Cultural Heritage Advice

2-12 Barrett Street and 1-7 Elizabeth Street Kensington, : Mixed Use (Commercial) Development

Prepared for: Impact Investment Group

Heritage Advisor Keith Patton (BA Archaeology (Hons), Master of Cultural Heritage)

Date 2 October 2017

AKWP Heritage Advisors PO BOX 816 Werribee Victoria 3030 Phone: 03 9731 0726 Mobile: 0439 825 489 www.heritageadvisor.com.au Email: [email protected]

Cultural Heritage Advice

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Metropol Planning Solutions on behalf of the Impact Investment Group engaged AKWP Heritage Advisors to conduct a heritage assessment to determine the cultural heritage requirements in relation to the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (amended 2016) and the Heritage Act 1995 prior to any proposed development of the site. The project consists of the development of a graded car park and associated ground works at 2-12 Barrett Street and the redevelopment of 1-7 Elizabeth Street Kensington Victoria, associated with a mixed use (commercial) development. Future plans include the redevelopment of the land for a mixed use (commercial) development of the site including basement car parking. The proposed development area is within the local government area of City of . The wider geographic region of the Activity Area is defined as the land system of Gippsland Plain geomorphological unit that includes flat, low-lying coastal and alluvial plains with a gently undulating terrain dominated by barrier dunes, floodplains and swampy flats. The cadastral details for the Activity Area are Lot 1 TP517326 (2-12 Barrett Street) and Lot 1 TP595449 (1-7 Elizabeth Street (Map 2 & Appendix B).

II. REGISTER SEARCH

The searches of the registers indicate that there are no heritage listings within the Activity Area and no known Aboriginal cultural heritage Places within 50m of the immediate vicinity of the block. The closest known Aboriginal Places are approximately 1.8km north-west and 1.8km north-east, both low density artefact distributions. The following heritage registers were accessed for this project: Victoria Aboriginal Heritage Register (VAHR), Heritage Victoria Site inventory, Victorian Heritage Register, Australian Heritage Database (Register of the National Estate) and the Register of the National Trust (Victoria).

III. IMPLICATIONS FOR ABORIGINAL HERITAGE

2-12 Barrett Street and 1-7 Elizabeth Street Kensington Victoria, are located in an area of cultural heritage sensitivity (r.23: a waterway), and despite modification to the area in question there is still potential for Aboriginal cultural heritage to occur within the Activity Area, however this is likely to be very low due to the extent of previous ground disturbance. The proposed development area is located within 200m of . The proposed activity of the construction of warehouses, car parks and associated works triggers a mandatory CHMP under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (r.43 (b)), as construction of warehouses and car parks are considered to be high impact activities under the Act (r.43)(b) (xxv) and (iii). However, r.23(2) states: If part of a waterway or part of the land within 200 metres of a waterway has been subject to significant ground disturbance, that part is not an area of cultural heritage sensitivity. The proposed Activity Area in question has undergone considerable ground disturbance due to the clearance of the land, construction of existing and previous warehouses and a hardstand area used for car parking and storage. The 1951 and 1968 aerial photographs clearly indicates that 2-12 Barrett Street was previously occupied by housing or industrial infrastructure. The

2-12 Barrett Street and 1-7 Elizabeth Street Kensington, Victoria: Mixed Use (Commercial) Development Page i Cultural Heritage Advice

aerials also clearly highlight that 1-7 Elizabeth Street has been fully developed since at the least the 1950’s (Map 2 and Plates 1-2). Construction and installation of concreted paved areas and associated sub surface services, in addition to the surrounding development of other residences, commercial and industrial infrastructure, roads and services have also created considerable ground disturbance in the surrounding area. If part of an area of cultural heritage sensitivity has been subject to significant ground disturbance that part is not an area of cultural heritage sensitivity. It is important to assess significant ground disturbance when considering whether a Management Plan is required because a Management Plan does not need to be prepared for a high impact activity if all the area of cultural heritage sensitivity within the Activity Area has been subject to significant ground disturbance. Moonee Ponds Creek itself has undergone substantial disturbance due to channelisation of the creek alignment, stabilisation of banks, construction of bridges and pathways, as well as construction of Citylink immediately east of the creek. A geotechnical investigation report (Geo Aust 2017)) was conducted on behalf of the Impact Investment Group in May 2017 which included the proposed Activity Area in which one borehole was drilled to a depth of 15.9m into underlying siltstone. This bore log detailed a sandy silty clay fill material to 1.2m in depth overlying natural clays. This report gives a clear indication of the extent of ground disturbance to at least 1.2m (Geo Aust report P9). In our experience natural clays are not conducive to locating Aboriginal cultural material. In 2009, VCAT in the Mainstay (Mainstay Australia Pty Ltd v Mornington Peninsula SC & Ors [2009] VCAT 145, VCAT) decision concluded that there were four types of evidence that could be provided to demonstrate significant ground disturbance (SGD): common knowledge, publicly available records, further information from the applicant, and expert opinion. The Azzure decision, also delivered in 2009 at VCAT, conceded that in the absence of “smoking gun” evidence, contextual and comparative information could be used to argue SGD. Examples of the latter may include but not be limited to, urban context, topography, land use, services, configuration, and remnant native vegetation. When lodging an application, City of Melbourne, as the relevant authority, will determine whether or not a CHMP is required, including deciding whether SGD has occurred based on the level of evidence provided. Therefore, in our opinion, taking into consideration r.23 (2) of the 2007 Aboriginal Heritage Regulations, it is considered that the area of cultural heritage sensitivity has been subjected to significant ground disturbance and the proposed Activity Area as a result is no longer in an area of cultural heritage significance and therefore a CHMP is no longer mandatory. Any disturbed, low density Aboriginal cultural heritage that may be contained within the Activity Area can be adequately managed via the management recommendations included in this report (See Section 7).

IV. IMPLICATIONS FOR HISTORICAL SITES AND FEATURES

There is very low potential for European heritage within the Activity Area. There is no requirement to undertake an assessment of the Historical heritage of the subject site. The Heritage Act 1995 provides for the protection and conservation of historical places and objects of cultural heritage significance and the registration of such places and objects. Archaeological heritage is also protected by the Heritage Act through blanket protection of archaeological places and objects greater than 50 years old, and through the Victorian Heritage Inventory of historical archaeological sites, as well as historic shipwrecks.

2-12 Barrett Street and 1-7 Elizabeth Street Kensington, Victoria: Mixed Use (Commercial) Development Page ii Cultural Heritage Advice

Please note: If an archaeological relic is discovered during works, the person who discovers must report it to the Executive.

Map 1: Proposed Activity Area Location

2-12 Barrett Street and 1-7 Elizabeth Street Kensington, Victoria: Mixed Use (Commercial) Development Page iii Cultural Heritage Advice

Map 2:Extent of Proposed Activity Area

2-12 Barrett Street and 1-7 Elizabeth Street Kensington, Victoria: Mixed Use (Commercial) Development Page iv Cultural Heritage Advice

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary ...... i II. Register Search...... i III. Implications for Aboriginal Heritage ...... i IV. Implications for Historical Sites and Features ...... ii 1. Introduction ...... 3 2. Documentation of Consultation ...... 3 3. Background ...... 3 3.1 Aboriginal Context ...... 3 3.2 Geological and Environmental Background ...... 6 3.3 Vegetation ...... 7 3.4 Historical Land Use ...... 8 3.5 Previous Land Use and Existing Conditions of the Activity Area ...... 11 4. Database Searches ...... 13 4.1 Historical Cultural Heritage Places ...... 13 4.2 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Places ...... 13 4.3 Previous Investigations ...... 15 5.1 Implications for Aboriginal Heritage ...... 16 5.2 Implications for Historical Sites and Features ...... 17 5. Legislative Requirements ...... 17 6. Management Recommendations for Aboriginal Heritage ...... 17 7.1 Management Recommendation 1: Discovery of Human Remains ...... 18 7.2 Management Recommendation 2: Discovering an Aboriginal Place or Object ..... 18 7. Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Legislation ...... 18 8. Management Recommendations for Historical Heritage ...... 19 9. References ...... 20 Appendix A – Proposed Activity Area Development Plan ...... 22 Appendix B – Planning Property Report ...... 23

Maps Map 1: Proposed Activity Area Location ...... iii Map 2:Extent of Proposed Activity Area ...... iv Map 3: Previously Recorded Places in the Geographical Area ...... 14

2-12 Barrett Street and 1-7 Elizabeth Street Kensington, Victoria: Mixed Use (Commercial) Development Page 1 Cultural Heritage Advice

Plates Plate 1: Location in 1951 ...... 9 Plate 2: Location in 1968 ...... 10 Plate 3: Looking North along Barrett Street ...... 12 Plate 4: Looking West from Barrett Street ...... 12 Plate 5: Looking South-West ...... 13

2-12 Barrett Street and 1-7 Elizabeth Street Kensington, Victoria: Mixed Use (Commercial) Development Page 2 Cultural Heritage Advice

1. INTRODUCTION

Metropol Planning Solutions on behalf of Impact Investment Group, has engaged AKWP Heritage Advisors to conduct a heritage assessment in relation to the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (amended 2016) and the Heritage Act 1995 prior to any proposed works to determine the cultural heritage requirements prior to a proposed industrial development. The project consists of the development of a graded car park and associated ground works at 2-12 Barrett Street, and 1-7 Elizabeth Street Kensington, Victoria associated with a mixed use (commercial) development. Future plans include the redevelopment of the land including basement car parking. The principal purpose of this letter is to advise Impact Investment Group on the heritage requirements for any future high impact works which may occur at 2 - 12 Barrett Street, and 1-7 Elizabeth Street Kensington, in relation to the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 and the Heritage Act 1995. This letter of advice is prepared by Keith Patton (AKWP Heritage Advisors) who is a registered Heritage Advisor (AV and HV lists) since 2006. Keith holds a Bachelor of Arts in Archaeology (Hons) and Geography from University College Cork Ireland, and a Master’s degree in Cultural Heritage from Deakin University, Burwood. He has over 12 years consulting experience working in the cultural heritage management sector. Professional Affiliations and Memberships include:  Australian Archaeological Association Inc. (AAA)  Australasian Society for Historical Archaeology (ASHA)  Australian International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS Full Member )  Urban Developers Institute of Australia (UDIA Vic).

2. DOCUMENTATION OF CONSULTATION

No Traditional Owners were contacted in relation to this advice report. There is currently no Registered Aboriginal Party (RAP) for the region within which the Activity Area is located. There are three interest groups for the Kensington region. These are the Bunurong Aboriginal Corporation (BLCAC), Foundation (BWF) and the Tribe Land and Compensation Cultural Heritage Council Inc. (WTLCCHCI). The Bunurong Land Council Aboriginal Corporation has a current RAP application before the Aboriginal Heritage Council.

3. BACKGROUND

3.1 Aboriginal Context

The desktop assessment includes a review of any relevant documentation on Aboriginal archaeology and history of the region. This is used together with information on previously recorded archaeological site locations and areas of cultural heritage sensitivity in the surrounding region to formulate a predictive model on where Aboriginal cultural heritage sites are most likely to occur within the Activity Area and what site types can be reasonably expected. Please note that the information provided here does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Wurundjeri or Bun wurrung people. At the time Europeans first established a settlement on the in 1835, there were two separate language groups in the area, the Woi wurrung and the Bun wurrung, collectively

2-12 Barrett Street and 1-7 Elizabeth Street Kensington, Victoria: Mixed Use (Commercial) Development Page 3 Cultural Heritage Advice

occupying the area south of the Great Dividing Range, from Werribee River to the height of the Dandenong Ranges (Presland 2010:12). These two groups also share a cultural and linguistic affinity with the Ngurai-illam wurrung, Djadja wurrung, Wada wurrung and Duang wurrung language groups, and collectively they are known as the East (Clark 1990: 369; Presland 2010:12). According to Clark (Clark 1990: 369) the Woi wurrung, Bun wurrung, Ngurai- illam wurrung and Duang wurrung languages were all dialects of the one language, as they share more than 75 per cent common vocabulary with each other. The East Kulin groups shared similarities in speech, burial practices, initiation, kinship marriage ties and religious beliefs including common beliefs regarding Dreaming figures, such as the creation ancestors (eaglehawk) and Waa (crow) (Presland 2010:15). The Kulin clans believed that the living world was divided into two halves or moieties, also named Bunjil and Waa. All the Kulin groups have a patrilineal descent system (Howitt 1904:126). Marriage partners were sought from within the confederacy but outside their own clan (Presland 2010:15). Wives were taken from the opposite moiety and membership in the moiety had religious, economic and social implications and obligations that transcended local allegiances and clans (Barwick 1984). Wurundjeri The Activity Area is located within the boundaries of the Woi wurrung Language Group (Clark 1990: 364, Figure 5) which occupied the basins of the Yarra and Maribyrnong Rivers. Very little is known about the occupation of the immediate region by Woi wurrung clans, most references described clan associations with either the Yarra River or Mount William, west of Kilmore (Presland 1994; Clark 1990:379-380). Clark (1990) names the Wurundjeri balug of the Woi Wurrung language group (Presland 1994:37; Clark 1990:385) as the clan whose territory included the land within which the Activity Area lies. The Wurundjeri balug were divided into two patrilines: the Wurundjeri willam and the Bulug willam. The Wurundjeri willam were in turn divided into a number of smaller groups, perhaps bands. Wurundjeri willam occupied lands around Kensington. A language group commonly consisted of neighbouring clans who shared a common dialect, political and economic interests. These clans were spiritually linked to designated areas of land through their association with topographic features connected to mythic beings or deities. The clan unit is a patrilineal descent group, sharing historical, spiritual, economic, territorial and genealogical identity (Barwick 1984; Clark 1990). The Woi wurrung was divided into at least four clans. According to Clark, the clan was the ‘land owning, land renewing and land-sustaining unit of Aboriginal society’. These clans were patrilineal and organized into moieties belonging to either the Waa (crow) or Bunjil (eaglehawk) moiety – marriage partners were required to belong to different moieties (Clark 1990:4). Whilst the composition of a clan was fluid during an individual’s lifetime, ‘clan membership was fixed at birth as these were inherited from a person’s father and retained … until death’ (Barwick 1984: 106). Today the Woi wurrung descendants are represented by the Wurundjeri Tribe Land Compensation and Cultural Heritage Council Inc. Bun wurrung The lands around Bay at the time of European settlement were inhabited by Aboriginal people of the Bun wurrung language group (also spelled Bunurong), who occupied the coastal area of Victoria in an area extending from the Yarra River and Port Phillip Bay in the north and west, to the south and east as far as Corner Inlet, taking in the Mornington Peninsula, French and Phillip Islands, and Wilsons Promontory (Clark 1990).

2-12 Barrett Street and 1-7 Elizabeth Street Kensington, Victoria: Mixed Use (Commercial) Development Page 4 Cultural Heritage Advice

According to Presland, little information exists with regard to Bun wurrung spirituality and ceremonial life (1994: 87-88); he attributes this to the fact that initiation practices and the location of sacred sites was restricted knowledge, and that the forced removal of Aboriginal people from their traditional lands and subsequent decline in their population resulted in a loss of much of this information amongst the Bun wurrung population. The Activity Area is located close to the traditional lands of the willam clan of the Bun wurrung people. The Yalukit willam were the Bun wurrung clan who occupied the land along the Port Phillip Bay foreshore prior to European takeover of the area, extending from Williamstown, Sandridge and St. Kilda West to the Werribee River, close to the current Activity Area (Clark 1990: 368). Today the Bun wurrung descendants are represented by two organisations, the Bunurong Land Council Aboriginal Corporation and the Boon Wurrung Foundation. Post-Contact Aboriginal History Since the end of the 18th century, the Wurundjeri and Bun wurrung people had been aware of the presence of white men in the south of what today is the state of Victoria, with small groups of sealers establishing settlements to the east of Wilsons Promontory. From the mid-1830s, the Eastern Kulin lands were invaded as European pastoralists spread out to graze sheep and cattle (Presland 2010:87). The foundation of the city of Melbourne in the heart of the Eastern Kulin estate also affected the way in which the member clans of the Kulin could move on the landscape. The contacts between the Kulin and the Europeans were plagued with conflicts, and often these resulted in several deaths. European diseases such as influenza, to which the Kulin had no immunity, played a large part in the decline in population (Presland 2010:90). During the late 1830s and early 1840s, there was a sustained guerrilla campaign conducted by a small group of Kulin; however, this movement could not prevail and was diffused by a larger European offensive. One of these was the “Faithfull massacre” in April 1838 in which seven assigned convicts who were driving sheep for the Faithfull Brothers were killed on Broken River, near present-day Benalla. This attack prompted a number of reprisal raids which resulted in the deaths of dozens of Aboriginal people (Presland 2010:89-90). In 1839, the Aboriginal protectorate scheme was introduced in Victoria. Four Assistant Protectors were appointed under a Chief Protector, George Augustus Robinson. The role of the protectorates was to provide food, shelter and medical supplies, record cultural and population information and to indoctrinate Aboriginal peoples into the western European cultural and economic systems. Aboriginal reserves and stations were established across Victoria and Aboriginal people were encouraged to move into them. Woi wurrung clans moved to the reserves and stations set up at Narre Warren, Mordialloc, Warrandyte, and on the Acheron River. A school for Aboriginal children was also set up on Merri Creek. The Protectorate was largely unsuccessful and was disbanded in 1849 (Presland 1994: 100). The Central Board for the Protection of the Aborigines was founded in 1860 to provide an administrative structure to manage Aboriginal people in Victoria. Under their direction a series of missions and government stations were set up throughout Victoria where Aboriginal people could live (Department for Victorian Communities, AV Website). In the 1860s the Mission Station was opened near Healesville. Aboriginal people from the Woi Wurrung clan moved through, lived and worked on the station almost semi-autonomously up until the 1880s (Presland 1994: 100). Most Aboriginal people of Woi Wurrung descent can trace their ancestry to people who were associated with the Coranderrk Mission Station. While many Aboriginal people lived on the missions and government stations, a significant number of people worked and lived on farms and pastoral stations. Some Aboriginal people farmed the land on smallholdings, or worked in industries such as fishing, gold mining, and in

2-12 Barrett Street and 1-7 Elizabeth Street Kensington, Victoria: Mixed Use (Commercial) Development Page 5 Cultural Heritage Advice

timber industries. People outside the reserves sometimes gathered together in camp sites on the outskirts of towns. By the turn of the century, only a small population of Aboriginal people lived on the missions and government stations, with most living and working in the same general area. The last missions and stations were phased out in the 1920s (Department of Premier and Cabinet, AV Website). Pressure from the government forced most of the remaining Aboriginal people to leave the Coranderrk Mission Station and it closed in 1924 (Presland 1994: 100). Since the 1920s, Aboriginal people have continued to live in most areas of Victoria, often with strong ties to their original clan and tribal areas. Aboriginal history this century has been marked by peoples' efforts to maintain their collective identity and culture (Department of Premier and Cabinet, AV Website).

3.2 Geological and Environmental Background

It is important to understand the environmental context of the Activity Area in order to gain a better understanding of the possible resources available to pre-contact Aboriginal people and European settlers which may have influenced past human activity. In addition, this information assists in determining the degree to which environmental (e.g. natural erosion of landforms) and/or human processes (e.g. land clearance, cultivation) would have impacted on archaeological sites. Kensington is located approximately 5km north-west of Melbourne. The Activity Area is situated on the west side of Moonee Ponds Creek. The landform is part of the Moonee Ponds Creek flood plain, and the geographic region including the Activity Area includes the Gippsland Plain geomorphological unit which is characterised by flat, low-lying coastal and alluvial plains with a gently undulating terrain dominated by barrier dunes, floodplains and swampy flats. The Activity Area is located in close proximity to the Moonee Ponds Creek which flows into the Yarra River to the south, and is more characteristic of the floodplain/swampy deposits associated with the unit. The Activity Area would have been poorly drained, forming due to water movement throughout the Plain over a long period of history, likely associated with the passage and flood events of the Maribyrnong River over time (DPI 2010). Moonee Ponds Creek is the major watercourse in the Kensington region. At the time of post-contact settlement, Moonee Ponds Creek was a small creek, perhaps more a series of ponds leading back to Tullamarine. The creek was surrounded by rich vegetation, such as bullrushes, Black Wattle (Acacia mearnsii), River Red Gums (Eucalyptus camaldulensis), and murnong, which was particularly noted (du Cros & Associates 1992; Presland 1983; Presland 1994; Weaver 1991). Moonee Ponds Creek originally ran southward into the West Melbourne Swamp, before reaching a salt marsh, which lay before the Yarra River (du Cros & Associates 1992). Moonee Ponds Creek is considered to be of archaeological sensitivity, with stone artefact scatters recorded on creek spurs, tracks, and in creek bank profiles. Since settlement, the banks of Moonee Ponds Creek have been heavily modified, with the creek being channelised and a connection formed with the Yarra River (du Cros & Associates 1992; Weaver 1991). Due to its abundant resources, Moonee Ponds Creek was considered to have been an important waterway prior to the non-Aboriginal settlement of Melbourne (du Cros & Associates 1992), however, significant modifications have since reduced its archaeological sensitivity. Geology within the Gippsland Plain region includes the Silt of the Yarra Delta Group, which is Pleistocene paludal lagoon deposits, black silt and clay (Geological Society of Victoria 1997).

2-12 Barrett Street and 1-7 Elizabeth Street Kensington, Victoria: Mixed Use (Commercial) Development Page 6 Cultural Heritage Advice

Since contact, the creek itself has undergone considerable disturbance due to channelling, stabilisation of the banks, erosion, landscaping, construction of bridges and residential and industrial development. This would have had an impact on sites located along the creek bank and floodplain, many of which would have been destroyed.

3.3 Vegetation

Prior to contact, vegetation within the Activity Area consisted of Brackish Grassland species (EVC 934) while to the west was Plains Grassy Woodland species (EVC 55). Coastal Saltmarsh (EVC9) and Brackish Lake Aggregate species were found to the south, towards the area previously known as the West Melbourne Swamp. Brackish Grassland is described as dominated by salt-tolerant species of sedgeland, herbland, or occasionally grassland. Typically found on inundated to waterlogged soils. Species would have included Annual Fireweed (Senecio glomeratus), Pink Bladderwort (Utricularia tenella) and Kneed Wallaby-grass (Austrodanthonia geniculate). Plains Grassy Woodland species were represented by open eucalypt woodland comprising Gippsland Red Gum (Eucalyptus tereticorni) and River Red Gum (E. camaldulensis), up to 15 m in height. These are recorded on poorly drained and fertile soil, on undulating plains. The understorey is comprised of shrubs and grassy and herbaceous ground layers. Coastal Saltmarsh comprises distinct floristic communities, such as succulent herbs, low succulent shrubs, rushes and sedges on and above marine and estuarine tidal flats, while Brackish Lake Aggregate species included salt tolerant aquatic herbland. Species include Shrubby Glasswort (Sclerostegia arbuscular), Austral Seablite (Suaeda australis) and Rounded Noon-flower (Disphyma crassifolium ssp. clavellatum). Aboriginal people utilised the roots and tubers, fruits, leaves and seeds of these plants for food, medicines and as raw materials for nets, baskets and ornaments. The underground stems of plants were collected and eaten as a starchy staple food. A variety of useful implements and weapons were formed from the locally available woods, with the bark of the manna gum used for flat shields and the wood of the Burgan useful for the manufacture of spears, sticks and clubs. Fauna Around Moonee Ponds Creek many birds, amphibians and freshwater mussels would have been found. All of these would have been important to the diet of the Aboriginal inhabitants of the area. The loss of habitat and vegetation has also meant the loss of much of the region’s indigenous wildlife. However, prior to European contact, Aboriginal people of the region would have had access to a variety of faunal resources, including birds, eggs, plant foods and game such as kangaroo, wallaby and reptiles. The region’s woodlands would have supported koala, possums and eastern grey kangaroo. The woodlands also provided refuge for the short-nosed bandicoot, the swamp rat and Swanson’s antechinus. Moonee Ponds Creek would have provided habitat for platypus, fish and eels, as well as molluscs and yabbies (LCC 1973: 82). Small mammal diversity is also high along riparian zones (LCC 1991: 120). These animals include Antechinus spp., bush rats, the New Holland mouse, and the long-nosed potoroo. Arboreal animals are generally not as prevalent, although ringtail possums and koalas were common. Typical bird species are those that feed on nectar producing plants common along the riparian zone.

2-12 Barrett Street and 1-7 Elizabeth Street Kensington, Victoria: Mixed Use (Commercial) Development Page 7 Cultural Heritage Advice

3.4 Historical Land Use

Kensington’s neighbouring suburb of Flemington was initially settled in 1839 by James Watson, who named the area after Flemington Estate in Scotland, where his father-in-law was a manager. The first land release came in 1840, when land adjacent to the Maribyrnong River was made available for cattle grazing. Kensington was part of the City of Essendon on its foundation in 1861, but later split away to form the Borough of Flemington and Kensington in 1882. The area was originally known for horse proving grounds, its cattle yards, and abattoirs. In the late 1850s, the City of Melbourne moved its cattle yards from a location on the corner of Elizabeth Street and Victoria Street, Melbourne, to a location in the north of Kensington, near present-day Racecourse Road. The yards were completed in 1858, with the first sales held the following year. The yards' proximity to the Maribyrnong or Saltwater River, allowed for the discharge of liquid waste and were soon joined by factories for Fellmonger bone manure and glue. The abattoir and its associated factories were soon surrounded by suburbs, prompting complaints and public meetings objecting to the by-products and waste produced by the saleyards. Alfred Deakin, who was the member for the electoral district of Essendon and Flemington in the Victorian Legislative Assembly until 1900, moved a division in favour of the yards' closure in 1891. Economic downturn in the 1890s, however, meant that the closure was postponed and a by-law was instead passed by the Melbourne City Council making it illegal to drive livestock through streets in Flemington and Kensington between 8am and 10pm. The earliest land sales in the suburb included the Palace Hotel and a Wesleyan Church, both acquired in 1879. In 1886, the borough had a population of approximately 6,000, with approximately 20 new buildings opening each month. Low-lying land in the south of the suburb, near the present-day JJ Holland Park, was filled in around the same period, allowing for the construction of the Gillespie Mill adjacent to the railway line. The Craigieburn railway line to Essendon was opened by the Melbourne and Essendon Railway Company in 1860, including Kensington railway station. The railway closed in 1864, but was later reopened as far as Newmarket by the in November 1867. The refurbished and extended railway line also served the Newmarket cattle sale yards, which by 1888 handled more than half a million animals every year. A railway station at South Kensington opened in March 1891.In 1905, the Borough of Flemington and Kensington was amalgamated with the City of Melbourne. A major railway yard adjacent to Dynon Road towards the south of the suburb was opened in 1955 to relieve congestion at existing facilities near Flinders Street Station and Southern Cross Station (formerly Spencer Street Station). Originally built during World War II as a means of increasing railway freight capacity, the yards were extended and upgraded to include the country's longest goods depot. In November 1984, an official announcement was made that the Newmarket Saleyards would be closed the following year. Although the closure had been discussed for almost a century, economic hardship and drought conditions, as well as the decentralisation of the livestock industry and urban development affected the viability of the yards. The yards operated until 1987, when an employment trust was formed to dismantle the yards, assisted by more than 100 long-term unemployed. The yards were redeveloped by the state government under the Lynch's Bridge project, which now has approximately 6,100 residents.

2-12 Barrett Street and 1-7 Elizabeth Street Kensington, Victoria: Mixed Use (Commercial) Development Page 8 Cultural Heritage Advice

Plate 1: Location in 1951

2-12 Barrett Street and 1-7 Elizabeth Street Kensington, Victoria: Mixed Use (Commercial) Development Page 9 Cultural Heritage Advice

Plate 2: Location in 1968

2-12 Barrett Street and 1-7 Elizabeth Street Kensington, Victoria: Mixed Use (Commercial) Development Page 10 Cultural Heritage Advice

3.5 Previous Land Use and Existing Conditions of the Activity Area

An existing conditions site visit was undertaken by the consultant on the 10 September 2017. (Please note: This does not constitute an archaeological survey under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006). 1-7 Elizabeth Street Kensington has been completely developed with existing warehouses and no part of that blocks ground surface has remained undisturbed by construction (See Map 2). The proposed Activity Area at 2-12 Barrett Street, Kensington is situated on a parcel of land that has existing single storey brick constructed warehouses to the west of the block, concreted hard stand in poor condition that is used for parking, a very small highly disturbed grassed area, and associated sub surface services and infrastructure. The entire property has been heavily disturbed over many years and there are no areas considered to be undisturbed by previous development within the proposed activity area (see Plates 3-5 below). Historic aerial photographs were purchased at Landata Aerial Photography Library, 57 Cherry Lane, Laverton, on 2 September 2017. Examination of these aerial shots indicate the extent of development since 1951 within the proposed Activity Area and in the vicinity of the property. The historical aerial photograph sequence, when compared to the current existing conditions aerial photograph (Map 2) clearly demonstrates the significant extent of ground development and change since 1951 within the proposed Activity Area and in the immediate and extended vicinity of the property. The 1951 aerial photograph clearly shows the entire property consists of single storey industrial development, in the form of warehouses within the block, as does the 1968 shot which details the changes to the built infrastructure which had taken place in the intervening years, where the hard stands are located today. The aerial photograph sequence allows a reasonable inference to be made that the land has been subject to significant ground disturbance (Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 Practice Note: Significant Ground Disturbance: SGD). In 2009, VCAT in the Mainstay (Mainstay Australia Pty Ltd v Mornington Peninsula SC & Ors [2009] VCAT 145, VCAT) decision concluded that there were four types of evidence that could be provided to demonstrate significant ground disturbance (SGD): common knowledge, publicly available records, further information from the applicant, and expert opinion. The Azzure decision, also delivered in 2009 at VCAT, conceded that in the absence “smoking gun” evidence, contextual and comparative information could be used to argue SGD. Examples of the latter may include but not be limited to, urban context, topography, land use, services, configuration, and remnant native vegetation. When lodging an application, City of Melbourne as the relevant authority, will determine whether or not a CHMP is required, including deciding whether SGD has occurred based on the level of evidence provided. However, once an application for review is lodged with VCAT, the Tribunal will then satisfy itself on whether a CHMP is required. A request to Dial Before You Dig was made on 10 September 2017 to determine what services may be present in the Activity Area. This request determined that electrical cables enter the property from Barrett Street, water mains run north-south along the eastern boundary and a drainage pipe enters the property from Barrett Street approximately half way down the eastern side. A geotechnical investigation report (Geo Aust 2017)) was conducted in May 2017 which included the proposed Activity Area in which one borehole drilled to a depth of 15.9m into

2-12 Barrett Street and 1-7 Elizabeth Street Kensington, Victoria: Mixed Use (Commercial) Development Page 11 Cultural Heritage Advice

underlying siltstone, this bore log detailed a sandy silty clay fill material to 1.2m overlying natural clays, giving a clear indication of the extent of ground disturbance (Geo Aust report P9).

Plate 3: Looking North along Barrett Street

Plate 4: Looking West from Barrett Street

2-12 Barrett Street and 1-7 Elizabeth Street Kensington, Victoria: Mixed Use (Commercial) Development Page 12 Cultural Heritage Advice

Plate 5: Looking South-West

4. DATABASE SEARCHES

4.1 Historical Cultural Heritage Places

The following heritage registers were accessed for this project: Heritage Victoria Site Inventory, Victorian Heritage Register, Australian Heritage Database (Register of the National Estate), Register of the National Trust (Victoria) and the City of Melbourne Heritage Overlay. The on- line registers were accessed by Jenny Fiddian. There are no historical heritage places listed on any of these registers within the subject land.

4.2 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Places

There are no Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Places on the AV register located within the Activity Area. Ninety-six Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Places have been recorded within a 1km radius of the Activity Area, however, all of which are Object Collections which originate from a range of locations, and not necessarily within the geographic region. The three sites that have been found during field assessments in the Kensington region are located within 2km, the closest of which are VAHR7822-1775 artefact scatter, 1.8km north-west in the Flemington Racecourse complex, and VAHR7822-3635 a low density artefact scatter, 1.8km north-east located along Moonee Ponds Creek. The third is VAHR7822-3884 low density artefact scatter, 2km east located at Royal Park.

2-12 Barrett Street and 1-7 Elizabeth Street Kensington, Victoria: Mixed Use (Commercial) Development Page 13 Cultural Heritage Advice

Map 3: Previously Recorded Places in the Geographical Area

2-12 Barrett Street and 1-7 Elizabeth Street Kensington, Victoria: Mixed Use (Commercial) Development Page 14 Cultural Heritage Advice

4.3 Previous Investigations

A search of the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Register Information System (ACHRIS) was carried out by Jenny Fiddian (AKWP Heritage Advisor). The following is a summary of archaeological reports held at the Aboriginal Victoria relevant to this assessment, especially those reports dealing with assessments of land within 1km.

4.3.1 Regional Studies

Regional studies have been undertaken in the vicinity of the study area will assist in determining a regional site pattern. du Cros and Rhodes (1998) undertook an analysis of waterways of the greater Melbourne region and developed site prediction models for the various types of waterways. They predicted that site types likely to be found along waterways and floodplains will include artefact scatters, isolated artefacts and scarred trees. Less common along metropolitan waterways are likely to be shell middens, burials and quarries. They noted that many of the metropolitan waterways had not been the subject of archaeological assessment.

4.3.2 Local Studies

Bullers et al (2012) completed a CHMP (11768) for the between North Melbourne and Deer Park, within 1km of the current Activity Area at its’ closest point. The Activity Area ran along the existing railway alignment, and passed through North Melbourne, South Kensington, Footscray, Footscray West, Tottenham, Sunshine, Ardeer and Deer Park, terminating 2 km west of the Deer Park Bypass. It was proposed to construct new railway tracks and associated infrastructure along the existing railway alignment. The project involved assessing areas of disturbance and developing a survey strategy that targeted areas of potential for cultural material. The Activity Area in the vicinity of Kensington was noted as heavily disturbed as a result of construction of railway tracks, roads, industrial complexes, car parks etc. Following standard assessment, complex assessment was carried out in identified areas of archaeological potential. No cultural material was located during standard assessment but one area of archaeological potential was identified. This was at Matthews Street, Hill Reserve, in Sunshine. No Aboriginal cultural material was located during the complex assessment. Clark and Anderson (2005) carried out a desktop cultural heritage investigation of Dynon Road, between Dock Link Road and Lloyd Street, 1km to the south-west at its’ closest point, in preparation for duplication of Dynon Road. Clark and Anderson noted that their study area had been part of the extensive West Melbourne Swamp which was located between the Maribyrnong River and Moonee Ponds Creek, north of the Yarra River. This was used as a waste disposal area until it was drained and filled with rubbish and land fill, and used for industrial development. They considered it unlikely that any Aboriginal cultural material was present, but mentioned the possibility of buried historical material. Monitoring of excavation works was recommended. Howell-Meurs, Walker and Lever (2014) completed a CHMP (12743) for the road construction of the East West Link Eastern Section. This was to connect the Eastern Freeway with Citylink, with a southerly connection to the Port of Melbourne. Their Activity Area was within 400m east of the current Activity Area at its’ closest point, on the east side of Moonee Ponds Creek. Howell- Meurs et al noted that most of the Activity Area had undergone considerable ground disturbance, with the only area of sensitivity identified as Royal Park, 2km to the north-east of the current Activity Area. Complex assessment was carried out however no cultural material was located.

2-12 Barrett Street and 1-7 Elizabeth Street Kensington, Victoria: Mixed Use (Commercial) Development Page 15 Cultural Heritage Advice

Goldfarb (2017) prepared a CHMP (13967) for the Metro Rail project which was to construct:  Two 9km long rail tunnels from Kensington to South Yarra, connecting the Sunbury and Cranbourne/Pakenham railway lines (with the tunnels to be used by electric )  Rail tunnel portals (entrances) at Kensington and South Yarra  New underground stations at Arden, Parkville, CBD North, CBD South and Domain with longer platforms to accommodate longer High Capacity Metro Trains. The stations at CBD North and CBD South would feature direct interchange with the existing Melbourne Central and Flinders Street Stations respectively  /tram interchange at Domain station. The Activity Area was located within 1km south of the current Activity Area at its’ closest point, in the vicinity of South Kensington station. No cultural material was located during standard assessment, but four areas of sensitivity were identified. These are South Yarra Siding Reserve, Fawkner Park, Edmund Herring Oval and Domain Parklands (Tom’s Block), none of which are in the current geographic region. Complex assessment resulted in two new Aboriginal Places being recorded: South Yarra Siding Reserve 1 (VAHR 7822-4006) and Fawkner Park LDAD 1 (VAHR 7822-3964), both of which are over 1km from the current Activity Area. Both are artefact scatters in largely undisturbed contexts. Discussion Areas within 200m from waterways and creek lines are potentially sensitive for Aboriginal Heritage Places, in particular stone artefact scatters and isolated artefacts. These areas have the potential for undisturbed sections of land. The archaeological place record of the geographic region generally consists of isolated artefacts and low-density artefact scatters. The place record for the local area indicates that no Aboriginal Places have been recorded within 1km of the current Activity Area, apart from Object Collections which are being stored at various locations in the region. The closest recorded Places that have been recorded during field assessment are 1.8km to the north-east and north-west. The studies that have been undertaken within the geographic region have been for large scale developments including roads and railway lines. Previous studies undertaken in the area indicate that Aboriginal archaeological sites are highly unlikely to be present given the extent of industrial and urban development over many years, and the stratigraphic integrity of any soil profile encountered would be minimal due to the high degree of previous ground disturbance due to urban, industrial, and infrastructural development in the Kensington locality since the 1850s.

5.1 Implications for Aboriginal Heritage

The Activity Area is located within 200m of Moonee Ponds Creek. However, the Activity Area has been subjected to more than considerable degree of ground disturbance through previous land use activities including removal of all native vegetation, industrial development (since 1951 at least), and its subsequent removal and demolishment, construction of the existing warehouses, sheds, concrete hardstand, and installation of associated infrastructure including various services such as pipes and cables (see Appendix A). Sub surface infrastructure, such as electricity, communication cables and water pipelines have all affected the surrounding area as well as the Activity Area. The proposed development addresses are flanked on the north, south and west sides by industrial development as well a residential development to the north. Barrett Street is located

2-12 Barrett Street and 1-7 Elizabeth Street Kensington, Victoria: Mixed Use (Commercial) Development Page 16 Cultural Heritage Advice

on the east side. It is highly unlikely that any part of the Activity Area has not undergone substantial disturbance. Moonee Ponds Creek itself has been disturbed through landscaping, channelling, stabilisation of the banks, as well as through vegetation clearance, construction of bridges and shared pathways. Many years of industrial and residential development, as well as the construction of roads and services has had an impact on the properties in Kensington. Given the extent and degree of development that has previously occurred on the property at 1- 7 Elizabeth Street and 2 - 12 Barrett Street, Kensington, and its immediate vicinity, it is considered highly unlikely that any Aboriginal cultural material is present on the property. The Activity Area has been impacted due to substantial ground disturbance in the past (see Appendix A). Therefore, no area of cultural heritage sensitivity is considered to be present as a result of the ground disturbance. No national or state significant Aboriginal cultural heritage sites or historical heritage sites were identified as part of this assessment. It is considered unlikely that Aboriginal cultural heritage or historical heritage material may be present in the Activity Area. In our opinion, a mandatory CHMP is not required for the Activity Area. Any disturbed, low density Aboriginal cultural heritage that may be within the Activity Area can be adequately managed via the management recommendations (section 7.1 and 7.2) included in this report.

5.2 Implications for Historical Sites and Features

A historical heritage assessment (HHA) is not required. There is very low potential for European heritage in the area given the major earthworks which would have occurred during construction of the existing buildings and services, and road network. No national or state significant historical heritage sites were identified as part of this assessment. It is considered unlikely that historical heritage material may be present in the Activity Area. A historical heritage assessment (HHA) is not required.

5. LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS

Under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (amended 2016) and Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007, a CHMP is mandatory as the proposed activity is a high impact activity and the Activity Area is located within an area of sensitivity (a waterway: r.23 (a)). However, the proposed Activity Area has undergone substantial ground disturbance in the past. It is considered unlikely that any cultural material remains in the Activity Area. Therefore, in my opinion, no further archaeological assessment is required.

6. MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ABORIGINAL HERITAGE

There is minimal likelihood of any in situ Aboriginal Cultural Heritage remaining in the Activity Area due to the extent of previous ground disturbance. Division 2 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 states that a cultural heritage management plan is required for a proposed activity if the regulations require the preparation of the plan for the activity. Part 2 Division 1 Regulation 6 of the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007 states that

2-12 Barrett Street and 1-7 Elizabeth Street Kensington, Victoria: Mixed Use (Commercial) Development Page 17 Cultural Heritage Advice

“A cultural heritage management plan is required for an activity if– (a) all or part of the Activity Area for the activity is an area of cultural heritage sensitivity; and (b) all or part of the activity is a high impact activity.” The Activity Area is located within an “Area of Cultural Heritage Sensitivity” as specified under Division 3, r.23, which states that: (1) Subject to sub regulation (2), a waterway or within 200m of a waterway is an area of cultural heritage sensitivity. However, r.23(2) states: If part of a waterway or part of the land within 200m of a waterway has been subject to significant ground disturbance, that part is not an area of cultural heritage significance. The Activity Area is located within 200m of Moonee Ponds Creek, however the proposed Activity Area has also undergone considerable ground disturbance due to previous development including the construction and subsequent removal of previous structures since 1951, the construction of existing warehouses, sheds, concrete hardstand, and installation of associated services, in addition to the surrounding development of other industrial complexes, roads and other infrastructure. In my opinion, taking into account r.23 (2) of the 2007 Aboriginal Heritage Regulations, the Activity Area is no longer in an area cultural heritage significance. Therefore, a CHMP is no longer mandatory in this case.

7.1 Management Recommendation 1: Discovery of Human Remains

If suspected human remains are discovered, you must contact the Victoria Police and the State Coroner's Office immediately. If there are reasonable grounds to believe that the remains are Aboriginal, the Coronial Admissions and Enquiries hotline must be contacted on 1300 888 544 If any suspected human remains are found during any Activity, works must cease. Do not contact the media.

7.2 Management Recommendation 2: Discovering an Aboriginal Place or Object

Under Section 24 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (amended 2016), a person discovering an Aboriginal Place or Object must report the discovery to the VAHR as soon as practicable, unless they have reasonable cause to believe that the Register contains a record of the place or object. In the case of the discovery being made during the course of works being carried out on any land, the person in charge of the works is deemed to be the person who discovered the Place or Object. A buffer zone of 5m and “No go” signage should be established surrounding the find. In the event that any Aboriginal cultural heritage is found during the activity, the proponent must engage a Heritage Advisor to prepare and submit the appropriate site card(s) to the VAHR.

7. ABORIGINAL CULTURAL HERITAGE LEGISLATION

The Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (amended 2016) provides protection for Aboriginal cultural heritage. This means that Aboriginal cultural heritage is protected from harm and it is illegal to carry out an activity that can disturb Aboriginal places without the appropriate authorisation under the Act and the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007. There are two principal mechanisms under the Act that remove the risk of illegal harm to Aboriginal cultural heritage, namely:

2-12 Barrett Street and 1-7 Elizabeth Street Kensington, Victoria: Mixed Use (Commercial) Development Page 18 Cultural Heritage Advice

 Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP)  Cultural Heritage Permit (CHP) A CHP is relevant only where an Aboriginal place(s) is registered in the works area. There is no Aboriginal place recorded within 50m of the works area.

8. MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HISTORICAL HERITAGE

There is no requirement under the Heritage Act 1995 to undertake an assessment of Historical heritage of the subject area. The Heritage Act 1995 provides for the protection and conservation of historical places and objects of cultural heritage significance and the registration of such places and objects. Archaeological heritage is also protected by the Heritage Act through blanket protection of archaeological places and objects greater than 50 years old, and through the Victorian Heritage Inventory of historical archaeological sites, as well as historic shipwrecks. Please note: If an archaeological relic is discovered during works, the person who discovers must report it to the Executive.

2-12 Barrett Street and 1-7 Elizabeth Street Kensington, Victoria: Mixed Use (Commercial) Development Page 19 Cultural Heritage Advice

9. REFERENCES

Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 Act No. 16/2006 Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 Practice Note: Significant Ground Disturbance: SGD Barwick, D. 1984. Mapping the past: An Atlas of Victorian clans 1835-1904. Aboriginal History 8:100-31. Bullers, R., J. Burch, T. MacManus, M. Harbour and S. Syzdzik. 2012. Regional Rail Link, Section 1, North Melbourne to Deer Park, Victoria. CHMP 11768 for the Regional Rail Link Authority. Clark, I. 1990. Aboriginal Languages and Clans: An Historical Atlas of Western and Central Victoria, 1800- 1900. Monash Publications in Geography 37. Clark, V. and T. Anderson, 2005. Dynon Road (Dock Link Road to Lloyd Street). Cultural Heritage Investigation. Report to VicRoads. du Cros & Associates, 1992. An archaeological survey of the western and southern bypasses, Melbourne. du Cros, H. and D. Rhodes, 1998. Aboriginal archaeological sensitivities study of the waterways and floodplains of Greater Melbourne. Report for Melbourne Water Corporation. GeoAust Geotechnical Engineers Pty Ltd; Stage 2 Geotechnical Investigation Report 1 Elizabeth Street Kensington> Geotechnical report for Impact Investment Group. Goldfarb, A. 2017. Melbourne Metro Rail Project. CHMP 13967 for Melbourne Metro Rail Authority. Howell-Meurs, J., J. Walker and M. Lever, 2014. East West Link Eastern Section Road Construction. CHMP 12723 for Linking Melbourne Authority. Howitt, A.W. 1904, The Native Tribes of South-East Australia, Aboriginal Studies Press, Canberra. Land Conservation Council, 1973. Report on the Melbourne Activity area. Land Conservation Council, Melbourne. Land Conservation Council, 1991. Melbourne Area, District 2 Review, Descriptive Report. Land Conservation Council Mainstay Australia Pty Ltd v Mornington Peninsula SC & Ors [2009] VCAT 145, VCAT Presland, G. 1983. An Archaeological Survey of the Melbourne Metropolitan Area. VAS report for the Ministry of Planning and Environment. Presland 1994, Aboriginal Melbourne. The Lost Land of the Kulin People, McPhee Gribble Publishers, Victoria Presland, G. 2010. First People. The Eastern Kulin of Melbourne, Port Phillip and Central Victoria. Museum Victoria, Melbourne. Weaver, F. 1991 The Moonee Ponds Creek Archaeological Survey. Report to the Board of Works. Wesson, S. 2000, An Historical Atlas of the Aborigines of Eastern Victoria and Far South-Eastern New South Wales, Monash Publications in Geography No.53.

2-12 Barrett Street and 1-7 Elizabeth Street Kensington, Victoria: Mixed Use (Commercial) Development Page 20 Cultural Heritage Advice

Websites: Aboriginal Victoria. https://applications.vic.gov.au/apps/weave/server/request/execute.do? https://applications.vic.gov.au/apps/achris/public/home. Accessed 2 February 2015 Biodiversity Interactive Maps, http://mapshare3.dse.vic.gov.au/MapShare3EXT/imfLayers.jsp GeoVic, http://mapshare3.dse.vic.gov.au/MapShare3EXT/imf.jsp?site=geovic Bureau of Meteorology: http://www.bom.gov.au/ Ecological Vegetation Class Benchmarks for each Bioregion. Retrieved May 2017, from http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/conservation-and-environment/native-vegetation-groups- for-Victoria/ecological-vegetation-class-evc-benchmarks-by-bioregion GeoVic: http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/earth-resources/exploration-and-mining/tools-and- resources/geovic Google Earth Google Maps, https://maps.google.com.au/ Heritage Victoria website, http://vhd.heritage.vic.gov.au/ History of Kensington National Heritage Database website, http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/ahdb/search.pl National Trust (Victoria) website, http://www.nattrust.com.au/info.asp?pg=hpdsearch Planning Schemes Online, http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/planningschemes/ State of Victoria Department of Sustainability and Environment. (2013). Victoria Resources Online: http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/vro

2-12 Barrett Street and 1-7 Elizabeth Street Kensington, Victoria: Mixed Use (Commercial) Development Page 21 Cultural Heritage Advice

Appendix A – Proposed Activity Area Development Plan

2-12 Barrett Street and 1-7 Elizabeth Street Kensington, Victoria: Mixed Use (Commercial) Development Page 22 Cultural Heritage Advice

Appendix B – Planning Property Report

2-12 Barrett Street and 1-7 Elizabeth Street Kensington, Victoria: Mixed Use (Commercial) Development Page 23 Cultural Heritage Advice

2-12 Barrett Street and 1-7 Elizabeth Street Kensington, Victoria: Mixed Use (Commercial) Development Page 24 Cultural Heritage Advice

2-12 Barrett Street and 1-7 Elizabeth Street Kensington, Victoria: Mixed Use (Commercial) Development Page 25 Cultural Heritage Advice

2-12 Barrett Street and 1-7 Elizabeth Street Kensington, Victoria: Mixed Use (Commercial) Development Page 26 Cultural Heritage Advice

2-12 Barrett Street and 1-7 Elizabeth Street Kensington, Victoria: Mixed Use (Commercial) Development Page 27 Cultural Heritage Advice

2-12 Barrett Street and 1-7 Elizabeth Street Kensington, Victoria: Mixed Use (Commercial) Development Page 28 Cultural Heritage Advice

2-12 Barrett Street and 1-7 Elizabeth Street Kensington, Victoria: Mixed Use (Commercial) Development Page 29 Cultural Heritage Advice

2-12 Barrett Street and 1-7 Elizabeth Street Kensington, Victoria: Mixed Use (Commercial) Development Page 30