Part 12 Historic Heritage Assessment
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Amended Rocky Hill Coal Project Part 12 Historic Heritage Assessment Development Application No. SSD 5156 Prepared by: Richard Lamb & Associates June 2016 This page has intentionally been left blank ABN: 46 114 162 597 Historic Heritage Assessment Prepared for: R.W. Corkery & Co. Pty Limited 1st Floor, 12 Dangar Road PO Box 239 BROOKLYN NSW 2083 Tel: (02) 9985 8511 Email: [email protected] On behalf of: Gloucester Resources Limited Level 8 Riverside Centre 128 Eagle Street BRISBANE QLD 4000 Tel: (07) 3006 1830 Fax: (07) 3006 1840 Email: [email protected] Prepared by: Richard Lamb & Associates 1/134 Military Road NEUTRAL BAY NSW 2089 Tel: (02) 9953 0922 Fax: (02) 9953 8911 Email: [email protected] June 2016 Richard Lamb & Associates GLOUCESTER RESOURCES LIMITED SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES Amended Rocky Hill Coal Project Part 12: Historic Heritage Assessment Report No. 806/14 This Copyright is included for the protection of this document COPYRIGHT © Richard Lamb & Associates, 2016 and © Gloucester Resources Limited, 2016 All intellectual property and copyright reserved. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study, research, criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright Act, 1968, no part of this report may be reproduced, transmitted, stored in a retrieval system or adapted in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without written permission. Enquiries should be addressed to Richard Lamb & Associates. 12 - 2 Richard Lamb & Associates SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES GLOUCESTER RESOURCES LIMITED Part 12: Historic Heritage Assessment Amended Rocky Hill Coal Project Report No. 806/14 FOREWORD Since the exhibition of the Environmental Impact Statement for the Rocky Hill Coal Project in 2013, Gloucester Resources Limited has reached an agreement with Yancoal Australia Limited to utilise the existing facilities at the nearby Stratford Mining Complex to process and despatch coal mined from the Rocky Hill Mine Area. Consequently, Gloucester Resources Limited has amended the Rocky Hill Coal Project to provide for the transportation of sized coal to the Stratford Mining Complex via a private haul road and no longer intends to construct or use the previously proposed Rocky Hill coal handling and preparation plant (CHPP), overland conveyor, rail loop and train load-out facility. In addition, the amended Project would no longer involve the development of the formerly proposed Weismantel Pit. For the purposes of this report, the 2013 Rocky Hill Coal Project is referred to as the “2013 Project” whilst the amended Rocky Hill Coal Project is referred to as the “amended Project”. It is noted that Appendix 1 presents an overview of the key differences between the Historic Heritage Assessment for the 2013 Project and the amended Project. This report effectively presents an update of the 2013 Historic Heritage Assessment in light of these amendments to the Rocky Hill Coal Project. Richard Lamb & Associates 12 - 3 GLOUCESTER RESOURCES LIMITED SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES Amended Rocky Hill Coal Project Part 12: Historic Heritage Assessment Report No. 806/14 This page has intentionally been left blank 12 - 4 Richard Lamb & Associates SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES GLOUCESTER RESOURCES LIMITED Part 12: Historic Heritage Assessment Amended Rocky Hill Coal Project Report No. 806/14 CONTENTS Page COMMONLY USED ACRONYMS ........................................................................................................ 12-7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY....................................................................................................................... 12-9 1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 12-15 1.1 PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT..................................................................................... 12-15 1.2 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................ 12-15 1.3 OVERVIEW OF THE AMENDED PROJECT ............................................................... 12-15 2. HISTORICAL RECORD ............................................................................................................ 12-21 2.1 BRIEF HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ......................................................................... 12-21 2.1.1 First settlement ................................................................................................ 12-21 2.1.2 Post-first settlement themes ............................................................................ 12-23 2.2 SURVEY FINDINGS .................................................................................................... 12-23 2.2.1 National Statutory Framework ......................................................................... 12-23 2.2.2 NSW Statutory Framework .............................................................................. 12-24 2.2.3 Registers of non-statutory items ...................................................................... 12-25 2.3 HERITAGE ITEMS ....................................................................................................... 12-25 2.3.1 Listed, identified but unlisted and other items of potential significance .......... 12-25 2.4 SUMMARY OF RESEARCH ON HERITAGE ITEMS .................................................. 12-27 3. POTENTIAL HERITAGE LANDSCAPE ................................................................................... 12-39 3.1 PHYSICAL AND VISUAL SETTING ............................................................................ 12-39 3.2 THE STROUD-GLOUCESTER VALLEY INCORPORATING THE VALE OF GLOUCESTER LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION AREA ............................................. 12-39 3.3 THE LANDSCAPE INTERPRETED FROM A CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE ............... 12-41 3.4 HERITAGE VIEWS ...................................................................................................... 12-43 4. ASSESSING POTENTIAL HERITAGE IMPACTS ON THE LANDSCAPE ............................. 12-45 4.1 METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................... 12-45 4.1.1 Why the item, place or area is of heritage significance ................................... 12-46 4.1.2 Alternative BGSPA Statement of Heritage Significance ................................. 12-49 4.1.3 RLA Assessment of Heritage Significance ...................................................... 12-51 4.2 REQUIREMENTS OF STATEMENTS OF HERITAGE IMPACT ................................. 12-54 4.2.1 Describing the works, change of use and physical changes to the place ....... 12-54 4.2.2 Identifying the impacts the proposed changes to the heritage item will have on its heritage significance .............................................................................. 12-55 4.2.3 Measures being proposed to lessen negative impacts of the proposed changes ........................................................................................................... 12-56 4.2.4 Why more sympathetic solutions to those being proposed are not viable ...... 12-57 4.3 QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED IN A SOHI ............................................................. 12-57 4.3.1 How is the impact of the new development on the heritage significance of the item or area to be minimised? ................................................................... 12-57 4.3.2 Why is the new development required to be adjacent to the heritage item? .. 12-58 Richard Lamb & Associates 12 - 5 GLOUCESTER RESOURCES LIMITED SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES Amended Rocky Hill Coal Project Part 12: Historic Heritage Assessment Report No. 806/14 CONTENTS Page 4.3.3 How does the curtilage allowed around the heritage item contribute to the retention of its heritage significance? .............................................................. 12-58 4.3.4 How does the new development affect views to, and from, the heritage item? What has been done to minimise negative effects? ........................................ 12-58 4.3.5 Is the development sited on any known, or potentially significant archaeological deposits? If so, have alternative sites been considered? Why were they rejected? ......................................................................................... 12-58 4.3.6 Is the development sympathetic to the heritage item? In what way (e.g. form, siting, proportions, design)? ............................................................................. 12-58 4.3.7 Will the additions visually dominate the heritage item? How has this been minimised? ....................................................................................................... 12-59 4.3.8 Will the public, and users of the item, still be able to view and appreciate its significance? .................................................................................................... 12-59 5. CONSIDERATION OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE EIS ................................................ 12-60 5.1 REQUIREMENTS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND INFRASTRUCTURE (NOW DPE): ............................................................................... 12-60 5.2 REQUIREMENTS OF THE BARRINGTON-GLOUCESTER-STROUD PRESERVATION ALLIANCE INC. ............................................................................... 12-60 5.3 REQUIREMENTS OF GLOUCESTER SHIRE COUNCIL ........................................... 12-61