment: The Homestead, Chipping Norton I 3.3.5 The Stables and Coach House

Still standing until 1990 this building, an original Long period structure, is clearly I identifiable by an L-shaped concrete slab floor that sits slightly above the surface of the surrounding ground. It is approximately 24 metres long along the east-west arm and approximately 18 metres along the north-south arm. There is no visible surface I evidence but it is likely that there are subsurface features associated with this structure. These are likely to include formed surfaces and drainage. I 3.3.6 Windmill and Pump

Adjacent to the site of the stables and coach house is a windmill. This is erected on I the site of a much earlier windmill and pump that brought water to the house; it is visible in early twentieth century photographs. There may be evidence of the footings of the earlier structure within the vicinity of the present windmill. There is no visible I surface evidence of a second windmill that was located east of the kitchen.

I 3.3.7 Underground Tanks Just to the east of the former stables are six underground storage tanks or silos. It is uncertain when these structures were constructed and for what purpose. They are I visible at surface because of concrete caps and grilles that have been placed over the original entrances. They have been constructed of brick and appear to have brick floors; the interiors could not be inspected because of safety issues. They are I approximately 4.2 metres in depth from the ground surface. The most likely period of construction was during Long's ownership. These represent a large capital output and he appears to have been the only owner that had the I resources to afford this work. If this is the case they were most likely built before his economic problems of the 1890s suggesting a construction date of 1884-c.1895. I What they were used for is even less clear. The most probable function was to store water or grain and their construction, or as much as is visible, suggests the latter. It is a likely use given the need to store fodder and grain for the horses. It is unclear though how the stored fodder would be retrieved; water would be easier to access I with pumps at each opening.

The issues of construction and purpose could be addressed with internal inspection I and poss ible archaeological investigation of the floor spaces. I I I I

I Cultural Resources Management Page 52 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

The stables and coach house as It appeared In the mid-twentieth century (above) (Source: Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Resources) I The slab that remains looking west.

I Cultural Resources Management 53 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

View of the windmill, pump and elevated tank stand near the stables taken probably during the mld­ twentieth century (Source: Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Resources) I View of the present windmill and tank at the end of the stables slab,

I Cultural Resources Management Page 54 I I I I Historical Analysis and Archaeological Assessment. The Norton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

View east across the area of the underground tanks or silos (above) View looking down onto one of the openings showing the concrete surround placed over each opening I (the grille has been removed) and he brickwork underlying it.

I Cultural Resources Management Page 55 I I rrr,,",c,n/IV1LI''''/ Assessment. The l-Jr,,.,.,,~~lc,,r1

Another view of the top of one of the tanks/silos more showing the brickwork of the structure (above) The floor of one of the tanks/silos showing what appears to be part of a remnant structure.

Cultural Resources 56 I I Historical Analysis and Archaeological Assessment: The Homestead, Chipping Norton 3.3.8 Servants' Quarters I There is good archival evidence to that during the Long period of occupancy and at least up to the mid-twentieth century there was a small weatherboard cottage located close to the kitchen that was used originally by servants. It is likely to have been located to the east of the kitchen close to a small timber building now standing I in this position. The present building is likely to have been a relocated pavilion from the tennis court. No evidence could be found anywhere in the immediate environs of the house of this former cottage although, in 1985, some mounding was observed in I this area that may have indicated an underlying remnant structure. It is possible that some evidence will remain within the ground I 3.3.9 Long Period Out-Buildings There is some archival evidence to suggest that, in addition to the servant's quarters, there were other service buildings located closer to the stables to the south-east of I the house. There is no visible evidence of any structure in this position that is likely to date to this period of development although archaeological evidence may remain I within the ground. I I I I I I I I I I The relocated tennis or games pavilion in the area of the former servants' quarters

I Cultural Resources Management 57 I I I Historical Analysis and Archaeological Assessment: The Homestead, Chipping Norton I 3.3.10 Carriage Drive

A remnant of the carriage drive close to the western side of the house is visible as a I raised rounded surface. There appears to be a dish drain running along each side. There are no visible hard elements but excavation is likely to reveal the structure and form of this feature. There is no visible evidence of the branch that led from the I carriage drive to the stables. This suggests that this was not as well formed as the main drive and may have been a flat earth or gravel track. Excavation in the area is I likely to reveal the details. 3.3.11 Landscape Featu res

A separate report has been prepared that analyses the landscape elements I surrounding the homestead. It has identified a few nineteenth century elements but most date from the early - later twentieth century. There is little evidence to suggest that much in the way of a formal garden was established around The Homestead. I However, it is not unreasonable to assume that some gardens and paths were present. Other than the elements identified in the accompanying report there is no visible surface evidence of underlying archaeological components of this nature. However, the area in the immediate environs of the house should be considered I likely to contain archaeological sites of this type. I 3.3.12 Race-track Most of this feature was destroyed by the creation of the lakes. A small section of the area of the home straight would survive immediately west of the house outside the I current fence. There is no visible surface evidence although excavation is likely to reveal the formed surface associated with the track. I 3.3.13 Tennis Court There is no visible evidence of the tennis court that was located to the south-west of the house. In 1985 there was a small, dilapidated shed on the site that may have I been a pavilion for the'court. This has since been relocated to the eastern side of the house. In 1985 there was also the remnant of an old fence that may have provided the boundary to the court and a few patches of concrete that may have been a remnant surface. Neither of these features remains on site. There is potential for sub­ I surface evidence to remain of this feature. I I I I I

I Cultural Resources Management Page 58 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The area of the carriage drive looking north showing slight mounding and depressions either side A view of the back of The Homestead probably taken during themed-twentieth century showing landscape elements and foundations of the demolished structures I (Source: Department of Planning, Infrastructure and Resources)

I Cultural Resources Management Page 59 I I I Historical IrJr:IJlU'I1!Lrll Assessment. Norlon I 3.3.14 Dairy Buildings

Built between 1911 and 1919 these buildings to the east of the generally the I area of the car had been demolished by the 1 in the 1970s. In 1985 the site was still clearly visible although had been damaged by machinery tracking through it. At that time there were large areas of brick and concrete I foundations Nothing is now visible in this area except a substantial depression. There is the potential for sub-surface relics. I 3.3.15 tock Yards Located east of the dairy buildi ngs in 1985 there were a series of excavated channels in this area. These are no longer visible and there is no surface evidence of this I feature. There may be residual sub-surface archaeological evidence. I 3.3.16 Farm Hand's Cottage This was located east of the stock yards close to the river. It appears to have been intact up to the 1970s. In 1985 the site was still visible with some demolition rubble still evident, an old post and rail fence line and some introduced planting. None of I this remains and there is no surface evidence of underlying features although there is potential for these relics.

I 3.3.17 Tank Stand Several early-mid twentieth century photographs show an elevated tank stand close I to and north of the stables. There is no visible evidence remaining of this feature. I I I I I I I

What are likely to have been some of the ruined dairy buildings (undated photograph) I (Source: Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Resources)

I Cultural Resources Management 60 I I I I Historical fl8CWIC)QIC;8 Assessment The Hnm"'''TI'''::Jf1 Norlon 3.3.18 Soldier Settlement Office

I Located to and south of the stables this weatherboard building was demolished during the mid-twentieth century. In 1985 the site was recognizable from some mounding. This is still present although less obvious than in the 1980s. It is I likely to contain intact foundations. 3.3.19 Manager's Residence and Store

I These buildings were constructed in the early 1920s on the southern part of the home-straight of the former race track. were intact up to the 1970s but were demolished in the early 1980s. In 1985 the sites were quite identifiable with brick and I concrete foundations still in situ as well as paths, a drainage line and fence as well as demolition materials. None of these survive although there may be some intact sub­ surface relics.

I 3.3.20 Epsom Road

This road, constructed in the early 1920s ran between the present site of the stables I and the present Homestead Drive. It was quite straight in an east-west direction except for a small bend that it took to near the former dairy buildings. This road is no longer visible although there is a level area in this position south of the stables that may be a remnant of this former thoroughfare. There is no visible surface evidence I but there is likely to be remnant sub-surface traces. I I I I I I I I I View north of the area of the Manager's residence and store on the site of the former race track.

I Cultural Resources IVld'fltf(JfdIIlfdl 61 I I I Historical Analysis and Archaeological Assessment: The Homestead, Chipping Norton I 3.4 Conclusions

The potential archaeological resource described in Section 3.2 could occupy a I substantial area well beyond the immediate environs of the house and encompass a lengthy chronological period dating back to the earliest years of European occupation in this district with the possibility of even longer human association if Aboriginal relics I were identified during the course of earthworks. Although areas of this site, essentially the former Block 354 of the Soldier Settlement subdivision, have been I disturbed it all should still be considered archaeologically sensitive. The identifiable archaeological resource is much smaller and is associated with the immediate environs of the Homestead. It may be demonstrated by comparing the results of the present survey with that of 1985 that this resource has been i substantially reduced by the impact of works associated with the development of the lakes and parkland. None of these sites were recorded before they were destroyed or I damaged. The assemblage of identifiable sites encompasses items that substantially contribute to the documentation and interpretation of this place. These include what appear to be a rare form of underground storage, substantial additions to the Homestead and I landscape components including the carriage drive.

In every case they have the potential to yield significant new information through I archaeological invest igation.

I 3.5 Management Issues 3.5.1 Excavati on Permits

I The area immediately surrounding The Homestead and, to a lesser extent, the park that surrounds it on either side may be shown to certainly possess archaeological sites or have a medium to high probability of doing so. The NSW Heritage Act I provides statutory protection for archaeological relics. It requires proponents of developments to apply for Heritage Council approval of those works ensuring that appropriate management strategies have been devised and will be enacted with respect to the assessed level of impact on the significance or potential significance of I the archaeological feature or deposit.

The Homestead is listed on the State Heritage Register. This means that any works I carried out within the curtilage defined by that Register Listing would need to be undertaken within the provisions of a Section 60 Application to the Heritage Council of NSW. As part of any application of this kind archaeological relics will need to be addressed by means of appending a research design specifying the works that will I be undertaken to manage archaeological relics that may be impacted upon by those works. An archaeologist needs to prepare this document and be nominated as the I Excavation Director. In those areas surrounding the curtilage a Section 140 Application will need to be made for management of archaeological relics. In this case also a research Design will need to be prepared by a qualified archaeologist. This report should be appended I to either a Section 60 or Section 140 application to fulfil the requirements of an I archaeological ass essment.

I Cultural Resources Management Page 62 I I I Historical Analysis and Archaeological Assessment: The Homestead, Chipping Norton I Identifying the appropriate strategy for archaeological work depends on the level of significance or potential significance of the item or items to be impacted upon and the extent of the impact. The options can encompass a do-nothing option, prior I investigation and documentation, sampling, monitoring and recording or various combinations.

I The Heritage Office of NSW processes all Section 60 and Section 140 applications. A small processing fee is required and work cannot commence until the proponent has received written approval. Processing permit applications can take up to eight I weeks.

I 3.5.2 Curtilage The curtilage associated with the Homestead needs to be defined beyond that appended to the Heritage Register nomination. Essentially this encompasses only I the readily identifiable structures and archaeological sites. It does not reflect any meaningful historic identity or the significance of the place (refer Section 4.0). The NSW Heritage Office defines a curtilage as follows:

I "the area of land (including land covered by water) surrounding an item or area of heritage significance which is essential for retaining and interpreting its heritage I significance. It can apply to either: • land which is integral to the heritage significance of items of the built heritage; I or • a precinct which includes buildings, works, relics, trees or places and their setting,,108.

I The curtilage needs to take into account the identifiable features (standing and sub­ surface), landscape elements, historic patterns of use and subdivision, the setting, views and landmark qualities and visual, physical, historical and functional links with I important features in the area.

The principal historic significance of this place (refer Section 4.0) encompasses not only William Long's development but also its subsequent development as a Soldier I Settlement of which this site was the focus. The curtilage should reflect these two components. The Homestead and the park land surrounding it largely preserve the area of Block 354 the allotment created on the Homestead as part of the Soldier I Settlement.

If the management curtilage of the Homestead was expanded to encompass this I area, essentially that of Block 354: • It would have a firm basis in the historic development of the place rather than an arbitrary selection of a boundary based on the accidental retention of I some structures.

• It would ensure the preservation of sites associated not only with these two I formative periods of development but those of the vineyard, orchard and dairy. ' I 108 NSW Heritage Office, Heritage Curtilages: 3

I Cultural Resources Management Page 63 I I I I Historical IICH'3010Wf;1:I1 Assessment.· The Norton • It would offer the for a of not this property but the issues raised by its history that have consequence for I the district

• It would maintain visual curtilages for the house that would preserve an I impression of both the nineteenth and early twentieth I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I The view east into Homestead Beach Park

I Cultural Resources Management 64 I I I I I I

I II /1 // I // 11 I /1 II // I 1/ II // Bulk I I1 // If I 1" weathE'rboon:: j / cotto:;::'

I I," ~ n Ch~lJHomestead new Office \ /1 ----~~ 11 It tmnis I !)court / I store ke

I "Heritage significance", "cultural significance" and "cultural value" are all terms used to describe an item's value or importance to our own society. The Australian I ICOMOS Burra Charter defines cultural significance as, "" .aesthetic, historic, scientific or social value for past, present or future generations".

This value may be contained in the fabric of the item, its setting and relationship to I other items, the response that the item stimulates in those who value it now or the meaning of that item to its contemporary society and in the historical records that allow us to understand it in its own context. An assessment of what is significant is I not static. Significance may increase as more is learnt about the past, about the particular item and as items become rare, endangered or are found to document and illustrate aspects that have acquired a new recognition of importance.

I Determining cultural value is the basis of planning for all places of historic value. A clear determination of significance permits informed decisions for future planning that will ensure that the expressions of significance are retained, enhanced or at least are I minimally impacted upon. A clear understanding of the nature and degree of significance will determine parameters for and flexibility of any development. In this case it is necessary to have a clear understanding of the significance of the elements I involved to determine the impact that removal of them would have on the items, their environs and as a class of structure.

An assessment of significance is made by applying standard evaluation criteria to the I what is known of an item's development and associations. These criteria are divided into two categories:

I • Nature of Significance

• Comparative Significance

I In the revised heritage assessment procedure seven criteria have been identified that may singly or in combinations contribute to the cultural significance of a place. These I criteria are: (a) An item is important in the course or pattern of NSW's cultural or natural I history or of the local area (historic evolution) (b) An item has strong or special association with the life or works of a person, or group of persons, of importance to the natural or cultural history of the state I or local area (historic associations) (c) An item is important in demonstrating aesthetic characteristics and/or a high degree of creative or technical achievement in NSW or the local area I (aesthetic values)

I Cultural Resources Management Page 65 I I I Historical Analysis and Archaeological Assessment: The Homestead, Chipping Norion I (d) An item has strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group in NSW or the local area for social, cultural or spiritual reasons I (social values) (e) An item has the potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of NSW's cultural or natural history or of the local area I (technical and research values)

(f) An item possesses uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of NSW's or the I local areas natural or cultural history (rarity). (g) An item is important in demonstrating the princip al characteristics of a class of NSW's or the local areas cultural or natural places or environments (representative).

These are the inclusion criteria for demonstrating cultural heritage. There are parallel exclusion criteria that relate to factors that weaken the claim of an item to those criteria.

The comparative criteria or grading applied to cultural significance is categorised according to an ascending scale of Intrusive, Little, Moderate, High and 109 I Exceptional . I I I I I I I I I 109 Heritage Office NSW, Assessing Heritage Significance: 9-11

I Cultural Resources Management Page 66 I I I Historical Analysis and Archaeological Assessment: The Homestead, Chipping Norton I 4.2 Assessment of Significance

This report only addresses the issues of historic evolution, historic association and I technical and research values. These contribute to a comprehensive assessment of I significance presented in the main volume of this study. 4.2.1 Historic Evolution I The Homestead has links with the earliest settlement of the district at its largest encompassing four eighteenth and early nineteenth century land grants. In this broadest sense this land has been continuously occupied since that period and is representative of, and in one case instrumental in bringing about, the changes in land I use specific to this district.

From its early nineteenth century agricultural origins William Long's late nineteenth I century estate became one of the largest privately owned properties in the Liverpool district. Its devotion to breeding and training racing horses is a significant component of a unique local association with the racing industry beginning in the early part of the I nineteenth century and that continues to this day. The later uses of the estate, as a vineyard, orchard and dairy reflect the bigger patterns of change that were characteristic of the entire district as big estates such as I this and Moorebank were subdivided and the area became known for its rural landscape and production. I The present form of Chipping Norton owes almost all to the subdivision of the estate in the 1920s to form a soldier settlement. The Homestead was the focus of this settlement. Block 354 (which is now occupied by the Homestead and the park around it) contained the first Manager's residence, the second Manager's residence, the I various administration buildings and stores as well as an area of land that was considered necessary to support the property. It was similar in size to the many other farms created out of the Chipping Norton estate but The Homestead and the park I land either side of it is the only one that preserves that subdivision to any degree. Residential subdivision' of the farms surrounding has led to the loss of this former landscape identity.. Although the cultural landscape is much altered because of this residential subdivision and the creation of the Chipping Norton Lakes scheme Block I 354 retains some impression of what this district was like before those massive changes. I 4.2.2 Historic Associations

The Homestead has two important historical associations. The first is with William I Long. Long was a significant figure in the development of the racing industry in NSW during the later part of the nineteenth century. Locally, he was responsible for the establishment of two of the largest private racing establishments in the state, I Warwick Farm and Chipping Norton, greatly contributing to this unique association with the district. The Homestead preserves the focus of the Chipping Norton estate containing the main house, out-buildings (above and probably below ground), the I stables and components of the landscape. The land immediately beyond the Homestead was devoted to the racecourse and paddocks for the stock.

Secondly, Long's estate provided perfect conditions for the establishment of a soldier I settlement here in the 1920s. The development of the soldier settlement established

I Cultural Resources Management Page 67 I I I Historical Analysis and Archaeological Assessment: The Homestead, Chipping Norton I the rural farm identity of this district, which remained its pre-eminent characteristic until the beginning of urban subdivision in the 1960s and 1970s. The subdivision pattern established then also re mained the princi pal land division until the 1960s. The I Homestead also was the focus of the Soldier Settlement being the administrative centre. Today the Homestead and the park surrounding it is the only relatively extant I block of that subdivision pattern. I 4.2.3 Technical and Research Values The Homestead and its environs contain an assemblage of identifiable and potential sites that substantially contribute to the documentation and interpretation of this place. These include what appear to be a rare form of underground storage, I SUbstantial additions to the Homestead and landscape components including the carriage drive. These sites relate to Long's period of development, the vineyard and orchard, dairy and soldier settlement. The archaeological assemblage contained I within the Homestead grounds and the surrounding parkland is a representative sample for the development of this sp'ecific site as well as illustrative of formative periods of the development of Chipping Norton. In every case the sites have the I potential to yield significant new information through archaeological investigation. I 4.3 Statement of Significance The Homestead has links with the earliest settlement of the district from the eighteenth and early nineteenth century. In this broadest sense this land has been continuously occupied since that period. From these early nineteenth century I agricultural origins The Homestead had two important historical associations that have significance for the district.

I William Long was a substantial figure in the development of the racing industry in NSW during the later part of the nineteenth century. Locally, he was responsible for the establishment of two of the largest private racing establishments in the state, I Warwick Farm and Chipping Norton, greatly contributing to the unique association of this district with horse racing and breeding that began in the earlier part of the nineteenth century and continues to this day. Chipping Norton estate became one of the largest privately owned properties in the Liverpool district. The Homestead I preserves the focus of the Chipping Norton estate containing the main house, out­ buildings (above and probably below ground), the stables and components of the landscape. The park land surrounding incorporates land that was devoted to I paddocks and the racetrack developed on this land. The present form of Chipping Norton owes almost all to the subdivision of the estate in the 1920s to form a soldier settlement. The development of the soldier settlement I established the farming identity of this district, which remained its pre-eminent characteristic until the beginning of urban subdivision in the 1960s and 1970s. The subdivision pattern established then also remained the principal land division until the I 1960s.

The Homestead also was the focus of the Soldier Settlement being the administrative I centre. Today the Homestead and the park surrounding it is the only relatively extant block of that subdivision pattern. Block 354 (which is now occupied by the Homestead and the park around it) contained the first Manager's residence, the second Manager's residence, the various administration buildings and stores as well I as an area of land that was considered necessary to support the property. It was

I Cultural Resources Management Page 68 I I I I Historical Analysis and Archaeological Assessment.' The Homestead, Chipping Norton similar in size to the many other farms created out of the Chipping Norton estate but The Homestead and the park land either side of it is the only one that preserves that I subdivision to any degree. Residential subdivision of the farms surrounding has led to the loss of this former landscape identity. Although the cultural landscape is much altered because of this residential subdivision and the creation of the Chipping I Norton Lakes scheme Block 354 retains some impression of what this district was like before those massive changes.

The use of the estate in the early part of the twentieth century between those two I formative occupancies, as a vineyard, orchard and dairy, reflect the bigger patterns of change that were characteristic of the entire district as big estates such as this and Moorebank were subdivided and the area became known for its rural landscape and I production.

The Homestead and its environs contain an assemblage of identifiable and potential sites that substantially contribute to the documentation and interpretation of this I place. These include what appear to be a rare form of underground storage, substantial additions to the Homestead and landscape components including the carriage drive. These sites relate to Long's period of development, the vineyard and I orchard, dairy and soldier settlement. The archaeological assemblage contained within the Homestead grounds and the surrounding parkland is a representative sample for the development of this specific site as well as illustrative of formative I periods of the development of Chipping Norton. In every case the sites have the potential to yield significant new information through archaeological investigation. I I I I I I I I I An old gate in the area of the former vineyard I Cultural Resources Management Page 69 I I I Historical Analysis and Archaeological Assessment: The Homestead, Chipping Norton I SECTION 5.0 I REFERENCES

I 5.1 Books, Reports and Theses The Aldine Centennial History of NSW. 1888. I Sydney. 1888 I Historical Records of Australia Volumes I, V Doug Benson and Jocelyn Howell Taken For Granted the Bushland of Sydney and Its Suburbs I Kangaroo Press. 1990.

Boyd and King The Moorbank Album I Sydney. 1888.

B.S. Cowling Chipping Norton A Short History I Chipping Norton Public School P & C. 1972. JRC Planning Services Macarthur Region Heritage Study I Department of Environment and Planning. 1985. Sulev Kalamae Chipping Norton Its History, Conservation and Restoration I Thesis, Bachelor Architecture University Sydney. 1981. Terry Kass Liverpool Heritage Study Thematic History

I Christopher Keating On the Frontier A Social History of Liverpool Hale and Iremonger. 1996. I Douglas Pike (Editor) Australian Dictionary of Biography Volume 1, 2, 5 Melbourne University Press. 1983.

Wendy Thorp Chipping Norton Preliminary Archival Assessment and I Archaeological Survey Department of Public Works. 1985. I 5.2 Property Records

Land Titles Office NSW Certificate of Title Volume 696 Folio 210 I Certificate of Title Volume 990 Folio 93 Certificate of Title Volume 1012 Folio 173 I Certificate of Title Volume 1095 Folio 197 Land Titles Office NSW Old Systems Grants Register 1798 I Land Titles Office NSW Old Systems Book 94 No. 47

I Cultural Resources Management Page 70 I I - ---- I Historical Analysis and Archaeological Assessment: The Homestead, Chipping Norion I Old Systems Book 121 No. 229 Old Systems Book 172 No. 891 Old Systems Book 286 No. 730 I Old Systems Book 287 No. 617 I Land Titles Office NSW Primary Application 8313 State Records Office NSW Chipping Norton Soldier Settlement File 10/13730 I Permanent Conservation Order NSW Government Gazette 32: 18 February 1983

National Archives Chipping Norton Homestead Requisition for War Time I Use. File C3629 I Liverpool City Counci I Miscellaneous File Notes 5.3 Journal and News Articles

I The Australasian 11 December 1915 I The Bulletin 15 July 1915, 9 December 1915 The Daily Telegraph 1 December 1915 I The Mirror 4 December 1915 I The Sydney Morning Herald 1 December 1915 5.4 Maps and Plans I Parish of Holsworthy Parish Map (Undated) Surveyor General Sketch Books Volume 4 Folio 173 I Reel 2779 I I I I I.

I Cultural Resources Management Page 71 I I