Appendix D Aboriginal and Non- Aboriginal Heritage Impact Assessment

Operation of Mortdale Maintenance Facility Review of Environmental Factors – June 2017 73

Mortdale Maintenance Facility– Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Heritage Impact Assessment Report

Mortdale Maintenance Facility

FINAL REPORT

Aboriginal and Non- Aboriginal Heritage Impact Assessment Report

Report to Transport for NSW February 2017

Page i

Mortdale Maintenance Facility– Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Heritage Impact Assessment Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Artefact Heritage was engaged by Transport for New South Wales (TfNSW) to prepare an Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal (Historic) Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for proposed works to the Mortdale Maintenance Facility. The purpose of this assessment is to identify Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal sites or heritage items which may be potentially impacted by the proposed works and provide advice regarding the management of identified heritage issues.

The project area comprises a 3.2-hectare area of land surrounding the MMF, east of the Illawarra Rail Line. The project area contains several short rail sidings, and a complex of storage/workshop sheds. The project area is bounded by Hurstville Road to the west and south, Oatley Avenue to the east, and the Illawarra Railway line to the north. (Figure 1). The project area is within the Georges River Council Local Government Area, at the border of the former Kogarah and Hurstville Councils.

Aboriginal Archaeology

This assessment found that the project area has low potential to contain Aboriginal archaeological deposits. The assessment of low potential is based on levels of previous ground disturbance noted during the site inspection, and information provided by predictive modelling.

Non-Aboriginal Archaeology

The Mortdale Maintenance Facility is included within two local heritage lists, and the RailCorp Section 170 heritage register. The facility is significant as the first rail shed to be utilised for electric rolling stock on the suburban line, following the implementation of the Bradfield Electrification Plan. The facility has been upgraded and altered a number of times, and has been determine to contain minimal original fabric. Historical imagery and maps of the project area also suggest that there were no substantial structures within the project area, prior to the construction of the MMF. It is therefore considered unlikely that substantial historic archaeological remains will be uncovered during proposed works. It is considered that the proposal will have a negligible impact to historical archaeological resources within the project area.

Summary of Heritage Impacts

In summary, the proposed works to the MMF are required for facility standard compliance and provision of additional service areas. The proposal will increase the occupational capacity of the facility and provide upgraded amenities for staff and visitors.

The MMF has been assessed as having local heritage significance for its association with the Bradfield Electrification plan in mid-1920s which established the car sheds as the first of its kind on a suburban line. The structure of the MMF has undergone significant redevelopment throughout its history. There is little to no original fabric left within the structure due to a series of modifications and additions. The proposal has been assessed as having nil potential to impact the aesthetic heritage significance of the MMF. The proposed works are considered to have a minor positive impact on the historical heritage significance of the facility. The works will ensure the continued operation of the car shed, which have maintained their existing use for nearly 90 years.

The proposal has been assessed as having nil potential to impact to surrounding heritage items or landscapes.

Page ii

Mortdale Maintenance Facility– Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Heritage Impact Assessment Report

CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction ...... 7 1.1 Project Background ...... 7 1.2 Site location ...... 7 1.3 Project Methodology ...... 7 1.4 Limitations ...... 7 1.5 Authorship ...... 8 1.6 Acknowledgements ...... 8 2.0 Statutory Framework ...... 10 2.1 Introduction ...... 10 2.2 Aboriginal heritage legislation and guidelines ...... 10 2.2.1 National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 ...... 10 2.2.2 Native Title Act 1994 ...... 10 2.2.3 Aboriginal heritage investigation guidelines ...... 11 2.3 Non-Aboriginal (historical) heritage legislation and guidelines ...... 11 2.3.1 New South Wales Heritage Act 1977 ...... 11 2.3.2 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979...... 12 2.3.3 State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) (ISEPP) 2007 ...... 13 3.0 Environmental and historical background ...... 15 3.1 Preamble ...... 15 3.2 Environmental context ...... 15 3.2.1 Location and topography ...... 15 3.2.2 Hydrology ...... 15 3.2.3 Geology and soils ...... 15 3.3 Aboriginal ethnohistorical context ...... 15 3.4 Early settlement ...... 16 3.5 Development of the project area ...... 18 3.5.1 The Illawarra Line and Oatley and Mortdale Railway Stations ...... 18 3.5.2 Mortdale Electric Car Sheds ...... 18 4.0 Physical context ...... 20 4.1 Site and Setting – Mortdale Maintenance Facility ...... 20 4.1.1 Security Office ...... 22 4.1.2 Administration Building ...... 22 4.1.3 Maintenance Sheds ...... 23 4.1.4 Small Ancillary Buildings ...... 24 4.2 Archaeological Context ...... 24 4.3 Known Aboriginal heritage ...... 25

Page iii

Mortdale Maintenance Facility– Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Heritage Impact Assessment Report

4.3.1 Preamble ...... 25 4.3.2 Register search – Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System (AHIMS) ...... 26 4.3.3 Previous Aboriginal heritage assessments ...... 29 4.4 Known historical heritage ...... 30 4.4.1 NSW Heritage assessment guidelines and archaeological significance ...... 30 4.4.2 Heritage Listings ...... 31 4.4.3 Kogarah DCP 2013 ...... 35 4.4.4 Hurstville DCP No. 1 – Effective July 2016 ...... 35 4.5 Aboriginal archaeological potential ...... 35 4.5.1 Preliminary predictive model ...... 35 4.5.2 Indicative archaeological potential...... 35 4.6 Historical archaeological potential ...... 36 5.0 SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT ...... 37 5.1 Mortdale Maintenance Facility ...... 37 6.0 Proposal Description and Impacts ...... 38 6.1 Proposed Works ...... 38 6.2 Assessment of Impacts to Heritage Significance ...... 40 6.2.1 Physical Impacts ...... 40 6.2.2 Summary of Impacts to Built Environment and Landscape ...... 40 6.2.3 Summary of Archaeological Potential and Impacts ...... 42 6.2.4 Summary of Heritage Impacts ...... 42 7.0 Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 44 7.1 Conclusions ...... 44 7.1.1 Statutory Obligations ...... 44 7.2 Recommendations ...... 44 7.2.1 Unexpected Finds Procedure ...... 44 7.2.2 Heritage Induction...... 44 8.0 References ...... 45

Page iv

Mortdale Maintenance Facility– Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Heritage Impact Assessment Report

FIGURES

Figure 1: The project area ...... 9 Figure 2: LEP Listing curtilages ...... 14 Figure 3: Morts Hill subdivision sales poster 1886 (http://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-230396638) ...... 17 Figure 4: 1943 Aerial imagery showing Mortdale Electric Car Sheds (SIXmaps 2016) ...... 19 Figure 5: View north-east towards MMF from Hurstville Road ...... 20 Figure 6: View west from the MMF main car park ...... 20 Figure 7: View west from the MMF across Hurstviell Road ...... 20 Figure 8: View south-west from the MMF across Hurstville Road ...... 20 Figure 9: MMF Structures, annotated on aerial image ...... 21 Figure 10: Security office ...... 22 Figure 11: Administration office, view south-west ...... 22 Figure 12: Entrance to administration building ...... 22 Figure 13: Loop road and exterior of maintenance sheds ...... 23 Figure 14: rail entrance to maintenance sheds ...... 23 Figure 15: Road 3, view south into structure ...... 23 Figure 16: Interior of western wall ...... 23 Figure 17: overhead walkway above Road 3 ...... 24 Figure 18: Concrete footings and steel framing ...... 24 Figure 19: Crane over Road 1 and 2 ...... 24 Figure 20: Crane over Road 1 and 2 ...... 24 Figure 21: Detail of map from Oatley Subdivision sales poster 1905...... 25 Figure 22: AHIMS extensive search results - overview ...... 27 Figure 23: AHIMS extensive search results - detail ...... 28 Figure 24: Heritage Listings...... 34 Figure 25: Proposed External Works (provided by TfNSW) ...... 39

Page v

Mortdale Maintenance Facility– Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Heritage Impact Assessment Report

TABLES

Table 1: Mortdale Maintenance Facility LEP Listing ...... 12 Table 2: Heritage items listed on the Hurstville LEP 2012 ...... 13 Table 3: Frequency of Aboriginal site types within the AHIMS search area ...... 26 Table 4: NSW heritage assessment criteria ...... 31 Table 5: Heritage items listed on the Kogarah LEP 2012 ...... 32 Table 6: Heritage items listed on the Hurstville LEP 2012 ...... 32

Page vi

Mortdale Maintenance Facility– Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Heritage Impact Assessment Report

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Background

Artefact Heritage was engaged by Transport for New South Wales (TfNSW) to prepare an Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal (Historic) Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for proposed works to the Mortdale Maintenance Facility (‘the Project’). The Project proposes internal and external works to the existing structure, and adjacent works relating to the rail line. The purpose of this assessment is to identify Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal sites or heritage items which may be potentially impacted by the proposed works and provide advice regarding the management of identified heritage issues.

1.2 Site location

The Mortdale Maintenance Facility (MMF) is located at 195-235 Hurstville Road, approximately 450 metres to the south of the Mortdale Railway Station Group in Mortdale, NSW. The project area comprises a 3.2-hectare area of land surrounding the MMF, east of the Illawarra Rail Line. The project area contains several short rail sidings, and a complex of storage/workshop sheds. The project area is bounded by Hurstville Road to the west and south, Oatley Avenue to the east, and the Illawarra Railway line to the north. (Figure 1). The project area is within the Georges River Council Local Government Area, at the border of the former Kogarah and Hurstville Councils.

1.3 Project Methodology

This heritage impact assessment has been informed by desktop assessment, background research, and an inspection of the project area. The following tasks have been undertaken in the preparation of this report:

 Background research of historical and environmental context  Historic heritage register search, (including Sydney Trains S170 Heritage and Conservation Register, Australian Heritage Database (National), State Heritage Register, and Kogarah and Hurstville Local Heritage registers.  Search of the Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System (AHIMS), maintained by OEH  Review of relevant legislation  Review of plans and drawings  Site inspection of the MMF  Analysis of views and vistas  Significance assessment  Impact assessment

1.4 Limitations

This report has been prepared using background research which was primarily undertaken through web searches and consultation of readily available print materials. No detailed archival research has been undertaken. Site inspection was restricted to those areas which were safe to access during the organised inspection time; however, this has not impacted the efficacy of the inspection.

Page 7

Mortdale Maintenance Facility– Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Heritage Impact Assessment Report

1.5 Authorship

This report has been prepared by Stephanie Moore (Heritage Consultant) and Erin Finnegan (Senior Heritage Consultant). Management input and review has been provided by Sandra Wallace (Principal).

1.6 Acknowledgements

The assistance of the staff at the Mortdale Maintenance Facility in enabling the site inspection has been greatly appreciated. The input of Richard Peterson from SNC-Lavalin is also gratefully acknowledged.

Page 8

Mortdale Maintenance Facility– Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Heritage Impact Assessment Report

Figure 1: The project area

Page 9

Mortdale Maintenance Facility– Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Heritage Impact Assessment Report

2.0 STATUTORY FRAMEWORK

2.1 Introduction

As the following report considers the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal values of the project area, it has been necessary to consider the full scope of heritage legislation present within NSW. There are separate Acts and Guidelines which govern Aboriginal heritage and non-Aboriginal heritage, which were consulted and followed in the preparation of this report. The following provides a summary of the legislation which has guided the assessment contained in this report.

2.2 Aboriginal heritage legislation and guidelines

2.2.1 National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974

The National Parks & Wildlife Act 1974 (the NPW Act) provides statutory protection for all Aboriginal ‘objects’ (consisting of any material evidence of the Aboriginal occupation of NSW) and for ‘Aboriginal Places’ (areas of cultural significance to the Aboriginal community) under Section 90 of the NPW Act. Aboriginal objects are afforded automatic statutory protection in NSW whereby it is an offence to:

‘damage, deface or destroy Aboriginal sites without the prior consent of the Director-General of the National Parks and Wildlife Service (now the Office of Environment and Heritage - OEH)’.

The NPW Act defines an Aboriginal ‘object’ as:

‘any deposit, object or material evidence (not being a handicraft for sale) relating to indigenous and non-European habitation of the area that comprises New South Wales, being habitation before or concurrent with the occupation of that area by persons of non-Aboriginal European extraction, and includes Aboriginal remains’.

As a result of amendments to the NPW Act in 2010, the legislative structure for seeking permission to impact on heritage items has changed. A Section 90 permit is now the only Aboriginal heritage impact permit (AHIP) available and is granted by the OEH. Various factors are considered by OEH in the AHIP application process, such as site significance, Aboriginal consultation requirements, ESD principles, project justification and consideration of alternatives. The penalties and fines for damaging or defacing an Aboriginal object have also increased.

There are no gazetted Aboriginal Places within the project area. Section 4.3.2 discusses registered Aboriginal objects and sites in the vicinity of the project area. All Aboriginal objects, whether recorded or not, are protected under the Act.

2.2.2 Native Title Act 1994

The NSW Native Title Act 1994 was introduced to work in conjunction with the Commonwealth Native Title Act 1993. Native Title claims, registers and Indigenous Land Use Agreements are administered under the Act.

A search of the National Native Tribunal applications register was conducted on 23 November 2016. There are no active Native Title claims registered within the project area.

Page 10

Mortdale Maintenance Facility– Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Heritage Impact Assessment Report

2.2.3 Aboriginal heritage investigation guidelines

As part of the administration of Part 6 of the NPW Act, OEH enacted regulatory guidelines on investigating Aboriginal Cultural Heritage, detailed in the Guide to Investigating and Reporting on Aboriginal Cultural Heritage in NSW 2010. OEH also regulates Aboriginal consultation, outlined in the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Consultation Requirements for Proponents 2010. Guidelines are also in place for the processes of due diligence as outlined in the Due Diligence Code of Practice for the Protection of Aboriginal Objects in NSW (2010) in accordance with the 2010 amendment to the Act.

The current investigation is meets the criteria for an Aboriginal Heritage due diligence report, which involved background research and physical inspection of the site.

2.3 Non-Aboriginal (historical) heritage legislation and guidelines

There are several items of legislation, heritage registers and heritage management guidelines that are relevant to the project. A summary of these Acts and the potential legislative implications for the project follow.

2.3.1 New South Wales Heritage Act 1977

The NSW Heritage Act 1977 (Heritage Act) provides protection for items of ‘environmental heritage’ in NSW. ‘Environmental heritage’ includes places, buildings, works, relics, movable objects or precincts considered significant based on historical, scientific, cultural, social, archaeological, architectural, natural or aesthetic values. Items considered to be significant to the state are listed on the State Heritage Register and cannot be demolished, altered, moved or damaged, or their significance altered without approval from the Heritage Council of NSW.

Archaeological relics

The Heritage Act also provides protection for ‘relics’, which includes archaeological material or deposits. Section 4 (1) of the Heritage Act (as amended in 2009) defines a relic as:

“...any deposit, artefact, object or material evidence that:

(a) relates to the settlement of the area that comprises New South Wales, not being Aboriginal settlement, and (b) is of State or local heritage significance”

Sections 139 to 145 of the Heritage Act prevent the excavation or disturbance of land known or likely to contain relics, unless under an excavation permit. Section 139 (1) states:

A person must not disturb or excavate any land knowingly or having reasonable cause to suspect that the disturbance or excavation will or is likely to result in a relic being discovered, exposed, damaged or destroyed unless the disturbance is carried out in accordance with an excavation permit.

Excavation permits are issued by the Heritage Council of NSW (or its Delegate) under Section 140 of the Heritage Act for relics not listed on the SHR or under Section 60 for relics listed on the SHR. An application for an excavation permit must be supported by an Archaeological Research Design (ARD) and Archaeological Assessment prepared in accordance with the NSW Heritage Division archaeological guidelines. Minor works that would have a minimal impact on archaeological relics may be granted an exception under Section 139(4) or an exemption under Section 57(2) of the Heritage Act.

Page 11

Mortdale Maintenance Facility– Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Heritage Impact Assessment Report

Definition of works

The Heritage Act considers ‘works’ as being in a separate category to archaeological ‘relics’. ‘Works’ refer to past evidence of infrastructure. ‘Works’ may be buried, and therefore archaeological in nature, however, exposure of a ‘work’ does not trigger reporting obligations under the Act. The following examples are commonly considered to be ‘works’: former road surfaces, kerbing, evidence of former infrastructure (such as drains or drainage pits where there are no relics in association), tram and train tracks and ballast and evidence of former rail platforms and bridges.

2.3.2 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) establishes the framework for cultural heritage values to be formally assessed in the land use planning, development consent and environmental impact assessment processes. The EP&A Act requires that environmental impacts are considered prior to land development; this includes impacts on cultural heritage items and places as well as archaeological sites and deposits.

The EP&A Act also requires that local governments prepare planning instruments (such as Local Environmental Plans [LEPs] and Development Control Plans [DCPs]) in accordance with the EP&A Act to provide guidance on the level of environmental assessment required. The aim of the LEP’s in relation to heritage is to conserve the heritage significance of heritage items and heritage conservation areas, including associated fabric, settings, views and archaeological sites. The LEP’s list items of heritage significance within the LGA and specify aims and objectives to be addressed in any development application.

The project area is located within the Georges River Local Government Area (LGA). The Georges River LGA has been recently formed through the merger of two previous councils; Kogarah and Hurstville. As no new LEP or DCP for the combined council has been drawn up, both remain in effect at the present time. The Illawarra railway line acted as the boundary of the previous council areas; as such, the project area is listed as a heritage item under both LEPs. The listing curtilages are shown in Figure 2.

2.3.2.1 Kogarah LEP 2012 Heritage items and archaeological sites in this area are managed under the Kogarah LEP 2011. The LEP aims to conserve the environmental heritage of the local area.

The Mortdale Maintenance Facility is listed on the Kogarah LEP 2012 with the following details:

Table 1: Mortdale Maintenance Facility LEP Listing

Item name Address Property description Significance Item No.

Illawarra Railway, between Mortdale Railway Station Colebourne Avenue, Lot 100, DP 1141151 Local I117 and car sheds Ellen Subway and 195–235 Hurstville Road

There are also six listed heritage items within the 50 metres project area. These are detailed in Table 5 in Section 4.4 and identified in Figure 24.

Page 12

Mortdale Maintenance Facility– Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Heritage Impact Assessment Report

2.3.2.2 Kogarah DCP 2013 The Kogarah DCP supplements the LEP by providing detailed development controls for sites identified as heritage items or located within a Heritage Conservation Area. The objectives of the controls are to ensure that development protects and enhances environmental and cultural heritage; is sympathetic to heritage items and conservation areas; and provides guidance on appropriate design, siting, bulk, materials, landscaping and streetscape character.

The controls relating directly relating to heritage items are detailed in Section B1 of the Kogarah DCP.

2.3.2.3 Hurstville LEP 2012 Heritage items and archaeological sites in this area are managed under the Hurstville LEP 2011. The LEP aims to conserve, protect and enhance the environmental heritage, cultural heritage and aesthetic character of Hurstville.

The Mortdale Maintenance Facility is listed on the Hurstville LEP 2012 with the following details:

Table 2: Heritage items listed on the Hurstville LEP 2012

Item name Address Property description Significance Item No.

Mortdale Railway Station and Illawarra rail line N/A Local 71 car sheds

There are also seventeen listed heritage items within the 50 metres project area. These are detailed in Table 6 in Section 4.4.

2.3.2.4 Hurstville DCP Number 1 (Amendment 5) 2016 The Hurstville DCP supplements the LEP by providing controls to manage development and encourage orderly and economic use of land, while protecting and enhancing amenity, cultural heritage and ecological sustainability. Controls for heritage are included in Sections 2 and 4 of the Hurstville DCP.

2.3.3 State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) (ISEPP) 2007

In 2007, the ISEPP was introduced in order to streamline the development of infrastructure projects undertaken by state agencies, including Sydney Trains. Generally, where there is conflict between the provisions of the ISEPP and other environmental planning instruments, the ISEPP prevails. Under the ISEPP, development for the purpose of rail infrastructure facilities may be carried out by a public authority without consent on any land. The ISEPP overrides the controls included in the State Heritage Register and s170 registers, and Sydney Trains is only required to consult with the Council when development “is likely to have an impact that is not minor or inconsequential on a local heritage item (other than a local heritage item that is also a State heritage item) or a heritage conservation area”

Page 13

Mortdale Maintenance Facility– Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Heritage Impact Assessment Report

Figure 2: LEP Listing curtilages

Page 14

Mortdale Maintenance Facility– Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Heritage Impact Assessment Report

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

3.1 Preamble

The environmental and historical context of the project area is important in understanding the resources, landform, development, and overall changes that have occurred within the study area. Environmental context provides information relating to predictive models and resources use by Aboriginal people. Historical background provides information relating to contact between Aboriginal people and European settlers, and ways in which settlers have created and altered the built environment. This context is used to inform the assessment of significance and the levels of impact of activities upon heritage values within the project area.

3.2 Environmental context

3.2.1 Location and topography

The project area is bordered by Hurstville Road, a large feeder road, and Oatley Avenue, a smaller residential road. The elevation of the project area is approximately 40 metres above sea level and is consistent across the area. The project area is less than 2 kilometres from Georges River, and in proximity to a small tributary.

3.2.2 Hydrology

The project area is located approximately 1.8 kilometres north of the Georges River, 1km north-east of Gungah Bay, and 1km north-west of Oatley Bay. Renown Creek, a first order tributary of Georges River is 800 metres west. Georges River extends to Botany Bay, located 6.5 kilometres east of the project area. The area surrounding the Georges River is known to be a resource rich estuarine zone.

3.2.3 Geology and soils

The project area is largely underlain by Middle Triassic period Wianamatta Group Ashfield Shale comprising black to dark grey shale and laminate (Herbert 1983b). The geology of the project area is dominated by silt and clay sized alluvial materials derived from the Wianamatta Group. A portion of the project area overlies Hawkesbury Sandstone, consisting of medium to coarse grained quartz sandstone.

The project area is at an interface of the Blacktown, Lucas Heights, and Gymea soil landscapes. Soils within the project area are most likely to be Blacktown Soils, consisting of shallow to moderately deep (<100 cm) Red and Brown Podzolic Soils on crests, upper slopes and well-drained areas; and deep (150-300 cm) Yellow Podzolic Soils and Soloths on lower slopes and in areas of poor drainage. Soils of the Lucas Heights and Gymea landscape, consisting of moderately deep Yellow Earths and Earthy Sands, hardsetting Yellow Podzolic Soils and Siliceous Sands may also occur.

3.3 Aboriginal ethnohistorical context

Aboriginal people were highly mobile hunter-gathers and utilised a range of resources, some of which were only available seasonally. This necessitated movement and/or trade in such resources. Particular ceremonial or ritual events also prompted people to move across the landscape (Attenbrow 2009: 115). Subsistence activities varied throughout the different regions of the Cumberland Plain, particularly between coastal and inland groups (Brook & Kohen 1991:3). Coastal groups were observed to rely on resources such as fish and shellfish, whereas inland groups relied more on small

Page 15

Mortdale Maintenance Facility– Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Heritage Impact Assessment Report animals, plants and freshwater fish and eels (Tench 1793:230 Kohen 1986:77). Banksia flowers, wild honey, varieties of wild yam and Burrawong nut were recorded as important food sources (Collins 1798 Kohen 1985:9), particularly for inland groups. Small animals such as bandicoots and wallabies were hunted through traps and snares (Kohen 1985:9). Captain Tench observed the prowess of Darug men in carving toe-holds into trees in order to swiftly climb while hunting possums, sometimes supplemented by smoking the animals out with fire (Tench 1793:82).

Tribal boundaries in eastern Australia have largely been reconstructed on the basis of surviving linguistic evidence and, as such, are only approximate. The language group spoken on the Cumberland Plain is known as Darug (alternatively spelt Dharruk, Daruk, Dharook or Dharug). This term was used for the first time in 1900 by Matthews & Everitt (Mathews & Everitt 1900:265). The traditional boundaries of the Darug people are thought to extend from the mouth of the Hawkesbury River inland to Windsor, Penrith and Campbelltown and then to Mount Victoria (Matthews cited in Attenbrow 2010: 32). It is understood that the area north of Georges River was inhabited by Darug people, and the area to the south by Dharawal people, although it is likely that there was some overlap in land a resource use between these groups.

3.4 Early settlement

Initial contact between Aboriginal people and European settlers in the Hurstville region occurred in 1788, taking place at Lime Kiln Bay along the Georges River (Fidlon and Ryan 1980). Europeans continued to survey and explore this region over the next 20 years, at which time the first land grants were made. Two of the largest grants in Sydney were made in this region in 1808, to brothers John and Robert Townson. The grants made to the Townsons became the suburbs of Hurstville, Bexley, Peakhurst, Penshurst and Mortdale. The land was variously purchased and subdivided throughout the nineteenth century, with the primary activity being farming (Hurstville Council 2016).

The suburb of ‘Mort’s Hill’ was established in the mid-nineteenth century after the purchase of a large portion of Robert Townson’s grant Thomas Sutcliffe Mort, a Sydney Industrialist. By 1894, much of the farming land had been subdivided for residential development, and the suburb of Mortdale was beginning to form (Figure 2). The population increased dramatically during this latter part of the century, and into the early twentieth. The area became popular with returned servicemen after the First World War, as residential development continued grow. (RailCorp s.170 listing).

Page 16

Mortdale Maintenance Facility– Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Heritage Impact Assessment Report

Figure 3: Morts Hill subdivision sales poster 1886 (http://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-230396638)

Page 17

Mortdale Maintenance Facility– Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Heritage Impact Assessment Report

3.5 Development of the project area

3.5.1 The Illawarra Line and Oatley and Mortdale Railway Stations

John Whitton, Engineer-in-Chief for NSW Railways, was instructed by the NSW Government to identify a suitable railway route between Sydney and Kiama with the aim of relieving the freight transport difficulties into the Illawarra district, which was mostly handled by sea due to the poor roads (Singleton, 1964: 5). In 1881 the proposed route for the line was published and approved and the following year construction began at Marrickville (now Sydenham). In 1884 a double track to Hurstville opened with stations at Arncliffe, Rockdale, Kogarah and Hurstville. The line extended the following year by a single track (built by C. & E. Miller) to Sutherland, with railway stations opened at Como, Penshurst, Mortdale, and Oatley (OEH, 2009).

The small platform at Oatley, with a timber platform building, opened on 26 December 1885 under the name ’Oatley’s Grant’. The rail line was duplicated in 1890 and the station master’s residence was constructed in 1891. Regrading of the railways was undertaken in 1905, resulting in the relocation of the station 400 west of its original positon and the construction of a new weatherboard platform building (OEH, 2009).

Judd's Hurstville Brick Works opened in 1884, on a site north of Oatley (now the site of Georges River College). The location of Judd's brickworks appears to have been a major reason for the building of Oatley railway station in 1885 in what was then a very sparsely populated area (OEH, 2009). The station also has historical association with Oatley Memorial Gardens, a series of linear parks to the east, which represent the pre-1905 alignment of the railway line.

Mortdale Railway Station was opened in 1897 and consisted of two timber platforms and waiting sheds located just south of the present station position. In 1922, the lines were deviated to the west, and the present platform and buildings were constructed. There were also a series of underbridges constructed at this time, which replaced the previous overbridges (OEH, 2009).

3.5.2 Mortdale Electric Car Sheds

The railway line to Oatley was electrified in 1926, altering the type of rolling stock required along the Illawarra line. Purpose built sheds for storage and maintenance of the new electric cars were constructed in 1925, adjacent to Judd’s brickworks, between the Mortdale and Oatley Stations (Figure 3). The sheds were the first to be used for electric cars on the suburban rail systems, and were part of a group constructed under the Bradfield electrification plan. Others enacted under this plan were Hornsby, Flemington and Punchbowl.

The sheds were constructed with a distinctive sawtooth roof form, which is visible in a 1943 aerial (Figure 4). This roof form is no longer visible in modern aerial imagery, and it is understood that the complex has undergone significant redevelopment since its construction. The SHI listing for the Mortdale Station and Car Sheds states:

The Mortdale sheds have been extensively redeveloped over time, and the facility, now known as the Mortdale Maintenance Centre, is essentially a modern complex.

Historical plans suggest that no development was enacted within the project area prior to the construction of the electric car sheds, owing to the proximity to the rail line and Judd’s brickworks.

Page 18

Mortdale Maintenance Facility– Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Heritage Impact Assessment Report

Figure 4: 1943 Aerial imagery showing Mortdale Electric Car Sheds (SIXmaps 2016)

Page 19

Mortdale Maintenance Facility– Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Heritage Impact Assessment Report

4.0 PHYSICAL CONTEXT

4.1 Site and Setting – Mortdale Maintenance Facility

The MMF is situated within a residential/commercial area, characterised by low rise moderate density housing and commercial structures. The facility is situated east of the Illawarra rail line, and is connected to the line by a number of siding tracks. The MMF is located on a crest above the surrounding landscape, with the location of the maintenance sheds having been cut and levelled prior to construction.

An inspection of the project area was conducted by Stephanie Moore on 23 December 2016. The inspection consisted of a supervised walk through the facility, inspection of fabric and documentation of areas subject to impacts. The facility consists of a small security shed, a brick administration building, the maintenance sheds, and a number of tracks (identified in Figure 9).

Figure 5: View north-east towards MMF from Figure 6: View west from the MMF main car Hurstville Road park

Figure 7: View west from the MMF across Figure 8: View south-west from the MMF Hurstviell Road across Hurstville Road

Page 20

Mortdale Maintenance Facility– Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Heritage Impact Assessment Report

Figure 9: MMF Structures, annotated on aerial image

Page 21

Mortdale Maintenance Facility– Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Heritage Impact Assessment Report

4.1.1 Security Office

The security office consists of a small portable building, located at the main gate entrance to the MMF. The structure is modern, and in good repair. The maintenance sheds are located to the east of the security shed.

Figure 10: Security office

4.1.2 Administration Building

The administration building consists of a two-storey face brick structure with aluminium windows frames, a corrugated steel gabled roof, and skillion roof cover at the first floor on the east side. The structure contains offices and training space, and the interior is minimally detailed. Discussion with staff at the MMF provided information which indicated that the building was constructed in the late 1980s or early 1990s.

Figure 11: Administration office, view south-west Figure 12: Entrance to administration building

Page 22

Mortdale Maintenance Facility– Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Heritage Impact Assessment Report

4.1.3 Maintenance Sheds

The maintenance sheds consist of a large corrugated metal structure supported by concrete footings and steel framing, with a hipped roof constructed of the same material (Figure 13). The structure is open to the north (Figure 14) where the rail line enters and enclosed at the south. The interior contains three maintenance bays, located on the west (Roads 1-3), and six fit-out bays, located on the east (Roads 5-10). The alignment of the roads appears unchanged, although the level of upgrades and alterations that have been made to the lines themselves is unknown. The southern portion of the structure contains storage areas for parts and tools.

Above the maintenance areas, there are a series of elevated walkways, which are steel framing with timber boards as ‘flooring’ (Figure 17). Foundations visible during the inspection are concrete with brick, although in some areas the brick portion is no long present (Figure 18).

There is a crane present across Road 1 and 2, which is about a third of the size of the crane proposed to be installed on Road 3 (Figure 19 and Figure 20).

Figure 13: Loop road and exterior of maintenance sheds Figure 14: rail entrance to maintenance sheds

Figure 15: Road 3, view south into structure Figure 16: Interior of western wall

Page 23

Mortdale Maintenance Facility– Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Heritage Impact Assessment Report

Figure 17: overhead walkway above Road 3 Figure 18: Concrete footings and steel framing

Figure 19: Crane over Road 1 and 2 Figure 20: Crane over Road 1 and 2

4.1.4 Small Ancillary Buildings

Surrounding the maintenance sheds there are a number of small ancillary structures. These are largely constructed of corrugated iron or similar material. These structures do not appear on the 1943 aerial imagery, indicating that they are later additions to the facility. It is likely that these were constructed in stages throughout the 1980s and 1990s as the facility grew and adapted.

4.2 Archaeological Context

Background research and previous subdivision plans indicate that prior to the construction of the electric car sheds, there were no permanent structures within the project area. Prior to the construction of the MMF, the region was occupied by farms and ephemeral residential development. Into the early twentieth century, subdivision was enacted and residential development intensified. The Oatley subdivision plan shows planned allotments in the vicinity of the project area; however, the location of Judd’s brickworks suggests that these allotments were not created (Figure 21). It is also

Page 24

Mortdale Maintenance Facility– Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Heritage Impact Assessment Report important to note that the map detail provided in this report is a sketch of the local area and as such does not show correct proportions or scale.

It is therefore unlikely that any former residences would have been located within the project area. Historic redevelopment throughout the project area is also likely to have impacted any potential archaeological remains, relating to the brickworks or previous MMF outbuildings.

Figure 21: Detail of map from Oatley Subdivision sales poster 1905 (http://nla.gov.au/nla.obj- 230302267). Approximate location of project area marked in green.

4.3 Known Aboriginal heritage

4.3.1 Preamble

The existing archaeological record is limited to certain materials and objects that can withstand degradation and decay. Aboriginal occupation covered the whole of the landscape, though the availability of fresh water and resources was a significant factor in repeated and long-term occupation. Certain site types, such as culturally modified trees, are particularly vulnerable to destruction through historical occupation. As a result, more resilient site types, such as stone artefacts, are predominant in the archaeological record. Because of this, the nature and location of registered Aboriginal sites is an imperfect reflection of past Aboriginal occupation. Furthermore, the surviving archaeological record is also a reflection not only of historical land-use, disturbance and post-depositional events, but also reflects the sampling bias of previous archaeological investigations.

The oldest secured dates for Aboriginal occupation of the Sydney basin are from RTA-G1 located on George Street in Parramatta (JMcD CHM 2005). Radiocarbon dating indicates continuous occupation of the site, which was inhabited from the late Pleistocene period. The site provides a maximum basal date for occupation of 30,000 years BP (JMcDCHM 2005b:4). This was taken from a sterile layer beneath the lowest artefacts (JMcDCHM 2005b:135). Evidence of Aboriginal occupation has been found dated to 50-60,000BP at Lake Mungo in NSW so it is likely that Aboriginal people have lived in the Sydney region for even longer than indicated by the oldest recorded dates known at present.

Page 25

Mortdale Maintenance Facility– Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Heritage Impact Assessment Report

4.3.2 Register search – Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System (AHIMS)

The locations and details of Aboriginal sites are considered culturally sensitive information. It is recommended that this information, including the AHIMS data and GIS imagery, is removed from this report if it is to enter the public domain.

An extensive search of the Aboriginal Heritage Information System (AHIMS) database was undertaken on 12 December 2016. The AHIMS search provides archaeological context for the area and identifies whether any previously recorded Aboriginal sites are located within or near the project area. The AHIMS search included a 4-kilometre square centred on the project area. The parameters of the search are as follows:

GDA 1994 MGA 56 320564 - 324564 mE 6236786 - 6240786 mN Buffer 0m Number of sites 41 AHIMS Search ID 258261

A total of 41 sites were identified in the extensive AHIMS search area. The distribution of recorded sites within the AHIMS search area is shown in Figure 22. OEH lists 20 standard site features that can be used to describe a site registered with AHIMS, and more than one feature can be used for each site. The frequency of recorded site types is summarised in Table 1 below. For the 41 sites within the search area, five individual site features are recorded. The majority of recorded sites are Shell, Artefact (n=18) followed in frequency by Art (Pigment or Engraved) (n=15).

Table 3: Frequency of Aboriginal site types within the AHIMS search area

Site Features Frequency Percentage (%)

Shell, Artefact 18 44%

Art (Pigment or Engraved) 15 37%

Art (Pigment or Engraved), Shell, Artefact 3 7%

Artefact 3 7%

Burial, Shell, Artefact 1 2%

Earth Mound 1 2%

One registered Aboriginal site, AHIMS site #45-6-0566, is located within proximity of the project area. This site contains Shell and Artefact features, and was originally recorded as ‘Jubilee Mortdale Botany Bay’ by P Menses. The site consists of a shell midden measuring 100 metres by 50 metres in area. The site contained shell material and two identified stone artefacts within a matrix of brown sandy soil. AHIMS site #45-6-0566 and has no permits or reports pertaining to it. The site is located approximately 30m north-west of the project area.

Page 26

Page removed

The locations and details of Aboriginal sites are considered culturally sensitive information. This information, including the AHIMS data and GIS imagery, has been removed from this report. Mortdale Maintenance Facility– Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Heritage Impact Assessment Report

4.3.3 Previous Aboriginal heritage assessments

A number of Aboriginal archaeological investigations have been conducted in the local area. A selection of these have been summarised below, to provide context for the present assessment.

Estuary General Fishery Environmental Impact Statement (Fisheries NSW and Umwelt 2001)

In 2001 Umwelt Australia undertook an assessment of the NSW fisheries program within the estuaries around the Georges River, assessment environmental and cultural impacts of the proposed program. The study noted that Aboriginal use of the estuaries in subsistence practices is well known and that evidence of this use is likely to occur along the banks of estuaries. The study noted that Estuary General Fishery practices were unlikely to harm these sites, as proposed activities would not interrupt the banks or areas adjacent to the estuaries.

Botany Bay 132kV Electricity Cable Project Cultural Heritage Assessment (Navin Officer 2006)

EnergyAustralia commissioned Navin Officer to undertake an assessment of proposed alignment for upgrades to the energy infrastructure in the Sydney CBD and inner metropolitan area. The replacement of the feeder lines between the Bunnerong subtransmission station (STS) and Canterbury STS was required, and a new route was proposed as a preferred option to replacement. The majority of the study was undertaken within La Perouse and Kurnell. The study determined that there were thirteen previous recorded sites within the vicinity of the project and identified one PAD and two European heritage sites within the impact area. The study indicated that middens and artefact sites were likely to occur within open contexts, or within shelters.

The Georges River Estuary Cultural Heritage Desktop Assessment (Kayandel Archaeological Services 2010)

In 2010 Kayandel Archaeological Services prepared a report detailing cultural heritage sites identified within the Georges River Estuaries. The assessment considered Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal sites within the estuarine zone from Liverpool Weir to Botany Bay. The section on Aboriginal heritage was prepared using information obtained from AHIMS and review of previous studies within the area; no site inspections were undertaken. The study identified 112 Aboriginal sites within the estuarine zone along the Georges River. Middens were the most commonly recorded site type, although artefact sites and scarred trees were also noted. The study mapped the distribution of site types across the landscape, which indicated that middens were more common in the eastern portion of the study area and shelters in the west.

Oatley Railway Station Group Preliminary Heritage Assessment (Artefact Heritage 2012)

Artefact Heritage was commissioned by GHD (on behalf of Transport for NSW) to undertake a preliminary assessment of the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal heritage at Oatley Railway Station. Regarding the Aboriginal heritage, a due diligence assessment was undertaken. This assessment showed that extensive landscape modification had occurred across the study area and that Aboriginal heritage was unlikely to occur. The study reference predictive modelling provided by Umwelt (2001) and Kayandel (2010), which indicated that estuaries provided important resources for Aboriginal people. The study also noted that as Oatley Station is located on the western break of slope of a major ridgeline, it is possible that prior to the railway cutting there may have been sandstone shelters located in close proximity.

290 New Illawarra Road, Barden Ridge Aboriginal Heritage Assessment (Mary Dallas Consulting Archaeologists 2015)

Mary Dallas Consulting Archaeologists (MDCA) undertook an Aboriginal heritage assessment of the property at 290 Illawarra Road, Barden Ridge, which was proposed for residential subdivision. The

Page 29

Mortdale Maintenance Facility– Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Heritage Impact Assessment Report property is located within the estuarine zone to the south of Georges River, some distance from the present project area. MDCA provided a predictive model for the area which stated that the density of vegetation through the region lead Aboriginal people to move along ridgelines. The study also noted that the Georges River is understood to have provided a cultural boundary for art sites, with stylistic difference north and south of the river. Predictions included the identification of open camp sites on ridgelines, burial and midden sites within sandy contexts, and a low likelihood of encountering scarred tress based on previous land clearance practices.

4.4 Known historical heritage

Listed archaeological sites, or listed heritage items with an archaeological component, within the project area were identified through a search of relevant State and federal statutory and non-statutory heritage registers:

 World Heritage List  Commonwealth Heritage List  National Heritage List  State Heritage Register  Kogarah Local Environment Plan 2012  Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012  Section 170 Heritage and Conservation Registers for Sydney Water, Roads and Maritime, Railcorp (now Sydney Trains), Ausgrid and Department of Housing  NSW State Heritage Inventory database.

Archaeological items listed on these registers have been previously assessed against the NSW Heritage Assessment criteria (see Table 4). Statements of heritage significance, based on the NSW Heritage Assessment guidelines, as they appear in relevant heritage inventory sheets and documents, are provided throughout this assessment.

4.4.1 NSW Heritage assessment guidelines and archaeological significance

Determining the significance of a potential archaeological resource is undertaken by utilising a system of assessment centred on the Burra Charter of Australia ICOMOS. The principles of the charter are relevant to the assessment, conservation and management of sites and relics. The assessment of heritage significance is outlined through legislation in the Heritage Act and implemented through the NSW Heritage Manual and the Archaeological Assessment Guidelines.1

If an item meets one of the seven heritage criteria, and retains the integrity of its key attributes, it can be considered to have heritage significance. The significance of an item or potential archaeological site can then be assessed as being of local or state significance.

‘State heritage significance’, in relation to a place, building, work, relic, moveable object or precinct, means significance to the State in relation to the historical, scientific, cultural, social, archaeological, architectural, natural or aesthetic value of the item.

1 NSW Heritage Office 1996; 25-27

Page 30

Mortdale Maintenance Facility– Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Heritage Impact Assessment Report

‘Local heritage significance’, in relation to a place, building, work, relic, moveable object or precinct, means significance to an area in relation to the historical, scientific, cultural, social, archaeological, architectural, natural or aesthetic value of the item.2

The heritage significance assessment criteria are presented in Table 4:

Table 4: NSW heritage assessment criteria

Criteria Description

A – Historical Significance An item is important in the course or pattern of the local area’s cultural or natural history.

B – Associative Significance An item has strong or special associations with the life or works of a person, or group of persons, of importance in the local area’s cultural or natural history.

C – Aesthetic Significance An item is important in demonstrating aesthetic characteristics and/or a high degree of creative or technical achievement in the local area.

D – Social Significance An item has strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group in the local area for social, cultural or spiritual reasons.

E – Research Potential An item has potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of the local area’s cultural or natural history.

F – Rarity An item possesses uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of the local area’s cultural or natural history.

G - Representativeness An item is important in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a class of NSW’s cultural or natural places of cultural or natural environments (or the cultural or natural history of the local area).

Potential archaeological remains are assessed against the NSW heritage assessment criteria and identified as either being of:

 no significance  local significance or  state significance.

4.4.2 Heritage Listings

The following heritage listed items are located within 500 metres of the project area. The items are listed as they appear on Schedule 5 of the relevant LEPs. The listing for each item is also noted, along with the distance from the project area.

2 This section is an extract based on the Heritage Office Assessing Significance for Historical Archaeological Sites and Relics 2009:6.

Page 31

Mortdale Maintenance Facility– Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Heritage Impact Assessment Report

Table 5: Heritage items listed on the Kogarah LEP 2012

Property Heritage In Item name Address Distance description Listings View?

Lot 1, DP 910638; Lot Mortdale Public 52 Colebourne Avenue 1, DP 723943; Lot 1, School (Buildings A and LEP (I116) 170m No DP 182917; Lots 5 and B) 35 Judd Street and 6, DP 622396

Illawarra Railway, Mortdale Railway between Colebourne LEP (I117) Station and car Avenue, Ellen Subway Lot 100, DP 1141151 400m No S170 sheds and 195–235 Hurstville Road

On traffic island in Oatley Memorial Frederick Street, west of N/A LEP I122) 275m No Clock intersection with Oat ley Avenue

Oatley Masonic Lot A, DP 325569; 11A Letitia Street LEP (I124) 230m No Lodge Lot 20, DP 1043366

Oatley Memorial 2B and 2C Oatley Lots 1–26, DP 16690 LEP (I127) 45m Yes Gardens Avenue

LEP (I129) Oatley Railway 80 Railway Lands Lot 14, DP 839742 S170 145m No Station group SHR 01214

Table 6: Heritage items listed on the Hurstville LEP 2012

Property Heritage In Item name Address Distance description Listings View?

Electricity 31 Cook Street, Substation No Lot B, DP 154171 LEP (70) 490m No Mortdale 10020

Mortdale Railway LEP (71) Station and car Illawarra rail line N/A 400m No S170 sheds

Mortdale Uniting 18 Morts Road, Lots 11 and 12, DP Church (Church LEP (73) 480m No Mortdale 4817 only)

Lot 2, DP 232106; Mortdale Memorial 65 Oxford Street, Lots 27–44, LEP (76) 750m No Park Mortdale Section J, DP 2921

LEP (78) Oatley Railway Illawarra rail line N/A S170 145m No Station Group SHR 01214

Lot 24, Section 15, DP “Bangala” 7 Myall Street, Oatley LEP (81) 470m No 4513

Page 32

Mortdale Maintenance Facility– Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Heritage Impact Assessment Report

Property Heritage In Item name Address Distance description Listings View?

11 Waratah Street, “Lindaville” Lot 4, DP 319565 LEP (82) 70m No Oatley

30 Waratah Street, Lot 7, Section 8, DP Federation house LEP (83) 145m No Oatley 2297

34 Waratah Street, Victorian house Lot 1, DP 565314 LEP (84) 145m No Oatley

8 Woronora Parade, “Oxford” Lot 6, SP 79366 LEP (85) 260m No Oatley

22 Woronora Parade, “Cambridge” Lot B, DP 368274 LEP (86) 240m No Oatley

Semi-detached 36–38 Woronora Lots A and B, DP LEP (87) 280m No Federation cottages Parade, Oatley 378215

37 Woronora Parade, Lot 15, Section 8, Federation House LEP (88) 190m No Oatley DP 2297

46 Woronora Parade, Lot 8, Section 13, DP “Caprera” LEP (89) 285m No Oatley 2297

51 Woronora Parade, Lot 11, Section 9, DP Federation house LEP (90) 245m No Oatley 2297

84 Woronora Parade, Lot 2, Section 12, DP “Yengarie” LEP (91) 380m No Oatley 2297

Page 33

Mortdale Maintenance Facility– Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Heritage Impact Assessment Report

Figure 24: Heritage Listings

Page 34

Mortdale Maintenance Facility– Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Heritage Impact Assessment Report

4.4.3 Kogarah DCP 2013

The Kogarah DCP deals with heritage under ‘Part B – General Controls’. The DCP states that the objectives of Part BI are to:

(a) Ensure development protects and enhances the environmental and cultural heritage of Kogarah (b) Ensure the proposed development is sympathetic to heritage items and Heritage Conservation Areas (c) Provide guidance on appropriate design, siting, bulk, materials, landscaping and streetscape character

The plan also states that developments on sites adjacent to heritage items should respect the architectural character, and complement and enhance the significance and setting of the identified item. Landscape features are also to be retained under the plan, where they contribute to the heritage significance of an item.

There are no controls within the Kogarah DCP which relate to archaeology, or to Aboriginal cultural heritage specifically.

4.4.4 Hurstville DCP No. 1 – Effective July 2016

The Hurstville DCP states in Part 1 – Introduction that heritage is detailed under Section 3 – General Development Controls. A search of Section 3 of the plan showed no indication of controls relating to heritage within the Hurstville LEP area. No other sections of the DCP make reference to heritage controls or management.

4.5 Aboriginal archaeological potential

4.5.1 Preliminary predictive model

The exact nature and extent of Aboriginal land use in the study area is unknown. Indications of Aboriginal land use are based on registered AHIMS sites (Section 4.3.2), archaeological data collected in previous investigations (Section 4.3.3) and information on natural resources and ethnohistorical observations (Section 3.0).

Predictive statements are as follows:

 Estuarine zones were highly valued by Aboriginal people, and were a focus of subsistence activity.  Midden deposits are the most likely to be encountered within the estuarine zone, in close proximity to water, in open or shelter contexts.  Shelters may be identified, within areas where sandstone outcrops or ridges occur  Artefacts may be identified at surface within proximity of water, provided ground disturbance has been minimal

4.5.2 Indicative archaeological potential

Previous investigations into the project area have identified the estuarine zone as an integral part of past Aboriginal subsistence activities, providing resources of shellfish, fish and a variety of bird species. The underlying Hawkesbury Sandstone geology is also likely to have created shelters in

Page 35

Mortdale Maintenance Facility– Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Heritage Impact Assessment Report proximity to the project area which would have provided habitation structures suitable for occupation by Aboriginal people. Due to the location of the project area on a relatively flat elevation, it is highly unlikely that shelters would have occurred within the project area.

Desktop assessment of historical resources and background imagery has indicated that the project area has been subject to high levels of ground disturbance. The disturbance is related to the construction of the railway, car sheds, and associated infrastructure. Continued redevelopment of the area has increased disturbance levels within the proposal area, through installation of utilities and further structures.

Based on these results the project area has been assessed as having low potential to contain Aboriginal archaeological deposits.

4.6 Historical archaeological potential

Background research and previous subdivision plans indicate that prior to the construction of the electric car sheds, there were no permanent structures within the project area. Prior to the construction of the MMF, the region was occupied by farms and ephemeral residential development. Into the early twentieth century, subdivision was enacted and residential development intensified. The Oatley subdivision plan shows planned allotments in the vicinity of the project area; however, the location of Judd’s brickworks suggests that these allotments were not created. It is also important to note that the map detail provided in this report is an indicative sketch of the local area and as such does not show correct proportions or scale.

It is therefore unlikely that any former residences would have been located within the project area. Historic redevelopment throughout the project area is also likely to have impacted any potential archaeological remains, relating to the brickworks or previous MMF outbuildings.

The project area is considered to have low potential to contain significant archaeological remains.

Page 36

Mortdale Maintenance Facility– Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Heritage Impact Assessment Report

5.0 SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT

5.1 Mortdale Maintenance Facility

The Mortdale Maintenance Facility is listed under the ‘Mortdale Railway Station Group’ SHI database entry. This entry focuses on the value of the Mortdale Railway Station and considers the MMF as part of the wider context. No separate significance assessment has been provided for the MMF. A significance assessment of the facility has been provided below.

Criterion Discussion

A Historical significance The site and building provides evidence of the electrification of the Illawarra Line and the shift to electric rolling stock on this line. The electrification was enacted through the Bradfield Electrification Plan.

The item meets the threshold of local significance under this criterion.

B Associative significance The site has no known associations with notable people or groups.

The item does not meet the threshold of local significance under this criterion.

C Aesthetic significance The building has been highly modified and adapted since its construction and no longer demonstrates 1920s industrial construction. The structure has no aesthetic value.

The item does not meet the threshold of local significance under this criterion.

D Social significance Community consultation has not been undertaken as part of this assessment. The item does not meet the threshold for local significance under this criterion.

E Technical/Research The item is not considered to have the potential to yield information that will significance contribute to an understanding of the local area’s cultural or natural history.

The item does not meet the threshold of local significance under this criterion.

F Rarity The item is not considered to possess uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of NSW’s cultural history. Surviving examples of 1920s industrial development exist in better condition within Sydney.

The item does not meet the threshold of local significance under this criterion.

G Representative The building has been highly modified and does not meet the criteria for being representative of maintenance and storage sheds constructed during the 1920s.

The item does not meet the threshold of local significance under this criterion.

Integrity/Intactness The intactness or integrity of a heritage item is important in considering their significance. The item is a highly modified industrial complex which has very little original fabric remaining.

The intactness of the item is considered to be low.

The Mortdale Maintenance Facility is therefore considered to be of local significance for its historical association with the electrification of the Illawarra Railway line in 1926.

Page 37

Mortdale Maintenance Facility– Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Heritage Impact Assessment Report

6.0 PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION AND IMPACTS

6.1 Proposed Works

The proposal is to provide upgrades and additions to the MMF, including internal and external works within the maintenance sheds and administration building. The brief provided by TfNSW stated the following as the proposed impacts:

Internal Works

 Installation of internal acoustic attenuation to walls of Lift Shop MMF  Installation of a 3.5t travelling overhead gantry crane on Road 3  Installation of new retractable “swing away” overhead rigid conductor rail on Road 3 and in the Lift Shop crane  Upgrade of existing doorways to MMF  Structural upgrade works of existing columns to support new travelling overhead gantry “swing away” crane on Road 3  Modification of existing footing to support new travelling overhead gantry crane “swing away crane”  Installation of partition wall between the Proponents Work Area and Sydney Trains Work Area.  Rewire and upgrade the electrical power supply  Upgrade the lighting to comply with current standards

External Works

 Demolition of existing small component repair building located on South West boundary of site and construction of new office facilities (mobile shed facilities)  Repairs to retaining wall on western boundary of site and removal of trees in proximity  Construction of internal concrete bunding in existing concrete yard area to collect waste water for treatment at existing treatment facility  Construction of concrete bunded area on the Loop Road (for external graffiti removal)

An annotated aerial image showing the location of external works is shown in Figure 25. Full design drawings were provided by TfNSW, detailing the internal works. These are provided as Appendix I to this report.

Page 38

Mortdale Maintenance Facility– Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Heritage Impact Assessment Report

Figure 25: Proposed External Works (provided by TfNSW)

Page 39

Mortdale Maintenance Facility– Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Heritage Impact Assessment Report

6.2 Assessment of Impacts to Heritage Significance

6.2.1 Physical Impacts

The proposed works will result in physical impacts to a number of elements of the MMF. Assessment of the MMF has noted that the fabric of the maintenance sheds has been significantly altered during previous upgrade works and the ancillary buildings were constructed within the last 30 years. While similar materials have been used in the upgrade works, the modifications have been significant enough to obscure the original form of the structure. Subsequently, the additions to not provide a chronology of upgrades or demonstrate a phasing of the structure. Rather, the original form of the structure has been obscured by the upgrade works. It is considered that the upgrade works have been unsympathetic to the original fabric of the structure.

The internal works will result in impacts to footings, dividing walls, and existing wiring. The activities will involve major works; however, the fabric is assessed as having low heritage significance. An inspection of the interior of the facility indicated that no existing fabric from the 1920s car sheds survived. The building fabric now present has been systematically updated and is no more than 30 years old. This fabric does not contribute to the heritage significance of the facility, as noted in Section 5.1.

External works will result in impacts to ancillary structures surrounding the maintenance sheds, including the small component building on the southern boundary. The exact date of construction of this structure is unknown; however, it is likely to have been sometime in the 1980s or 1990s based on material type. The fabric within these structures is of low significance. The retaining wall is not evident in the 1943 aerial image of the MMF, indicating it was constructed after this date. It is likely that the retaining wall was constructed during the installation of the loop road, which was not part of the original facility. The retaining wall is not assessed as contributing to the heritage significance of the item and will not be negatively impacted by the proposed. The trees located in this area are young, introduced species which do not have any significance for the facility.No works are proposed within the administration building or security shed.

Physical impacts from the proposed works will not impact on significant physical fabric of the MMF. The external works will not impact the context or setting of the MMF, as the topography of the site will largely obscure any alterations from the surrounding area. External works should be sensitive to the present form of the structure.

6.2.2 Summary of Impacts to Built Environment and Landscape

As noted in Section 4.4.2, there are 22 listed heritage items which are within 500 metres of the MMF. The following table outlines the impacts from the proposal on the identified items.

Heritage In Potential Item name Address Distance Listings View? Impact

Mortdale Public 52 Colebourne Avenue Kogarah LEP School (Buildings A and 170m No Nil (I116) and B) 35 Judd Street

Illawarra Railway, between Mortdale Railway Kogarah LEP Colebourne Avenue, Ellen Station and car (I117) 400m No Nil Subway and 195–235 sheds S170 Hurstville Road

Page 40

Mortdale Maintenance Facility– Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Heritage Impact Assessment Report

Heritage In Potential Item name Address Distance Listings View? Impact

On traffic island in Oatley Memorial Frederick Street, west of Kogarah LEP 275m No Nil Clock intersection with Oat ley I122) Avenue

Oatley Masonic Kogarah LEP 11A Letitia Street 230m No Nil Lodge (I124)

Oatley Memorial Kogarah LEP 2B and 2C Oatley Avenue 45m No Nil Gardens (I127)

Kogarah LEP Oatley Railway (I129) 80 Railway Lands 145m No Nil Station group S170 SHR 01214

Electricity Hurstville LEP Substation No 31 Cook Street, Mortdale 490m No Nil (70) 10020

Mortdale Railway Hurstville LEP Station and car Illawarra rail line (71) 400m No Nil sheds S170

Mortdale Uniting Hurstville LEP Church (Church 18 Morts Road, Mortdale 480m No Nil (73) only)

Mortdale Memorial Hurstville LEP 65 Oxford Street, Mortdale 750m No Nil Park (76)

Hurstville LEP Oatley Railway (78) Illawarra rail line 145m No Nil Station Group S170 SHR 01214

Hurstville LEP “Bangala” 7 Myall Street, Oatley 470m No Nil (81)

Hurstville LEP “Lindaville” 11 Waratah Street, Oatley 70m No Nil (82)

Hurstville LEP Federation house 30 Waratah Street, Oatley 145m No Nil (83)

Hurstville LEP Victorian house 34 Waratah Street, Oatley 145m No Nil (84)

Hurstville LEP “Oxford” 8 Woronora Parade, Oatley 260m No Nil (85)

22 Woronora Parade, Hurstville LEP “Cambridge” 240m No Nil Oatley (86)

Semi-detached 36–38 Woronora Parade, Hurstville LEP 280m No Nil Federation cottages Oatley (87)

37 Woronora Parade, Hurstville LEP Federation House 190m No Nil Oatley (88)

Page 41

Mortdale Maintenance Facility– Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Heritage Impact Assessment Report

Heritage In Potential Item name Address Distance Listings View? Impact

46 Woronora Parade, Hurstville LEP “Caprera” 285m No Nil Oatley (89)

51 Woronora Parade, Hurstville LEP Federation house 245m No Nil Oatley (90)

84 Woronora Parade, Hurstville LEP “Yengarie” 380m No Nil Oatley (91)

The proposal does not alter the external bulk, scale, or setting of the MMF. Subsequently, there is no potential for visual impact to the surrounding structures. The location of the MMF, on a ridgeline, also prevents a number of potential visual impacts. Views and vistas from the MMF are show in Section 4.1 (Figure 5 to Figure 8)

The proposal is limited in physical impact within the project area, and has no potential for impacts to fabric in any surrounding structures.

6.2.3 Summary of Archaeological Potential and Impacts

6.2.3.1 Aboriginal Archaeology As noted in Section 4.5, the project area has been assessed as having low potential to contain Aboriginal archaeological deposits. The assessment of low potential is based on the proximity of the study area to water and the levels of previous ground disturbance noted during the site inspection.

Based on this assessment and an understanding of the works to be undertaken, it is considered that the proposal will have a negligible impact upon potential Aboriginal archaeological deposits.

6.2.3.2 Non-Aboriginal Archaeology Historical imagery and maps of the project area suggest that there were no substantial structures within the project area, prior to the construction of the MMF. The land-use during this time was likely to have been pastoral, relating to land clearance and stock grazing. Archaeological evidence of this period would include postholes, early irrigation infrastructure, and evidence relating to clearing and grazing, which is ephemeral in nature. It is therefore unlikely that substantial historic archaeological remains will be uncovered during proposed works. Disturbance caused by the construction of the MMF is also likely to have significantly impacted any archaeological remains which may have been present within the project area.

It is considered that the proposal will have a negligible impact to historical archaeological resources within the project area.

6.2.4 Summary of Heritage Impacts

In summary, the proposed works to the MMF are required for facility standard compliance and provision of additional service areas. The proposal will increase the occupational capacity of the facility and provide upgraded amenities for staff and visitors.

The MMF has been assessed as having local heritage significance for its association with the Bradfield Electrification plan in mid-1920s which established the car sheds as the first of its kind on a suburban line. The structure of the MMF has undergone significant redevelopment throughout its history. There is little to no original fabric left within the structure due to a series of modifications and additions. The proposal has been assessed as having nil potential to impact the aesthetic heritage

Page 42

Mortdale Maintenance Facility– Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Heritage Impact Assessment Report significance of the MMF. The proposed works are considered to have a minor positive impact on the historical heritage significance of the facility. The works will ensure the continued operation of the car shed, which have maintained their existing use for nearly 90 years.

The proposal has been assessed as having nil potential to impact to surrounding heritage items or landscapes.

Page 43

Mortdale Maintenance Facility– Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Heritage Impact Assessment Report

7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 Conclusions

7.1.1 Statutory Obligations

MMF is noted as a component within the description of the RailCorp Section 170 Heritage and Conservation Register listing, however not included within listed curtilage. The proposed works do not trigger notification to NSW Heritage Division.

The MMF is managed and approved under ISEPP policy, which dictates notification to local Council upon impacts reaching a level considered to be beyond minor. The proposed works are considered to have a negligible impact on the heritage significance of the locally listed MMF. As such, notification to Georges River Council will not be required under ISEPP.

7.2 Recommendations

7.2.1 Unexpected Finds Procedure

Works within the MMF have been assessed as having low potential to impact significant heritage fabric. Works should proceed under a chance find procedure which would minimise impacts to unexpected heritage encountered during works. This would include the following steps:

 On discovery of a potential heritage item, works will stop immediately in that area  Heritage advice would be sought to determine the significance of the find and identify management requirements  Heritage Division would be notified if archaeological remains not identified within the assessment or significant and intact archaeological relics are unexpectedly found during the course of the works. A variation or additional approval may be required.

7.2.2 Heritage Induction

Prior to the commencement of works, all contractors and associated personnel should attend a heritage induction. This induction would cover the history and archaeological potential of the site. This induction would assist in the identification of unexpected heritage items during works.

Page 44

Mortdale Maintenance Facility– Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Heritage Impact Assessment Report

8.0 REFERENCES

Artefact Heritage, 2012. Oatley Railway Station Group Preliminary heritage assessment. Report prepared for GHD Pty Ltd.

Attenbrow, V. 2010. Sydney’s Aboriginal Past: Investigating the Archaeological and Historical Records. University of New South Wales Press Ltd. Sydney.

Brook, J and Kohen, J. L, 1991. The Parramatta Native Institution and the Black Town: a history. Kensington, N.S.W : New South Wales University Press

Cowell, J., 1996. ‘Oatley and the Railway’. Included in the Oatley Local History Project, Volume 2.

Fidlon, P.G. and R.J. Ryan, eds., 1980 The Journal of Philip Gidley King, 1787-1790, Australian Documents Library, Sydney

Herbert C. 1983a. Sydney 1:100 000 Geological Sheet 9130, 1st edition. Geological Survey of New South Wales, Sydney.

Herbert, C., 1983b. Geology of the Sydney 1:100,000 Sheet 9130. NSW Department of Mineral Resources, Sydney.

Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012. Accessed online at

Hurstville Development Control Plan 2012. Accessed online at

Hurstville Council, 2016. ‘History of Hurstville’. Accessed online at

JMcDCHM. 2005a. Archaeological salvage excavation of site CG1 (NPWS #45-5-2648), at the corner of Charles and George Streets, Parramatta, NSW. Report for Meriton Apartments Pty Ltd.

JMcDCHM. 2005b. Archaeological salvage excavation of site RTA-G1, 109-113 George Street, Parramatta. Report prepared for Landcom.

Kayandel Archaeological Services, 2010. The Georges River Estuary Cultural Heritage Desktop Assessment. Draft B. Report prepared for SMEC and the Georges River Estuary Management Committee.

Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012. Accessed online at

Kogarah Development Control Plan 2012. Accessed online at

Mathews, R.H & Everitt, M.M. 1900. The Organisation, Language and Initiation Ceremonies of the Aborigines of the South-East Coast of N. S. Wales. Journal and Proceedings of the Royal Society of New South Wales. 34: 262–81.

Lawrence, J., 1996 St George Pictorial Memories: Rockdale, Kogarah, Hurstville. Kingsclear Books Pty Ltd. Accessed online at

Page 45

Mortdale Maintenance Facility– Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Heritage Impact Assessment Report

Mary Dallas Consulting Archaeologists, 2015. Aboriginal Heritage Assessment Report, Lot 3 DP807842, 290 New Illawarra Road Barden Ridge NSW. Report prepared for Arben Management.

Navin Officer, 2006. Botany Bay 132kV Electricity Cable Project Cultural Heritage Assessment. Report Prepared for EnergyAustralia.

NSW Fisheries, 2001. Estuary General Fishery Environmental Impact Statement: Public Consultation Document, NSW Fisheries, Cronulla Fisheries Centre, Cronulla NSW.

NSW Heritage Office, 2001. ‘Assessing Heritage Significance’. Update to the NSW Heritage Manual.

OEH, 2009. ‘Mortdale Railway Station Group’ SHI Database Entry. Accessed online at

OEH, 2010. Due Diligence Code of Practice for the Protection of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales.

RailCorp s170 register entry for ‘Mortdale Railway Station and Car Sheds’. Accessed online at

Raine & Horne & Brown, Fred & Cantle, J. M & William Brooks & Co & Chatfield & Brown & Stephen, Jaques & Stephen (Firm). 1905. ‘Oatley Estate, cottage home sites, near Mortdale Station for auction sale on the ground, Saturday 18th November 1905 at 3 p.m’ Accessed online at

Tench, Watkin. and Fitzhardinge, L. F, 1961. Sydney's first four years : being a reprint of A narrative of the expedition to Botany Bay and A complete account of the settlement at Port Jackson. Sydney : Angus and Robertson, in association with the Royal Australian Historical Society

T. R. & S. Smith (Firm) & Whitelocke, Nelson P & Pike and Owen & Universal Land, Building & Investment Company. 1886. ‘Morts Hill, adjoining Oatleys Platform for auction on the ground, Saturday 30th Oct. 1886’. Accessed online at

Umwelt Australia, 2001. NSW Estuary General Fishery Management Strategy: Assessment of Impacts on Heritage and Indigenous Issues. Report prepared for NSW Fisheries.

Page 46