Archaeological Assessment

‘Sandstone Precinct’: 23-33 Bridge Street (Lands Building), 35-39 Bridge Street (Education Building), and road and public reserves at Gresham Street, Loftus Street and Farrer Place, Sydney

November 2014

URBIS STAFF RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS REPORT WERE:

Director Stephen Davies, B Arts Dip. Ed., Dip. T&CP, Dip. Cons. Studies Consultant Karyn Virgin, B Arts (Hons Archaeology) Job Code SA5469 Report Number 01 – Draft Report dated 20.11.2014 02 – Final Draft Report dated 21.11.2014 03 – Final Draft Report dated 25.11.2014

xdisclai mer x

© Urbis ABN 50 105 256 228

All Rights Reserved. No material may be reproduced without prior permission. While we have tried to ensure the accuracy of the information in this publication, the Publisher accepts no responsibility or liability for any errors, omissions or resultant consequences including any loss or damage arising from reliance in information in this publication.

URBIS Australia Asia Middle East urbis.com.au

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ...... i

1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Background ...... 1 1.2 Site Location ...... 1 1.3 Methodology ...... 2 1.4 Author Identification ...... 2 1.5 The Proposal ...... 3

2 Site Description ...... 4

3 Statutory Context ...... 6 3.1 Relevant National Legislation ...... 6 3.2 Relevant State Legislation and Controls ...... 6 3.3 Relevant Local Controls ...... 9 3.4 Summary of Heritage Listings ...... 10

4 Historical Overview ...... 12 4.1 Aboriginal History ...... 12 4.1.1 Environmental Context ...... 12 4.1.2 The Local Aboriginal Population ...... 13 4.1.3 Contact and Settlement ...... 13 4.2 European History ...... 14 4.2.1 The First Permanent Buildings – 1788-1810 ...... 14 4.2.2 The Second Phase of Building – 1810-1832 ...... 15 4.2.3 The New Government House and Changing USes – 1845-1876 ...... 18 4.2.4 The Lands Building – 1876-1893 ...... 21 4.2.5 The Education Building – 1912-1930 ...... 23 4.2.6 The ‘Administration Precinct’ ...... 26 4.2.7 Farrer Place, Gresham Street and Loftus Street ...... 26 4.3 Land Uses and Disturbance ...... 28

5 Site Inspection ...... 30

6 Archaeological Potential ...... 34 6.1 Methodology ...... 34 6.2 Historical Archaeological Potential ...... 34 6.2.1 Structural Fabric ...... 34 6.2.2 Cultural Deposits ...... 36 6.3 Aboriginal Archaeological Potential ...... 37 6.3.1 Archaeological Context ...... 37 6.3.2 Impacts of Disturbance on Aboriginal Archaeological Deposits ...... 38 6.3.3 Assessment of Aboriginal Archaeological Potential ...... 38 6.4 Statement of Archaeological Potential ...... 39

7 Significance Assessment ...... 40 7.1 What is Archaeological Significance? ...... 40 7.2 Significance Assessment ...... 40 7.2.1 Potential and Known Historical Archaeological ‘Relics’/Deposits ...... 40 7.2.2 The Bennelong SWC No. 29 ...... 45 7.3 Research Potential ...... 46 7.4 Statement of Archaeological Significance ...... 48

URBIS SA5469_SANDSTONE_PRECINCT_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT_NOV2014

8 Conclusion and Recommendations ...... 49 8.1 Recommendations and Mitigation Measures ...... 49

9 Bibliography and References ...... 51 9.1 Bibliography ...... 51 9.2 References ...... 51

Appendix A Preliminary Archaeological Interpretation Strategy...... 55

Appendix B Relevant SHR Listings for the Subject Site ...... 68

Appendix C AHIMS Search Results ...... 69

FIGURES: Figure 1 – Location of the subject site (red boundary) ...... 2 Figure 2 – The subject site (red boundary) ...... 4 Figure 3 – Sydney LEP 2012 heritage map, showing the subject site (red BOUNDARY) and vicinity items ... 11 Figure 4 – View of the East Side of Sydney Cove” by George Raper (undated) ...... 14 Figure 5 – Sketch of the Town of Sydney [1821]. Subject site indicated by red boundary ...... 15 Figure 6 – Map of Sydney, 1844. Subject site indicated by red boundary...... 16 Figure 7 – Plan of Macquarie Place, 1828 ...... 16 Figure 8 – View of the Macquarie-era buildings, 1821 ...... 17 Figure 9 – ‘Sydney from the Domain Near Government House’, 1829, showing the Macquarie-era buildings 17 Figure 10 – The former Judge-Advocate’s residence, by this time used as the Colonial Secretary’s residence, 1829 ...... 18 Figure 11 – The extension of Loftus street (originally Castlereagh Street North) to the new semi circular quay drawn in 1842 (approximate location of the subject site indicated) ...... 19 Figure 12 – Map of Sydney, 1855. Subject site indicated by red boundary. Building 13 is labelled the Surveyor General’s Office, and Building 14 is labelled as the ‘Colonial Secretary’s Office’. The Colonial Secretary’s residence (former Judge-Advocate’s RESIDENCE) is no longer present ...... 19 Figure 13 – The Colonial Secretary’s Office, 1871 ...... 20 Figure 14 – ‘Bridge Street looking towards George Street’, c 1870. Colonial Secretary’s Office indicated by arrow ...... 20 Figure 15 – Dove’s Plan of Sydney, Block_9_10_11_12_13, 1880 (approximate location of the subject site indicated)...... 21 Figure 16 – View of the Lands Office and Bridge Street, ca. 1894 ...... 22 Figure 17 – Map of Sydney, 1903. Subject site indicated by red boundary...... 23 Figure 18 – View of the Survey Office, Sydney, 1871, later used as offices for the Department of PUBLIc Instruction...... 23 Figure 19 – Map of Sydney, 1884. subject site indicated by red boundary. Colonial Secretary’s Office now identified as ‘Department of Public Instruction’...... 24 Figure 20 – View of the rear of the new Department of Public Instruction offices (Education Building), 1915, showing older buildings retained on the southern portion of the block ...... 25 Figure 21 – Civic Survey, Sydney, 1948. Subject site indicated by red boundary ...... 25 Figure 22 – View of Bridge Street facing east, c.1906...... 26 Figure 23 – ‘Birds-Eye view of Sydney’, 1888, subject site indicated by red boundary with Farrer Place shown as an area of public reserve ...... 27 Figure 24 – Aerial view of Farrer Place [undated] ...... 28 Figure 25 – Potential impact map – boundary of the subject site and existing buildings overlaid on the Harper’s Map, c. 1842 ...... 36

PICTURES: Picture 1 –View of the subject site from Bridge Street, showing the Lands (right of frame) and education (left of frame) buildings ...... 30 Picture 2 – View of the Lands Building, facing north west from Bent Street ...... 30

URBIS SA5469_SANDSTONE_PRECINCT_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT_NOV2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Picture 3 – View of the Education Building facing southwest, with the Museum of Sydney (first Government House site) visible in the lower left corner of frame ...... 30 Picture 4 – View of the northern (Bridge Street) elevation of the Lands Building showing the gradient of the slope ...... 30 Picture 5 – View of the northern (Bridge Street) elevation of the Education Building showing the gradient of the slope ...... 31 Picture 6 – View of Farrer Place, facing east ...... 31 Picture 7 –View of the southern elevation of the Education Building from Farrer Place, showing the gradient of the slope ...... 31 Picture 8 – View of Loftus Street, facing north ...... 31 Picture 9 – View of Gresham Street facing south ...... 31 Picture 10 – View of works along Gresham Street ...... 31 Picture 11 – View of the Lands Building car park showing the depth below street level (indicated by the windows in centre of frame) ...... 32 Picture 12 – View of the bollards associated with the carriage way that originally extended through the site of the Lands Building ...... 32 Picture 13 – View of the bollards associated with the carriage way that originally extended through the site of the Lands Building. the bollards have been built in to the wall ...... 32 Picture 14 – View of a portion of the courtyard of the Lands Building ...... 32 Picture 15 – View of the Gresham Street carriage entrance showing the plinth bollards ...... 32 Picture 16 – View of potential original/ early paving associated with the carriage loop, located in the Lands Building car park ...... 32 Picture 17 – View of the Lands Building courtyard from an upper floor ...... 33 Picture 18 – View of the moat that extends along the western side of the Lands Building ...... 33 Picture 19 – View of ceiling of the moat, showing the underside of the grate on Gresham Street (lands Building) ...... 33 Picture 20 – View of the central atrium of the Education Building ...... 33 Picture 21 – View of the central atrium of the Education Building ...... 33

TABLES: Table 1 – Description of the subject site ...... 1 Table 2 – Summary of heritage listings for the subject site and its components ...... 10 Table 3 – Assessment of Significance – potential and known historical archaeological ‘relics’/deposits ...... 40

URBIS SA5469_SANDSTONE_PRECINCT_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT_NOV2014

Executive Summary

Urbis has been engaged by Government Property NSW (GPNSW) to prepare the following archaeological assessment for the subject site, comprising 23-33 Bridge Street (‘Lands Building’), 35-39 Bridge Street (‘Education Building’), and sections of road and public reserves at Gresham Street, Loftus Street and Farrer Place, Sydney.

In response to the State Government’s various tourism initiatives, GPNSW has identified the subject site as a preferred location for tourism and visitor accommodation uses and in late 2013 sought ‘Registrations of Interest’ (ROI) from developers, investors and hotel operators who had an interest in adaptively re- using the buildings for these purposes. A central theme from various responses to the ROI was the need for more certainty around the planning approval process, particularly in relation to the future land use of the buildings and their key development standards (principally building height and density).

As part of the Stage 1 Development Application for the project (SSD 6751), which seeks approval for a concept proposal, an archaeological assessment for the subject site is required as part of the wider Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). This archaeological assessment and preliminary interpretation strategy (Appendix A) is intended to inform future design development and applications for the subject site.

This archaeological assessment has reviewed existing historical and photographic documentation for the subject site, and has considered the findings of an inspection that was conducted at the subject site in November 2014. Based on this information, the archaeological potential and significance of the subject site has been assessed. In the event that no sub-surface works are proposed at the subject site as part of the Stage 2 DA phase, no further archaeological assessment is required.

However, in the event that sub-surface works are proposed at the subject site as part of the Stage 2 DA phase, the recommendations and mitigation measures provided in Section 8 will apply.

A preliminary heritage interpretation strategy, based on the results of this assessment, is provided in Appendix A.

URBIS SA5469_SANDSTONE_PRECINCT_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT_NOV2014 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i

1 Introduction

1.1 BACKGROUND Urbis has been engaged by Government Property NSW (GPNSW) to prepare the following archaeological assessment for the subject site, comprising 23-33 Bridge Street (‘Lands Building’), 35-39 Bridge Street (‘Education Building’), and sections of road and public reserves at Gresham Street, Loftus Street and Farrer Place, Sydney.

In response to the State Government’s various tourism initiatives, GPNSW has identified the subject site as a preferred location for tourism and visitor accommodation uses and in late 2013 sought ‘Registrations of Interest’ (ROI) from developers, investors and hotel operators who had an interest in adaptively re- using the buildings for these purposes. A central theme from various responses to the ROI was the need for more certainty around the planning approval process, particularly in relation to the future land use of the buildings and their key development standards (principally building height and density).

As part of the Stage 1 Development Application for the project (SSD 6751), which seeks approval for a concept proposal; an archaeological assessment for the subject site is required as part of the wider Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Secretary’s environmental assessment requirements (SEARs) for the project state:

“The EIS shall:

. Prepare an archaeological assessment of the likely impacts of the proposal on any aboriginal cultural heritage, European cultural heritage and other archaeological items, and outline any proposed mitigation and conservation measures. . Prepare an interpretation strategy that includes the provision for interpretation of any archaeological resources uncovered during the works.”

This archaeological assessment and preliminary interpretation strategy (Appendix A) are intended to inform future design development proposals for the subject site, particularly those involving sub- surface works. In the event that no sub-surface works are proposed at the subject site as part of the Stage 2 DA phase, no further archaeological assessment is required.

1.2 SITE LOCATION The subject site comprises land known as 23-33 Bridge Street (‘Lands Building’) and 35-39 Bridge Street (‘Education Building’), Sydney and also adjacent road and public reserve areas of Loftus Street, Gresham Street and Farrer Place (Figure 1). The specific property descriptions are as follows:

TABLE 1 – DESCRIPTION OF THE SUBJECT SITE PROPERTY STREET ADDRESS LOT DP SITE AREA

Lands Building 23-33 Bridge Street, Sydney 1877 877000 3,320m2

Education Building 35-39 Bridge Street, Sydney 56 729620 2,762m2

Road & Public Gresham Street, Loftus Street & Reserve (s) Farrer Place

As substantial buildings that occupy entire city blocks, both the Lands and Education Buildings have multiple entrances. The primary street frontage for both buildings is Bridge Street, however, the Education Building also has a pedestrian entrance off Farrer Place, and the Lands Building also has pedestrian entries on Gresham and Loftus Streets. The Education Building has a vehicle entry off Loftus Street whilst the Lands Building has access to a small loading dock on Gresham Street at the corner with Bent Street.

A more detailed description of the subject site is provided in Section 2, below.

URBIS SA5469_SANDSTONE_PRECINCT_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT_NOV2014 INTRODUCTION 1

FIGURE 1 – LOCATION OF THE SUBJECT SITE (RED BOUNDARY)

[Source: Spatial Information eXchange Maps 2014]

1.3 METHODOLOGY This archaeological assessment has been prepared in accordance with the ‘Historical Archaeology Code of Practice’ (2006) and ‘Assessing Significance for Historical Archaeological Sites and ‘Relics’ (2009) guidelines. The philosophy and process adopted is that guided by the Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter 1999.

The subject proposal has been assessed in relation to the relevant statutory context, as outlined in Section 3, below.

1.4 AUTHOR IDENTIFICATION The following report has been prepared by Karyn Virgin (Heritage Consultant/ Archaeologist). Stephen Davies (Director) has reviewed and endorsed its content. This report has been written with reference to relevant conservation management plans previously prepared for the subject site:

. NSW Government Architect’s Office. October 2014. ‘Draft - The Lands Building: Conservation Management Plan’. Prepared for Government Property NSW. . City Plan Heritage. October 2014. ‘Final Draft - Conservation Management Plan: Department of Education Building, 35-39 Bridge Street, Sydney’. Prepared for Government Property NSW.

Unless otherwise stated, all drawings, illustrations and photographs are the work of Urbis.

URBIS 2 INTRODUCTION SA5469_SANDSTONE_PRECINCT_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT_NOV2014

1.5 THE PROPOSAL In order to facilitate the proposed adaptive re-use of the Lands and Education Buildings, the proponent is seeking to explore opportunities within the public domain to provide:

. Pedestrian connection between the two buildings under Loftus Street; . The use of the sub terrain below Farrer Place for potential back of house facilities, loading dock facilities, to support a hotel use and for potential car parking.

Early discussions have commenced with the City of Sydney to explore the opportunities to create such opportunities, noting that final details associated with the creation of subterranean spaces and the like would be a matter for further resolution with key stakeholders at the detailed DA stage.

This archaeological assessment provides a general overview of potential archaeological impacts associated with any sub-surface works that may be proposed as part of the overall adaptive re-use of the subject site. In the event that no sub-surface works are proposed at the subject site as part of the Stage 2 DA phase, no further archaeological assessment is required.

URBIS SA5469_SANDSTONE_PRECINCT_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT_NOV2014 INTRODUCTION 3

2 Site Description

The subject site comprises two buildings, being the Lands and Education Buildings, located at 23-33 and 35-39 Bridge Street, respectively. In addition to these two buildings, the subject site also comprises sections of road and public reserve at Gresham Street, Loftus Street and Farrer Place. The boundaries of the subject site are shown in Figure 2, below.

To the north of the site is Sydney Harbour, Circular Quay, Customs House, Macquarie Place and the AMP precinct. To the east of the Education Building are the Museum of Sydney, Governor Phillip Tower, Government Macquarie Tower and the Botanic Gardens. To the south of the site are the 1 Bligh Street office tower and a range of other commercial office buildings. To the west of the site is a commercial office tower (56 Pitt Street).

As both the Lands and Education Buildings have been described in detail elsewhere (refer to City Plan Heritage, Oct 2014; Government Architect’s Office, Oct 2014; Tanner and Associates et al, 1989, as well as the SHR listings for the properties), only a concise description of the subject site and its components is provided below.

FIGURE 2 – THE SUBJECT SITE (RED BOUNDARY)

[Source: Spatial Information eXchange Maps 2014]

The Lands Building, 23-33 Bridge Street

The Lands Building was constructed in two stages between 1876 and 1893. It was designed by the New South Wales Colonial Architect James Barnet in a style known as Victorian Free Classical. It contains four storeys with large floor to ceiling heights, and contains a domed roof-top feature and clock tower. The current built form provides four wings which surround a central vault with two central courtyards, and contains a loading dock which is accessed from Gresham Street at the western side of the property.

URBIS 4 SITE DESCRIPTION SA5469_SANDSTONE_PRECINCT_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT_NOV2014

The Lands Building is currently used as office space by the NSW Department of Planning and Environment.

The Education Building, 35-39 Bridge Street

The Education Building was constructed in two stages between 1915 and 1930. It was designed by architect George McCrae in the Federation Free Classical Style (City Plan Heritage 2014: 114). It contains seven storeys, with an attic on level eight and caretaker’s accommodation on levels eight and nine. The built form provides a single rectangular building around a central light well, and has a loading dock and on-site with parking for 12 cars accessible from Loftus Street. There is also a prominent lift motor room above these, just to the south of the caretaker's accommodation. During the 1980-1990s the building underwent major renovations to bring the office accommodation up to modern standards and requirements.

The Education Building is currently used as office space by the NSW Department of Education.

Gresham Street, Loftus Street and Farrer Place

The sections of Gresham and Loftus Streets that fall within the subject site are shown in Figure 2, above. Both Gresham and Loftus Streets run on a north-south orientation. Gresham Street is approximately 18 metres wide, while Loftus Street is approximately 10 metres wide. Both roads are of typical asphalt construction, and are owned by the City of Sydney.

Farrer Place is an open pedestrian space located to the immediate south of the Education Building. It is paved, and contains a number of palm trees and smaller plantings. The section of Farrer Place that falls within the subject site is triangular in shape, and is approximately 1000m² in size. Farrer Place is also owned by the City of Sydney.

The Bennelong Storm Water Channel No. 29

The Bennelong SWC, constructed c.1856, functioned as a combined sewer/stormwater drain. It is oviform in shape with dimensions of 1.5 metres x 1.2 metres. The system was made of brick and some sections were tunnelled in sandstone along Tarpian Way (Circular Quay East). This Stormwater channel drains the Sydney Cove Slopes to as far south as Bathurst Street, and extends generally from Macquarie Street in the east to York Street in the west. In total, the channel covers an area of approximately 65 hectares.

Within the subject site, a section of the Bennelong SWC No. 29 runs north-south underneath the surface of Loftus Street.

URBIS SA5469_SANDSTONE_PRECINCT_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT_NOV2014 SITE DESCRIPTION 5

3 Statutory Context

3.1 RELEVANT NATIONAL LEGISLATION

ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION ACT 1999

The Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) took effect on 16 July 2000. Under Part 9 of the EPBC Act, an action that is likely to have a significant impact on a matter of National Environmental Significance (known as a controlled action under the Act), may only progress with approval of the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment . An action is defined as a project, development, undertaking, activity (or series of activities), or alteration. An action would also require approval if:

. It is undertaken on Commonwealth land and would have or is likely to have a significant impact on the environment on Commonwealth land; and . It is undertaken by the Commonwealth and would have or is likely to have a significant impact.

The EPBC Act defines ‘environment’ as both natural and cultural environments and therefore includes Aboriginal and historic cultural heritage items. Under the Act protected heritage items are listed on the World Heritage List (WHL), National Heritage List (NHL) (items of significance to the nation) or the Commonwealth Heritage List (CHL) (items belonging to the Commonwealth or its agencies). These last two lists replaced the Register of the National Estate (RNE). The RNE is no longer a statutory list; however, it remains available as an archive.

The statutory heritage registers mandated by the EPBC Act have been consulted. There are no listings for the subject site or its various components on the WHL, NHL or CHL.

Both the Lands and Education Buildings are, however, listed on other non-statutory heritage registers, as follows:

. Lands Building - RNE (Listing ID 1794), National Trust of Australia Register (Listing ID C6096). . Education Building - RNE (Listing ID 1793), National Trust of Australia Register (Listing ID C6097) and the AIA Register of Significant Architecture in NSW (Number 4700597).

Both the Lands and Education Buildings form part of a nomination for inclusion on the NHL, currently under consideration by the Australian Heritage Council for an area of Sydney known as "Colonial Sydney". Within this draft nomination, the Lands Building is identified as a building that ‘contributes to the theme’ of the nominated area, while the Education Building is identified as a building that ‘contributes to streetscape’ (‘Colonial Sydney Study Area, National Heritage List, Place ID 106103, File 1/12/036/0682). The assessment timeframe for the listing of ‘Colonial Sydney’ on the NHL is 30 June 2018.

The subject site does not contain any world, national or commonwealth listed archaeological sites.

3.2 RELEVANT STATE LEGISLATION AND CONTROLS

NSW HERITAGE ACT 1977

The Heritage Act 1977 (NSW) affords automatic statutory protection to ‘relics’ that form archaeological deposits or part thereof. The Act defines a ‘relic’ as:

… any deposit, object or material evidence relating to the settlement of the area that comprises NSW, not being an Aboriginal settlement, and which is more than 50 years old.

Section 57 of the Heritage Act prevents the excavation or disturbance of any place, building, work, relic, moveable object, precinct or land that is listed on the State Heritage Register (SHR), except in accordance with an excavation permit under Section 60 of the Act issued by the Heritage Council of New South Wales (or in accordance with a gazetted exception to this Section of the Heritage Act). Where the proposed works will have a minimal impact on the heritage significance of the item, approval can be given

URBIS 6 STATUTORY CONTEXT SA5469_SANDSTONE_PRECINCT_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT_NOV2014

under Section 57(2) of the Act by the Director of the Heritage Office under delegation from the Heritage Council.

Sections 139-145 of the Heritage Act prevent the excavation or disturbance of land known or likely to contain relics, unless in accordance with an excavation permit. Section 140 permits are required for sites that are not listed on the SHR.

Under Part 4 of the EP&A Act, excavation permits to disturb relics under Section 57 or Section 139 of the Heritage Act are not required for SSD projects. However, additional approvals specific to SSD projects may be required.

State Heritage Register

To be listed on the State Heritage Register (SHR), a site must be assessed as having state cultural heritage significance. Listing on the SHR triggers requirements for Heritage Council approval under Section 57(1) of the Heritage Act.

Both the Lands and Education Buildings are listed heritage items on the SHR as follows:

. ‘Lands Department Building’, 22 [sic] – 23 Bridge Street, Listing No. 00744 . ‘Department of Education Building’, 35-39 Bridge Street, Listing No. 00726.

Copies of the SHR listings for the Lands and Education Buildings have been included in Appendix B.

The subject site does not contain any state listed archaeological sites.

Heritage and Conservation Register (Section 170 Register)

Under Section 170 of the Heritage Act, government instrumentalities must keep a Heritage and Conservation Register (a Section 170 Register) which contains items under the control or ownership of the agency and which are or could be listed as heritage items (of State or Local significance).

Both the Lands and Education Buildings are listed on the State Government s170 Heritage and Conservation Register.

Sections of the Bennelong Stormwater Channel (SWC) No. 29 are also listed on the Sydney Water s170 Heritage and Conservation Register.

It should be noted, however, that not all s170 heritage and conservation registers are available to search, and an individual item may be listed on multiple s170 heritage registers. The buildings and/or elements of the subject site may therefore be listed on s170 registers that were not able to be consulted as part of this assessment.

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT ACT 1979

The EP&A Act requires that consideration be given to environmental impacts, which are interpreted as including impacts to cultural heritage. Part 5 of the EP&A Act sets out the environmental assessment obligations of government agencies that propose to conduct, or propose to approve of others conducting, activities that do not require development consent.

The Heritage Division (now within the Office of Environment and Heritage [OEH]), does not have specific guidelines regarding heritage assessments under Part 5. As such the following guidelines have been adopted for the project as an indication of methods and principles required by the Heritage Division, together with the International Council on Monuments and Sites Burra Charter (Australia ICOMOS 2013):

. Heritage Manual, NSW Heritage Office and NSW Department of Urban Affairs and Planning, 1996; . Heritage Curtilages, NSW Heritage Office and NSW Department of Urban Affairs and Planning, 1996; . Assessing Heritage Significance, NSW Heritage Office, 2001; . Levels of Heritage Significance, NSW Heritage Office, 2008; and . Assessing Significance for Historical Archaeological Sites and Relics, NSW Heritage Branch, 2009.

URBIS SA5469_SANDSTONE_PRECINCT_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT_NOV2014 STATUTORY CONTEXT 7

The EP&A Act allows for the preparation of planning instruments to direct development within NSW. This includes State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPP) and Local Environment Plans (LEP). The relevance of each of these is discussed further in Section 3.3, below.

Under Part 4 of the EP&A Act, excavation permits to disturb relics under Section 57 or Section 139 of the Heritage Act are not required for SSD projects. However, additional approvals specific to SSD projects may be required.

NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE ACT 1974

The National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NPW Act), administered by OEH, is the primary legislation for the protection of Aboriginal cultural heritage in NSW. The NPW Act gives the Director General of OEH responsibility for the proper care, preservation and protection of ‘Aboriginal objects’ and ‘Aboriginal places’, defined under the Act as follows:

. An Aboriginal object is any deposit, object or material evidence (that is not a handicraft made for sale) relating to Aboriginal habitation of NSW, before or during the occupation of that area by persons of non-Aboriginal extraction (and includes Aboriginal remains); and . An Aboriginal place is a place declared so by the Minister administering the NPW Act because the place is or was of special significance to Aboriginal culture. It may or may not contain Aboriginal objects.

Part 6 of the NPW Act provides specific protection for Aboriginal objects and places by making it an offence to harm them and includes a ‘strict liability offence’ for such harm. A ‘strict liability offence’ does not require someone to know that it is an Aboriginal object or place they are causing harm to in order to be prosecuted. Defences against the ‘strict liability offence’ in the NPW Act include the carrying out of certain ‘Low Impact Activities’, prescribed in Clause 80B of the National Parks and Wildlife Amendment Regulation 2010 (NPW Regulation), and the demonstration of due diligence.

An Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit (AHIP) issued under section 90 of the NPW Act is required if impacts to Aboriginal objects and/or places cannot be avoided. An AHIP is a defence to a prosecution for harming Aboriginal objects and places if the harm was authorised by the AHIP and the conditions of that AHIP were not contravened.

Consultation with Aboriginal communities is required under OEH policy when an application for an AHIP is considered and is an integral part of the process. AHIPs may be issued in relation to a specified Aboriginal object, Aboriginal place, land, activity or person or specified types or classes of Aboriginal objects, Aboriginal places, land, activities or persons. Section 89A of the NPW Act requires notification of the location of Aboriginal sites within a reasonable time, with penalties for non-notification.

A search of the Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System (AHIMS) was conducted for the subject site; no registered Aboriginal archaeological sites are located in or within 50 metres of the subject site. A copy of this AHIMS search has been included in Appendix C.

The subject site does not contain any registered Aboriginal objects, sites or places.

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICY (STATE AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT) 2011

Schedule 1 of the SEPP (State and Regional Development) 2011 identifies development that is ‘State Significant Development’ (SSD). Clause 13 of Schedule 1 provides for the following:

13 Cultural, recreation and tourist facilities

(1) Development that has a capital investment value of more than $30 million for any of the following purposes:

(a) film production, the television industry or digital or recorded media, (b) convention centres and exhibition centres, (c) entertainment facilities,

URBIS 8 STATUTORY CONTEXT SA5469_SANDSTONE_PRECINCT_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT_NOV2014

(d) information and education facilities, including museums and art galleries, (e) recreation facilities (major), (f) zoos, including animal enclosures, administration and maintenance buildings, and associated facilities. (2) Development for other tourist related purposes (but not including any commercial premises, residential accommodation and serviced apartments whether separate or ancillary to the tourist related component) that:

(a) has a capital investment value of more than $100 million, or (b) has a capital investment value of more than $10 million and is located in an environmentally sensitive area of State significance or a sensitive coastal location. The proposed development is of the kind listed in Clause 13 of Schedule 1 as it:

. is development for tourist related purposes; . is located in an environmentally sensitive area of State Significance, which includes buildings on the SHR; . has a Capital Investment Value (CIV) of more than $10 million.

Under Section 89D of the EP&A Act, the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure is the consent authority for SSD. Section 78A(8A) of the EP&A Act requires that all development applications for SSD must be accompanied by an environmental impact statement (EIS) prepared by or on behalf of the applicant in the form prescribed by the regulations.

3.3 RELEVANT LOCAL CONTROLS

SYDNEY LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2012

The subject site falls within the Sydney Local Government Area (LGA) and is subject to the Sydney Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2012. Under Section 5.10 of the LEP, development consent is required for the demolition, movement or alteration of heritage items, Aboriginal objects, and any buildings, works, relics or trees within a heritage conservation area. Consent is also required for:

“disturbing or excavating an archaeological site while knowing, or having reasonable cause to suspect, that the disturbance or excavation will or is likely to result in a relic being discovered, exposed, moved, damaged or destroyed” and: “disturbing or excavating an Aboriginal place of heritage significance” The following components of the subject site are listed heritage items in Schedule 5 of the Sydney LEP 2012 and are shown in Figure 3, below:

. ‘Former “Department of Lands” building including interiors, 23-33 Bridge Street, Item No. I1683. . ‘Department of Education building including interiors’, 35-39 Bridge Street, Item No. I1684. . ‘Palm Trees’, Farrer Place, Item No. I1759.

The subject site does not contain any archaeological sites that are specifically listed on the Sydney LEP 2012. However, the sites of both the Lands and Education Buildings have been identified as archaeological items (terrestrial) on the SHI. This listing is based on their inclusion in the Central Sydney Archaeological Zoning Plan (City of Sydney: 1992), as discussed below.

CENTRAL SYDNEY ARCHAEOLOGICAL ZONING PLAN 1992

The Central Sydney Archaeological Zoning Plan was prepared to document the survey and assessment of the archaeological potential of the city of Sydney. Its primary aim is to identify and document the remaining below ground archaeological resource within a specific study area. It identifies areas within central Sydney that are considered to have archaeological potential, and makes an assessment of the level of this potential based on a range of factors including the extent to which the area has been disturbed, and the results of visual inspections of the area.

URBIS SA5469_SANDSTONE_PRECINCT_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT_NOV2014 STATUTORY CONTEXT 9

The sites of both the Lands and Education Buildings are identified in this document as areas of archaeological potential. Specifically, and based on the abovementioned criteria, these sites have been classified as ‘area of archaeological potential/deeper sub-surface features only’ (AAP-DSF). AAP-DSF areas are defined in the document as:

“An allotment of land or feature that has been identified by the field survey as being an area of some archaeological potential, where the most recent building redevelopment would have significantly disturbed or destroyed shallow sub-surface remains, but where there still exists potential for deeper sub-surface features. Examples would include wells, cisterns, former watercourses and their associated historic landfill (such as the Tank Stream), drains, sewers (eg. the Bennelong sewer), tunnels (eg. Busbys’ Bore and Telstra tunnels) and other services (such as former gas works and storage tanks).”

Based on this categorisation, the Archaeological Zoning Plan recommends that:

“Areas of Archaeological Potential / Deeper Sub-surface Features only are also indicated by light grey shading on the field survey plan. The required subsequent research / assessment into all areas of potential will more accurately determine the nature and indeed the existence of the archaeological resource in this category and that of AAP - PD.”

3.4 SUMMARY OF HERITAGE LISTINGS The following table provides an overview of the various heritage listings of the subject site and its components. It should be noted that the listings in the below table refer to built heritage only. No registered Aboriginal archaeological sites are present within the subject site. The sites of Lands and Education Buildings have been identified in the Central Sydney Archaeological zoning plan as having archaeological potential for deeper sub-surface features. The Bennelong SWC No. 29, which is sub- surface, is also located within the subject site underneath Loftus Street.

TABLE 2 – SUMMARY OF HERITAGE LISTINGS FOR THE SUBJECT SITE AND ITS COMPONENTS

BUILDING/ LOCAL LISTING STATE NATIONAL/ WORLD NON-STATUTORY S170 PROPERTY (SYDNEY LEP 2012) LISTING (SHR) LISTING (NHL, CHL, LISTING REGISTER WHL)

Lands Item No. I1683 SHR No. 00744 Not listed RNE Place ID. 1794 Listed Building Identified in the City Included in the draft National Trust No. of Sydney nominated area C6096 Archaeological ‘Colonial Sydney’, Zoning Plan as ‘AAP- currently under review DSF’ for inclusion on the NHL Education Item No. I1684 SHR No. 00726 Not listed RNE Place ID.1793 Listed Building Identified in the City Included in the draft National Trust No. of Sydney nominated area C6097 Archaeological ‘Colonial Sydney’, Zoning Plan as ‘AAP- currently under review DSF’ for inclusion on the NHL Farrer Place Item No. I1759 Not listed Not listed Not listed Not listed Loftus Street Not listed Not listed Not listed Not listed Not listed Gresham Not listed Not listed Not listed Not listed Not listed Street Bennelong Not listed Not listed Not listed Not listed Listed SWC No. 29 (Loftus Street)

URBIS 10 STATUTORY CONTEXT SA5469_SANDSTONE_PRECINCT_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT_NOV2014

FIGURE 3 – SYDNEY LEP 2012 HERITAGE MAP, SHOWING THE SUBJECT SITE (RED BOUNDARY) AND VICINITY ITEMS

[Source: Sydney LEP 2012, Heritage Map No. 14 (HER_014)]

URBIS SA5469_SANDSTONE_PRECINCT_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT_NOV2014 STATUTORY CONTEXT 11

4 Historical Overview

The following historical overview considers both Aboriginal and European history, and discusses the various ways in which the land in and around the subject site was used both before and after settlement. The below information directly informs the assessment of archaeological potential in Section 6, and the assessment of archaeological significance in Section 7.

4.1 ABORIGINAL HISTORY The following section provides an overview of the Aboriginal history relevant to the subject site. It includes a discussion of the environmental context of the subject site, the local Aboriginal population prior to settlement, and the interactions that occurred between the local population and the European colonists following settlement.

4.1.1 ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT Geology and Soils

The subject site is located within the Hawkesbury Sandstone geological formation, which is characterised by medium to coarse-grained sandstone, very minor shale, and laminate lenses. Hawkesbury Sandstone was one of the most ubiquitous geological layers of the Sydney Basin, and was used extensively by both Aboriginal and European people for a variety of shelter and subsistence requirements.

Previous archaeological investigations have revealed various pieces of evidence for the use of the naturally occurring geological resource by local Aboriginal people. This includes stone artefacts, grinding groove sites (where stone tools such as axes were manufactured or maintained by grinding them into areas of exposed sandstone), rock engravings and pigment motifs on exposed sandstone, and occupational deposits (such as shell middens or artefact scatters) within natural sandstone shelter formations.

The subject site falls within the Gymea soil landscape, which comprises soils derived from shale deposits with additional siliceous clays and leached sands along drainage lines. The depth of soil in this landscape is largely dependent on relief, but is typically shallow, and soils are susceptible to sheet erosion when disturbed (Casey & Lowe 2013: 95).

Because of the typically shallow soil depth, as well as the propensity for erosion, Aboriginal archaeological deposits, if present within the subject site, are unlikely to be found in their original context.

Hydrology and Topography

In the earlier years of the colony, the natural drainage catchment within the inner Sydney area was a watercourse called the Tank Stream. The Tank Stream flowed north from a swampy area that stretched between Market and Park Streets, and into the area between the current alignments of Pitt and George Streets. This Stream was the primary source of fresh water for Sydney until the early 1800s, at which time it was replaced; the cumulative effects of washing, rubbish dumping, animal slaughtering and other domestic and commercial activities resulted in the contamination of the water course and its official abandonment as a source of water in 1826.

Topographically, the Gymea soil landscape is characterised by undulating low hills with gentle to moderate slopes and isolated rock outcrops (Casey & Lowe 2013: 95). The subject site, specifically, is located on predominately flat land, which slopes gradually downwards Sydney Cove to the north.

Prior to settlement, Tank Stream would have provided the local Aboriginal population with a permanent and reliable source of fresh water fit for consumption. Additionally, the gentle topography of the subject site and its surrounds means that the area would have been highly suitable for habitation by the local Aboriginal population prior to European settlement.

URBIS 12 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW SA5469_SANDSTONE_PRECINCT_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT_NOV2014

Flora and Fauna

Prior to European settlement, the vegetation community of the inner Sydney region would have comprised dense open woodland, with common flora species being scribbly gums, tea-trees, native honeysuckle, bottlebrush, swamp mahogany, swamp oak and cabbage tree palm.

Typical fauna species likely to have been encountered in the local area prior to settlement would have predominately included woodland species such as wallabies, bandicoots, possums and dingoes. Various species of fish and shellfish would also have been available in Sydney Cove and the foreshore area generally.

In terms of natural resources, an abundance of flora and fauna would have been readily available to the local Aboriginal population.

4.1.2 THE LOCAL ABORIGINAL POPULATION Prior to European settlement, Aboriginal people lived primarily in small family or clan based groups, which were associated with particular areas or places. The area that is now metropolitan Sydney was originally home to over 30 separate clans of between 30 and 50 people collectively known as the ‘Eora’ (or ‘Eora Nation’). The term ‘Eora’ is often used to reference the coastal people of the Sydney area.

The clan known as Gadigal (also spelt Cadigal or Cadi) is a clan of the ‘Eora Nation’, whose traditional lands included the southern side of Port Jackson (Sydney Harbour), from Watsons Bay to Sydney Cove (Kaarskens 2009: 37). The subsistence activities of the Gadigal clan were based primarily on the readily available marine and estuarine resources of Port Jackson. Shellfish, for example, were exploited both as a source of food and for the manufacture of shell tools and implements including fish hooks spear points, and cutting edges (Artefact heritage 2012: 15). Fresh water was readily available in the form of the Tank Stream, and the native flora and fauna of the area would have provided a variety of material and consumable resources.

4.1.3 CONTACT AND SETTLEMENT European settlement of Australia began in 1788 when Governor Phillip established a colony at Sydney Cove, on what had traditionally been Gadigal land. As the subject site is located in close proximity to the site of the first Government House and is closely associated with the early administration of the colony (refer Section 4.2, below), it formed an extremely important part of the landscape of contact and settlement.

The initial reaction of the local Aboriginal people to the arrival of First Fleet was mixed; initially, the local Aboriginal people of Botany Bay were friendly and tried to assist the Europeans to locate water, but when the colonists began to clear vegetation and attempted to modify the landscape, the reaction was clearly negative (Attenbrow 2002: 14). At Sydney Cove, the colonists were largely avoided as they established gardens, erected buildings, and exploited the natural resources of the area.

Governor Phillip was hopeful that the local population would voluntarily visit the settlement and attempt to engage in a friendly dialogue with the colonists. When it became clear that this was unlikely to happen, a young Aboriginal man called Arabanoo was captured and brought to live in the town. He later passed away from what was suspected to be smallpox, but while alive provided the colonists with information about the Aboriginal people and their customs (Attenbrow 2002: 14). Arabanoo, as well as two other Aboriginal people, have previously been identified as being buried somewhere within the grounds of first Government House (Artefact Heritage 2012: 18). This has been registered on the AHIMS as site #45-6- 2299.

Following Arabanoo’s death, two more Aboriginal men, Bennelong and Colbee, were captured, and a significant relationship was formed between Bennelong and Phillip; Bennelong frequently visited Phillip at the first Government House and later travelled with him to England. Based on the positive interactions between Bennelong and Phillip the relationship between the local Aboriginal people and the colonists gradually improved; in the early years of the colony, it was not unusual for Aboriginal people to visit the grounds of first Government House and even camp there, and a number of colonists such as William Dawes and David Collins were able to form positive relationships with Aboriginal people (Attenbrow 2002: 15).

URBIS SA5469_SANDSTONE_PRECINCT_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT_NOV2014 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW 13

However, the colonists continued to exploit the natural resources on which Aboriginal people relied for survival, and the intensity of this exploitation gradually increased. As a consequence, the relationships that Phillip had gone to such pains to establish deteriorated, and serious conflicts began to occur. As resources became more and more scarce, Aboriginal people were reported to have stolen from the colonists, while convicts often stole items from the Aboriginal people, including canoes, spears and other weapons (Attenbrow 2002: 15). Retaliatory attacks also became common.

At the turn of the century and into the early 1800s, Aboriginal people continued to venture into the settlement and still sometimes camped on the grounds of first Government House. As such, it has been recognised that first Government House and its grounds was a ‘central location for interaction between British officers and local Aboriginal people in the early years of the colony, especially during Phillip’s governorship’ (Hinkson 2002: 73). However, the deterioration of the relationship between the locals and the colonists, coupled with increasingly intensive land clearing and development, meant that by the mid- 1800s the area was decidedly European and no longer used for traditional Aboriginal activities or customs.

4.2 EUROPEAN HISTORY The following section provides an overview of the European history relevant to the subject site. It includes a discussion of the phases of development, and describes the various buildings that have been erected and, in some cases, subsequently demolished in and around the subject site.

4.2.1 THE FIRST PERMANENT BUILDINGS – 1788-1810 The general area in which the subject site is located has strong associations with the government of New South Wales. On 29 January 1788, the portable canvas house of Governor Arthur Phillip was erected just to the east of the subject site, and the construction of the first Government House followed soon after. Built in 1789, it was the first permanent building to be erected in the colony and remained in use until 1845 (Figure 4).

FIGURE 4 – VIEW OF THE EAST SIDE OF SYDNEY COVE” BY GEORGE RAPER (UNDATED)

Source: State Library of New South Wales Mitchell Collection

By 1792 and in association with the new Government House, a row of permanent residences with gardens had been built along the western approach to Government House for the Colony’s civil officers.

URBIS 14 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW SA5469_SANDSTONE_PRECINCT_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT_NOV2014

This included the Commissary, Judge-Advocate, Surveyor-General and Chaplain. Figure 5, below, shows the size and demarcation of the row of land parcels.

FIGURE 5 – SKETCH OF THE TOWN OF SYDNEY [1821]. SUBJECT SITE INDICATED BY RED BOUNDARY

Source: State Library of New South Wales, Map Z/M4 811.16/1821/1

The colony of New South Wales was administered from these buildings, which served as both residences and offices, for the 40 or so years following settlement (City Plan Heritage 2014: 17). Streets naturally formed around the early buildings, with the present configuration of Bridge Street, Bligh Street, O’Connell Street and Bent Street having been established as early as 1792. When Governor Macquarie took office in 1810, the surrounding roads were well established and clearly referred to in early mapping (City Plan Heritage 2014: 17).

4.2.2 THE SECOND PHASE OF BUILDING – 1810-1832 Under Governor Macquarie’s instruction in the early 1800s, the area surrounding the subject site was reconfigured in an effort to increase regularity and improve the appearance of the landscape. As part of this general program of public works, the existing street plan was regularised and extended, and a number of public spaces were established.

Macquarie ordered the land in front of the civil officer’s residences to be cleared for use as a public space to be known as ‘Macquarie Place’ (now located on the northern side of Bridge Street, opposite the subject site). These changes were also intended to emphasise the importance and prominence of Government House, including its ground and approaches.

At this time, and in association with Macquarie’s general program of improvements, new buildings were constructed along the western approach to Government House and the original residences were gradually vacated and removed. The new buildings were constructed between 1810 and 1817 and included residences for the then Judge-Advocate Ellis Bent, the Secretary, John Campbell, the Chaplain, Reverend William Cowper, and a Judge, Barron Field. Of these buildings, the Colonial Secretary’s residence (used as the Colonial Secretary’s Office from 1826), Judge-Advocate’s residence (used as the Colonial Secretary’s residence from 1826) and Surveyor General’s Office are shown in historical maps to have been located within the boundaries of the subject site (Figure 6).

URBIS SA5469_SANDSTONE_PRECINCT_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT_NOV2014 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW 15

A 1828 map of the area identifies the Surveyor General’s Office as the ‘Chief Judges House’, indicating that this building may have been used for more than one purpose (Figure 7).

FIGURE 6 – MAP OF SYDNEY, 1844. SUBJECT SITE INDICATED BY RED BOUNDARY.

Source: City of Sydney Archives, Historical Atlas of Sydney, ‘Francis Webb Shield’s Plan of Sydney, 1844’

FIGURE 7 – PLAN OF MACQUARIE PLACE, 1828

Macquarie Place

Chief Judge’s House/ Surveyor General’s Office Colonial Secretary’s residence (later Office)

Judge-Advocate’s residence (later Guardhouse Colonial Secretary’s house)

Source: Broadbent, J., 1997, Plate 3.12

URBIS 16 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW SA5469_SANDSTONE_PRECINCT_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT_NOV2014

A new guard house was also constructed to the immediate west of Government House between 1810 and 1812, underneath the present orientation of Young Street and to the immediate east of the subject site (Figure 8).

By 1832 it was no longer considered beneficial to provide official residences for civil officers (City Plan Heritage 2014: 18). The western row of residences/office was therefore gradually vacated, but continued to be used as government offices (Figure 9).

FIGURE 8 – VIEW OF THE MACQUARIE-ERA BUILDINGS, 1821

Colonial Secretary’s residence

First Government Guardhouse House

Source: Proudfoot, H., et al, 1991: 4

FIGURE 9 – ‘SYDNEY FROM THE DOMAIN NEAR GOVERNMENT HOUSE’, 1829, SHOWING THE MACQUARIE-ERA BUILDINGS

Guardhouse

Colonial Secretary’s residence

Judge-Advocate’s residence

Surveyor General’s Office

Source: Broadbent, J., 1997, Plate 3.11

URBIS SA5469_SANDSTONE_PRECINCT_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT_NOV2014 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW 17

In 1826 and following the arrival of the new Colonial Secretary, Alexander Macleay, the Judge-Advocate’s residence was altered and extended to accommodate Macleay’s family, and the Colonial Secretary’s house, located to the immediate east, was converted for use as his office (Figure 10).

FIGURE 10 – THE FORMER JUDGE-ADVOCATE’S RESIDENCE, BY THIS TIME USED AS THE COLONIAL SECRETARY’S RESIDENCE, 1829

Source: Broadbent, J., 1997, Plate 3.11

4.2.3 THE NEW GOVERNMENT HOUSE AND CHANGING USES – 1845-1876 The mid-1800s saw an intensive period of public works, and a re-configuration of the area surrounding the subject site. To make way for proposed new streets, and as part of a wider program of public works, a new Government House was constructed to the east of the subject site in the Domain; the first Government House was vacated and gradually removed c. 1845. A number of existing streets were extended, and new streets established (Figure 11).

The Judge-Advocate’s house, which was by that time being used as the Colonial Secretary’s residence, was demolished as part of these works to make way for the construction of Loftus Street (originally known as Castlereagh Street North). Also demolished was the original guard house (c. 1810) to the west of the first Government House site, which was abandoned in favour of a new guard house in Macquarie Street. The original guard house was subsequently deconstructed, and its materials sold.

URBIS 18 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW SA5469_SANDSTONE_PRECINCT_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT_NOV2014

FIGURE 11 – THE EXTENSION OF LOFTUS STREET (ORIGINALLY CASTLEREAGH STREET NORTH) TO THE NEW SEMI CIRCULAR QUAY DRAWN IN 1842 (APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF THE SUBJECT SITE INDICATED)

Department of Public Instruction Survey Office

Colonial Secretary’s residence (former Judge-Advocate’s residence

Source: Mitchell Library Map M2 811.1722/1842?/1w)

FIGURE 12 – MAP OF SYDNEY, 1855. SUBJECT SITE INDICATED BY RED BOUNDARY. BUILDING 13 IS LABELLED THE SURVEYOR GENERAL’S OFFICE, AND BUILDING 14 IS LABELLED AS THE ‘COLONIAL SECRETARY’S OFFICE’. THE COLONIAL SECRETARY’S RESIDENCE (FORMER JUDGE-ADVOCATE’S RESIDENCE) IS NO LONGER PRESENT

Source: City of Sydney Archives, Historical Atlas of Sydney, ‘Smith and Gardiner’s Map of Sydney, 1855’

URBIS SA5469_SANDSTONE_PRECINCT_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT_NOV2014 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW 19

The Colonial Secretary’s office survived these changes, along with several outbuildings. These buildings, now surrounded by new streets including Gresham Street, Loftus Street, and Young Street, were enclosed with a new boundary wall and were variously modified and extended over the next several decades (Figure 13).

FIGURE 13 – THE COLONIAL SECRETARY’S OFFICE, 1871

Source: Broadbent, J., 1997, Unknown Plate Reference

Although they were set well back from Bridge Street, the surviving Macquarie-era buildings were by that time at odd angles with the new streets, and had become ‘hemmed in’ (City Plan Heritage 2014:21).

FIGURE 14 – ‘BRIDGE STREET LOOKING TOWARDS GEORGE STREET’, C 1870. COLONIAL SECRETARY’S OFFICE INDICATED BY ARROW

Source: State Library of NSW, File SPF/515

URBIS 20 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW SA5469_SANDSTONE_PRECINCT_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT_NOV2014

4.2.4 THE LANDS BUILDING – 1876-1893 As the size of the government departments operating out of Bridge Street continued to grow throughout the mid-1800s, the need for additional premises became increasingly recognised. In 1876, plans were prepared for a building to house the Department of Lands, which had separated from the Department of Public Works less than ten years prior. The new building, later known as the ‘Lands Building’, was to be erected on the southern side of Bridge Street, in between Gresham Street to the west and Loftus Street to the east.

Excavation at the site commenced in June 1867, and the foundation stone was laid in October of that same year (Government Architect’s Office 2014: 19). The building was constructed between 1867 and 1885, and represented only the first stage of a two stage building program. It occupied only the northern half of the block, while a number of Macquarie-era buildings were retained to the rear (south). This is shown on the Dove’s Plan of Sydney, 1880, with the buildings to the rear of the ‘New Lands Office’ shown as still being present at this time, and labelled as ‘Lands Department Offices’ (Figure 15).

FIGURE 15 – DOVE’S PLAN OF SYDNEY, BLOCK_9_10_11_12_13, 1880 (APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF THE SUBJECT SITE INDICATED)

Source: City of Sydney Historical Atlas, Dove’s Plan of Sydney 1880’

By the mid-1880s the second stage of building had become necessary in order for the growing department to be adequately accommodated. In May 1888 the demolition of the 90-year-old Macquarie- era buildings to the rear of the block had commenced, and this was followed by the general excavation of the site in preparation for construction in June. The second half of the building hard largely been completed by 1893, though minor works continued to be undertaken until 1896 (Government Architect’s Office 2014: 24) (Figure 16 and Figure 17).

URBIS SA5469_SANDSTONE_PRECINCT_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT_NOV2014 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW 21

FIGURE 16 – VIEW OF THE LANDS OFFICE AND BRIDGE STREET, CA. 1894

Source: National Library of Australia nla.pic-an3366506-s67-a1-v

The building originally featured a carriage entrance on Gresham Street, and an associated carriage loop that was demarcated with plinth bollards at the corners of the carriage entrance as well as along the length of the carriageway. It was noted in the 2014 CMP for the building (Government Architect’s Office 2014: 44) that evidence of the original carriageway paving remains in parts of the driveway accessible off Gresham Street and in the building’s open courtyards. These courtyards were originally connected to the vehicle entrance/loading dock as part of an internal drive loop (Government Architect’s Office 2014: 153).

In addition to this, a “moat” structure or sub-street level tunnel is located at ground floor level and outside of the external walls of the building on all sides. It extends the full length of the building beneath the Loftus and Bent Street pavements and for at least half the length of Bridge and Gresham Street pavements. It is a continuous semi‐vaulted tunnel section broken by brick transom ribs, and varies in height from five metres to crawl space. This “moat” was developed by the building’s designer to control water and ventilation issues for the structure (Government Architect’s Office 2014: 175).

Since its initial construction, the building has been subject to a range of modernisation and restoration works including various additions and repairs. A detailed discussion of these works is provided separately in the CMP for the building, prepared by the Government Architect’s Office (2014).

URBIS 22 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW SA5469_SANDSTONE_PRECINCT_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT_NOV2014

FIGURE 17 – MAP OF SYDNEY, 1903. SUBJECT SITE INDICATED BY RED BOUNDARY.

Source: City of Sydney Archives, Historical Atlas of Sydney, ‘1903 City of Sydney’

4.2.5 THE EDUCATION BUILDING – 1912-1930 While the Lands Building was being constructed to the west, the Colonial Secretary’s offices continued to be used as offices until 1880 when it was taken over for use by the newly established Department of Public Instruction (Figure 18 and Figure 19).

FIGURE 18 – VIEW OF THE SURVEY OFFICE, SYDNEY, 1871, LATER USED AS OFFICES FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION

Source: State Library of NSW, File SPF/324

URBIS SA5469_SANDSTONE_PRECINCT_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT_NOV2014 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW 23

FIGURE 19 – MAP OF SYDNEY, 1884. SUBJECT SITE INDICATED BY RED BOUNDARY. COLONIAL SECRETARY’S OFFICE NOW IDENTIFIED AS ‘DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION’

Source: State Library of New South Wales, Metropolitan Map of Sydney 1884, Section 49

As this department grew, it again became clear that larger premises were required; between 1912 and 1915, a new building was constructed for the Department of Public Instruction to the north of the former Colonial Secretary’s house (Figure 20). It was bounded by Bridge Street to the north, Loftus Street to the west and Young Street to the east, and was located to the east of the then almost 40-year-old Lands Building. Older buildings were retained to the rear of the block.

As was also the case with the Lands Building, the Education Building was constructed in two stages, the first having been completed by 1915. In 1916 the former Colonial Secretary’s office (used as offices for the Department of Public Instruction from 1880 onwards) was demolished, and the foundations were laid for the construction of the second half of what is now known as the Education Building, which was used by the Department of Agriculture and known then as the Department of Agriculture Offices. Work was subsequently suspended in 1917, and was not resumed until 1929. Following the removal of the 1917 foundations, work continued and was completed by 1930 (City Plan Heritage 2014: 95) (Figure 21).

Like the Lands Building, the Education Building has been subject to a range of modernisation and restoration works including various additions and repairs. A detailed discussion of these works is provided separately in the CMP for the building, prepared by City Plan Heritage (2014).

URBIS 24 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW SA5469_SANDSTONE_PRECINCT_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT_NOV2014

FIGURE 20 – VIEW OF THE REAR OF THE NEW DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OFFICES (EDUCATION BUILDING), 1915, SHOWING OLDER BUILDINGS RETAINED ON THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE BLOCK

Source: State Library of New South Wales, Government Printing Office 1-16344, St5728

FIGURE 21 – CIVIC SURVEY, SYDNEY, 1948. SUBJECT SITE INDICATED BY RED BOUNDARY

Source: City of Sydney Archives, Historical Atlas of Sydney, ‘Civic Survey, 1938-1950’

URBIS SA5469_SANDSTONE_PRECINCT_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT_NOV2014 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW 25

4.2.6 THE ‘ADMINISTRATION PRECINCT’ Following the completion of the Education Building, Bridge Street was re-confirmed as the locus of administration and government, a use which had been established in the late 1700s. Other significant government-owned buildings located in the vicinity and contemporary with the Lands and Education Buildings included the Royal Exchange of Sydney, Bridge Street Chambers, Chief Secretary’s Building, and Treasury Building (Figure 22).

These last two buildings were located to the east of the subject site with their principal elevations facing onto Macquarie Street, effectively marking the entrance to Bridge Street.

FIGURE 22 – VIEW OF BRIDGE STREET FACING EAST, C.1906

Source: City of Sydney Archives, Archive Pix, File 006/006042

4.2.7 FARRER PLACE, GRESHAM STREET AND LOFTUS STREET Farrer Place

Farrer Place is believed to have originally been the site of a natural spring or ‘fountain’. This spring was mentioned when Governor Macquarie named and defined Bent Street in 1810, and in 1812 the identified water source had been channelled into a stone fountain built by Isaac Peyton. The location of ‘fountains’ to the rear of the Colonial Secretary’s residence was identified on a plan of Sydney dated 1822 (City Plan Heritage 2014: 177).

Following the demolition of first Government House and the undertaking of associated public works, the open area around the fountain became known as ‘Fountain Street’, rather than being included as part of Bent Street. The triangular area was dedicated as a reserve for public recreation in 1866, and by 1880 the name ‘Raphael Street’ replaced Fountain Street.

URBIS 26 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW SA5469_SANDSTONE_PRECINCT_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT_NOV2014

George Raphael, a businessman, alderman of the City of Sydney, politician and philanthropist, had, according to his daughter, been one of the first to build in the locality and his buildings were still standing in 1935. These were presumably the two houses on the east side of Young Street built in 1866 and 1877, which faced the reserve (City Plan Heritage 2014: 178) (Figure 23).

FIGURE 23 – ‘BIRDS-EYE VIEW OF SYDNEY’, 1888, SUBJECT SITE INDICATED BY RED BOUNDARY WITH FARRER PLACE SHOWN AS AN AREA OF PUBLIC RESERVE

Source: City of Sydney Archives, Historical Atlas of Sydney

In 1892 the reserve became part of the road, but by about 1910-1911 the stone fountain had been dismantled to make room for the electric tramway along Bent Street. The reserve was again ‘constructed in the form of a plantation’ and was amply planted with palm trees. The area was renamed ‘Farrer Place’ in 1935 at the suggestion of the then Minister for Agriculture; William Farrer was a famous name in Australian agriculture for developing a wheat variety that was resistant to rust (City Plan Heritage 2014: 178).

The area has since been maintained as an open public space, and has been subject to various landscaping and maintenance works over time.

URBIS SA5469_SANDSTONE_PRECINCT_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT_NOV2014 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW 27

FIGURE 24 – AERIAL VIEW OF FARRER PLACE [UNDATED]

Source: City of Sydney Archives, Archive Pix, File 032/032021

Gresham Street and Loftus Street

Both Gresham and Loftus Streets were established as part of a wider program of public works in the mid- 1800s. Significantly, the Judge-Advocates residence, constructed c. 1810 and later used as the Colonial Secretary’s house, was demolished to make way for the construction of Loftus Street in 1845.

The Bennelong Storm Water Channel No. 29

Following the formation of the City Council in 1842 and the fouling of the Tank Stream, it was determined that combined sewers needed to be constructed to take the place of polluted surface streams. Around 1857 the construction of five combined sewers commenced in order to dispose of the city's stormwater and sewage into the Harbour. Bennelong sewer was the main sewer of the five, as it was built to service the Sydney CBD. The majority of the sewer was completed in 1856 with the exception of the Pitt Street Branch, which was completed in 1857.

4.3 LAND USES AND DISTURBANCE The subject site is situated on land that is located within the Sydney central business district (CBD); it has therefore been subject to intensive development and continued use; consequently, the general area has been subject to varying levels of disturbance. The historical overview provided in Section 4.2, above,

URBIS 28 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW SA5469_SANDSTONE_PRECINCT_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT_NOV2014

details the various phases of development and occupation that have occurred in and around the subject site specifically since the time of settlement.

In addition to general vegetation clearance, the subject site has been subject to the following land uses and causes of disturbance:

. Site clearance to build the civil officers’ houses c. 1810-1813; . Demolition of the Judge-Advocate’s house (used also as the Colonial Secretary’s house) to lay out new streets c. 1845; . The construction of the two stages of the Lands Building, c. 1876-1893; . The construction of a cottage for the Department of Public Instruction offices on the west side of the Education Building site, c. mid 1880s; . The construction of the Education Building adjacent to Bridge Street in 1912-1915; . The demolition of the former Colonial Secretary’s offices to the south of the Education Building in 1916; . The construction of footings for the Department of Agriculture offices to the south of the Education Building in 1916-1917; . The subsequent removal of these footings and eventual construction of the Department of Agriculture offices in 1929-1930; . Excavation in the early 1970s for the new lift shaft to the rear of the Bridge Street wing of the Education Building and oil pit in the centre of the courtyard; . Excavation of footings for four columns for the new atrium within the courtyard 6f the Education Building in 1995.

It has previously been assessed that the construction of both the Lands and Education Buildings would have caused extensive sub-surface disturbance which, in some areas, may have completely destroyed and/or removed any potential archaeological deposits related to earlier phases of occupation.

Both of the buildings are constructed on a significant slope; within the Education Building alone, there is a 4.5 metre difference in level between the southeast and northwest corners of the building. Consequently, the Bridge Street elevation of the building is located at ground level, while the Farrer Place elevation sits approximately 2.5 metres below ground level. On the east-west axis, at a point through the centre of the building’s courtyard, the depth of the basement excavation below ground level is approximately 3.3 metres at the Young Street elevation, 1.45 metres in the centre of the courtyard, and at ground level at the Loftus Street elevation (City Plan Heritage 2014: 97).

The Lands Building was similarly constructed to accommodate the original topography of the site. However, as it is located down slope of the Education Building, an equivalent level of excavation was not required. On its western side, the building is relatively level with the natural ground surface, while its eastern (Loftus Street) elevation has been excavated to an approximate depth of between one to two metres.

In addition to this, and as seen at the first Government House site, as part of the natural topography of the area, soils are typically shallow and bedrock tends to be encountered quite close to the ground surface level. Due to the gradient of the slope that extends along Bridge Street, both the Lands and Education Buildings were constructed with partially exposed basements on some sides. Moreover, the historical record contains reference to the excavation of ‘the rock’ to enable the construction of the Lands Building specifically (Thorp 1996: 29), and it is likely that this was also the case for the construction of the adjacent Education Building.

URBIS SA5469_SANDSTONE_PRECINCT_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT_NOV2014 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW 29

5 Site Inspection

A site inspection was conducted by Urbis heritage consultants on 11 November 2014. This included the Gresham and Bridge Street streetscapes, Farrer Place, and both the Lands and Education Buildings. The interiors of the Lands and Education Buildings were also inspected, though a number of floors and spaces were not able to be accessed.

The following photographs provide an overview of the physical properties and appearance of the subject site and its components as they were at the time of inspection. As the following photographs show, several archaeological features associated with the Lands Building were identified on site, including potential original/early paving and bollards associated with an early carriage loop, as well as an early “moat” structure that extends the full length of the building at beneath the Loftus and Bent Street pavements, and at least half the length of the Bridge and Gresham Street pavements.

PICTURE 1 –VIEW OF THE SUBJECT SITE FROM BRIDGE PICTURE 2 – VIEW OF THE LANDS BUILDING, FACING STREET, SHOWING THE LANDS (RIGHT OF NORTH WEST FROM BENT STREET FRAME) AND EDUCATION (LEFT OF FRAME) BUILDINGS

PICTURE 3 – VIEW OF THE EDUCATION BUILDING PICTURE 4 – VIEW OF THE NORTHERN (BRIDGE FACING SOUTHWEST, WITH THE MUSEUM STREET) ELEVATION OF THE LANDS OF SYDNEY (FIRST GOVERNMENT HOUSE BUILDING SHOWING THE GRADIENT OF THE SITE) VISIBLE IN THE LOWER LEFT CORNER SLOPE OF FRAME

URBIS 30 SITE INSPECTION SA5469_SANDSTONE_PRECINCT_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT_NOV2014

PICTURE 5 – VIEW OF THE NORTHERN (BRIDGE PICTURE 6 – VIEW OF FARRER PLACE, FACING EAST STREET) ELEVATION OF THE EDUCATION BUILDING SHOWING THE GRADIENT OF THE SLOPE

PICTURE 7 –VIEW OF THE SOUTHERN ELEVATION OF PICTURE 8 – VIEW OF LOFTUS STREET, FACING NORTH THE EDUCATION BUILDING FROM FARRER PLACE, SHOWING THE GRADIENT OF THE SLOPE

PICTURE 9 – VIEW OF GRESHAM STREET FACING PICTURE 10 – VIEW OF WORKS ALONG GRESHAM SOUTH STREET

URBIS SA5469_SANDSTONE_PRECINCT_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT_NOV2014 SITE INSPECTION 31

PICTURE 11 – VIEW OF THE LANDS BUILDING CAR PARK PICTURE 12 – VIEW OF THE BOLLARDS ASSOCIATED SHOWING THE DEPTH BELOW STREET WITH THE CARRIAGE WAY THAT LEVEL (INDICATED BY THE WINDOWS IN ORIGINALLY EXTENDED THROUGH THE SITE CENTRE OF FRAME) OF THE LANDS BUILDING

PICTURE 13 – VIEW OF THE BOLLARDS ASSOCIATED PICTURE 14 – VIEW OF A PORTION OF THE WITH THE CARRIAGE WAY THAT COURTYARD OF THE LANDS BUILDING ORIGINALLY EXTENDED THROUGH THE SITE OF THE LANDS BUILDING. THE BOLLARDS HAVE BEEN BUILT IN TO THE WALL

PICTURE 15 – VIEW OF THE GRESHAM STREET PICTURE 16 – VIEW OF POTENTIAL ORIGINAL/ EARLY CARRIAGE ENTRANCE SHOWING THE PAVING ASSOCIATED WITH THE CARRIAGE PLINTH BOLLARDS LOOP, LOCATED IN THE LANDS BUILDING (SOURCE: GOOGLE MAPS 2014) CAR PARK

URBIS 32 SITE INSPECTION SA5469_SANDSTONE_PRECINCT_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT_NOV2014

PICTURE 17 – VIEW OF THE LANDS BUILDING PICTURE 18 – VIEW OF THE MOAT THAT EXTENDS COURTYARD FROM AN UPPER FLOOR ALONG THE WESTERN SIDE OF THE LANDS BUILDING

PICTURE 19 – VIEW OF CEILING OF THE MOAT, PICTURE 20 – VIEW OF THE CENTRAL ATRIUM OF THE SHOWING THE UNDERSIDE OF THE GRATE EDUCATION BUILDING ON GRESHAM STREET (LANDS BUILDING)

PICTURE 21 – VIEW OF THE CENTRAL ATRIUM OF THE EDUCATION BUILDING

URBIS SA5469_SANDSTONE_PRECINCT_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT_NOV2014 SITE INSPECTION 33

6 Archaeological Potential

The following section provides a discussion and assessment of the archaeological potential of the subject site. Both the historical and Aboriginal archaeological potential is considered. The term ‘archaeological potential’ may be defined as the extent to which a site may contribute knowledge not available from other sources, to current themes in historical archaeology and related disciplines. An assessment of archaeological potential usually considers the historic sequence of occupation in comparison to the structures which are extant, and the impact that more recent construction and works would have had on the earlier occupation phases.

6.1 METHODOLOGY Documentary research has been undertaken to identify former structures that were located within the subject site, and to understand the location and degree of disturbance that has occurred in and around the subject site since the time of settlement. A visual inspection of the subject site was undertaken on 11 November 2014 to further inform the desktop assessment and identify any areas where archaeological deposits/remains could potentially survive beneath the ground surface. A photographic record was kept, with photographs taken of significant features of the built and natural landscape.

6.2 HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL In regards to the present archaeological assessment of the subject site, the historical archaeological potential depends upon the anticipated likelihood for buried structural fabric and cultural deposits and an estimation of archaeological integrity. Structural fabric refers to what is generally regarded as building or civil engineering remnants. Cultural deposits refer to archaeological deposits, i.e. deposited sediments containing artefacts etc.

6.2.1 STRUCTURAL FABRIC Sub-Surface Structural Elements/Features Associated with Extant Buildings

Both the Lands and Education Buildings have been wholly retained on site. It is therefore considered that there is a high degree of archaeological potential for sub-surface structural elements/features associated with these buildings to be present within the subject site in the form of building footings, drainage features and underground building services. Potential building services may include original piping networks, which are likely to be of terracotta, lead or cast-iron construction.

In the case of the Lands Building, specifically, additional sub-surface features/elements known to be on site include the sections of paving identified in the CMP for the building as being original and associated with the carriage loop (Government Architect’s Office 2014: 153) and the “moat” structure.

Sections of original paving were identified in the CMP as being located within the building’s car park, accessible via Gresham Street, and in the building’s open courtyards. This paving and the associated plinth bollards are considered to be archaeological features, are known to be on site, and were observed during the visual inspection of the building.

The “moat” structure is located at ground floor level and outside of the external walls of the building on all sides, extending the full length of the building beneath the Loftus and Bent Street pavements and for at least half the length of Bridge and Gresham Street pavements (Government Architect’s Office 2014: 175). This “moat”, which is representative of early design innovations, is considered to be an archaeological feature, is known to be on site, and was observed during the visual inspection of the building.

Sub-Surface Structural Elements/Features Associated with Earlier Phases of Occupation

Historical research into the subject site has shown that a number of buildings representing several phases of occupation were previously present at the subject site (refer Section 4.2, above). The earliest of these buildings were constructed c. 1789 and were closely associated with the first Government House and the early administration of the colony. They were also the first permanent buildings to be constructed in Sydney.

URBIS 34 ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL SA5469_SANDSTONE_PRECINCT_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT_NOV2014

Previous assessments of the archaeological potential of the Lands and Education Buildings have identified that these early buildings are unlikely to have had substantial foundations, and are therefore unlikely to have survived the various phases of development that have occurred in and around the subject site (Thorp 1996: 29). Early descriptions of these buildings as ‘miserable’, ‘insignificant’ and ‘mean, narrow and shabby’ confirms this (Broadbent 1997: 34). Additionally, the precise location of these early buildings is not known.

In addition to this, and as seen at the first Government House site, as part of the natural topography of the area, soils are typically shallow and bedrock tends to be encountered quite close to the ground surface level. Due to the gradient of the slope that extends along Bridge Street (discussed above), both the Lands and Education Buildings were constructed with partially exposed basements on some sides. Moreover, the historical record contains reference to the excavation of ‘the rock’ to enable the construction of the Lands Building specifically (Thorp 1996: 29), and it is likely that this was also the case for the construction of the adjacent Education Building.

It is therefore considered that there is a low degree of archaeological potential for sub-surface structural elements/features associated with the earliest phase of occupation to be present at the subject site. This may include building footings, floorings, drainage channels/cavities, wells, and cisterns. If present, remains of this nature are most likely to be uncovered in areas that have been subject to the least amount of sub-surface disturbance including roads, pavements, and open public spaces.

The second phase of building, c.1810-1812, saw the construction of more substantial buildings including the Judge-Advocate’s residence (later used as the Colonial-Secretary’s house) and the Colonial Secretary’s residence (later used as the Colonial Secretary’s Office). The Judge-Advocate’s residence was demolished to make way for the construction of Loftus Street in 1845, while the Colonial Secretary’s residence was demolished to make way for the construction of the second stage of the Education Building in 1915.

As more substantial buildings from a slightly later period, there is a greater likelihood for structural remains associated with the Macquarie-era Judge-Advocate’s residence (later used as the Colonial- Secretary’s house) (c.1810-1845) and Colonial Secretary’s residence (later the Colonial Secretary’s Office) (c.1810-1915) to have survived on site over time. Based on historical research, the Judge- Advocate’s residence was originally located underneath Loftus Street and outside of the construction footprint of both the Lands and Education Buildings (Figure 25). Similarly, the Colonial Secretary’s residence appears to have been located in the centre of the Education Building, in what is now the central atrium (Figure 25). The precise location and extent of the footprints of the buildings is not known.

As these areas have been subject to relatively minimal sub-surface disturbance in the form of shallow excavation and the laying of asphalt, is considered that the construction of the Lands and Education Buildings, as well as subsequent phases of development that have occurred in the area generally, are unlikely to have significantly disturbed the structural remains of the two Macquarie-era buildings. Excavations of the guardhouse in Young Street have shown that there is potential for the structural elements of buildings from that period to survive underneath the road surface. Footings and structural elements associated with the guardhouse were uncovered at various depths (from 0.5 metres to two metres), depending on the nature of the structure/feature (Crook & Murray 2006: 56).

It is noted, however, that historical mapping is inherently subject to inaccuracies, and the location of these buildings as they appear on early maps may not be completely accurate. Despite this, there is still a significant likelihood for at least the partial remains of both buildings to be present on site.

It is therefore considered that there is a high degree of archaeological potential for sub-surface structural remains associated with the Macquarie-era Judge-Advocate’s residence (later used as the Colonial- Secretary’s house) to be present on site underneath Loftus Street. However, these remains may have been subject to disturbance associated with the installation of the Bennelong SWC No. 29.

It is also considered that there is a high degree of archaeological potential for sub-surface structural remains associated with the Macquarie-era Colonial Secretary’s residence (later used as the Colonial- Secretary’s Office) to be at least partially present on site within the central atrium of the Education Building. The construction of the Education Building is likely to have at least partially disturbed these remains, though there is still a high degree of potential for portions of the building footings or other structural elements to be present.

URBIS SA5469_SANDSTONE_PRECINCT_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT_NOV2014 ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL 35

The majority of other Macquarie-era phase buildings, such as the Surveyor General’s Office, were originally located in areas that have since been subject to extensive sub-surface disturbance associated with the construction of the Lands and Education Buildings. However, the exact location of these buildings is not known.

It is therefore considered that there is a low degree of archaeological potential for sub-surface structural remains associated with other Macquarie-era buildings to be present on site.

Figure 25, below, shows the location of buildings from the Macquarie-era in relation to the subject site. The Judge-Advocate’s residence is clearly visible in the centre of Loftus Street, while the Colonial Secretary’s residence is shown in the centre of the Education Building.

FIGURE 25 – POTENTIAL IMPACT MAP – BOUNDARY OF THE SUBJECT SITE AND EXISTING BUILDINGS OVERLAID ON THE HARPER’S MAP, C. 1842

Education Building

Lands Building

[Source: Harper’s 1842 Map of Sydney]

Bennelong SWC No. 29

A section of the Bennelong SWC No. 29 is located within the subject site, beneath Loftus Street. The construction of the channel in 1856 may have resulted in some disturbance to the remains of the Judge- Advocate’s residence, which is also likely to be located beneath Loftus Street.

6.2.2 CULTURAL DEPOSITS Cultural deposits, or archaeological deposits, are sub-surface deposited sediments that contain artefactual material associated with the occupation or use of a site. Cultural deposits are typically deposited within sediment, which is matter that has been deposited by natural process over time.

URBIS 36 ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL SA5469_SANDSTONE_PRECINCT_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT_NOV2014

The subject site in its entirety has been intensively used since the time of settlement; it was a locus for the early administration of the colony, and was the site of some of the earliest permanent buildings in Sydney, which functioned as both offices and residences for civil officers and their families. The area has been subject to multiple phases of occupation since the late 1700s.

In the first phase of occupation in the late 1700s, much of the subject site comprised open, vacant land. Several buildings were constructed from 1789 onwards for the colony’s civil officers, and the surrounding area was primarily used as grounds, gardens and recreational areas associated with the inhabitants of these buildings and their families. As the area became increasingly developed, particularly during the Macquarie-era, this general use of the land was maintained. The intensity of the public use of the area increased as the Bridge Street became increasingly associated with administration and government.

Previous historical excavations undertaken in the vicinity of the subject site, including those of first Government House to the east and the site of the guardhouse uncovered underneath Young Street, also to the east, revealed the presence of ‘artefact-rich’ deposits associated with the former buildings (Crook & Murray: 2006: 18). These deposits contained a range of material, primarily described as ‘household refuse and building debris (Crook & Murray 2006: 63), and included serving ware (plates, bowls, cups, jugs, pots, serving dishes), glassware, clay smoking pipes, pottery, drinking vessels, meat cuts, pieces of timber and nails. The depths at which these kind of cultural deposits were uncovered depended both on the extent to which the area had been disturbed, and the nature of the deposit. Refuse/rubbish pits, for example, were located at a greater depth than underfloor deposits.

As cultural deposits are essentially deposited into sediment, their context and content are rarely secure. As such, areas that have been subject to sub-surface disturbance are unlikely to contain in situ cultural deposits. If present, archaeological material recovered from disturbed areas is likely to lack context, be fragmented, and be difficult to associate with a specific building, person/group of people, and precise period.

Given the intensity with which the subject site was previously used, and the maintenance of large portions of the subject site as grounds or open areas associated with the early administration and government buildings, it is considered that there is a low degree of archaeological potential for sub-surface cultural deposits associated with the earlier phases of occupation to be present on site. If present, such deposits are more likely to be located in areas that have not been subject to sub-surface disturbance or that have been subject to minimal sub-surface disturbance.

6.3 ABORIGINAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL The Aboriginal archaeological potential of the subject site depends upon the anticipated likelihood for archaeological deposits and an estimation of archaeological integrity. In terms of Aboriginal archaeology, ‘archaeological deposits’ refer to deposited sediments containing artefacts etc.

6.3.1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT A search of the AHIMS has shown that there are no recorded Aboriginal sites or places located in or within 50 metres of the subject site. The closest AHIMS registered site, a ‘Burial/s, Historic Place’ is located approximately 80 metres to the south of the subject site at its closest point. This site is registered as ‘First Government House’, and was recorded in 1991 to reflect the significance of the site of first Government House for Aboriginal people based on the identification of the first Government House grounds as the location of Aboriginal burials (Artefact Heritage 2012: 11).

Although the registered co-ordinates for site #45-6-2299 place it to the south of Farrer Place, it has previously been noted that the site details suggest that the recording refers to the entirety of the first Government House site (including the grounds); the actual location of this site is therefore likely to be located to the immediate east of the subject site, and in the vicinity of the first Government House archaeological site and Museum of Sydney. In addition to this, and as part of the archaeological excavation of the first Government House undertaken between 1983 and 1992, a number of Aboriginal artefacts, including both stone and worked glass artefacts, were recovered (Crook & Murray: 2006).

Two other sites are also located in the vicinity of the subject site. AHIMS site #45-6-2581 is recorded as an artefact scatter, and is located approximately 360 metres to the south of the subject site at its closest point. The site was identified during an historical archaeological excavation at Angel Place. A total of 54

URBIS SA5469_SANDSTONE_PRECINCT_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT_NOV2014 ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL 37

stone artefacts were recorded within an area of surviving topography bordering the Tank Stream. This area was approximately 4m² in size and had been subject to extensive disturbance (Artefact Heritage 2012: 11).

The recovered artefacts were predominately manufactured from silicified raw tuff, though mudstone, silcrete and quartz were also represented within the assemblage. Based on the distribution of the artefacts, it was considered likely that the assemblage was reflective of the repetitive occupation of the banks of the natural water course by Aboriginal people (Artefact Heritage 2012: 11).

The second site, AHIMS site #45-6-2796, is recorded as a ‘potential archaeological deposit’ (PAD), and is located 320-328 George Street, approximately 500 metres to the southwest of the subject site at its closest point.

6.3.2 IMPACTS OF DISTURBANCE ON ABORIGINAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL DEPOSITS Relatively few Aboriginal archaeological sites have been recorded within inner Sydney, particularly when compared to the frequency of sites that have been registered across the north shore of Port Jackson. This is more likely to be reflective of the limited survivability of the archaeological record within inner Sydney, rather than a pattern of preferential land-use by the local Aboriginal population.

Inner Sydney, and particularly the area in and around the subject site, has been subject to extensive development from the time of settlement onwards. Registered AHIMS sites within inner Sydney tend to contain archaeological deposits that were uncovered underneath early buildings. AHIMS site #45-6-2629, located on William Street, provides an example of this. At this site, footings associated with the earliest phase of construction had effectively protected an archaeological deposit from the impacts of disturbance associated with later phases of construction and demolition (Artefact Heritage 2012: 39).

Overall, the survivability of Aboriginal archaeological deposits is largely dependent on the extent to which an area has been subject to development, and the nature and scale of that development. For example, where excavation associated with the construction of basement levels has occurred, there is very little to no potential for intact archaeological deposits to be present.

6.3.3 ASSESSMENT OF ABORIGINAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL Although it is not clearly reflected in the AHIMS search results, Aboriginal archaeological material has been recovered in proximity to the subject site at the site of first Government House, which is located less than 50 metres to the east of the subject site. As these artefacts were salvaged as part of previous excavations, they do not appear on the AHIMS. In addition to this, the first Government House site has previously been identified as the likely site for several Aboriginal burials, including that of Arabanoo. The grounds of first Government House, which abut the subject site on the eastern side, are also known to have been frequented by Aboriginal people both before and after settlement.

Given the known use of the subject by the local Aboriginal population prior to and immediately following settlement, and the proximity of the subject site to the site of first Government House, there is potential for artefactual material to have been deposited on site. In areas that have not been subject to sub-surface disturbance at a relatively shallow level such as Farrer Place, Loftus Street, Gresham Street and pavements associated with the Lands and Education Buildings, there is a low degree of archaeological potential for Aboriginal archaeological material to be present.

In areas that have been subject to sub-surface disturbance at a greater depth, such as the building footprints of the Lands and Education Buildings, there is no potential for Aboriginal archaeological material to be present.

The survival of Aboriginal archaeological deposits is rare in inner Sydney. Sites that have been identified have tended to be recovered from disturbed contexts. Though it is possible for early building foundations to ‘protect’ Aboriginal archaeological deposits, this is not considered likely. If present, Aboriginal archaeological at the subject site is highly unlikely to be found in situ.

URBIS 38 ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL SA5469_SANDSTONE_PRECINCT_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT_NOV2014

6.4 STATEMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL Historical Archaeological Potential

The potential of the subject site to contain historical archaeological material has been assessed, both in terms of structural fabric and cultural deposits. Based on this assessment, the following conclusions have been drawn:

. There is a high degree of archaeological potential for sub-surface structural elements/features associated with the Lands and Education buildings to be present at the subject site; . There is a high degree of archaeological potential for sub-surface structural remnants associated with the Judge-Advocates residence (later used as the Colonial-Secretary’s house) (c.1810-1845) to present at the subject site underneath Loftus Street. These remains may have been subject to disturbance associated with the construction of the Bennelong SWC No. 29; . There is a high degree of archaeological potential for sub-surface structural remnants associated with the Colonial Secretary’s residence (later used as the Colonial-Secretary’s Office) (c.1810- 1915) to present at the subject site within the central atrium of the Education Building. These remains may have been subject to disturbance associated with the construction of the Education Building; . There is a low degree of archaeological potential for sub-surface structural remnants associated with other earlier buildings to be present at the subject site. If present, remains of this nature are only likely to be present in areas that have not been subject to extensive sub-surface disturbance; and . There is a low degree of archaeological potential for cultural deposits relating to earlier phases of occupation/use to be present at the subject site. If present, remains of this nature are only likely to be present in areas that have not been subject to extensive sub-surface disturbance.

A section of the Bennelong SWC No. 29 is known to be present at the subject site underneath Loftus Street.

Aboriginal Archaeological Potential

The potential of the subject site to contain Aboriginal archaeological materials has been assessed with reference to the archaeological context. The relative survivability of Aboriginal archaeological material in areas that have been subject to extensive development has also been considered. Based on this assessment, the following conclusions have been drawn:

. There is a low degree of archaeological potential for Aboriginal archaeological material to be present at the subject site. If present, Aboriginal archaeological material is are only likely to be present in areas that have not been subject to extensive sub-surface disturbance, and if present, is highly unlikely to be found in situ.

URBIS SA5469_SANDSTONE_PRECINCT_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT_NOV2014 ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL 39

7 Significance Assessment

7.1 WHAT IS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE? In NSW the process of finding out whether an item is important is called assessing significance. Archaeological sites, which contain ‘relics’ as defined in the NSW Heritage Act, are managed like any other significant item of environmental heritage. They should be treated in the same way with the same level of consideration and assessment process as any other surviving physical evidence of the past such as buildings, works, precincts, landscapes or other places and items with potential or known heritage value.

Significance is thus an expression of the cultural value afforded a place, site or item.

7.2 SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT The Heritage Council of NSW has developed a set of seven criteria for assessing heritage significance, which can be used to make decisions about the heritage value of a place or item. There are two levels of heritage significance used in NSW: state and local. The following assessment of heritage significance has been prepared in accordance with the ‘Assessing Significance for Historical Archaeological Sites and “Relics’ (Heritage Branch, Department of Planning: 2009).

The heritage significance of both the Lands and Education Buildings has previously been assessed and documented (refer City Plan Heritage, Oct 2014; Government Architect’s Office, Oct 2014; Tanner and Associates et al, 1989 as well as the SHI listings for the buildings). The following assessment and statement of heritage significance refers only to the archaeological significance of the subject site, and does not consider the significance of above-ground structural fabric or features.

Aboriginal cultural heritage consists of any places and objects of significance to Aboriginal people because of their traditions, observances, lore, customs, beliefs and history. It provides evidence of the lives and existence of Aboriginal people before European settlement through to the present. An assessment of the values and significance of an Aboriginal archaeological object or place is most appropriately undertaken in consultation with the Aboriginal community. For this reason, this report does not contain a significance assessment of the potential Aboriginal archaeological deposits that may be uncovered on site.

7.2.1 POTENTIAL AND KNOWN HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL ‘RELICS’/DEPOSITS TABLE 3 – ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE – POTENTIAL AND KNOWN HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL ‘RELICS’/DEPOSITS

NSW HERITAGE POTENTIAL HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL ‘RELICS’/DEPOSITS AT LEVEL OF CRITERIA (NSW THE SUBJECT SITE SIGNIFICANCE HERITAGE ACT 1977) (STATE/LOCAL)

Criterion (a) an item Structural Remains – Extant Buildings State is important in the It is considered that there is a high degree of potential for sub-surface course, or pattern, of structural features associated with the Lands and Education Buildings to NSW’s cultural or be present at the subject site. These features (such as footings and natural history (or the underground service networks) form part of extant building forms that have local area); been identified as being of state heritage significance. Both the Lands and Education Buildings are highly historically significant. These buildings, and the departments that have occupied them, are

representative of growth and change in government administration from the early 20th century. They are part of an important precinct of 19th and th 20 century government offices that are physical evidence of a tradition of government use of the area since 1788 and of the development of government bureaucracy from the late 1840s to the present. Sub-surface structural remains associated with these Buildings are therefore considered to be historically significant at a state level.

URBIS 40 SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT SA5469_SANDSTONE_PRECINCT_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT_NOV2014

NSW HERITAGE POTENTIAL HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL ‘RELICS’/DEPOSITS AT LEVEL OF CRITERIA (NSW THE SUBJECT SITE SIGNIFICANCE HERITAGE ACT 1977) (STATE/LOCAL)

Structural Remains – Unidentified Buildings of Earlier Occupation Phases State Unidentified buildings known to have previously been erected on site, including the Judge-Advocate’s residence (c.1810-1845) and Colonial Secretary’s residence (c.1810-1915) are also associated with the precinct of administration buildings described above. In addition to this, buildings from the earlier phases of occupation represent some of the earliest purpose-built structures associated with the governance of the colony and

the provision of housing and offices for civil officers until the 1930s. Buildings constructed from the time of settlement to the Macquarie-era also have strong associations with first Government House. Sub-surface structural remains associated with buildings that date from the earlier phases of occupation are therefore considered to be historically significant at a state level.

Cultural Deposits – Earlier Occupation Phases Local Cultural deposits associated with the earlier phases of occupation are likely to contain household refuse and building debris. Expected items/fragments of items include serving ware, alcohol bottles, smoking pipes, meat cuts, pieces of timber, nails etc. Such items are commonly found within historical archaeological sites. However, cultural deposits recovered within the subject site are likely to be associated with the early administration buildings and their inhabitants, as well as the use of Bridge Street and Farrer Place as popular pedestrian areas. Cultural deposits associated with earlier occupation phases uncovered at the subject site are therefore considered to be historically significant at a local level. Criterion (b) an item Structural Remains – Extant Buildings State has strong or special Both the Lands and Education Buildings are inextricably linked with the association with the various departments that have occupied them, including the Department of life or works of a Lands and Department of Education and the Department of Agriculture. person, or group of They have also been associated with a number of notable architects since persons, of the time of their construction including George McRae, James Barnet, importance in NSW’s Walter Vernon, John Young and Waine & Baldwin. The Education Building

cultural or natural specifically has strong associations with Directors/Director Generals of history (or the local Education including Peter Board and Harold Wyndham, who were area); responsible for important reforms in the NSW educational system. Sub-surface structural remains associated with the Lands and Education Buildings are therefore considered to have associative significance at a state level.

Structural Remains – Unidentified Buildings of Earlier Occupation Phases State Unidentified buildings known to have previously been erected on site were purpose-built as residences and offices for the colony’s earliest civil officers and their families. The various phases of construction are also

closely linked with early Governors of New South Wales and particularly Governor Macquarie, who commissioned the design and erection of the buildings. Sub-surface structural remains associated with buildings that date from the earlier phases of occupation are therefore considered to have associative significance at a state level.

Cultural Deposits – Earlier Occupation Phases Local Cultural deposits associated with the earlier phases of occupation are likely to contain household refuse and building debris that were used and

URBIS SA5469_SANDSTONE_PRECINCT_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT_NOV2014 SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT 41

NSW HERITAGE POTENTIAL HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL ‘RELICS’/DEPOSITS AT LEVEL OF CRITERIA (NSW THE SUBJECT SITE SIGNIFICANCE HERITAGE ACT 1977) (STATE/LOCAL)

subsequently discarded by the early civil officers and families who inhabited and worked in and around the subject site. In addition to this, given the intensive use of open public spaces such as Bridge Street and Farrer Place, cultural deposits associated with other early members of the Sydney community may also be present on site, though it may be difficult to definitively associated artefacts with a specific historical period or occupation phase. Cultural deposits associated with earlier occupation phases uncovered at the subject site are therefore considered to have associative significance at a local level. Criterion (c) an item Structural Remains – Extant Buildings State is important in Both the Lands and Education Buildings are highly aesthetically significant. demonstrating th Both of these buildings are part of an important and cohesive group of 19 aesthetic and 20th century government offices that give a distinctive architectural characteristics and/or character to Bridge Street and the surrounding area. They were purpose- a high degree of built to complement and contribute to this character. creative or technical achievement in NSW Both of the buildings are also representative of innovation and technical achievement that was rare for their period, and represent construction on a (or the local area); scale that had not been seen before. This is exemplified by features such as the “moat” in the Lands Building. In addition to this, both buildings have strong associations with a number of notable architects and designers, as outlined in their respective CMPs.

The Lands Department Building is a landmark that is “well known for its character due to its portrait statues on its façade and is one of the most intact late Victorian-Edwardian’ styles in the city”. James Barnet’s building design was innovative at the time, and incorporated the use of colonnades

and verandahs in view of the Australian climate. The Education Building features a “remarkably fine set of Edwardian baroque sandstone elevations forming a complete city block and providing a landmark building to Bridge Street where it forms a group with the Lands Department and Chief Secretary's Office.” (SHI). Sub-surface structural remains associated with the Lands and Education Buildings are therefore considered to be aesthetically significant at a state level.

Structural Remains – Unidentified Buildings of Earlier Occupation Phases Local Buildings that date from the earlier phases of occupation represent some of the earliest purpose-built structures associated with the governance of the colony. As relatively few examples of buildings from this period have survived, the sub-surface structural remains of these buildings, if present, have the potential to demonstrate the aesthetic sensibilities and/or technical achievements of the earliest occupation phase.

However, it is unlikely for structural remains associated with early buildings to be uncovered intact. Similarly, identified remains are also unlikely to be extensive, or to provide clear evidence of creative or technical achievement.

Sub-surface structural remains associated with buildings that date from the earlier phases of occupation are therefore considered to have aesthetic significance on a local level.

Cultural Deposits – Earlier Occupation Phases N/A Cultural deposits associated with the earlier phases of occupation are likely to contain household refuse and building debris. Expected items/fragments of items include serving ware, alcohol bottles, smoking pipes, meat cuts, pieces of timber, nails etc. Such items are commonly found within historical archaeological sites, and are unlikely to demonstrate aesthetic characteristics or technical achievements that are important to

URBIS 42 SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT SA5469_SANDSTONE_PRECINCT_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT_NOV2014

NSW HERITAGE POTENTIAL HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL ‘RELICS’/DEPOSITS AT LEVEL OF CRITERIA (NSW THE SUBJECT SITE SIGNIFICANCE HERITAGE ACT 1977) (STATE/LOCAL)

the Sydney or NSW communities. Cultural deposits associated with earlier occupation phases uncovered at the subject site are therefore not considered to meet the criteria for aesthetic significance. Criterion (d) an item Structural Remains – Extant Buildings Local has strong or special Both the Lands and Education Buildings are highly socially significant. association with a These buildings are inextricably linked with the various departments that particular community have occupied them, including the Lands Department and Education or cultural group in Department. They are also associated with key individuals associated with NSW for social, these departments, and have ongoing links with personnel associated with cultural or spiritual these departments. reasons (or the local Sub-surface structural remains associated with the Lands and Education area); Buildings are therefore considered to have social significance at a state level.

Structural Remains – Unidentified Buildings of Earlier Occupation Phases N/A Unidentified buildings known to have previously been erected on site date from the late 1700s to the mid-to-late 1800s. As such, they do not possess any ongoing links to any specific community or group for cultural, social or spiritual reasons. Sub-surface structural remains associated with buildings that date from the earlier phases of occupation are therefore not considered to meet this criterion.

N/A Cultural Deposits – Earlier Occupation Phases Cultural deposits associated with the earlier phases of occupation are likely to contain household refuse and building debris that were used and subsequently discarded by the early civil officers and families who inhabited and worked in and around the subject site from the late1700s to the mid-to-late 1800s. As such, they do not possess any ongoing links to any specific community or group for cultural, social or spiritual reasons. Cultural deposits associated with earlier occupation phases uncovered at the subject site are therefore considered not to meet this criterion. Criterion (e) an item Structural Remains – Extant Buildings State has potential to yield It is considered that there is a high degree of potential for sub-surface information that will structural features associated with the Lands and Education Buildings to contribute to an be present at the subject site. These features (such as footings and understanding of underground service networks) form part of extant building forms that have NSW’s cultural or been identified as being of state heritage significance. natural history (or the local area); As the exact location of these elements is not known, the archaeological resource has the potential to provide a unique insight into the construction

techniques, design elements and early functioning of the Buildings. They would also contribute to an overall understanding of the subject site, and inform any future heritage interpretation strategies. Sub-surface structural remains associated with the Lands and Education Buildings are therefore considered to meet this criterion at a state level.

Structural Remains – Unidentified Buildings of Earlier Occupation Phases State As relatively few examples of buildings from this period have survived, the sub-surface structural remains of these buildings, if present, have the potential to demonstrate the aesthetic sensibilities and/or construction methods used in the earliest occupation phase. They may also reveal the

exact location of the earliest buildings, which is not known, and confirm the suspected locations of Macquarie-era buildings. They may also contribute to an overall understanding of the subject site,

URBIS SA5469_SANDSTONE_PRECINCT_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT_NOV2014 SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT 43

NSW HERITAGE POTENTIAL HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL ‘RELICS’/DEPOSITS AT LEVEL OF CRITERIA (NSW THE SUBJECT SITE SIGNIFICANCE HERITAGE ACT 1977) (STATE/LOCAL)

and inform any future heritage interpretation strategies. Of particular relevance would be information associated with the first Government House site, and colonial Sydney generally.

Sub-surface structural remains associated with buildings that date from the earlier phases of occupation are therefore considered to meet the criterion for research potential at a state level

Cultural Deposits – Earlier Occupation Phases N/A Cultural deposits associated with the earlier phases of occupation are likely to contain household refuse and building debris. Expected items/fragments of items include serving ware, alcohol bottles, smoking pipes, meat cuts, pieces of timber, nails etc. Such items are commonly found within historical archaeological sites. If found on site, these kinds of items are unlikely to contribute any new information or knowledge. Cultural deposits associated with earlier occupation phases uncovered at the subject site are therefore not considered to meet the threshold for research potential. Criterion (f) an item Structural Remains – Extant Buildings State possesses Both the Lands and Education Buildings are considered to be highly uncommon, rare or significant buildings that are aesthetically distinctive. They demonstrate a endangered aspects high degree of technological achievement and innovation, and represent of NSW’s cultural or the erection of buildings and associated services on a scale that had not natural history (or the been attempted before. They are two of on a handful of comparable local area); and surviving buildings still present within the Bridge/Macquarie Streets

administrative precinct.

There are few buildings that demonstrate such innovative building design features as the Lands and Education Buildings; the buildings are considered to provide rare examples of what was considered to be large scale construction for their respective periods, as well as their use of innovative design and construction features, such as the “moat” structure that surrounds the Lands Building. Any sub-surface service networks or features associated with the buildings therefore have the potential to be relatively rare, particularly considering

that archaeological investigations have not previously been undertaken for buildings of a similar scale or level of significance. Sub-surface structural remains associated with the Lands and Education Buildings are therefore considered to meet this criterion on a state level.

Structural Remains – Unidentified Buildings of Earlier Occupation Phases State As relatively few examples of buildings from this period have survived, the sub-surface structural remains of these buildings, if present, have would be rare. Sub-surface structural remains associated with buildings that date from the earlier phases of occupation are therefore considered to meet the criterion for rarity.

N/A Cultural Deposits – Earlier Occupation Phases Cultural deposits associated with the earlier phases of occupation are likely to contain household refuse and building debris. Expected items/fragments of items include serving ware, alcohol bottles, smoking pipes, meat cuts, pieces of timber, nails etc. Such items are commonly found within historical archaeological sites. Cultural deposits associated with earlier occupation phases uncovered at the subject site are therefore not considered to meet the threshold for rarity.

URBIS 44 SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT SA5469_SANDSTONE_PRECINCT_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT_NOV2014

NSW HERITAGE POTENTIAL HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL ‘RELICS’/DEPOSITS AT LEVEL OF CRITERIA (NSW THE SUBJECT SITE SIGNIFICANCE HERITAGE ACT 1977) (STATE/LOCAL)

Criterion (g) an item Structural Remains – Extant Buildings State is important in Both the Lands and Education Buildings are distinctive examples of demonstrating the purpose-built government administration buildings. As mentioned above, principal they are two of a handful of surviving buildings of this kind. They are characteristics of a therefore considered to be two of the best surviving examples of purpose class of NSW’s built government administration buildings that were erected in the late cultural or natural 19th/early 20th century. places or cultural or Sub-surface structural remains associated with the Lands and Education natural environments (or the local area). Buildings are therefore considered to meet this criterion at a state level.

Local Structural Remains – Unidentified Buildings of Earlier Occupation Phases

As relatively few examples of buildings from this period have survived, the sub-surface structural remains of these buildings, if present, have the potential to demonstrate the aesthetic sensibilities and/or construction methods used in the earliest occupation phase. Given that there is a limited likelihood for early structures to be recovered intact, structural remains uncovered on site may not adequately demonstrate the principal characteristics of comparable buildings from that period.

Based on historical research, however, both the Judge-Advocate’s

residence (later the Colonial Secretary’s residence) and Colonial Secretary’s residence (late Colonial Secretary’s Office) were substantial buildings that appear to have been of sturdy construction. Given the relatively low level of disturbance at the anticipated location of the remains of these buildings (Loftus Street/Education Building central atrium), it is possible for footings or other structural elements of these buildings to be relatively intact. Remains of these buildings may therefore potentially be demonstrative of the principal architectural characteristics of comparable buildings of the period. As these buildings were the home/offices of some of the most important civil officers of the colony, it is likely that they would have been constructed in a style that was representative of the tastes and resources of early Sydney residence of a comparable socio-economic status. Sub-surface structural remains associated with buildings that date from the earlier phases of occupation are therefore considered to meet this criterion at a state level.

Local Cultural Deposits – Earlier Occupation Phases Cultural deposits associated with the earlier phases of occupation are likely to contain household refuse and building debris. Expected items/fragments of items include serving ware, alcohol bottles, smoking pipes, meat cuts, pieces of timber, nails etc. Such items are commonly found within historical archaeological sites. Cultural deposits associated with earlier occupation phases uncovered at the subject site are therefore considered to be representative on a local level.

7.2.2 THE BENNELONG SWC NO. 29 The Bennelong SWC No. 29 is recognised and documented sub-surface heritage item, which has previously been subject to significance assessments. The following significance assessment for the channel has been sourced from the SHI listing for the item.

“The Bennelong Stormwater Channel is of high historical and technical significance as it was one of the five original combined sewers built in Sydney around 1857. The other four sewers were; Blackwattle Bay, Hay Street, Tank Stream and Woolloomooloo. These five sewers were responsible for greatly improving public health, hygiene and living standards for the city's residents.

URBIS SA5469_SANDSTONE_PRECINCT_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT_NOV2014 SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT 45

This was done by diverting stormwater and sewerage from the streets and discharging it out into the Harbour currents.

The introduction of BOOS in 1889 diverted sewer flow to the ocean and eventually led to the drain being used predominantly for stormwater, hence further improving public health. Of the five combined sewers Bennelong is probably the most significant, as it is the most intact and was originally known as the "main sewer" because it serviced the CBD area.

It was also the first oviform sewer to be built in Australia. Furthermore, the Margaret Street Sewer, which was once attached to the Bennelong system, contains the first sewer aqueduct to be built in Australia. This aqueduct runs along Hunter Street, which is part of the Bennelong catchment.”

7.3 RESEARCH POTENTIAL The potential archaeological resources of the subject site are assessed here primarily in terms of their archaeological research potential, that is, their ability to contribute to knowledge of an aspect of New South Wales and the Sydney area’s local history.

The following three questions, designed by Bickford and Sullivan (1984), are accepted as standard questions used to assess the archaeological research potential of a site’s archaeological resources:

1. Can the site contribute knowledge that no other resource can?

2. Can the site contribute knowledge that no other site can?

3. Is this knowledge relevant to general questions about human history or other substantive questions relating to Australian history, or does it just contribute to other major research questions?

These questions are addressed in relation to the potential archaeological resources that have been identified in Section 6, above.

Lands and Education Buildings – Sub-Surface Structural Elements/Features

It has been assessed that there is a high degree of archaeological potential for sub-surface structural elements associated with both the Lands and Education Buildings to be present on site. This may include footings (likely to be of sandstone construction) and general building services such as original piping systems, which may be of cast-iron, terracotta or lead construction. In addition to this, other archaeological features such as original paving and plinth bollards associated with an early carriage loop, and the “moat” structure are known to be present at the site of the Lands Building. These features were also identified during the visual inspection of the building.

As the exact location of unidentified sub-surface structural elements and/or features is not known, the archaeological resource has the potential to provide a unique insight into the construction, design techniques and features, and early functioning of the Buildings.

This is particularly the case for the Lands Building, which was the largest building in Sydney at the time of its construction; the design and installation of building services and features had never before been attempted on a comparable scale, and many of the building techniques and features used in its construction, such as the “moat”, were considered to be highly innovative for the period.

It is therefore considered that sub-surface structural elements/features associated with these buildings would contribute knowledge that is not readily available at other sites or through other resources.

These buildings have also been assessed and recognised as significant on a state level. Knowledge gleaned from archaeological features/elements is therefore considered to be relevant to general questions regarding the history of Sydney and New South Wales.

Sub-Surface Structural Elements/Features Associated with Earlier Phases of Occupation

It has been assessed that there is a high degree of archaeological potential for sub-surface structural remains associated with the Judge-Advocates residence (later used as the Colonial-Secretary’s house) to

URBIS 46 SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT SA5469_SANDSTONE_PRECINCT_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT_NOV2014

be present on site, and a low degree of archaeological potential for sub-surface structural remains associated with other earlier buildings to be present on site.

The Judge-Advocates residence (later used as the Colonial-Secretary’s house) and the Colonial Secretary’s residence (later Colonial Secretary’s Office) were built c.1810-1812 as part of the second stage of building works at the administration precinct along Bridge Street. They have strong associations with the building and public works initiatives of the Macquarie-era, and are two of the earliest purpose- built civil office buildings in Sydney. They are also closely linked with the early administration and government of the colony and the provision of residences for civil officers prior to the 1830s. As such, the archaeological remains of these buildings, if identified, are considered to be of state significance.

Other earlier buildings, particularly those that date from the first phase of building (c. 1790) and whose exact location is not known, may also potentially be present on site. These buildings were constructed soon after, and in direct association with, the first Government House, and represent the earliest known government and administration buildings to be constructed in the colony. As such, the archaeological remains of these building, if identified, are considered to be of state significance.

Few buildings of a comparable age and/or social and historical significance have survived within Sydney. Those that have, including Cadman’s Cottage, Elizabeth Farm, Hyde Park Barracks, The Mint, Vaucluse House and Rouse Hill House and Farm, are considered to be of state significance. Any structural remains associated with the earlier phase of occupation (c.1789 - mid-1800s) would be considered to be rare, and therefore able to contribute knowledge that very few other sites in Sydney and wider New South Wales can.

General descriptions of these buildings, including their use and appearance, are available from other resources including early newspaper articles, letters, paintings and photographs. However, the historical record is incomplete, and it is likely that archaeological remains associated with these structures would contribute knowledge that is not readily available from other resources. This may include information pertaining to the precise locations of earlier buildings, as well as their layout, method of construction and overall design.

Structural remains associated with these buildings are considered to be of state significance, if present. Knowledge gleaned from archaeological features/elements is therefore considered to be relevant to general questions regarding the history of Sydney and New South Wales.

Sub-Surface Cultural Deposits Associated with Earlier Phases of Occupation

Based on comparable historical archaeological excavations that have been undertaken in the vicinity of the subject site and within inner Sydney generally, cultural deposits associated with the early phases of occupation are likely to comprise building debris and household refuse. Items such as serving ware, alcohol bottles, pieces of timber and nails are commonly recorded.

As these items are relatively common in the archaeological record, it is considered unlikely that cultural deposits would contribute knowledge that no other site or resource can. However, given the potential for association with the earliest building phase, and depending on whether or not materials can be conclusively dated to this phase, cultural deposits uncovered at the subject site may provide a rare contribution to the earliest phases of the historical archaeological record of the Sydney area.

The Bennelong SWC No. 29

The Bennelong SWC No. 29 has previously been recognised as a significant sub-surface heritage item. Although the section of the channel located beneath Loftus Street could provide information regarding the construction of the mid-19th century sewerage and stormwater system, such information is also readily available obtained from the many other surviving sections of the SWC located throughout the Sydney CBD, as well as documentary records.

Aboriginal Archaeological Deposits

It has previously been acknowledged that the survival of Aboriginal archaeological evidence within the Sydney CBD is extremely rare (Thorp 1995: 2). If identified, Aboriginal archaeological remains within the subject site would be considered to provide a rare and highly valuable contribution to the archaeological record.

URBIS SA5469_SANDSTONE_PRECINCT_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT_NOV2014 SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT 47

7.4 STATEMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE Historical Archaeology

Based on a review of the history of the subject site, potential historical archaeological remains recovered on site are considered to be significant on a state level due to:

. its early occupation and continuity of use since 1788 for the purposes of government and administration and its association with the first Government House and surroundings; . the importance of the residents of the site and their critical role in the development of the colony; . the nature of the buildings that have occupied the site and the construction methods and aesthetic sensibilities they demonstrated; . the importance of the archaeological record of early European settlement for many groups in the community both in NSW and beyond; and . the rarity of sites dating from the late 18th century.

Aboriginal Cultural Heritage and Archaeology

It has been assessed that there is a low degree of archaeological potential for Aboriginal archaeological deposits to be present on site. If present, any potential archaeological deposits are likely to be highly disturbed. Irrespective of this, any Aboriginal archaeological material, if identified, must be recorded, reported to the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) and registered on the AHIMS.

As mentioned above, Aboriginal archaeological deposits are relatively rare within inner Sydney and the Sydney CBD specifically. If identified, Aboriginal archaeological remains within the subject site would be considered to provide a rare and highly valuable contribution to the archaeological record.

URBIS 48 SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT SA5469_SANDSTONE_PRECINCT_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT_NOV2014

8 Conclusion and Recommendations

This archaeological assessment has reviewed existing historical and photographic documentation for the subject site, and has considered the findings of an inspection that was conducted at the subject site in November 2014. Based on this information, the archaeological potential and significance of the subject site has been assessed. In the event that no sub-surface works are proposed at the subject site as part of the Stage 2 DA phase, no further archaeological assessment is required.

However, in the event that sub-surface works are proposed at the subject site as part of the Stage 2 DA phase, the following recommendations and mitigation measures will apply.

8.1 RECOMMENDATIONS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Based on the above conclusions, the following recommendations have been made: Recommendation 1 In the event that no sub-surface works are proposed at the subject site as part of the Stage 2 DA phase, no further archaeological assessment is required. Recommendation 2 If no sub-surface works are proposed in areas of low potential for historical archaeology, no further assessment is required. If sub-surface works are proposed within areas that have been assessed to be of low historical archaeological potential, it would not be necessary to prepare archaeological impact assessments or research designs prior to works beginning, and no heritage approvals or permits would be required. However, if unexpected archaeological material was encountered during works, it would be necessary to stop all work in the immediate vicinity of the identified deposits, notify the NSW Heritage Council and engage a qualified archaeologist to assess the significance of the material and recommend whether further action is required. Recommendation 3 If no sub-surface works are proposed in areas of low potential for Aboriginal archaeology, no further assessment is required. If sub-surface works are proposed in areas that have been assessed to be of low Aboriginal archaeological potential, it is recommended that an Aboriginal Archaeological Impact Assessment that specifically considers the proposed works should be prepared by a suitably qualified professional. Although AHIMS site #45-6-2299 is registered as being located to the south of Farrer Place, it has previously been noted that the site details suggest that the recording refers to the entirety of the first Government House site (including the grounds); the actual location of this site is therefore likely to be located to the immediate east of the subject site. Any future Aboriginal archaeological assessments should be cognisant of this, and of the sensitivity of the site of first Government House as potentially containing Aboriginal burials. Based on the results of the Assessment, an Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit (AHIP) may be required prior to impacts, unless the proposed development is approved as a State Significant Development (SSD). Recommendation 4 If no sub-surface works are proposed in areas of high potential for historical archaeology, no further archaeological assessment is required. If sub-surface works are proposed in these areas, a suitably qualified archaeologist should be engaged in the planning stages of such work to advise on the probable impact and specific management of any potential or known archaeological remains/material. It is recommended that a Historical Archaeological Impact Assessment and Research Design, specific to the proposed works, be prepared for the affected area(s). These would provide recommendations to investigate and manage the potential archaeological resource, including whether archaeological monitoring or test excavation would be appropriate. This recommendation also applies to any works that may impact sub-surface structural elements associated with the extant Lands and Education Buildings, including unidentified underground building

URBIS SA5469_SANDSTONE_PRECINCT_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT_NOV2014 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 49

services. However, if the works are minor, are associated with known underground utility services and are unlikely to impact any potential relics, they may be exempt from approval under subsection 57(1) of the Act. Further heritage advice should be sought regarding any applications for an exemption under subsection 57(1) of the Act. Depending on the nature and extent of sub-surface works proposed in these areas, applications for excavation permits will be required under Section 139 or Section 60 (for archaeological material associated with items listed on the SHR) of the Heritage Act, 1977. Under Part 4 of the EP&A Act, excavation permits to disturb relics under Section 57 or Section 139 of the Heritage Act are not required for SSD projects. Recommendation 5 As required by the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service Act, 1974 and the NSW Heritage Act 1977 (amended), in the event that Aboriginal cultural heritage or historic cultural fabric or deposits are encountered where they are not expected, works must cease immediately to allow the archaeologist to make an assessment of the find. The archaeologist may need to consult with the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) regarding Aboriginal cultural heritage relics, or the NSW Heritage Division, Department of Planning concerning the significance of historic cultural material unearthed. Recommendation 6 If the potential archaeological significance of the area is confirmed, and archaeological material is recovered, there may be a requirement to retain archaeological material in situ, and to conserve and display any significant structural remains or artefacts. A heritage interpretation strategy should be prepared in conjunction with subsequent detailed development applications for the subject site to determine appropriate themes and locations for interpretation. A preliminary heritage interpretation strategy is provided in Appendix A. This archaeological assessment and preliminary interpretation strategy is intended to inform future design development proposals for the subject site.

URBIS 50 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS SA5469_SANDSTONE_PRECINCT_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT_NOV2014

9 Bibliography and References

9.1 BIBLIOGRAPHY Google Maps 2014, Aerial view of subject site, available at: .

NSW Heritage Branch, 2014, The State Heritage Inventory

NSW Department of Land & Property Information, 2014, Spatial Information eXchange, NSW Department of Land & Property Information, Sydney, available at: .

NSW Department of Land & Property Information, 2014, Digital Collections Maps, NSW Department of Land & Property Information, Sydney, available at: .

9.2 REFERENCES Artefact Heritage, 2012, AMP Circular Quay Precinct: Assessment of Aboriginal and Historical Archaeological Potential., unpublished report.

Attenbrow, V., 2002, Sydney’s Aboriginal Past: investigation the archaeological and historical records, UNSW Press: Sydney.

Australia ICOMOS 1999, The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance, Australia ICOMOS, Burwood.

Bickford, A. and Sullivan, 1984, ‘Assessing and Research Significance of Historic Sites’, in Sullivan, S. and S. Bowdler (eds) Site Survey and Significance Assessment in Australian Archaeology (Proceedings of the 1981 Springwood Conference on Australian Prehistory), Department of Prehistory, Research School of Pacific Studies, The Australian National University: Canberra, pp. 19-26.

Broadbent, J., 1997, The Australian Colonial House: Architecture and Society in New South Wales, 1788- 1842. Historic Houses Trust of New South Wales: Sydney.

Casey & Lowe Pty Ltd, 2013, Darling Quarter (formerly Darling Walk), Darling Harbour, Sydney, unpublished report prepared for Lend Lease Development.

City Plan Heritage, 2014, Conservation Management Plan: Department of Education Building 35-39 Bridge Street, Sydney, prepared for Government Property NSW.

Crook, P. and Murray, T., 2006, The Historical Archaeological of the First Government House Site, Sydney. Further Research, in Volume 11 of the Archaeological of the Modern City Series. A Historic Houses Trust Publication.

Heritage Office and Department of Urban Affairs & Planning 1996, NSW Heritage Manual, Heritage Office and Department of Urban Affairs & Planning (NSW), Sydney.

Heritage Office, Department of Planning, 2006, Historical Archaeology Code of Practice, Heritage Office, Parramatta.

Heritage Branch, Department of Planning, 2009, Assessing Significance for Historical Archaeological Sites and ‘Relics’, Heritage Office, Parramatta.

Hinkson, M 2002 'Exploring 'Aboriginal' Sites in Sydney: A Shifting Politics of Place?' in Aboriginal History 26: 73.

URBIS SA5469_SANDSTONE_PRECINCT_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT_NOV2014 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES 51

Howard Tanner & Associates, 1989, Department of Education Building 35 Bridge Street Sydney: A report on heritage significance, appropriate conservation controls, and re-use options undertaken for the NSW Property Management Unit on behalf of the Department of Education.

Government Architect’s Office, 2014, DRAFT The Lands Building Conservation Management Plan, prepared for Government Property NSW.

Kaarskens, G., 2009, The Colony: a history of early Sydney, Allen & Unwin: Crows Nest.

NSW Department of Land & Property Information, 2014, ‘MAP Folder 104, LFSP 1567 ‘Township of Mittagong, Great Southern Railway: magnificent lots surrounding the railway station: auction on sale on the ground on Saturday April 26th 1884’, Digital Collections Maps, NSW Department of Land & Property Information, Sydney, available at: .

NSW Department of Land & Property Information, 2014, ‘MAP Folder 104, LFSP 1568 ‘Mittagong Land Compy Limtd: for sale on the ground on Saturday 21st November 1891’, Digital Collections Maps, NSW Department of Land & Property Information, Sydney, available at: .

NSW Heritage Branch, 2014, ‘’Mittagong Railway Precint’, available at: .

Thorp, W 1996, Lands Building Development Archival Resources (publisher unknown).

Urbis, 2014, Request for Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements: the Sandstone Precinct, 23-33 Bridge Street and 35-39 Bridge Street, Sydney, prepared for Government Property NSW.

[Note: Some government departments have changed their names over time and the above publications state the name at the time of publication.]

URBIS 52 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES SA5469_SANDSTONE_PRECINCT_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT_NOV2014

Appendix A Preliminary Archaeological Interpretation Strategy

URBIS SA5469_SANDSTONE_PRECINCT_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT_NOV2014 APPENDICES

Preliminary Heritage Interpretation Strategy

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT PROGRAM

It is intended that development of a Heritage Interpretation Strategy for the subject site incorporate consultation with the following stakeholders:

. Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council (MLALC) and other relevant groups;

. Historic Houses Trust/ Sydney Living Museums (SLM);

. City of Sydney Council; and

. Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH).

AUDIENCE PROFILE

Interpretation aims to reveal meanings and connections. To effectively achieve this, interpretation is predicated on identifying audiences and using appropriate media. It is important to identify specific audiences so that interpretation responds to audience needs and motivations and also takes into consideration literacy levels, disability, gender, ethnicity and age. Accessible interpretation of heritage themes and values will ensure that the heritage significance and values of the subject site are appreciated by the precinct occupants and wider community.

INTERPRETATION THEMES AND STORYLINES

With consideration for the identified significance of the subject site, the following themes have been identified for interpretation.

HISTORICAL THEMES

Historical themes can be used to understand the context of a place, such as what influences have shaped that place over time. The Heritage Council of NSW established 35 historical themes relevant to the state of New South Wales. These themes correlate with national and local historical themes.

Historical themes at each level that are relevant to the Quay Quarter Sydney are provided in Table 2 below.

TABLE 1 – RELEVANT HISTORICAL THEMES

AUSTRALIAN THEME NSW THEME LOCAL THEME RELEVANCE TO THE SITE

2 Peopling Australia Aboriginal cultures and Activities associated with Potential pre and post interactions with other maintaining, developing, contact evidence in the cultures experiencing and archaeological resource. remembering Aboriginal cultural identities and Occupation of the site as practises, past and present; the locus for early the with demonstrating administration and distinctive ways of life; and government of the colony. with interactions Site is associated with demonstrating race initial relations between relations. Aboriginal people and the first Governor of the colony, due to its close proximity to the site of first Government

URBIS APPENDICES SA5469_SANDSTONE_PRECINCT_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT_NOV2014

House.

2 Peopling Australia Convict Activities relating to Occupation of the site as incarceration, transport, the locus for early the reform, accommodation administration and and working during the government of the colony. convict period in NSW (1788-1850) – does not include activities associated with the conviction of persons in NSW that are unrelated to the imperial ‘convict system’: use the theme of Law & Order for such activities

3 Developing local, regional Environment – cultural Activities associated with Pre contact landscape and and national economies landscape the interactions between shaping of the landscape. humans, human societies and the shaping of their physical surroundings

4 Building settlements, Towns, suburbs and Activities associated Development of and towns and cities villages with creating, planning changes to the street and and managing urban lane configurations in the functions, landscapes vicinity over time. and lifestyles in towns, suburbs and villages Development of landmark buildings at the entrance to the city.

7. Governing Government and Activities associated with Original occupation of the administration the governance of local site as the first areas, regions, the State administration/government and the nation, and the precinct of the colony. administration of public programs – includes both The ongoing use of the site principled and corrupt for this purpose, following activities. the construction of two of the most significant government buildings in Sydney; the Lands and Education Buildings.

7. Governing Government and Activities associated with The Department of administration teaching and learning by Education building has children and adults, been associated with formally and informally. activities related to the administration of teaching and learning throughout NSW since its opening in 1914.

URBIS SA5469_SANDSTONE_PRECINCT_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT_NOV2014 APPENDICES

The building is the symbolic headquarters for generations of teachers and administration staff who have worked in the NSW education system since 1915.

8 Developing Australia’s Creative endeavour Activities associated with The construction of the cultural life the production and Lands and Education performance of literary, Buildings which artistic, architectural and demonstrates innovative other imaginative, technology and design as interpretive or inventive two of the largest, most works; and/or associated expensive and most with the production and innovative buildings of their expression of cultural time. phenomena; and/or environments that have inspired such creative activities.

9 Marking the phases of life Persons Activities of, and Various associations with associations with, significant individuals and identifiable individuals, government departments families and communal across the site, including groups the first civil officers of the colony, the early Governors of NSW and particularly Governor Macquarie.

It is also associated with notable architects including George McRae, James Barnet, Walter Vernon, John Young and Waine & Baldwin.

THE NATURAL LANDSCAPE

The original sloping landform has been a continuous influence on the development of the site since 1788 and the existing landform still bears characteristics of its pre-contact state. The landform influenced the sites’ selection as the location for the grounds of first Government House and the associated administration precinct, and many elements of the landscape lend themselves to interpretive possibilities including the relationship of the site to Sydney Cove to the north, which remains able to be imagined.

The natural landscape has the potential to be an important cross-cultural interpretive element at the site, and should be interpreted in conjunction with Indigenous and Colonial Sydney themes.

ABORIGINAL SETTLEMENT (PRE 1788)

The traditional owners of the Sydney city region are the Cadigal (or Gadigal) people, who had occupied the Port Jackson harbour area and its islands for thousands of years. There is evidence of a broad variety of indigenous site types in the Port Jackson area, demonstrating some of the varied Aboriginal

URBIS APPENDICES SA5469_SANDSTONE_PRECINCT_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT_NOV2014

subsistence and natural resource utilisation activities practiced in the area. This includes midden sites, sandstone shelters with archaeological deposit, rock engravings, pigment art, and potential archaeological deposit (PAD).

The archaeological assessment (prepared by Urbis) for the subject site identified some potential for archaeological remains to be present within the less disturbed areas of the site. While Aboriginal cultural interaction may be evident on the site, redevelopment of the site throughout the nineteenth and twentieth century has had a substantial impact on the survival of the site’s archaeological resource and no documented Aboriginal archaeological sites or features are known to be present on the site.

However, even in its altered state the site still presents an opportunity to interpret the pre-1788 social, economic and ritual lives of the original Aboriginal owners. The Aboriginal occupation of the site remains an important aspect of any interpretation of the site and in the event of a lack of physical evidence to be interpreted (to be determined by archaeological investigation), interpretation of intangible qualities should therefore be considered and undertaken in consultation with the relevant Aboriginal custodians and groups and other stakeholders and with consideration for extant interpretation in the vicinity.

TWO CULTURES MEET: 1788-1800

The European colonisation of Australia began with the establishment of a colony at Sydney Cove by Captain Arthur Phillip in January 1788. The likely location of Captain Arthur Phillip’s landing site in Sydney Cove was in the vicinity of the subject site, and the administration precinct was closely associated with the first Government House, located in proximity to the east. The subject site and immediately surrounding area therefore represent an integral part of the pre- and post-contact history of both the Gadigal people and the Aboriginal peoples across the surrounding region.

First Government House was ‘a central location for interaction between British officers and local Aboriginal people in the early years of the colony, especially during Phillip’s governorship’. The first Government house has symbolic importance as the seat of Government in NSW until 1845, and therefore the location of decisions that affected Aboriginal people throughout the colony. As identified in the previous archaeological assessments undertaken for the general area, the Governor’s domain is also the likely burial ground of Aboriginal people, including Arabanoo, Baluderri, and an Aboriginal child buried near the Government House garden.

As acknowledged above, the redevelopment of the site throughout the nineteenth and twentieth century has had a substantial impact on the survival of the site’s archaeological resource. However, even in its altered state the site still presents an opportunity to interpret the interaction between the traditional owners (the Gadigal people) and the European colonists. In the event of a lack of physical evidence to be interpreted (to be determined by archaeological investigation), interpretation of intangible qualities should therefore be considered and undertaken in consultation with the relevant Aboriginal custodians and groups and other stakeholders and with consideration for extant interpretation in the vicinity.

Interpretation may consider the arrival of the First Fleet, the establishment of Sydney Cove, and the subsequent decimation of the Aboriginal population as well as interactions during Phillip’s governorship.

COLONIAL SYDNEY/ THE FIRST GOVERNMENT HOUSE (1788-1850)

First Government House was built soon after the arrival of the First Fleet to the immediate east of the subject site. By 1792 and in association with the new Government House, a row of permanent residences with gardens had been built along the western approach to first Government House (and within the subject site) for the colony’s civil officers, including the Commissary, Judge-Advocate, Surveyor-General and Chaplain. The colony of New South Wales was administered from these buildings, which served as both residences and offices, for the 40 or so years following settlement.

Interpretation should aim to place the development of the site in the context of the broader development of Sydney Cove and emphasise the relationship between first Government House and early administration buildings known to have been erected on the subject site. The development of the administration precinct, a use which is still ongoing, should also be acknowledged and considered (see ‘Establishment of the Administration Precinct’ below).

URBIS SA5469_SANDSTONE_PRECINCT_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT_NOV2014 APPENDICES

The archaeological assessment indicates there is low potential for cultural deposits that may be associated with the first Government House and its grounds to be recovered at the subject site. If recovered, artefactual material may be appropriate for interpretation and/or display where possible, subject to further investigations and the nature and age of the items.

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE ADMINISTRATION PRECINCT (1788-1930)

As mentioned above, the subject site formed an integral part of what effectively acted as the locus for the early administration and government of the colony. The construction of permanent accommodation for the Colony’s civil officers followed soon after the construction of first Government House and by 1792 a neat row of residences and gardens, for the Commissary, the Judge-Advocate, the Surveyor General and the Chaplain, lined the western approach to first Government House from the bridge over the Tank Stream.

These buildings were the first in a series of developments that resulted in an enclave of government offices in and around Bridge Street in the 19th century. For more than forty years after European settlement, the Colony of New South Wales was administered from these buildings, which served as both private residences and public offices. They were reconfigured under the instruction of Governor Macquarie between the years 1810 and 1817. The use of Bridge Street as an administration precinct has been maintained since that time; the construction of the Lands and Education Buildings along with other government owned landmark buildings re-confirmed Bridge Street as the main locus of government administration.

Interpretation should recognise the historical significance of the administration precinct. The various phases of building, particularly those that are contemporary with the construction and use of first Government House, as well as that of the Macquarie-era, should also be acknowledged. The continued and ongoing use of the area is significant; interpretation media that incorporates the timeline of purposeful development of the site should be considered.

The archaeological assessment indicates there is potential for sub-surface structural remains relating to the early phases of the administration precinct in the form of the Judge-Advocate’s residence (later the Colonial Secretary’s residence) and the Colonial Secretary’s residence (later the Colonial Secretary’s Office). If recovered, these remains would potentially be of state significance. Any remains should be interpreted and/or displayed where possible (subject to further investigations). The site also features the Bennelong Stormwater Channel No 29 which runs underground beneath Loftus Street and should also be incorporated into the interpretation.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LOCATION, THEMES, KEY MESSAGES AND INTERPRETIVE DEVICES

This preliminary plan forms part of an archaeological assessment that is intended to inform a Stage 1 DA for the proposed adaptive re-use of the subject site. The Stage 1 DA seeks approval for a concept proposal only. It is therefore noted that recommended locations for interpretation and media contained within this strategy outline are indicative only and alternate locations within the precinct may be equally appropriate pending final design and development proposals.

EXAMPLES OF INTERPRETATION MEDIA

BUILT FORM INTERPRETATION

“Every built form is a system of connecting links. Architecture, in this context, is the application of a number of spatial and temporal metaphors projected from bodily based experiences.”1 Interpretation in the built form thus refers to the treatment of the built form (being existing and adaptively reused buildings, new structures and streetscape elements) to interpret the sites significant values. A built form interpretive strategy is generally a more subtle response which emphasises and compliments the more overt interpretive media. Built form interpretation can be used to interpret specific events, uses, former structures and subdivision patterns as well as cultural uses and activities including Aboriginal narratives.

1 Snodgrass and Coyne, pg 201

URBIS APPENDICES SA5469_SANDSTONE_PRECINCT_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT_NOV2014

Heritage is one of the key issues in the redevelopment of the precinct and opportunities for built form interpretation should be a key consideration in the design competition and should be informed by the identified significance of the sites and the precinct as a whole. Built form interpretation takes a variety of forms but at minimum includes productive and appropriate adaptive re-use of heritage buildings; retention and active conservation of significant historic buildings, elements, spaces, relationships, streetscape and the historic street layout and conservation of the memory of the site’s uses, views/ vistas and archaeological resource.

FIGURE 1 – EXAMPLES OF BUILT FORM INTERPRETATION IN HERITAGE SITES/ PRECINCTS

THE LAYOUT OF THE GARDENS INTERPRETS THE FOOTPATH MARKERS INDICATING THE POSITION OF FORMER TANKS ON THE BALLAST POINT PARK SITE THE SYDNEY HARBOUR SHORELINE IN 1788.

INTERPRETATION OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL LAYOUT THE ADAPTED PADDINGTON RESERVOIR SITE OF FIRST GOVERNMENT HOUSE, IN THE FORECOURT PARTIALLY RETAINS THE FORMER STRUCTURE OF THE MUSEUM OF SYDNEY

URBIS SA5469_SANDSTONE_PRECINCT_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT_NOV2014 APPENDICES

FORMER 20TH CENTURY FOX FILM LOGO RETAINED IN INTERPRETATION OF THE FORMER FILM VAULTS AND THE FLOORING AT THE ADAPTED FORMER FILM FLUES AT THE FORMER PARAMOUNT FILM OFFICES, EXCHANGE SURRY HILLS

SIGNAGE AND HISTORIC MARKERS

Interpretive signage can take a variety of different forms and may feature text, images, drawings or digitally rendered images and may also incorporate object display and/ or interactive media. Signage is particularly useful to interpret specific significant sites and may be incorporated into infrastructure. Materials for signage can vary extensively and may be specific to a place evoking the significant values being interpreted. Signage may be permanent/ fixed or temporary, with temporary signage being particularly appropriate for hoardings during building works or during temporary programs.

Signage must be designed with regard to durability, installation and maintenance while location of signage should consider pedestrian traffic, accessibility, presentation, historical accuracy/ relevance and compatibility with the proposed development. Signage should not be visually or otherwise intrusive.

Examples of interpretation signage are provided at Figure 2.

FIGURE 2 – SAMPLE INTERPRETATION SIGNAGE

SIGNAGE AT THE CONVERTED PADDINGTON INTERPRETIVE SIGNAGE AT THE FORMER PARAMOUNT RESERVOIR SITE FILM EXCHANGE IN SURRY HILLS (WITHIN THE FORMER FILM VAULT/ FLUE)

URBIS APPENDICES SA5469_SANDSTONE_PRECINCT_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT_NOV2014

CAST IRON SIGNAGE IN THE ANZ BUILDING AT SEATING AT THE PARRAMATTA BAKERS MEWS CASTLEREAGH STREET INCORPORATES SIGNAGE AND ARTEFACT DISPLAY (WITHIN THE SEATING)

TIMELINE STYLE SIGNAGE AT BALLAST POINT PARK SIGNAGE AT THE FORMER PARRAMATTA FIRE STATION, ADAPTIVELY REUSED FOR RETAIL USES

TEMPORARY INTERPRETIVE SIGNAGE AND VIEWING TEMPORARY INTERPRETATION SIGNAGE ON THE WINDOW AT AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE IN MACQUARIE HOARDING AT THE FORMER CARLTON UNITED STREET, PARRAMATTA BREWERY SITE

URBIS SA5469_SANDSTONE_PRECINCT_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT_NOV2014 APPENDICES

PLAQUES/ HISTORIC MARKERS

Similar to signage, plaques and historic markers can take a variety of different forms and may feature text, images, drawings or digitally rendered images. Plaques may also incorporate interactive media (e.g. QR code, iPhone and Android apps utilising location based technology (GPS) and personal mobile devices) or may be associated with education programs or heritage walks. Materials can vary and must be designed with regard to weathering, durability, installation and maintenance while location should consider pedestrian traffic, accessibility, presentation, historical accuracy/ relevance and compatibility with the proposed development. Plaques should not be visually or otherwise intrusive. Where applied across the subject site, plaques should adopt a consistent materiality or design and be integrated into the architectural fabric.

FIGURE 3 – PLAQUES AND HISTORIC MARKERS

PLAQUE ON WAREHOUSE BUILDING KNOWN AS “THE PLAQUE ON THE FORMER PARAMOUNT FILM VINTAGE “ON BATHURST STREET. EXCHANGE, SURRY HILLS

FOOTPATH SIGNAGE AT THE FORMER HOSPITAL SITE PLAN OF PLAQUE SIGNAGE AT CUMBERLAND STREET, (JUSTICE PRECINCT) PARRAMATTA THE ROCKS

PUBLIC ART

Public Art is a rich and evocative interpretive tool which also adds to the aesthetic and cultural character of a place and there is an opportunity to incorporate public art that responds to, engages with and challenges the natural, indigenous and cultural values of the subject site.

URBIS APPENDICES SA5469_SANDSTONE_PRECINCT_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT_NOV2014

FIGURE 4– EXAMPLES OF PUBLIC ART INTERPRETING HERITAGE SITES

THE EDGE OF THE TREES SCULPTURE, AT THE HALO (2012) BY JENNIFER TURPIN AND MICHAELIE MUSEUM OF SYDNEY INCORPORATES SOUNDSCAPES CRAWFORD (ABORIGINAL VOICES CALL OUT THEIR CLAN AND PLACE NAMES).

PUBLISHED MATERIALS AND MULTIMEDIA

Interpretation of the subject site should also consider opportunities for published materials and multimedia. This may involve a variety of media including print and electronic publications, books, pamphlets (often used to guide historic walks), video, soundscape or film productions and internet or digital media, with the intent of making the information more readily accessible to a broader public audience through a broader variety of channels.

FIGURE 5 – EXAMPLES OF PUBLISHED MATERIALS/MULTI-MEDIA

THE HERITAGE HONG KONG APP ENABLES USERS TO SAMPLE DATA POINT FOR SMART PHONES AND FOLLOW HERITAGE WALKS USING GPS TECHNOLOGY. ELECTRONIC DEVICES USED VARIOUSLY AROUND THE AR TECHNOLOGY REVEALS POINTS OF INTEREST AND ROCKS INFORMATION IS ALSO AVAILABLE OFFLINE.

URBIS SA5469_SANDSTONE_PRECINCT_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT_NOV2014 APPENDICES

CITY OF SYDNEY COUNCIL HAS PRODUCED A NUMBER THE ICONIC ART DECO PARAGON HOTEL, KATOOMBA, OF HERITAGE BROCHURES IN ASSOCIATION WITH INCORPORATES HERITAGE INTERPRETATION ON THE SELF GUIDED HERITAGE WALKS MENU AND WINE LISTS

EDUCATION AND COMMUNITY PROGRAMS

Taking part in community and education programmes or staging events for the local and wider community can also assist in the interpretation of the place, heightening public awareness and enhancing the understanding of the cultural heritage site, often to a broader audience who may not have otherwise visited the site. Community and education programs may involve public lectures, on-site and directly related off-site installations, educational programs, festivals and community activities. Events may be run through local council, special interest or community groups.

Examples of well-known festivals or public programs include Sydney Open, Vivid, Biennale, Art and About, Sydney Laneways Festival or the Sydney Architecture Festival.

FIGURE 5 – EXAMPLES OF COMMUNITY PROGRAMS

THE AMP FAÇADE WAS FEATURED IN THE 2010 VIVID SYDNEY OPEN 2012 - TANK STREAM TOUR, FESTIVAL PHOTO (C) JAMES HORAN SOURCE: HTTP://SYDNEYOPEN.HHT.NET.AU/2012/CITY- PASS-GALLERY/INDEX.HTML

URBIS APPENDICES SA5469_SANDSTONE_PRECINCT_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT_NOV2014

Conclusion and Recommendations

This preliminary strategy forms part of an archaeological assessment that is intended to inform a Stage 1 DA for the proposed adaptive re-use of the subject site. The Stage 1 DA seeks approval for a concept proposal only.

General principles for the interpretation moving forward, include:

. The development of a final Heritage Interpretation Strategy at the Stage 2 DA phase. The final Strategy should reference this preliminary strategy;

. Interpretation should be integrated into the overall site planning, conservation and management of the subject site;

. Interpretation should be undertaken in accordance with the relevant heritage guidelines and best practice “ingredients” for interpretation, consent requirements and relevant policies in the Conservation Management Plans;

. Interpretation should not be visually or otherwise intrusive and should permit the audience to discover and interact or engage with the interpretation over time and on various levels;

. Interpretation should be contemporary and allow for technological innovation, including social and multimedia; and

. Development of interpretation should be collaborative and undertaken in consultation with the relevant stakeholders, the consultant teams and consent Authorities.

URBIS SA5469_SANDSTONE_PRECINCT_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT_NOV2014 APPENDICES

Appendix B Relevant SHR Listings for the Subject Site

URBIS APPENDICES SA5469_SANDSTONE_PRECINCT_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT_NOV2014

11/21/2014 Lands Department Building | NSW Environment & Heritage

Home > Heritage sites > Searches and directories > NSW heritage search

Lands Department Building

Item details Name of item: Lands Department Building Type of item: Built Group/Collection:Government and Administration Category: Administration Office Location: Lat: -33.8639295477 Long: 151.2099459440 Primary address: 22-33 Bridge Street, Sydney, NSW 2000 Parish: St James County: Cumberland Local govt. area: Sydney

Property description Lot/Volume Lot/Volume Section Plan/Folio Plan/Folio Code Number Number Code Number

LOT 1877 DP 877000

All addresses Street Address Suburb/town LGA Parish County Type

22-33 Bridge Sydney Sydney St Cumberland Primary Street James Address

Gresham Street Sydney Sydney St Cumberland Alternate James Address

Bent Street Sydney Sydney St Cumberland Alternate James Address

Loftus Street Sydney Sydney St Cumberland Alternate James Address

Owner/s Owner Date Ownership Organisation Name Category Updated

Department of Planning and State 20 Nov 98 Infrastructure Government

Department of Planning and State 03 May 99 Infrastructure Government

Statement of significance: The building is one of the most outstanding surviving Victorian buildings in Sydney. The building has been used continuously for the purpose which it was designed for - as the administrative head office of Department of Lands. It has a long association with the public life of NSW, especially the rapid expansion of settlement during the later part of the 19th century. The building forms a visually satisfying enclosure to the southen side of Macquarie Place and relates in scale and materials to the other Government buildings at the eastern end of Bridge Street. A vital landmark in the history of surveying, land titles and public works in New South Wales. (DLWC S170 Register) Date significance updated: 03 Nov 06 Note: There are incomplete details for a number of items listed in NSW. The Heritage Branch intends to develop or upgrade statements of significance and other information for http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/heritageapp/ViewHeritageItemDetails.aspx?ID=5045701 1/6 11/21/2014 Lands Department Building | NSW Environment & Heritage these items as resources become available.

Description Designer/Maker:James Barnet; W. Kemp; W. Vernon Builder/Maker: John Young 1876-1881; Waine & Baldwin 1888-1890 Construction 1876-1892 years: Physical A large 3-storey sandstone administration building with description: basement, designed in the Renaissance Revival style.

The basement has 3 entrances: the main entrance in Bridge Street, and two others in Gresham Street (one originally used for carriage). The facade is of dressed Pyrmont sandstone with cornices and balusters at each floor level.

The ground, first, & second floors have pilasters and entablatures of the Doric, Ionic and Corinthian orders respectively, each standing on appropriate pedestals.

The pitched roof is behind a balustraded parapet. A large copper dome 55' square at the base changing to an octagon at the top and carrying an octagonal lantern with revolving copper dome roof rises above the Bridge Street faade.

The centre compartments of Gresham and Loftus Streets have pediments backed up by high mansard roofs. A clock tower with copper "onion" top closes the vistas in Bent and Spring Streets. The elevations have arched windows and verandah openings, and niches for statuary. There is delicately formed cast iron work to the entrance gates and window grilles, and large flights of stairs and cantilevered balconies and bridges around the courtyards.

The internal walls are of brick with reinforced concrete floors and ceiling, iron girders and iron-framed roofing. Externally, the building's original faade is unchanged. (DLWC S170 Register)

Each facade has 12 niches whose sculpted occupants include explorers and legislators who made a major contribution to the opening up and settlement of the nation. Although 48 men were nominated by Barnet as being suitable subjects, most were rejected as being 'hunters or excursionists'. Only 23 statues were commissioned, the last being added in 1901 leaving 25 niches unfilled (Devine, 2011). Modifications 11/2010- a new statue of colonial surveyor James Meehan and dates: (1774-1826) was created and placed in an empty niche on cnr. Loftus/Bent Streets. Meehan was transported to NSW due to involvement in the Irish Rebellion of 1798. He arrived in Sydney in 1800 and, as a teacher and skilled surveyor, was assigned as a servant to Acting Surveyor-General, Charles Grimes. Within two years he had been on two major expeditions and, by 1806, had been conditionally pardoned. He continued to work on departmental duties, and, from difficult beginnings,, a remarkable rose to be an important colonial surveyor, explorer and settler, surveying and mapping large areas of the country. The early towns of Sydney, Parramatta, Bathurst, Port Macquarie and Hobart were all explored, laid out and measured by Meehan. The statue was commissioned by the Land & Property Management Authority to commemorate Meehan's close collaboration with NSW Public Works Heritage Services and the Government Architect's Office (Devine, 2011). Meehan was also associated with Macquarie Field House, Campbelltown an early country estate and farm, separately listed on the NSW State Heritage Register (Read, Stuart, pers.comm., 27/1/12). Further Maintain original plan configuration and retain all original http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/heritageapp/ViewHeritageItemDetails.aspx?ID=5045701 2/6 11/21/2014 Lands Department Building | NSW Environment & Heritage information: fabric and detailing if possible. Retain the same continuous usage of the building. Conservation Plan was prepared in 1985, however it is recommended thatthis Plan be updated. (DLWC S170 Register)

Current use:offices Former use:offices

History Historical The Lands Department Building was designed by the Colonial notes: Architect James Barnet, and was built in two stages. The first stage was between 1876-81; the second stage was between 1888-92 under the supervision of the Colonial Architect Walter Vernon (it was completed two years into Vernon's tenure in this role).

The first stage saw the use of reinforced concrete slabs by the builder John Young who was Sydney's first protagonist [sic] of ferro-cement construction.

Sometime between 1887 and 1894 the Lands Department Datum Bench Mark Plug was set into position on the front of the building and provided the origin of all levels in NSW under the Survey Co-ordination Act. In 1938, a clock for the tower and a clock system throughout the building to be driven electronically by a pendulum master clock were installed by Prouds Limited. The whole system was Australian made.

In the late 1980s [sic], the building was earmarked by the NSW Governnment as one of the possible sites for conversion into a casino. A Permanent Conservation Order covering the premises was passed by the NSW Heritage Council in order to protect the building from unsympathetic development. (DLWC S170 Register)

Historic themes Australian theme (abbrev) New South Wales theme Local theme 4. Land tenure-Activities and processes for identifying (none)- Settlement- forms of ownership and occupancy of land and water, Building both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal settlements, towns and cities 7. Government and Administration-Activities associated (none)- Governing- with the governance of local areas, regions, the State Governing and the nation, and the administration of public programs - includes both principled and corrupt activities.

9. Phases of Persons-Activities of, and associations with, Associations Life-Marking identifiable individuals, families and communal groups with Walter the phases Liberty Vernon, of life Government Architect- 9. Phases of Persons-Activities of, and associations with, Associations Life-Marking identifiable individuals, families and communal groups with James the phases Barnet, of life architect-

9. Phases of Persons-Activities of, and associations with, Associations Life-Marking identifiable individuals, families and communal groups with James the phases Meehan, of life Deputy Surveyor General-

Assessment of significance http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/heritageapp/ViewHeritageItemDetails.aspx?ID=5045701 3/6 11/21/2014 Lands Department Building | NSW Environment & Heritage SHR Criteria The Lands Department Building is one of the most influential a) and major public building ever established during the mid [Historical nineteenth century in Australia's colonial history. The significance] responsibilities and duties of the Lands Department highlighted the important contributions that it has provided to the growth of the colony over the years. The style and scale of the building was considered to be equal to the public buildings that were constructed in the rest of the British Empire. Moreover, it provided a sense of pride amongst the citizens of Sydney and enabled many to connect with their European roots. The Lands Department Building also has associations with significant Australian figures including Surveyor Generals such as Sir Thomas Mitchell as well as prominent Australian architects such as James Barnet (Smith, 1996, p49). SHR Criteria The Lands Department Building is a landmark that is well c) known for its character due to its portrait statues on its [Aesthetic facade. The building does also make a key contribution to significance] Sydney’s streetscapes as being ‘one of the most intact late Victorian-Edwardian’ styles in the city (Smith, 1996, p50). James Barnet’s unique building designs had drifted away from the traditional architectural styles found in earlier nineteenth century Sydney. His design plans had incorporated the use of majestic colonnades and verandas in view of the Australian climate. SHR Criteria The building is an important heritage item that stems from d) early colonial times and is at present widely accepted by the [Social public to be of historical significance. It is viewed as a significance] structure that provides a sense of Australian identity. The Lands Department Building as well as other Neo-Classical architectures such as the General Post Office and the Chief Secretary’s Building symbolises not only the wealth of the nation, but also the pride of owning a structure that reflects their connection to the British Empire. The building is exceptionally impressive and is viewed as a place of historical interest attracting both tourists and locals alike. Assessment Items are assessed against the State Heritage Register criteria: (SHR) Criteria to determine the level of significance. Refer to the Listings below for the level of statutory protection.

Recommended management: Conserve and maintain in accordance with the Burra Charter. (DLWC S170 Register)

Recommendations Management Date Category Description Updated

Recommended Produce a Conservation Management Management Plan (CMP)

Recommended Prepare a maintenance schedule or Management guidelines

Recommended Carry out interpretation, promotion Management and/or education

Procedures /Exemptions Section Action of act Description Title Comments date

21(1) Conservation Conservation (b) Plan Management submitted Plan for submitted for endorsement endorsement.

57(2) Exemption to Heritage Act Record converted from HIS Mar 28 allow work events 1991

Order Under Section 57(2) to exempt the following activities http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/heritageapp/ViewHeritageItemDetails.aspx?ID=5045701 4/6 11/21/2014 Lands Department Building | NSW Environment & Heritage from Section 57(1): (1) The maintenance of any building or item on the site which relates to the continuous protective care of existing material but excluding renovation, repairs (other than those of a minor nature and extent), restoration or repainting. (2) Minor repairs where minor repair means the repair of materials and includes replacement of minor components which have been damaged beyond reasonable repair or are missing. Replacements should be of the same material, colour, texture, form and design as the original they replace. (3) Change of use

21(1) Conservation Conservarion Aug 1 (b) Plan Plan 1996 submitted for endorsement

57(2) Exemption to Standard SCHEDULE OF STANDARD Sep 5 allow work Exemptions EXEMPTIONS 2008 HERITAGE ACT 1977 Notice of Order Under Section 57 (2) of the Heritage Act 1977

I, the Minister for Planning, pursuant to subsection 57(2) of the Heritage Act 1977, on the recommendation of the Heritage Council of New South Wales, do by this Order:

1. revoke the Schedule of Exemptions to subsection 57(1) of the Heritage Act made under subsection 57(2) and published in the Government Gazette on 22 February 2008; and

2. grant standard exemptions from subsection 57(1) of the Heritage Act 1977, described in the Schedule attached.

FRANK SARTOR Minister for Planning Sydney, 11 July 2008

To view the schedule click on the Standard Exemptions for Works Requiring Heritage Council Approval link below.

Standard exemptions for works requiring Heritage Council approval

Listings Listing Listing Gazette Gazette Gazette Heritage Listing Title Number Date Number Page

Heritage Act - State 00744 02 Apr 27 1546 Heritage Register 99

Heritage Act - Permanent 00744 28 Mar 052 Conservation Order - 91 former

Heritage Act - s.170 NSW State agency heritage register http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/heritageapp/ViewHeritageItemDetails.aspx?ID=5045701 5/6 11/21/2014 Lands Department Building | NSW Environment & Heritage

Local Environmental Plan CSH 07 Apr LEP 4 00

Register of the National 21 Mar Estate 78

Study details Inspected Guidelines Title Year Number Author by used

Land & Water 1995 54131 Heritage No Conservation Section Group: 170 Register State Projects

References, internet links & images Internet Type Author Year Title Links

Written Devine, 2011 James Meehan (1774-1826) takes his Matthew place - Lands Department Building, Sydney

Written Stephanie 2004 The Buildings that are saving Sydney - Peatling energy efficiency 22/1/04

Written Terry 2008 Jewels in the crown : a history of crown Kass plans and the Bridge Street plan room 1788-2008

Note: internet links may be to web pages, documents or images.

(Click on thumbnail for full size image and image details) Data source The information for this entry comes from the following source: Name: Heritage Office Database 5045701 number: File number: S90/01458; S95/00332 [S170]

Return to previous page

Every effort has been made to ensure that information contained in the State Heritage Inventory is correct. If you find any errors or omissions please send your comments to the Database Manager.

All information and pictures on this page are the copyright of the Heritage Branch or respective copyright owners.

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/heritageapp/ViewHeritageItemDetails.aspx?ID=5045701 6/6 11/21/2014 Department of Education Building | NSW Environment & Heritage

Home > Heritage sites > Searches and directories > NSW heritage search

Department of Education Building

Item details Name of item: Department of Education Building Other name/s: Education Building Type of item: Built Group/Collection:Government and Administration Category: Office building Location: Lat: -33.8638549136 Long: 151.2106685670 Primary address: 35-39 Bridge Street, Sydney, NSW 2000 Parish: St James County: Cumberland Local govt. area: Sydney

Property description Lot/Volume Lot/Volume Section Plan/Folio Plan/Folio Code Number Number Code Number

LOT 56 DP 729620

All addresses Street Address Suburb/town LGA Parish County Type

35-39 Bridge Sydney Sydney St Cumberland Primary Street James Address

Owner/s Organisation Name Owner Category Date Ownership Updated

NSW Treasury State Government 03 May 99

Statement of significance: The Department of Education Building demonstrates Edwardian architectural style and planning concepts; its historic features reveal Edwardian taste and customs - for example, the grand sequence from entry porch to Ministerial Board Room. The Building, especially where it remains in original condition, a particularly fine example of an early 20th century government office building, featuring an innovative internal steel frame that allowed for future re-use.

It is an important example of the architecture of the period 1915-1930. While the original design determined the overall external effect, it is interesting to see purer Beaux Arts neo- classical details occurring in the 1929 Farrer Place porch and foyer, and simplified stonework details in this portion of the building. How much they reflect taste rather than economy is unclear.

The importance of education to NSW c.1915 is manifest in this building and its original budget. Various important figures such as Peter Board and Sir Harold Wyndham are also associated with it. The building as conceived and built, has a considerable degree of unity in its use of materials, form and scale. The external design is highly disciplined, and uses a limited palette of materials: Sydney sandstone, metal framed windows, copper-clad skylights. It makes a major contribution to this part of Sydney, visually linking with other imposing sandstone government buildings and enhancing a number of important city vistas. It clearly has townscape http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/heritageapp/ViewHeritageItemDetails.aspx?ID=5045558 1/7 11/21/2014 Department of Education Building | NSW Environment & Heritage value.

(Department of Education Building, Howard Tanner & Associates in association with Terry Kass and Hughes Trueman Ludlow, 1989) Note: There are incomplete details for a number of items listed in NSW. The Heritage Branch intends to develop or upgrade statements of significance and other information for these items as resources become available.

Description Designer/Maker:George McRae Construction 1912-1914 years: Physical The Department of Education Building occupies a description: complete city block, its four handsomely detailed sandstone elevations being designed to dominate this area. The northern elevation makes an important contribution to Bridge Street, the monumental simplicity being articulated by the central porch with its broken pediment, a sequence of arched openings and judiciously ornamented balconies and friezes, which are topped by a lofty parapet. The other three elevations generally repeat this formula in a more restrained way.

In addition to the important Bridge Street presentation, there are other important views from the First Government House site, from Macquarie Place and along Bent Street, as well as the axial view from O'Connell Street.

The northern half of the building was designed and construction c.1912-1915 for the Department of Public Instruction, now the Department of Education. The design can be attributed to the Government Architect of the day, George McRae, who as a young man was responsible for the Queen Victoria Building. His later work is characterised by imposing sandstone structures in what may be termed an Edwardian Baroque style, similar to major government buildings being erected in Britain at that time. Central Railway Station (c.1924) and the Department of Public Instruction (c.1914) are prime examples of his later work.

Mc Rae intended that the completed buildings would form a quadrangle around a formal garden, and the second, or southern portion, was designed and constructed c.1928- 30 to plans prepared by architects John Reid and Son. These largely followed the formula devised by McRae, but with additional openings to the parapet, and a set back top floor, whose rendered finish somewhat compromised the original intent. This section of the building was constructed for the Department of Agriculture, but since 1967 has been occupied by the Department of Education.

There is no doubt that the formation by successive colonial governments of an administrative enclave in this area to designs by Government Architects such as Lewis, Barnet, Bernon and McRae sought to establish a special precinct, a kind of Antipodean Whitehall.

That the Department of Education Building had British prototypes is quite clear. Its style was in what has come to be termed Edwardian Baroque featuring robust stonework broken by a regular rhythm of quasi-Georgian windows, and a strong play of shallow arches and segmental or broken pediments.

A very obvious prototype is William Young's War Office, Whitehall of 1898-1906, or in a more general sense the vast civic group at Cardiff, Wales (1897-1906).

The interiors of the Department of Education Building http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/heritageapp/ViewHeritageItemDetails.aspx?ID=5045558 2/7 11/21/2014 Department of Education Building | NSW Environment & Heritage were generally functional, a series of simply partitioned offices and corridors now generally altered to form open plan office space. The exceptions were the imposing entry lobbies and related stairs, the finely wrought Minister's office, (or Board Room), and the top floor exhibition galleries. Here the external language of pillars and pilasters, was combined with deeply coffered ceilings and panelled doors and some exuberant detail: plaster, timber and marble were used to enrich these special areas.

The existing building has been constructed in two sections with several later additions.

The first part being the northern section built c.1912. The structure is steel framed with concrete floor slabs supported on a network of secondary RSJ's spanning between primary RSJ's which span from perimeter walls to internal columns. Internal concrete encased. From available drawings it cannot be confirmed whether the external walls to the street and the internal walls to the courtyard are steel framed or whether they are of load bearing masonry construction. Most likely they are load bearing masonry.

The later southern section was originally the Department of Agriculture built c.1928. The structure consists of ribbed one way spanning reinforced concrete floor slabs supported by concrete encased steel plated RSJ's spanning from internal columns to columns within the external walls. The available drawings indicate that the perimeter walls and courtyard walls are steel framed.

Both buildings are stoned clad to perimeter walls and have flat roof construction similar to the floor constructions except that the earlier building has the steel framing and slabs so arranged as to accommodate raised roof lights.

(Department of Education Building, Howard Tanner & Associates in association with Terry Kass and Hughes Trueman Ludlow, 1989)

Current use:office building, accommodation, scientific facility Former use:Department of Education Administration

History Historical In 1810, Governor Lachlan Macquarie arrived in Australia. notes: During his leadership he required the assistance of his Secretary John Thomas Campbell who he worked with consistently until 1813. On 24 December 1813, Governor Macquarie approved the plans of building a house and offices for Secretary Campbell designed by architect Daniel Dering Matthew. Campbell moved into the site in 1816 which offered him accommodation, clerical rooms and storage space for record functions of government. This move marked a growing maturity of governmental and administrative duties which for many decades, this building was the real nerve centre of the Colony's administration. Almost all enquiries of government, particularly written ones went to the Colonial Secretary's Office serving as a clearing house and the hub of the administrative functions of the State.

In 1875, the Colonial Secretarial Office moved into a new location and was taken over by the Department of Public Instruction in 1881. A variety of minor additions and repairs were made to the building however, it was too small and cramped for the offices of the Department of Public Instruction.

To house the officers of the Department a new building was erected on September 1912. The style followed James Barnet's construction of imposing masonry offices and http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/heritageapp/ViewHeritageItemDetails.aspx?ID=5045558 3/7 11/21/2014 Department of Education Building | NSW Environment & Heritage Edwardian institutional architecture. The Department of Public Instruction changed its name to the Department of Education in 1915 which was subsequently responsible for new changes which substantially laid the foundations for educational practice in the next century. Around the same period, new theories about education emerged. Consequently, this building was pivotal for the many changes to the educational system which developed a whole series of new initiatives and strengthened the role of the Education Department. The government took a more active role in supervising private schools with registration and inspection increasing competition between public and private schools which led to the demise of several private schools. In this building a new syllabus was formed based on the New Education theory which interrelated subjects and stressed the importance of individual learning. Several changes were made to primary and secondary syllabuses over the years and numerous building initiatives were put forward.

In 1948 an experimental regional office was opened at Wagga Wagga to ease the load and pressure the Department was experiencing. The role of the school principal was also increased who looked after curriculum, staffing and finance. The school system had to cope with an enormous expansion in the number of students, a teacher shortage and a shortfall in school accommodation. Education was also effected by the increase in the non-English speaking student population. Thus, the Department's role after World War II considerably modified to issuing aims and objectives for schools rather than supervising each school's curriculum and subject content.

In 1890 the Department of Agriculture was formed only playing minor roles for many years. However a growing understanding for need of advice and establishment of research stations increased the Department's requirements for office space. Officers were scattered until 1929 when building commenced adjacent to the Department of Education Building. The building offered offices, accommodation and biological, entomological and chemical labs. The role of the Department offered advice for farmers for sound management practices, maintained quality control and was also responsible for agricultural education.

In 1978 the Department of Agriculture moved into the McKell building in Rawson so the building could be occupied by the Department of Education. Therefore, the Department of Education acquired more land and office space which enabled the Department to work more efficiently and effectively.

(Summarised from - Department of Education Building, Howard Tanner & Associates in association with Terry Kass and Hughes Trueman Ludlow, 1989)

Historic themes Australian theme Local (abbrev) New South Wales theme theme 6. Educating- Education-Activities associated with teaching and (none)- Educating learning by children and adults, formally and informally.

Assessment of significance SHR Criteria This is an historic site, traditionally associated with a b) significant government purpose. In its present form it has [Associative been associated with a number of significant government significance] Ministers and department heads. It has also been associated with the development of education and agriculture.

(Department of Education Building, Howard Tanner & Associates in association with Terry Kass and Hughes Trueman Ludlow, 1989) SHR Criteria A remarkably fine set of Edwardian baroque sandstone http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/heritageapp/ViewHeritageItemDetails.aspx?ID=5045558 4/7 11/21/2014 Department of Education Building | NSW Environment & Heritage c) elevations forming a complete city block and providing a [Aesthetic landmark building to Bridge Street where it forms a group significance] with the Lands Department and Chief Secretary's Office and the older portions of the Intercontinental hotel (the former Treasury). The fine external character and detailing is also found in several vestibules and several major interiors.

(Department of Education Building, Howard Tanner & Associates in association with Terry Kass and Hughes Trueman Ludlow, 1989) SHR Criteria As a 'flagship' for the State's education system 1915-1990 d) the building has been long associated with key policy makers, [Social teachers and pupils. The art gallery has been an important significance] venue for many public meetings and exhibitions.

(Department of Education Building, Howard Tanner & Associates in association with Terry Kass and Hughes Trueman Ludlow, 1989)

SHR Criteria There may be some important scientific associations for both e) the Departments of Education and Agriculture but they have [Research not been identified, although education theory, and potential] agricultural research are obvious items.

(Department of Education Building, Howard Tanner & Associates in association with Terry Kass and Hughes Trueman Ludlow, 1989) Assessment Items are assessed against the State Heritage Register criteria: (SHR) Criteria to determine the level of significance. Refer to the Listings below for the level of statutory protection.

Procedures /Exemptions Section Action of act Description Title Comments date

21(1) Conservation Conservation (b) Plan Management submitted Plan for comment submitted for endorsement.

57(2) Exemption Heritage Act Record converted from HIS Jun 22 to allow events 1990 work

Order Under Section 57(2) to exempt the following activities from Section 57(1): (1) The maintenance of any building or item on the site where maintenance means the continuous protective care of existing fabric. (2) The minor repair of the building where minor repair means the repair of existing materials and includes replacements of minor components such as individual bricks, where these have been damaged beyond reasonable repair or are missing. The replacement should be of the same material, colour, texture, form and design as the original it replaces. (3) Alterations to the interior of the building, except insofar as such work would affect: - the Bridge and Loftus Street Lobbies and associated stairwells; - the Farrar Place Lobby; - the Art Gallery, meeting room and associated stair; http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/heritageapp/ViewHeritageItemDetails.aspx?ID=5045558 5/7 11/21/2014 Department of Education Building | NSW Environment & Heritage - the Ministerial Board Room and Director General's Suite; - the ground floor corridor; - the top lit recreation area on level 7; and - the external appearance of the building. (4) Change of use. (5) Subdivision.

57(2) Exemption Standard SCHEDULE OF STANDARD Sep 5 to allow Exemptions EXEMPTIONS 2008 work HERITAGE ACT 1977 Notice of Order Under Section 57 (2) of the Heritage Act 1977

I, the Minister for Planning, pursuant to subsection 57(2) of the Heritage Act 1977, on the recommendation of the Heritage Council of New South Wales, do by this Order:

1. revoke the Schedule of Exemptions to subsection 57(1) of the Heritage Act made under subsection 57(2) and published in the Government Gazette on 22 February 2008; and

2. grant standard exemptions from subsection 57(1) of the Heritage Act 1977, described in the Schedule attached.

FRANK SARTOR Minister for Planning Sydney, 11 July 2008

To view the schedule click on the Standard Exemptions for Works Requiring Heritage Council Approval link below.

Standard exemptions for works requiring Heritage Council approval

Listings Listing Listing Gazette Gazette Gazette Heritage Listing Title Number Date Number Page

Heritage Act - State 00726 02 Apr 27 1546 Heritage Register 99

Heritage Act - Permanent 00726 22 Jun 80 5185 Conservation Order - 90 former

Local Environmental Plan CSH 07 Apr LEP 4 00

Register of the National 21 Mar Estate 78

References, internet links & images Internet Type Author Year Title Links

Tourism 2007 Colony Walking Tour View detail

Tourism Attraction Homepage 2007 Colony Walking Tour View detail

Written Howard Tanner & 1989 A Report on heritage Associates, in assoc with significance - http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/heritageapp/ViewHeritageItemDetails.aspx?ID=5045558 6/7 11/21/2014 Department of Education Building | NSW Environment & Heritage Terry Kass and Hughes Department of Truman Ludlow Education Building

Note: internet links may be to web pages, documents or images.

(Click on thumbnail for full size image and image details) Data source The information for this entry comes from the following source: Name: Heritage Office Database 5045558 number: File number: S90/02690 & HC 89/2185

Return to previous page

Every effort has been made to ensure that information contained in the State Heritage Inventory is correct. If you find any errors or omissions please send your comments to the Database Manager.

All information and pictures on this page are the copyright of the Heritage Branch or respective copyright owners.

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/heritageapp/ViewHeritageItemDetails.aspx?ID=5045558 7/7

Appendix C AHIMS Search Results

URBIS SA5469_SANDSTONE_PRECINCT_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_ASSESSMENT_NOV2014 APPENDICES

AHIMS Web Services (AWS) Your Ref Number : SA5496 Sandstone Extensive search - Site list report Client Service ID : 154175

SiteID SiteName Datum Zone Easting Northing Context Site Status SiteFeatures SiteTypes Reports 45-6-2796 320-328 George St PAD AGD 56 334100 6251050 Open site Valid Potential 102494,10276 Archaeological 3,102765 Deposit (PAD) : - Contact T Russell Recorders Mr.Dominic Steele Permits 2415 45-6-2581 Angel Place AGD 56 334400 6251100 Open site Valid Artefact : - Open Camp Site 97963,102494, 102763,10276 5 Contact Recorders Dominic Steele Archaeological Consulting Permits 918 45-6-2299 First Government House AGD 56 334470 6251350 Open site Valid Burial : -, Aboriginal Burial/s,Historic 102494,10276 Ceremony and Place 3,102765 Dreaming : - Contact Recorders Michael Guider,Watkin Tench Permits

Report generated by AHIMS Web Service on 10/11/2014 for Karyn Virgin for the following area at Datum :GDA, Zone : 56, Eastings : 334339 - 334547, Northings : 6251348 - 6251592 with a Buffer of 200 meters. Additional Info : To inform an archaeological assessment. Number of Aboriginal sites and Aboriginal objects found is 3 This information is not guaranteed to be free from error omission. Office of Environment and Heritage (NSW) and its employees disclaim liability for any act done or omission made on the information and consequences of such acts or omission. Page 1 of 1

Sydney Brisbane Level 21, 321 Kent Street Level 12, 120 Edward Street Sydney, NSW 2000 Brisbane, QLD 4000 t +02 8233 9900 t +07 3007 3800 f +02 8233 9966 f +07 3007 3811

Melbourne Perth Level 12, 120 Collins Street Level 1, 55 St Georges Terrace Melbourne, VIC 3000 Perth, WA 6000 t +03 8663 4888 t +08 9346 0500 Australia • Asia • Middle East f +03 8663 4999 f +08 9321 7790 w urbis.com.au e [email protected]