Cultural Heritage Advice 2-12 Barrett Street and 1-7 Elizabeth Street Kensington, Victoria: 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 Melbourne. 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 Moonee Ponds Creek. 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 ..................................................................................................