I

I I I I HOMEBUSH BAY PROJECT

REVIEW OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA AND STUDIES RELATING TO I HOMEBUSH BAY I :1 I

A Report Prepared for the Property Services Group

July 1993

WENDY THORP I 1I

SECTION 1.0 I CONTEXT OF THE INVESTIGATION I 1.1 Framework of the Study

I This investigation has been undertaken on behalf of the Property Services Group who are the managers for the study area: It is intended to more closely define the I archaeological resources contained within that area for the purpose of devising specific management strategies in the event of those site's redevelopment. The strategies are to be commensurate with the significance of the"­ I resources and fulfill legislative and conservation I requirements. 1.2 Location and Parameters of the Investigation I This investigation is concerned with land surrounding Homebush Bay, in total, approximately 760 hectares. This land has been used throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries for agricultural and industrial uses, owned and I managed both privately and by the State Government.

These uses have resulted in an extensive archaeological I resource both above and below ground. Some above ground aspects have been removed after extensive investigation, evaluation. and recording programmes. Other features have been retained and are no\<] being reviewed for future uses I and interpretation possibilities. ' a@i· The below ground/sites, features or relics have generally I been identified in the literature for ~he-sites'as a "potential archaeological resource". It is the intention of this study, where possible, to specifically identify those potential areas or relics and recommend strategies for their management.

This report does not address Aboriginal archaeological I investigation and resources.

I 1.3 Objectives and Tasks of-the Study This investigation~addressed the non-specific "potential archaeological resource" contained I within the sites of the former State Brickyards and Abattoirs. Its primary objectives have been to consolidate the existing work for these sites and identify strategies that will make possible the future identification and management of this resource. I I

To achieve these objectives the following tasks have been I undertaken: * a review and overview of all existing documentation for I the study area * the identification of the~ sites, features or relics that have been nominated as a potential archaeological I resource * an evaluation of the identification criteria or I selection process used to nominate these sites * an evaluation of the extent of the potential resource I and its significance * the definition of managements strategies for the sites and their immediate environs including specific I literature surveys that may assist in more specifically locating these sites. I 1.4 Methodology

All of the principal documents for the site including the I Homebush Bay Conservation study (Fox and Associates for the Department of Planning 1986) have been reviewed for this work. A full list is included in the bibliography to I this report (Section 6.1). I 1.5 Authorship and Acknowledgements This report has been prepared by Wendy Thorp in I association with Schwager Brooks and Partners Pty Ltd. I I I I I I I I I I

SECTION 2.0 I THE CONSERVATION FRAMEWORK: OVER-VIEW OF LITERATURE I 2.1 Macro and Micro Views of the study Area and Its ~I Environs Between 1985 and 1990 five major studies have investigated, analysed, recorded and provided direction I for the environmental resources contained within the Homebush Bay area. Theses studies commenced with the macro view afforded by consideration of the area within the Parramatta River system. They concluded with increasingly I micro analysis whereby individual buildings and relics have been investigated, analaysed and recorded on all three sites that generally encompass this area. These are I the former State Brickyards, State Abattoirs and Newington Arms Depot (the latter is not included in this discussion; it is the subject of a report by other consultants).

I The principal objectives of all the studies have been to identify what is important about the area, site, place or relic under consideration, how it contributed to cultural I heritage and by what means it was most appropriate to manage that embodiment of significance. Some reports contain work that has derived from the findings or)( I recommendations of this analysis. A precis of each report is contained in the following sections. I I I 2.2 Parramatta River Heritage Study 1985 The Industrial Archaeology of the Newton Naval Armament Depot and Homebush state Abattoirs and Other I Sites in the Homebush Bay Region 1985 The Heritage Study was prepared by Fox and Associates in 1985 on behalf of the NSW Department of Environment and I Planning. The report addressed all areas of environmental heritage including visual catchments, natural systems, the built environment, aboriginal and historical archaeology. Its intention was to identify specific sites and/or areas I of particular merit that either were significant to understanding and interpreting the role of the river in New South Wales history and/or were of outstanding I individual merit for reasons that included architectural or aesthetic quality, historical rarity or scientific contributions. In addition to conservation the report also I considered the issues of administration and management, recreation and open space. ~ Homebush Bay a~was identified in this report to be I an area of significance and deserving of more detailed attention than provided for ~ the over-view~~f the entire river system. The brickl~~Jfs and abattoir~$we}e I highlighted to be of particular importance. The report on the industrial archaeology of the sites was I prepared by Godden and Associates to compliment and contribute to the heritage study. It considered the significance of the sites and provided a description, analysis and assessment of their significance. It I recommended specific management strategies that were incorporated into the heritage study. I I I I I I I I I I 1 2.3 Homebush Bay Conservation study 1986 This report prepared by Fox and Associates in 1986 on behalf of the NSW Department of Environment and Planning I1 was the result of recommendations contained in the earlier Parramatta River Heritage Study. These underlined the need for more detailed evaluations of specific areas along and 1 within the river system. This a comprehensive heritage evaluation and formed the basis for the schedule of the Draft REP. It includes I extensive and detailed historical evidence and analysis and addresses all major components of the environmental heritage including natural systems, aboriginal land use and archaeological sites and historical land use and I sites, both 'above and below ground. It principally addresses the Homebush Abattoirs site and Newington Arms Deport (the is latter not included in the current I discussion) . The State Brickyards did not come within the parameters of I this report's Brief although it did recognize that, "The state Brickworks is amongst the oldest and most important brickworks in the state. It I has a range of equipment and employs a range of technologies unequalled in industrial I archaeological value. "The site should be fully investigated and a report Cin its history and technology commissioned. A conservation policy should be I written for the brickworks before any decision concerning its future is contemplated." (Section 5.3.3, Section 6.3.4)

This is the first study that ~~~~~r~y refers to a potential archaeological resource or, specifically, one of "str6ng archaeological research potential" (Section 5.2.2) for the Homebush Estate. This potential resource was primarily recognized to relate to the development and occupation of the site by D'Arcy Wentworth and his family. It is also the first report to identify the two sites that might possibly contain this evidence. The above ground archaeological resource of the abattoir was recognized to relate almost entirely to the working complex of an historically and technologically important industrial complex.

Management of the potential sub-surface archaeological resource was considered best achieved by means of an archaeological watching or monitoring brief in either possible location (Section 6.2.4) and elsewhere on the estate (see Section':~ this report). I

:1I

2.4 Draft Conservation Plan, state Brickworks and state I Abattoirs, c.1989

This study was prepared by Don Godden and Associates on t_~ behalf of the Public Works Department of NSW. It Rotes ~~~ I that it was commissioned as a response to the requirements of the NSW Heritage Act which requires the responsible management of "relics" where these have been identified; I the 1986 Fox and Associates study provided that identification. I This study was designed to determine the precise significance of the two sites, their individual components and the means by which that significance could be retained . in the event of redevelopment. The first ~~~ I assessments of significance are presented in this report.

The work contains a detailed description and analysis of I the sites, their plant and equipment and the technology and processes used at both. The brickworks and abattoirs were still in operation at the time of this study.

I The recommendations arising from this work included detailed archival recording of the equipment and processes and the preparation of conservation plans for those I buildings, structures and relics which were to be retained; these features were specifically nominated in the report ~Mol'l ... ±I'l.'--'&R4s a::-9f>~. Suggestions a3:'e- ~ I made for future re-use options. The report emphasizes the importance of the sites as intact, functional and historically important industrial complexes of the I twentieth century. Two sites of "possible archaeological significance" at the brickworks (Section 3.3.3) were identified; these were I recommended for immediate investigation (see Section.b:2 this report). These sites were located at~astern end of the site "along the permanent way remains" and a second "adjacent to the western perimeter wire fence". "These areas have been the dumping ground for redundant -- tools and machines. They should be disturbed only when an ~archaeologist is present". Within the Abbatoir site consideration was given to the two possible sites of the former Wentworth House. The site farther away from the administration centre was considered the more likely and in this instance it was noted that the construction of buildings for the technological park was likely to have diminished the potential for archaeological evidence (page 39).

Within the abbatoir site it was considered that the degree of disturbance caused by construction, excavation, reclamation and landscaping was such that it was unlikely I I

that any significant evidence of former buildings I associated with the Wentworth family would have survived these processes.

The general policy which derived from this study for I potential archaeological sites was that they should be I investigated prior to disturbance (Policy 10.1.9). I I I I I I I I I

2.5 state Abattoirs History and Record of the Buildings I structures and Technology This work was prepared by Godden Mackay during 1990 on behalf of the Public Works Department of NSW in response I to redevelopment proposals for the site. It fulfills the requirements of the NSW Heritage Act with respect to the I responsible management of identified relics. The report includes a detailed historical analysis of the site and the physical evolution of the precinct and its I components. It also provides an archival recording and interpretation of the entire site and its parts according to the broad functional sequence of meat processing in the industryJthat iSJfrom the yard facilities for the live I animals to the meat processing and by-products buildings I and so on. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2.6 Other Studies Apart from these principal studies that relate to the study area a number of other investigations have been undertaken in this period that have contributed specific I aspects to the appreciation and understanding of the environmental and cultural heritage of the area. These I are: Lester Firth and Associates I Lend Lease Development Pty Ltd Clarke and Benson

I Bicentennial Park Management Committee Bicentennial Park Proposal - Homebush Bay I 1984 (These should be in full in the bibliography of Godden and Associates study 1989 and should be noted here - I didn-t I have-that section of the report). I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

SECTION 3.0 I THE EVOLUTION OF THE SITES

I 3.1 The State Brickworks I 3.1.1 John Blaxland and "Newington Estate" The site of the brickyards was first alienated in a grant, of 520 hectares made to John Blaxland in 1807. This became I the "Newington Estate". The core of the estate, developed between 1807 and 1845, was around the site of "Newington Househ(now in Silverwater Prison and not a subject of this I report) . The property was mortgaged during the severe depression of the 1840s. Blaxland died in 1845 and in 1851 the I mortgagees sold the estate to recover the mortgage. It was repurchased by the family in 1854. It was transferred to an Assignee of the Insolvent Estate of Edward Blaxland in I c. 1859 and was leased to the Methodist Church. Later it was usedLan asylum, hospital and prison. va-n (1lJ & '1 45 When it was first offered for sale, only a small portion I of the property had been cleared and developed, primarily around "Newington House" which had been built during the early 1830s. The estate encompassed CUlti~ted land, the I main-house and out-buildings, fenced bush, a saltworks, lime kilns, a carpenter's shop, forge and twenty-five workmen's cottages. Other industrial enterprises included I a tweed mill and flour mill. I 3.1.2 Tenancy and Decline The house changed ownership a number of times. By the 1860s it was run-down. At this time the estate also housed a boiling-down establishment and slaughter houses. I Development continued to be concentrated in the northern portion of the estate (away from the later brickworks site). The Methodist Church established Newington College I on the site.

I 3.1.3 Subdivision The earliest subdivisions of the estate had occurred during the 1850s but sales were almost nil. The estate was I subdivided again in 1878 with not much greater success than the earlier attempt. Some residential allotments were sold but the portion that later encompassed the brickworks I remained intact. I During the 1870s and 1880 Newington House was used as an I I I I

asylum. It remained in use as a hospital until the 1960s. I At that time it was transferred to the Prisons Department and was redeveloped as Silverwater Prison. I 3.1.5 The Brickworks a~S+-Oilef 'lkf~ In the fir~tApecade of the new century consi~able ~ I changes~'-~ technology of meat processing. allowed for~ road transport of live animals, thereby decreasing the need for spelling paddocks~ame~~fr&~ ~~~~. I This allowed for portions of the Newington estate to be resumed by the government for the Abattoir and Armament Depot.

I The brick-yards were established as a result of a Ministerial inquiry of 1910 into the rising costs of building materials. The investigation recommended the I initiation of a number of state undertakings to supply government needs av~ell as~provide a check on prices in the private sector. ~~irst o~ these undertakings was I the state brickyards. The site was resumed from the abbatoir in 1911. ~ At first producing only fo~~t~rnment demand, within one I year it was decided to ~pge to meet public needs.~ ~~L. The site was enlarged up to the end of 1914. The brickworks remained a viable economic proposition until I the end of the 1920s. It was operated at a loss during the early years of the depression.

The state Brickworks was sold to the private sector in I 1935-36. The new owners continued to~ operate until 1940 when the yard was closed because of slow trade. Two years I later it was taken over by the navy for a munitions store. As a result of post-war materials shortages the decision was made to re-open the yard. It was resumed in 1946 and refurbished in stages. This was completed during the early I 1950s. Post-war production peaked in 1969 but during the 1970s the plant operated at a loss; consideration was given to its closure. It continued to operate until 1977 I when it was again upgraded; this occurred again in 1983. The works were finally closed in 1988. I The major part of the site was covered with two large brick pits. One major plant and the administration centre was located between the pits and a second plant was I located to the side of No. 2 pit. I I I I -----~- I I I 3.2 The state Abattoirs 3.2.1 D'Arcy Wentworth and the "Homebush Estate"

The abattoir site was contained in a land grant of 370 I hectares made to D'Arcy Wentworth in 1810. This was named the "Wentworth Estate". An additional and adjoining grant of 24 hectares was made in 1819. By the mid 1820s the I property was known as a magnificent country seat. By 1825 it had been completely cleared up to 1000 acres. It was reported that swamps were being drained and land reclaimed I in 1/126. D'Arcy Wentworth died in 1827. The estate was inherited by his son who died in 1872. He also willed the estate to his I son.

I 3.2.2 Subdivision, Tenancy and Decline dd'~ The house was a~~offered for lease in the early 1830s. ~lring the rest of the century the condition of the house and out-buildings went into decline. As early as the 1840s the house was described as dilapidated, though comfortable, and was said to be situated in the highest part of the estate. It was surrounded by numerous out-buildings including sheds, a barn, stable~piggeries I ~ as well as orchards. During the 1840s a racecourse, including training stables and paddocks, was built on part of the estate for the use I ~Australian Jockey Club. It remained the headquarters of ~ racing from 1842 to 1859 at which time the club moved to XVV Randwick. Homebush is believed to have been used as a I training track, stud and spelling paddocks until 1875. During the 1880s the Wentworth family subdivided the estate; few blocks were sold. In the 1890s it was mainly leased by a single company. By this time most of the I out-buildings had been removed from the site leaving only the house, kitchen, stable and shed. In 1913 it was suggested that the original house had been removed many I years prior to that date and had been replaced by a simpler cottage. I 3.2.3 The Abbatoir

The majority of the estate was resumed for the I construction of the abattoir in 1907. The primary period of building occurred between that time and 1919; it included several revisions of the original design. The I abattoirs were officially opened in 1915. I Between 1919 and the 1970s the abattoirs were extended and I I I

modified to meet new demands and changing technology. Some I of this work also was intended to redress serious design faults inherent in the original works. During the 1940s and 1950s the plant and equipment began to deteriorate and I the ~stablishment worked well below its capacity. A modernization programme was introduced in the 1960s to meet the needs of the export trade. A great deal of this I work involved the installation of equipment in buildings beyond their prime. I From 1979 many facilities were assessed to be near the end of their economic life; the decision was made to cease major repair programmes. The deterioration of the site 'I continued until its closure in 1988. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 'I

SECTION 4.0 I THE ABOVE GROUND AND IDENTIFIABLE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE: SIGNIFICANCE I 4.1 Criteria for Assessment

I The principal importance of these two sites has been recognized within all the studies carried out to date to relate to significant historical, social and technological I cont~ibutions made by these intact and, until recently, functional industrial sites of the twentieth century.

The criteria used to determine significance are those I embodied in the Australian Heritage Commission Act and endorsed by Australia ICOMOS in the Burra Charter. They have been presented in J.S.Kerr's document "The I Conservation Plan". Essentially the criteria which may be used to evaluate the importance of the site are: * The ability to demonstrate such things as a custom, I taste, process, technique, events or the association with a specific period or event.

I This criterion is concerned with the physical survival of a place as a material demonstration of these and like aspects. It can be of value to social, aesthetic and I scientific investigation and, necessarily, of historic value. I * Associational Links This aspect generally relates to sites which are linked to people or events which had a profound impact on their time I or community but for which no surviving or discoverable evidence is available. These are often symbolic sites. I * Formal and Aesthetic Qualities This aspect relates to the role of a site in its setting. It encompasses consideration of aspects such as unity in I scale, form and materials and the relationship between the various parts of the site and its setting. I In the following sections those specific aspects of the sites which have been determined to best embody the significance of the sites are identified as well as the I reasons for this significance. I I I I I I I 4.2 The state Brickworks Site 4.2.1 Sites Identified for Conservation

Specific sites which have been recommended for retention I and conservation throughout the various studies are: * main brick manufacturing house - including conveyor and I a selection of equipment * patent Hoffman Kiln No. 5 with equipment and relics as I well as coal store and elevator * dome kilns 5 - 8 with associated technology and relics I * stacks associated with Hoffman Kiln 5 and draft kilns 5 - 8 I * railway signal box I * precinct surrounding and between these items * the perimeter surrounding the brick pit was to be marked I to indicate its location. 4.2.2 Evaluation of Significance I The State Brickworks, as a total site, has been assessed to be of heritage value for the following reasons: * it made an important contribution to the economy as both I supplier and employer

* the operation of the site reflects major phases of I development in the building industry including intervention by the State Government

* the structures and plant are important relics of I brick-making technology and industrial purpose-built structures I * the site, its technology and ambience offer a rare experience for most of the population I I I I I I I 1I I 4.3 The state Abattoirs 4.3.1 Sites Identified for Conservation

A number of specific sites have been recommended for I retention and conservation throughout the various studies. These are: I * The Administration Block I * The Gatehouse * The Laboratory I * The Amenities Block * The Mutton Tally Room I * The surrounding landscaped area

I 4.3.2 Evaluation of Significance The State Abattoir, as a total site, has been assessed to I be of heritage value for the following reasons: * it was a major supplier of foodstuffs and employer of I labour during most of the twentieth century * it is a well known landmark and the extensive planting of native and exotic trees have created an unusual rural I landscape * it possesses several fine examples of industrial buildings that are enhanced by their landscaped setting I and display fine features of, variously, the Arts and Crafts and Art Deco styles * the buildings and equipment provide evidence of the meat I processing technology of the twentieth century and the involvement of the State Government in management of the meat industry. At the time of its completion it was the I largest and most modern abattoir in Australia. In 1923 it was claimed to be the largest in the Commonwealth. * the site has important historical and political I associations with major events and famous figures including the original owner (Wentworth and his family) as well as historical trends and changes in attitude to I aspects of hygiene and food-handling I I I I I I

SECTION 5.0 I THE POTENTIAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE: BELOW GROUND EVIDENCE

I 5.1 Definition of a "Potential Resource"

A "potential archeological resource" may encompass two II possibilities:

* specific sites identified with a known past use or a+~ -f,l'~ q1/e,r I occupation, for example, that of Wentworth's house~ bat I~~~no physical investigation has been entered into to conclusively prove the existence of physical and I demonstrable evidence of that former use * non-specific sites that are recognized to probably exist within a particular context either because there is some I documentary evidence for them or they may be assumed to have formed part of the construction, for example drains, paths, artefact dumps. It is impossible to identify a precise location because there is I insufficient or no documentary evidence. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 5.2 Emphasis of Existing Studies The focus of the existing evaluations of the below-ground resource on both sites has been with respect to the possible survival of archaeological evidence of the I pre-industrial phases, that is, of either the Newington Estate or Homebush Estate. I It has been recognized that both these periods of occupation are historically significant. There is no above ground evidence of either occupations with the exception I of Newington House. Archaeological evidence could, therefore, both compliment and extend the archival and physical resources of the site by providing the most I extensive physical evidence of both phases. It could, if found, also be used to address questions that have wider interest than the site specific, for example, I material culture of particular periods, rural property management practices and building technologies amongst others.

I The 1986 conservation study stated that no archaeological sites were located during the survey of Newington but for I both this site and Homebush, "it seems likely that the areas with the highest probability for extant archaeological I evidence are those which surround the former nuclei of the two estates. The outlying areas of the former estates are also likely to contain remnant evidence, but the degree, I extent and nature of such is impossible to gauge on the basis of the available I documentary evidence". (Section 5.2) I I I I I I I I I il I I 5.3 The state Brickworks There are no potential archaeological sites, either specific or non-specific, of the pre-industria1 phase of the state Brickworks that have been identified in any I study made of this site. It is likely that the conclusions of the conservation study are valid, that is, that most of the early B1ax1and enterprises centred around Newington I House and towards the river bank. Similarly the later college, asylum and armament depot phases of occupation were also located around the house or in areas away from I the brick-yards. Only two potential below-ground archaeological sites have I been recognized within the site. These are: * at the eastern end of the site along the permanent way I remains * adjacent to the western perimeter wire fence.

These areas have been tp~used as dumping grounds for I redundant tools and machinery.

Both sites are specific but nominated to be of potential I archaeological value because no physical investigation has been carried out to positively identify and investigate I the resource. It was also noted in the 1989 study that the No. 2 brick I pit was filled in during 1984. I I I I I I I I I · ------I I I 5.4 The Homebush Abattoirs The potential for a particularly important pre-industrial phase site of the Wentworth period of occupation has been identified within the former abattoir site. This is of the I original (and later?) house of the estate.

D'Arcy Wentworth's original home is said to have been I located on the highest point of the estate. A detailed survey plan of 1890-91 suggests that it was located on a I ridge just by the present administration block. In 1913 it was claimed that the original Wentworth house had been a brick structure that had been removed prior to that date. At that time only a bakehouse was said to have I survived; the old house was said to have been replaced by a more modest cottage. This may have been a wooden building marked for demolition on contemporary plans of I 1917. No primary evidence has been found to confirm this information. The precise location of the house cannot be identified~S(~~av~ I ~,thereforeJthe two possible sites have been termed potential archaeological sites. In this case specific but I uninvestigated areas have been nominated in all studies. The available documentary evidence suggests that the house and, therefore, at least a number of out-buildings, was I situated to the east or south-east of the administration building~ternative site isflwithin the administration building precinct.~It may have been in the No. 96 paddock of the abattoir.lwithout physical I investigation it is impossible to resolve the question.

In either case the possibility of completely undisturbed I archaeological evidence is minimal. The construction of the administration building and landscaping works or the buildings erected in the business technology park, on the site of the former No. 96 paddock, are likely to have I destroyed or disturbed archaeological evidence.

The potential for non-specific potential archaeological I sites has been recognized in the conservation study. These sites would relate to out-buildings and farm structures, services such as drains, and portable relics. All of these I may be aS$umed to have existed on the basis of the availablel~vidence) however, that evidence provides no precise or specific location$,

I It has been noted that the major part of the former abattoir site has been heavily disturbed by construction, excavation, reclamation and landscaping. On this basis I although the opportunity has been recognized for eviEence of this nature elsewhere on the site away from t£e ~ I supposed nucleus)of~t~it is impossible to be I I I I

precise~aRd~t is also unlikely that undisturbed evidence I of other farm buildings, services and the race-course would have survived intact. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

5.5 More Precise Definition _.At~ I ) } OUVi'lNV -.:J J The only means of identifYingr!pecific archaeological sites are either through deta" ed documentary and/or oral evidence and investigation or accidental exposure and then I planned investigation during the course or development. he only sites which may be specifically identified within the study area~~hose of the machinery and tool dumps in the brick works and the two possible locations of the Wentworth house. The potential archaeological evidence will only be confirmed in them by physical archaeological investigation.

The sites recognized to possibly exist within the former I estate boundaries)but for which no precise locations are known~would only be ~F& specifically identified if they were accidentally exposed and investigat~d there are no other means available ~ to mor precisely I define locations and~tent 1 r0t:iA/la/, /11:/11'"' ~~'( ~h ~ . ~ur"y ~ COVtc. 0) dweI~ I J; IQr0"'S<-6t..- --JJ,.af up-d cUt2t1 arztuveJ I ~~v(j/r:;r evl~;.o~ C'/9 w~ ~ ht.t"G~ ~ and ~.r -rj?~ I k. 111 O~a~ ~c!tA/J. ~~AAcrdvV ~v ~v1. /.z l- I ~ 14 ~I could f1rrrv/~~ ~~ 10 /w 1~)tA,~~~ ~ I ~ ~Uh. CI~!!;/~ ~ ~II/ftf/lded -!haY ~ et. ~f-),f~) b1dAhA . oAaij'Yt9C1/3U1. ~ c/} J..eI/;~d ~"l/~ r . ,-. 'P

SECTION 6.0 I MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

I 6.1 Legislative Requirements I 6.1.1 The NSW Heritage Act The potential archaeological relics recognized within both sites are subject to the provisions of the NSW Heritage I Act. Section 57 of the Act defines a relic as: "any deposit, object or material evidence -

I (a) which relates to the settlement of the area that comprises New South Wales, not being I Aboriginal settlement; and (b) which is fifty or more years old." I Amendments made to the Heritage Act in 1987 require that a person shall not remove a relic protected by a conservation instrument without approval from the Heritage Council of New South Wales. Further, no-one may disturb or I excavate land in New South Wales (except commonwealth owned land) to discover/expose or remove a relic without an Excavation Permit issued by the Heritage Council of New I South Wales.

I 6.1.2 The EPA Act The Draft Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 24, Homebush Bay area, states that a primary planning I objective for the area is to: "identify and protect heritage items, heritage conservation areas and potential historical I archaeological sites and ensure that development is sympathetic to them."

I A number of provisions have been defined to ensure that this planning objective is achieved in the course of I development of the area. * when a development application is entered it must consider the impact of the work on "heritage items, heritage conservation areas and I potential historical archaeological sites". * all development which involves a heritage site, I is in the vicinity of one or a heritage conservation area requires the approval of the I consent authority. This work includes, of I I I I

particular relevance to the potential I archaeological resource, "damaging or moving a relic" and "excavating for the purpose of exposing a relic".

I Before granting consent the recommendations of the various studies and any conservation plans must be taken into account for the specific I site. This includes those sites of potential archaeological significance. i Specific clauses that apply to the protection of ~~ potential historical archaeological sites require, an Excavation Permit under the Heritage Act of NSW (this does not apply to Aboriginal I sites), consideration of any conservation plan which determines how the work will affect the I conservation of the relic, site or place. The REP essentially confirms the findings of the existing studies and supports the requirements of the Heritage Act. The schedule attached to the REP identifies the specific I above ground sites, the two potential archaeological sites at the brickworks and the administration building site as I the possible location of Wentworth I s house. ~ ckbl>b(M,~. (4K:J.~ fr -kJ . .J; ts -ro. IIM/Lt r~ I ~ ~ Nl

"where site works are required which involve I earthworks a trained archaeologist should be commissioned on the basis of a watching brief".

A watching or monitoring brief is initiated for the I purpose of identifying archaeological material and then outlining an investigative strategy appropriate to the integrity and significance of the resource. This work also I must be carried out within the provisions of an Excavation Permit issued by the Heritage Council of NSW. I I I I I I I I I Jk ex.~~faiuvtq ~ Moh . ~ ro Vyt£/w~ /pv Vk f'lJfl~ 6/ ad" ~f/l;. a~ ~ ~ 'r7JfJUt/;vt:.. CH" 1 I ~ . ~aI!ffuA~ )~~-Jaj,.dA.- ~ I t7Y fpv tUfVl4' ~ VIv:tJl YJ elrtCWeuJaArV.... # 1hYl!lt94 ~ cIl..tv JV"(' aA/tS. ~. The Contribution of the Potential Archaeological I~~~~u~ I Resource ItSlV ~ ~~~ rI?Y" A Research Design j)~ CtAA.J{CjUfJ1/lavt /e.t:v:Jt:nAJ I CrT (V' varlttl. -r tll ~de-fkel It i~ clear that redevelopment in either area designated ~~ c? as a potential archaeological site, the machine dump or ~~A1~ the house site, will have to be carried out within the ~r~ I parameters of an Excavation Permit. The permit requires a ~ V L.. ~ ~ research design to be submitted and this design must ~ ~ r~~ address what information is to be gained from the site, in -.~~~ I what manner and for what purpose. In the case of the V ~~~ Abattoir site the work would be based on a monitoring ~ ~~Lr strategy in which case the "research design" will be to q" ~ c identify any significant archeological material that may ~ ~~o I be uncovered and to then devise an appropriate strategy ~s~ D~ for its management .

I Application for a permit is made by completing a standard form obtained from the New South Wales Department of Planning. The application requires supporting I documentation which addresses the issues of: * historical development I * significance I * the potential resource * the proposed management strategy for the archaeological I resource. The application should be prepared by an historical archaeologist retained by the client as an archeological director. The owner/manager of the site must sign the I application giving consent to the archaeological work and agreeing to abide by the conditions of the permit. I The nominated archaeologist must be a professional archaeologist recognized by the Department of Planning. I I I I I

I 6.3.3 The Non-Specific Archaeological Resource On -rl/utJ t~ vi- I/O / c~rI Although the potential for archaeological s}~es has been In~. I identified throughout the rest of the site/=t has been impossible to identify specific locations. xt wou~oe u~r~to retain a monitoring brief throughout this areaoHowever, it should be noted that the owner/manager of an historic site has a responsibility under the Heritage Act to notify the Heritage Council if an archaeological site is uncovered. In this event the excavation permit I procedure will then need to be entered into. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

SECTION 6.0 I SUPPLEMENTARY DOCUMENTATION 6.1 Bibliography

I Department of Planning Sydney Regional Environmental Plan 24 - Homebush Bay I Department of Planning. 1990. Don Godden and Associates State Brickworks and State Abattoir, Homebush I Public Works Department. ND. (19891) Fox and Associates Parramatta River Heritage Study I NSW Department of Environment and Planning. 1985.

Fox and Associates I Homebush Bay Conservation Study NSW ~epartment of Planning. 1986. I Godden and Associates The Industrial Archaeology of the Newington Naval Armament Depot and Homebush State Abattoirs and Other Sites in the Homebush Bay Region I For Fox and Associates. 1985.

Godden Mackay I state Abattoirs Homebush: Heritage Recording (Draft Historical Report) I Public Works Department. 1990. I I I I I I I I I