DOCSLIB.ORG

Cultural Heritage Advice

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cultural Heritage Advice 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 ..................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Victoria Railways
    VICTORIA RAILWAYS - SL 120 13.11.18 page 1 of 20 PASSENGER STATIONS & STOPS Including lines in New South Wales and South Australia operated by Victorian Railways Based on Bradshaws Guide 1859 (x), Victorian Rlys (VR) Public TT (t) 1875 (y), Bradshaws Guide 1897 (z), Public TT 1912 (a), Bradshaws Guide 1924(b), Public TTs 1934 (c), 1954 (d), 1972 (e) & current TTs (f). Also 1880TT (n), Bradshaw 1930 (p), Public TTs 1941 (q), 1959 (r), 1967 (s), 1978 (t) & 1985 (u). Working TTs 1926 (v) & 1950/51 (w). a+: 1912t notes former name; a++: 1912t fares list (date)t/w other Public/Working TTs; P: 1909 Parliamentary paper with date renamed; k: 1940 TT notice # research by Langley & Whitehead, Guiney & Watson/Johnson map – date: cl/rn/rl; x-f = xyzabcdef etc. Former names: [ ]; Distances in Miles unless headed Km. Gauge 5’ 3” unless noted. R.M. : Rail Motor. op. opened; cl. closed; rn. renamed; rl. relocated; tm. terminus of service at date shown; pass?: passenger service? All dates refer to passenger services only. All locations served by passenger trains unless shown in italics in brackets, or noted. Passengers could also travel in goods trains on many lines both before and after withdrawal of advertised passenger services. 1. MELBOURNE - DENILIQUIN 82.7 Harcourt y-e + lowered into subway 2018 90.3 Ravenswood y-d 97.3 Kangaroo Flat (1st) # 1863 0.0 Melbourne (Southern Cross) f (23, 33,54, 85, 87) 97.7 Kangaroo Flat (2nd) yz.b-eu [Kangaroo a ] [Melbourne (VR) xy] 99.3 Golden Square z-e [Melbourne (Spencer Street) (rn.2005) z-e ] 100.7 Bendigo z-f [Sandhurst xy ] (11, 14, 56) 1.0 North Melbourne y-f (85, 87) 102.0 North Bendigo Junction a-e 2.3 South Kensington z-f [Bendigo Cattle Siding a+ ] 2.7 Saltwater River # 1867 104.3 Bendigo Racecourse w 3.5 Footscray (2nd) a-f (33) [Sandhurst Racecourse #1910 ] 3.7 Middle Footscray (1st) z [Footscray (1st) xy ] [Bendigo (Epsom) Racecourse a++ ] 3.8 Middle Footscray (2nd) ab 105.3 Epsom abcd.f [Epsom & Huntly 1865t ] 4.0 Middle Footscray (3rd) cdef 108.0 Huntly zabc 4.5 West Footscray a-f [Footscray West z ] 112.0 Bagshot z-e 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Mt Atkinson Precinct Structure Plan (PSP1082), Victoria: Aboriginal Heritage Impact Assessment
    Final Report Mt Atkinson Precinct Structure Plan (PSP1082), Victoria: Aboriginal Heritage Impact Assessment Client Metropolitan Planning Authority (MPA) 20 October 2015 Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd Cultural Heritage Advisor Authors Terence MacManus Terence MacManus and Rachel Power HEAD OFFICE: 292 Mt Alexander Road Ascot Vale VIC 3056 GEELONG: PO Box 8048 Newtown VIC 3220 BRISBANE: Level 7 140 Ann Street Brisbane QLD 4000 ADELAIDE: 8 Greenhill Road Wayville SA 5034 www.ehpartners.com.au ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We thank the following organisations for their contribution to the project: The Metropolitan Planning Authority for project and site information. Bunurong Land Council Aboriginal Corporation for assistance in the field and provision of cultural heritage information. Boon Wurrung Foundation Limited for assistance in the field and provision of cultural heritage information. Wurundjeri Tribe Land and Compensation Cultural Heritage Council Inc. for provision of cultural heritage information. Office of Aboriginal Affairs Victoria. Unless otherwise specified, all images used in this report were produced by Ecology and Heritage Partners. Cover Photo: View from crest of Mt. Atkinson, facing northwest from the northern side. (Photo by Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd) Mt Atkinson Precinct Structure Plan (PSP1082) Victoria: Aboriginal Heritage Impact Assessment, October 2015 ii DOCUMENT CONTROL Activity Mt Atkinson Precinct Structure Plan (PSP1082) Address Project number 5874 Project manager Terence MacManus Report author(s) Terence
    [Show full text]
  • Australian Historic Theme: Producers
    Stockyard Creek, engraving, J MacFarlane. La Trobe Picture Collection, State Library of Victoria. Gold discoveries in the early 1870s stimulated the development of Foster, initially known as Stockyard Creek. Before the railway reached Foster in 1892, water transport was the most reliable method of moving goods into and out of the region. 4. Moving goods and cargo Providing transport networks for settlers on the land Access to transport for their produce is essential to primary Australian Historic Theme: producers. But the rapid population development of Victoria in the nineteenth century, particularly during the 1850s meant 3.8. Moving Goods and that infrastructure such as good all-weather roads, bridges and railway lines were often inadequate. Even as major roads People were constructed, they were often fi nanced by tolls, adding fi nancial burden to farmers attempting to convey their produce In the second half of the nineteenth century a great deal of to market. It is little wonder that during the 1850s, for instance, money and government effort was spent developing port and when a rapidly growing population provided a market for grain, harbour infrastructure. To a large extent, this development was fruit and vegetables, most of these products were grown linked to efforts to stimulate the economic development of the near the major centres of population, such as near the major colony by assisting the growth of agriculture and settlement goldfi elds or close to Melbourne and Geelong. Farmers with on the land. Port and harbour development was also linked access to water transport had an edge over those without it.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Draft Arden-Macaulay Structure Plan (December 2011)
    Submissions Received – Final Draft Arden-Macaulay Structure Plan (December 2011) Publication of submissions online The following submissions have been received by the City of Melbourne during public consultation on the Final Draft Arden-Macaulay Structure Plan (December 2011 – January 2012). They are being published so that anyone who is interested in the structure plan will have the opportunity to view the full range of comments received during the consultation. Each submission contains the personal views of the submitter and does not represent the views of Council. Personal details (except the submitter's name) have been removed from each submission. Any content of a personal nature has also been removed. A number of submitters have requested to have their submissions not placed online and they have been removed from this publication. If any additional submitters would like their content removed from this online document please contact Strategic Planning at the City of Melbourne on 96589658 or via email on [email protected] Allied Mills, Submitted by Mark Woolley of Gadens Lawyers....................4 Barberis, Irene................................................................................................9 Bergman, Ephraim (Fred)............................................................................10 Burke, Matt ...................................................................................................12 Comdain, submitted on behalf of Penelope Smith ...................................12 Cotter,
    [Show full text]
  • I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .F
    I I MELBOURNE DOCKLANDS STRATEGIC OPTIONS I I CONSULTANTS' REPORT No. I 8.2.2.5b I Ground contamination overview study I / I I I I I I I I I I DOCK LANDS I 711.5 TASK FORCE 099451 DOC strategic I options cr I . f I IN[I~iiliil~ir M0045880 I I DOCKLANDSTASKFORCE I I I I MELBOURNE DOCKLANDS REDEVELOPMENT I I Final Report on I GROUND CONTAMINATION OVERVIEW STUDY I ...~'.".~ . ~ . .~~ , I I Infrastructure Library May 1990 I I I I CAMP SCOTT FURPHY PTY. LTD. in association with I GOLDER ASSOCIATES PTY. LTD. II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 711.5 DOI07583 099451 DOC Melbourne docklands I strategic strategic options: options cr consultants' report f I I I I I I I DOCKLANDSTASKFORCE MELBOURNE DOCKLANDS REDEVELOPMENT I GROUND CONTAMINATION OVERVIEW STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS I, PAGE NO. I 1. INTRODUCTION 2. STUDY SCOPE 2 I 2.1 General 2 I 2.2 Study Limitations 4 3. SITE DATA 5 I 3.1 Geology 5 3.2 Site History 7 I 3.3 Industrialalnd Commercial Heritage 11 I 3.4 Present Land-use 14 4. PRELIMINARY CONTAMINATION ASSESSMENT 15 I 4.1 General 15 'I 4.2 Impact of Land Reclamation 17 4.3 Impact of Industry 19 I 4.4 Potential Ground and Groundwater Contamination 21 5. REMEDIATION STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT 24 I 5.1 General 24 I 5.2 Factors Influencing the Selection of a Site Remediation 24 5.3 Appropriate Remediation Technologies 25 I 5.4 Remediation Requirements 27 I 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Moreland Pre-Contact Aboriginal Heritage Study (The Study)
    THE CITY OF MORELAND Pre-ContactP AboriginalRECONTA HeritageCT Study 2010 ABORIGINAL HERITAGE STUDY THE CITY OF MORELAND PRECONTACT ABORIGINAL HERITAGE STUDY Prepared for The City of Moreland ������������������ February 2005 Prepared for The City of Moreland ������������������ February 2005 Suite 3, 83 Station Street FAIRFIELD MELBOURNE 3078 Phone: (03) 9486 4524 1243 Fax: (03) 9481 2078 Suite 3, 83 Station Street FAIRFIELD MELBOURNE 3078 Phone: (03) 9486 4524 1243 Fax: (03) 9481 2078 Acknowledgement Acknowledgement of traditional owners Moreland City Council acknowledges Moreland as being on the traditional lands of the Wurundjeri people. Council pays its respects to the Wurundjeri people and their Elders, past and present. The Wurundjeri Tribe Land Council, as the Registered Aboriginal Party (RAP) and the Traditional Owners for the whole of the Moreland City Council area, should be the first point of contact for any future enquiries, reports, events or similar that include any Pre-contact Aboriginal information. Statement of committment (Taken from the Moreland Reconciliation Policy and Action Plan 2008-2012) Moreland City Council gives its support to the Australian Declaration Towards Reconciliation 2000 and the National Apology to the Stolen Generations by the Australian Parliament 13 February 2008. It makes the following Statement of Commitment to Indigenous People. Council recognises • That Indigenous Australians were the first people of this land. • That the Wurundjeri are the traditional owners of country now called Moreland. • The centrality of Indigenous issues to Australian identity. • That social and cultural dispossession has caused the current disadvantages experienced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. • That Indigenous people have lost their land, their children, their health and their lives and regrets these losses.
    [Show full text]
  • Moonee Ponds Creek Strategic Opportunities Plan
    MOONEE PONDS CREEK STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITIES PLAN City of Melbourne Project Client: City of Melbourne Project Name: Moonee Ponds Strategic Opportunities Plan Project Number: 0650MEL Revision: Status: Date: by: Checked: A Draft 04.12.2017 MW CB B Draft 02.02.2018 MW CB C Draft 26.02.2018 MW CB D Draft WIP 02.05.2018 MW CB E Draft WIP 20.06.2018 MW CB F Draft WIP 22.06.2018 MW CB G Final 02.08.2018 MW CB H Final revision 1 10.09.2018 MW CB I Final revision 2 13.09.2018 MW CB J Final revision 3 14.09.2018 MW CB Studio: Melbourne Report Contact: Christian Borchert Consultants: Wave Consulting AUSTRALIA UNITED KINGDOM Melbourne Bristol Phone: +61 [0]3 9088 6500 Phone: +44 [0]7496 282281 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Address: Level 4, 125 Flinders Lane, Melbourne Address: 77 Stokes Croft, Bristol VIC 3000, Australia. BS1 3RD, United Kingdom. Sydney CHINA Phone: +61 [0]2 9188 7500 Shenzhen Email: [email protected] Phone: +86 136 0260 5947 Address: 21c Whistler Street, Manly, Email: [email protected] NSW 2095, Australia. Address: 9D, 9th Floor, Shenzhen Zimao www.mcgregorcoxall.com Centre, 111 Taizi Road, Nanshan District, Shenzen 518000, China. 深圳市南山区太子路111号深圳自贸中心9楼9D, 518000 In collaboration with: DISCLAIMER This Study is for the confidential use only of the party to whom it is addressed (the client) for the specific purposes to which it refers. We disclaim any responsibility to any third party acting upon or using the whole or part of its contents or reference thereto that may be published in any document, statement or circular or in any communication with third parties without prior written approval of the form and content in which it will appear.
    [Show full text]
  • Melbourne Planning Scheme
    MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME REFERENCE DOCUMENT CITY OF MELBOURNE HERITAGE PRECINCTS BACKGROUND HISTORY & SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT This document is a reference document to Clause 22.06 of the Melbourne Planning Scheme REFERENCE DOCUMENT PAGE 1 OF 12 FEBRUARY 2007 MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 4 1 The City of Melbourne 5 Background History 5 City of Melbourne Summary Statement of Significance 11 2. Carlton Heritage Precinct 13 Background History 13 Statement of Significance for Carlton Heritage Precinct 16 3. East Melbourne Heritage Precinct including Jolimont and the Parliamentary Precinct 19 Background History 19 Statement of Significance for East Melbourne Heritage Precinct including Jolimont and the Parliamentary Precinct 22 4. Kensington & Flour Milling Heritage Precinct 27 Background History 27 Statement of Significance for Kensington & Flour Milling Heritage Precinct 29 5. North & West Melbourne Heritage Precinct 31 Background History 31 Statement of Significance for North & West Melbourne Heritage Precinct 34 6. Parkville Heritage Precinct 37 Background History 37 Statement of Significance for Parkville Heritage Precinct 40 7. South Yarra Heritage Precinct 43 Background History 43 Statement of Significance for South Yarra Heritage Precinct 46 8. Bank Place Heritage Precinct 50 Background History 50 Statement of Significance for Bank Place Heritage Precinct 52 9. Bourke Hill Heritage Precinct 54 Background History 54 Statement of Significance for Bourke Hill Heritage Precinct 56 10. Collins Street East Heritage Precinct 59 Background History 59 Statement of Significance for Collins Street East Heritage Precinct 61 REFERENCE DOCUMENT - PAGE 2 OF 94 MELBOURNE PLANNING SCHEME 11. Flinders Lane Heritage Precinct 64 Background History 64 Statement of Significance for Flinders Lane Heritage Precinct 65 12.
    [Show full text]
  • A Boggy Question Differing Views of Wetlands in 19Th Century Melbourne
    UHPH_14: Landscapes and ecologies of urban and planning history | 617 A Boggy Question Differing views of wetlands in 19th century Melbourne Gary Presland University of Melbourne [email protected] The site of European settlement in the Port Phillip region was a place of many swamps. For the Indigenous population these features were essential to their way of life, for the wide diversity of foodstuffs and raw materials they provided. They were the main support for the meetings of large numbers of the Kulin nation that occurred regularly around the top of the Bay. As the immigrant population of Melbourne increased so too were the indigenes excluded from their customary haunts, and were thus eventually unable to maintain their traditional ways. The immigrant settlers viewed the swamps in a different light: they were a source of disease, and of such little regard they could be used as dumping grounds. As Melbourne grew and the need to improve commercial facilities increased, these areas were progressively transformed into a range of other, more culturally useful forms. The ways in which these wetlands played a part in the histories of both Indigenous and settler populations are examined. Keywords: wetlands, swamps, Eastern Kulin, Melbourne Introduction Swamps or wetlands—whatever term one applies,1 terrestrial features that comprise more or less permanent, but relatively shallow, water—have had an interesting conceptual place in western cultures. Perhaps this is because, unlike other parts of the landscape, they did not fit easily into the natural classification of environment as either land or water (Giblett 1996). Wetlands could not be farmed or built upon; but neither could they be put to the same uses as rivers, lakes or the ocean.
    [Show full text]
  • Fossil Beach Cement Works Heritage Study
    Special Council Meeting - Item 2.2 Attachment 2 Monday, 1 August, 2011 BIOSIS R E S E A R C H Fossil Beach Cement Works Heritage Study April 2011 ‘A view of Fossil Beach in 1872’, oil painting by R Scott, in the collection of the Mornington Peninsula Regional Gallery. Natural & BIOSISCultural Heritage R E S E Consultants A R C H 38 Bertie Street (PO1 Box 489) Port Melbourne Victoria 3207 Special Council Meeting - Item 2.2 Attachment 2 Monday, 1 August, 2011 BIOSIS R E S E A R C H Fossil Beach Cement Works Heritage Study April 2011 Gary Vines & Geoff Yugovic Report for Mornington Peninsula Shire Ballarat: 449 Doveton Street North Ballarat 3350 Ph: (03) 5331 7000 Fax: (03) 5331 7033 email: [email protected] Melbourne: 38 Bertie Street Port Melbourne 3207 Ph: (03) 9646 9499 Fax: (03) 9646 9242 email: [email protected] Biosis Research Project – 11255 Date of Completion – 12/05/2011 Canberra: Unit 16/2 Yallourn Street Fyshwick 2609 ISBN 978-1-921405-10-5 Ph: (02) 6228 1599 Fax: (02) 6280 8752 email: [email protected] Sydney: 18-20 Mandible Street Alexandria 2015 Ph: (02) 9690 2777 Fax: (02) 9690 2577 email: [email protected] Wangaratta: PO Box 943 Wangaratta 3676 Ph: (03) 5721 9453 Fax: (03) 5721 9454 email: [email protected] Wollongong: 8 Tate Street Wollongong 2500 Ph: (02) 4229 5222 Fax: (02) 4229 55 email: [email protected] Biosis Research Pty. Ltd. This document is and shall remain the property of Biosis Research Pty.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 1 Citations for Proposed New Precinct Heritage Overlays
    Southbank and Fishermans Bend Heritage Review Appendix 1 Citations for proposed new precinct heritage overlays © Biosis 2017 – Leaders in Ecology and Heritage Consulting 183 Southbank and Fishermans Bend Heritage Review A1.1 City Road industrial and warehouse precinct Place Name: City Road industrial and warehouse Heritage Overlay: HO precinct Address: City Road, Queens Bridge Street, Southbank Constructed: 1880s-1930s Heritage precinct overlay: Proposed Integrity: Good Heritage overlay(s): Proposed Condition: Good Proposed grading: Significant precinct Significance: Historic, Aesthetic, Social Thematic Victoria’s framework of historical 5.3 – Marketing and retailing, 5.2 – Developing a Context: themes manufacturing capacity City of Melbourne thematic 5.3 – Developing a large, city-based economy, 5.5 – Building a environmental history manufacturing industry History The south bank of the Yarra River developed as a shipping and commercial area from the 1840s, although only scattered buildings existed prior to the later 19th century. Queens Bridge Street (originally called Moray Street North, along with City Road, provided the main access into South and Port Melbourne from the city when the only bridges available for foot and wheel traffic were the Princes the Falls bridges. The Kearney map of 1855 shows land north of City Road (then Sandridge Road) as poorly-drained and avoided on account of its flood-prone nature. To the immediate south was Emerald Hill. The Port Melbourne railway crossed the river at The Falls and ran north of City Road. By the time of Commander Cox’s 1866 map, some industrial premises were located on the Yarra River bank and walking tracks connected them with the Sandridge Road and Emerald Hill.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Budget Submission, 2009-10
    Pre‐Budget Submission 2009‐10 Contents 1 Budget context.....................................................................................................1 1.1 Oil vulnerability ..........................................................................................1 1.2 Climate change ............................................................................................2 1.3 A Green New Deal......................................................................................2 2 Savings Initiatives ...............................................................................................4 2.1 Fringe Benefits Tax......................................................................................4 3 Expenditure/Asset Initiatives............................................................................5 3.1 AusLink ........................................................................................................5 3.1.1 Guiding principles ..............................................................................5 3.1.2 Melbourne Urban Corridor ...............................................................6 3.1.3 Melbourne‐Adelaide Corridor ........................................................10 3.1.4 Melbourne‐Brisbane Corridor.........................................................12 3.1.5 Melbourne‐Geelong Corridor .........................................................13 3.1.6 Melbourne‐Mildura Corridor..........................................................14 3.1.7 Melbourne‐Sale Corridor.................................................................16
    [Show full text]