24 Argyle Place, Millers Point Historical Archaeological Assessment

24 Argyle Place, Millers Point

Historical Archaeological Assessment

Report to Virginia Kerridge Architect

November 2019

Page i

24 Argyle Place, Millers Point Historical Archaeological Assessment

Document history and status

Revision Date issued Reviewed by Approved by Date approved Revision type 1 18/11/2019 JW & JvB JW 18/11/2019 Internal draft review 2 21/11/2019 AGC AGC 21/11/2019 Client review 3 22/11/2019 JvB JW 22/11/2019 Final

Author: Sarah Hawkins, Jayden van Beek, and Jenny Winnett Project manager: Jenny Winnett Project number: 19154 Name of organisation: Artefact Heritage Document version: Final

This document is and shall remain the property of Artefact Heritage Services. This document may only be used for the purposes for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the Terms of the Engagement for the commission. Unauthorised use of this document in any form whatsoever is prohibited.

Disclaimer: Artefact Heritage Services has completed this document in accordance with the relevant federal, state and local legislation and current industry best practice. The company accepts no liability for any damages or loss incurred as a result of reliance placed upon the document content or for any purpose other than that for which it was intended.

Page ii

24 Argyle Place, Millers Point Historical Archaeological Assessment

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Artefact Heritage has been engaged by Virginia Kerridge Architect to prepare a Historical Archaeological Assessment (AA) for 24 Argyle Place, Millers Point. This AA will accompany a Development Application (DA) and support a Section 60 application to Heritage NSW, Department of Premier and Cabinet (Heritage NSW, DPC) for proposed works at the property including renovation and refurbishment works, construction of an extension at the rear of the lower ground floor, and minor landscaping works.

The study area has been identified as being a heritage item of state significance. The property is listed on the State Heritage Register (SHR) as SHR No. 00905 – ‘Terraces’ and is included in Schedule 5 of the City of Sydney Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2012 as part of Item No. I950, Terrace Group (No. 24-32 Argyle Place), including interiors.’ The study area is also within two SHR listed conservation areas: Millers Point Conservation Area (SHR No. 00884) and Millers Point and Dawes Point Village Precinct (SHR No. 01682).

This AA provides a detailed assessment of archaeological potential and significance and an impact statement relating to the proposed works.

Conclusions

Page iii

24 Argyle Place, Millers Point Historical Archaeological Assessment

• The proposed renovation, extension and landscaping works have low potential to impact significant archaeological resources: − Internal replacement of floorboards would not be expected to impact underfloor deposits unless it is determined that remediation is required − Landscaping works may impact former structures, artefactual deposits associated with wells, cesspits, or rubbish pits, yard scatters, or yard surfaces from the 1800s. However, the landscaping works would be relatively shallow • Impacts to significant archaeological remains within an SHR curtilage require approval under the NSW Heritage Act 1977 (Heritage Act).

Recommendations

• This report should be submitted with the DA to City of Sydney and subsequent Section 60 application to Heritage NSW, DPC (Delegate of the Heritage Council of NSW) for the proposed works • The archaeological investigation during the construction program should include the following: − Archaeological monitoring and recording of ground disturbance works in the rear yard − Archaeological site inspection following the removal of internal ground floor surface and prior to preparation for installation of new services and new surfacing on each floor of the house, including recording and photography of any underfloor or ceiling cavity deposits − Archaeological monitoring of removal of the sandstone yard surface and sandstone wall to check for additional subsurface remains − Archaeological monitoring of the removal of the banana trees and secondary brick outbuilding which has been repurposed as a garden bed to check for additional subsurface remains − Any archaeological remains uncovered during construction that would not be impacted by the proposal must not be disturbed − Archaeological salvage of any locally significant remains, identified in the rear yard or interior, prior to impact − If State significant archaeological remains are unexpectedly identified then works must cease and further assessment or approval may be required before works could resume − An unexpected finds procedure for the construction program should be established • An unexpected finds policy should be adhered to during any works not monitored by an archaeologist. If unexpected finds are encountered during works all works should cease immediately and an archaeologist should be contacted for advice • Should Aboriginal objects be uncovered during the archaeological investigation or construction program, works should cease immediately and Heritage NSW, DPC is to be notified in accordance with Section 89A of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974. Further approval would be required to impact, harm or remove Aboriginal objects

Page iv

24 Argyle Place, Millers Point Historical Archaeological Assessment

• If significant archaeological remains are identified, then options must be considered for either redesigning to avoid impacts or to incorporate the remains into the yard plan while retaining them in situ.

Page v

24 Argyle Place, Millers Point Historical Archaeological Assessment

CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Project background ...... 1 1.2 Study area ...... 1 1.3 Authorship and acknowledgements ...... 1 2.0 Legislative Context ...... 3 2.1 Introduction ...... 3 2.2 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 ...... 3 2.2.1 Commonwealth Heritage List ...... 3 2.2.2 National Heritage List ...... 4 2.3 Heritage Act 1977 ...... 4 2.3.1 The 2009 ‘Relics provisions’ ...... 4 2.3.2 The State Heritage Register (SHR) ...... 5 2.3.3 Section 170 Registers ...... 6 2.4 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 ...... 7 2.4.1 City of Sydney Local Environment Plan 2012 ...... 7 2.5 Non-statutory registers ...... 8 2.6 Summary of heritage listings ...... 8 3.0 Historical Context ...... 11 3.1 Millers Point ...... 11 3.2 Argyle Place...... 13 3.3 Cole’s Buildings ...... 15 3.3.1 William Cole ...... 15 3.3.2 James Merriman ...... 17 3.3.3 Argyle Street in the 1900s ...... 20 4.0 Physical Context ...... 23 4.1 The study area ...... 23 4.1.1 Interiors ...... 23 4.1.2 Yard ...... 26 5.0 Archaeological Assessment ...... 28 5.1 Methodology ...... 28 5.2 Previous archaeological studies ...... 28 5.2.1 28 Argyle Place, Millers Point Historical Archaeological Assessment ...... 28 5.2.2 32 Argyle Place, Millers Point Historical Archaeological Assessment ...... 28 5.2.3 34 Argyle Place, Millers Point Archaeological Report ...... 28 5.2.4 The Rocks and Millers Point Archaeological Management Plan ...... 29 5.3 Land Use Phases and Archaeological Potential ...... 29

Page vi

24 Argyle Place, Millers Point Historical Archaeological Assessment

5.3.1 Phase 1: Early Development (c.1823-1833) ...... 29 5.3.2 Phase 2: Newman’s Residence (1833-c.1845) ...... 30 5.3.3 Phase 3: Cole’s Buildings (c.1845-1900) ...... 30 5.3.4 Phase 4: Twentieth Century (1900-present) ...... 31 5.3.5 Summary of potential archaeological remains within the study area ...... 32 5.4 Assessment of archaeological significance ...... 34 5.5 Summary of archaeological potential and significance ...... 36 6.0 Archaeological Impact Assessment ...... 37 6.1 Proposed works ...... 37 6.2 Assessment of Archaeological Impact ...... 41 6.2.1 Interior Works ...... 41 6.2.2 Yard Works ...... 41 6.2.3 Conservation Management Strategy Policy ...... 42 6.2.4 Statement of heritage impact ...... 42 7.0 Archaeological Research Design ...... 44 7.1 Archaeological Methodology ...... 44 7.1.1 Heritage Induction...... 44 7.1.2 Monitoring and Recording ...... 44 7.1.3 Recording Methodology ...... 45 7.1.4 Artefacts ...... 45 7.1.5 Research Questions ...... 45 7.1.6 Post-excavation analysis and final reporting ...... 46 7.1.7 Unexpected Finds Procedure ...... 46 7.1.8 Archaeological Team ...... 46 8.0 Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 48 Conclusions ...... 48 9.0 References ...... 50

Page vii

24 Argyle Place, Millers Point Historical Archaeological Assessment

FIGURES

Figure 1: Location of the study area ...... 2 Figure 2: Heritage curtilages of heritage listed items within and near to the study area...... 10 Figure 3. Western View of Sydney Cove, by Edward Dayes, 1797. Source: National Library of Australia ...... 12 Figure 4. Millers Point Wharf by Frederick Garling, c.1847. Source: State Library of New South Wales ...... 12 Figure 5. Overlay of the study area onto Harpers 1823 Plan, showing structure within the study area ...... 14 Figure 6. Overlay of 1833 City of Sydney Survey Plan, showing vacant land in Newman's Estate .... 14 Figure 7. 1855 Trigonometric survey plan of Argyle Place. Source: Historical Atlas of Sydney ...... 16 Figure 8. Detail of Argyle Place Trigonometric Survey, 1855, showing WC and passage at rear of study area. Source: Historical Atlas of Sydney ...... 17 Figure 9. View from Observatory Hill, c.1875-1880 showing Coles Buildings. Source: ML PXA 970 . 18 Figure 10. Detail of the Doves Plan of Sydney, 1880. Source: Historical Atlas of Sydney ...... 19 Figure 11. 1889 detail plan of the City of Sydney, study area in red ...... 19 Figure 12. Birds eye view of proposed Walsh Bay wharfage scheme, 1913. Coles Buildings are highlighted in red. Source: National Library of Australia ...... 21 Figure 13. Argyle Place and tram network in Central City of Sydney Plan, 1910. Source: Historical Atlas of Sydney ...... 21 Figure 14. Demolition of Princes Street for the Harbour Bridge construction, 1927. Source: Lost Sydney ...... 22 Figure 15. Front door threshold, northern aspect ...... 23 Figure 16. Stairs from ground to lower ground floor, southern aspect ...... 23 Figure 17. Possible later addition of manhole in ground floor ceiling ...... 24 Figure 18. Tile in kitchen on lower ground floor ...... 24 Figure 19. Floorboards at landing of staircase on ground floor ...... 24 Figure 20. Replaced pine floorboards in hallway on ground floor ...... 24 Figure 21. Tiling and mortar in first floor bathroom ...... 24 Figure 22. Floorboards within bedroom on first floor ...... 24 Figure 23. Plan of ground floor with location of sighted possible original (blue) and replaced (orange) floorboards indicated. Source: Virginia Kerridge Architect ...... 25 Figure 24. Plan of first floor with sighted location of possible original floorboards indicated in blue. Source: Virginia Kerridge Architect ...... 25 Figure 25. Overview of yard from rear veranda, northern aspect ...... 26 Figure 26. Overview of yard from first floor, northern aspect ...... 26 Figure 27. Detail of veranda decking at grade with stone yard surface ...... 27 Figure 28. Low stone wall at rear veranda ...... 27

Page viii

24 Argyle Place, Millers Point Historical Archaeological Assessment

Figure 29. Stone yard surface at rear of veranda ...... 27 Figure 30. Southern face of c.1889 outbuilding remains repurposed as garden bed ...... 27 Figure 31. North and western face of c.1889 outbuilding remains repurposed as a garden bed ...... 27 Figure 32. Sandstone blocks at north-west corner of yard, in location of mid-1800s WC ...... 27 Figure 33. Rear passage connecting Coles Buildings, western aspect ...... 27 Figure 34. Comparison of level of yard and rear passage, western aspect ...... 27 Figure 35. Potential archaeological remains within the study area ...... 33 Figure 36. Lower ground floor plans. Source: Virginia Kerridge Architect ...... 38 Figure 37. Ground floor proposed works. Source: Virginia Kerridge Architect ...... 39 Figure 38. First floor proposed works. Source: Virginia Kerridge Architect ...... 40

Page ix

24 Argyle Place, Millers Point Historical Archaeological Assessment

TABLES

Table 1. Heritage listings within the study area ...... 9 Table 2. Potential Archaeological Remains within the Study Area ...... 32 Table 3. Assessment of Archaeological Significance against the NSW Heritage Act criteria ...... 34 Table 4: Summary of potential and significance of archaeological remains near to the study area .... 36 Table 5. Assessment of proposal against CMP policies ...... 42

Page x

24 Argyle Place, Millers Point Historical Archaeological Assessment

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project background

Artefact Heritage has been engaged by Virginia Kerridge Architect to prepare a Historical Archaeological Assessment (AA) for the terrace house located at 24 Argyle Place, Millers Point. The study area has been identified as being a heritage item of state significance. The property is listed on the State Heritage Register (SHR) as SHR No. 00905 – ‘Terraces’ and is included in Schedule 5 of the City of Sydney Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2012 as part of Item No. I950, Terrace Group (No. 24-32 Argyle Place), including interiors.’ The study area is also within two SHR listed conservation areas: Millers Point Conservation Area (SHR No. 00884) and Millers Point and Dawes Point Village Precinct (SHR No. 01682).

This archaeological assessment provides a detailed assessment of archaeological potential and an impact statement relating to the proposed works, which involve renovation and refurbishment works, an extension at the rear of the lower ground floor, and minor landscaping works.

1.2 Study area

The study area for the assessment includes the cadastral lot boundaries of 24 Argyle Place, Millers Point (Lot 30 DP1199181). The study area is located within the City of Sydney local government area (LGA), within the parish of St Phillip and County of Cumberland. The study area is within the boundaries of Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council (LALC). The location of the study area is illustrated in Figure 1.

1.3 Authorship and acknowledgements

This report was prepared by Sarah Hawkins (Heritage Consultant) and Jayden van Beek (Senior Heritage Consultant) with management input and review provided by Jenny Winnett (Principal, Artefact Heritage).

Page 1

24 Argyle Place, Millers Point Historical Archaeological Assessment

Figure 1: Location of the study area

Page 2

24 Argyle Place, Millers Point Historical Archaeological Assessment

2.0 LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT

2.1 Introduction

There are several items of State and Commonwealth legislation that are relevant to the current study. A summary of these Acts and the potential legislative implications follow.

Heritage listed items within and directly adjacent to the study area were identified through a search of the relevant state and federal statutory heritage registers discussed below including:

• World Heritage List (WHL) • Commonwealth Heritage List (CHL) • National Heritage List (NHL) • State Heritage Register (SHR) • Section 170 Heritage and Conservation Registers • City of Sydney LEP 2012 • NSW State Heritage Inventory database.

Items listed on these registers have been previously assessed against the NSW Heritage Assessment guidelines. Statements of heritage significance, based on the NSW Heritage Assessment guidelines, as they appear in relevant heritage inventory sheets and documents, are provided in this assessment.

2.2 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) provides a legislative framework for the protection and management of matters of national environmental significance, that is, flora, fauna, ecological communities and heritage places of national and international importance. Heritage items are protected through their inscription on the WHL, NHL or the CHL.

The EPBC Act stipulates that a person who has proposed an action that will or is likely to have; a significant impact on a World, National or Commonwealth Heritage site must refer the action to the Minister for the Environment (hereafter the Minister). The Minister would then determine if the action requires approval under the EPBC Act. If approval is required, an environmental assessment would need to be prepared. The Minister would approve or decline the action based on this assessment.

There are no items in or near the study area that are registered on the WHL. As such, the heritage provisions of this act do not apply, and project works for the Proposal would not require referral to the Minister.

2.2.1 Commonwealth Heritage List

The (CHL) was established by the EPBC Act to protect Indigenous, historic, and natural heritage places owned or controlled by the Australian Government. The CHL and EPBC Act contain provisions for the management and protection of listed places under Commonwealth ownership or control.

There are no items on the Commonwealth Heritage List within the study area. As such, the heritage provisions of this act do not apply, and project works for the Proposal would not require referral to the Minister.

Page 3

24 Argyle Place, Millers Point Historical Archaeological Assessment

2.2.2 National Heritage List

The National Heritage List (NHL) was established by the EPBC Act to protect places of significant natural or cultural heritage value at a National level. The EPBC Act requires NHL places to be managed in accordance with the National Heritage Management Principles. Under sections 15B and 15C of the EPBC Act, a referral must be made to the Department of the Environment and Energy for actions that are likely to have a significant impact on National Heritage listed properties.

There are no items listed on the National Heritage List within the study area. As such, the heritage provisions of this act do not apply, and project works for the Proposal would not require referral to the Minister.

2.3 Heritage Act 1977

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

2.3.1 The 2009 ‘Relics provisions’

The Heritage Act also provides protection for ‘relics’, which includes archaeological material or deposits. According to Section 139 (Division 9: Section 139, 140-146):

(1) A person must not disturb or excavate any land knowingly or having reasonable cause to suspect that the disturbance or excavation will or is likely to result in a relic being discovered, exposed, damaged or destroyed unless the disturbance is carried out in accordance with an excavation permit. (2) A person must not disturb or excavate any land on which the person has discovered or exposed a relic except in accordance with an excavation permit. (3) This section does not apply to a relic that is subject to an interim heritage order made by the Minister or a listing on the State Heritage Register. (4) The Heritage Council may by order published in the Gazette create exceptions to this section, either unconditionally or subject to conditions, in respect of any of the following: a. Any relic of a specified kind or description, b. Any disturbance of excavation of a specified kind or description, c. Any disturbance or excavation of land in a specified location or having specified features or attributes, d. Any disturbance or excavation of land in respect of which an archaeological assessment approved by the Heritage Council indicates that there is little likelihood of there being any relics in the land.

Section 4 (1) of the Heritage Act (as amended in 2009) defines a relic as:

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

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

Page 4

24 Argyle Place, Millers Point Historical Archaeological Assessment

A relic has been further defined as:

Relevant case law and the general principles of statutory interpretation strongly indicate that a ‘relic’ is properly regarded as an object or chattel. A relic can, in some circumstances, become part of the land be regarded as a fixture (a chattel that becomes permanently affixed to land).1

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

2.3.2 The State Heritage Register (SHR)

The SHR was established under Section 22 of the Heritage Act and is a list of places and objects of particular importance to the people of NSW, including archaeological sites. The SHR is administered by Heritage NSW, DPC and includes a diverse range of over 1,500 items, in both private and public ownership. To be listed, an item must be deemed to be of heritage significance for the whole of NSW.

To carry out activities within the curtilage of an item listed on the SHR, approval must be gained from the Heritage Council by securing a Section 60 permit. In some circumstances, under Section 57(2) of the Heritage Act, a Section 60 permit may not be required if works are undertaken in accordance with the NSW Heritage branch document Standard Exemptions for Works Requiring Heritage Council Approval2 or in accordance with agency specific exemptions. This includes works that are only minor in nature and will have minimal impact on the heritage significance of the place.

There are three items listed on the SHR located within the study area:

• ‘Terrace’ (SHR 00905) • Millers Point Conservation Area (SHR 00884) • Millers Point and Dawes Point Village Precinct (SHR 01682)

The statement of significance for ‘Terrace’ is as follows:

These early C19th Century Georgian terraces are an important streetscape element facing Argyle Place. Also, the construction date may predate 1832.

It is part of the Millers Point Conservation Area, an intact residential and maritime precinct. It contains residential buildings and civic spaces dating from the 1830’s and is an important example of C19th adaptation of the landscape.

The terrace of houses at 24-32 Argyle Place, part of the Cole’s Building, and the adjacent townhouse Osborne House (No. 34), are the only survivors of the series of buildings in The Rocks and Millers Point constructed by local publican William

1 Assessing Significance for Archaeological Sites and ‘Relics’, Heritage Branch, Department of Planning, 2009:7. 2 Heritage Council of New South Wales, 2009. Standard Exemptions for Works Requiring Heritage Council Approval.

Page 5

24 Argyle Place, Millers Point Historical Archaeological Assessment

Cole in the mid-1840s. The terrace of houses is a rare surviving example of modest housing built shortly after the introduction of building regulations in Sydney, and it retains the character, layout and detailing of modest housing of the period. No other surviving mid-1840s have been located. As individual buildings, they are highly significant as rare surviving examples of modest Colonial Georgian houses, demonstrating the effect of the Sydney and London Building Acts which sought to control the spread of fire by controlling the materials and design of town houses in tight urban environments.

The houses are an integral part of Millers Point, the earliest residential precinct in Australia still in residential use today, which is of State and likely to be of national significance. They form an important visual component of this precinct, being highly visible from Argyle Place at the front and from the Harbour, the North Shore and parts of Windmill Street at the rear.3

The statement of significance for the Millers Point Conservation Area states:

Millers Point Conservation Area is an intact residential and maritime precinct of outstanding State and national significance. It contains buildings and civic spaces dating from the 1830s and is an important example of nineteenth and early twentieth century adaptation of the landscape. The precinct has changed little since the 1930s.4

The statement of significance for the Millers Point and Dawes Point Village Precinct states:

Millers Point and Dawes Point Village Precinct is of state significance for its ability to demonstrate, in its physical forms, historical layering, documentary and archaeological records and social composition, the development of colonial and post-colonial settlement in Sydney and New South Wales.

2.3.3 Section 170 Registers

Under the Heritage Act all government agencies are required to identify, conserve and manage heritage items in their ownership or control. Section 170 (s170) requires all government agencies to maintain a Heritage and Conservation Register that lists all heritage assets and an assessment of the significance of each asset. They must also ensure that all items inscribed on its list are maintained with due diligence in accordance with State Owned Heritage Management Principles approved by the Government on advice of the NSW Heritage Council. These principles serve to protect and conserve the heritage significance of items and are based on NSW heritage legislation and guidelines.

There are no items within the study area listed on NSW Government agency s170 heritage registers.

3 NSW Office of Environment and Heritage, 2000. ‘Terrace’. NSW Office of Environment and Heritage. Accessed online 14/11/2019 at: https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/heritageapp/ViewHeritageItemDetails.aspx?id=5045568 4 NSW Office of Environment and Heritage, 2001. ‘Millers Point Conservation Area.’ NSW Office of Environment and Heritage. Accessed online 14/11/2019 at: https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/heritageapp/ViewHeritageItemDetails.aspx?ID=5001049

Page 6

24 Argyle Place, Millers Point Historical Archaeological Assessment

2.4 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) establishes the framework for cultural heritage values to be formally assessed in the land use planning and development consent process. The EP&A Act requires that environmental impacts are considered prior to land development; this includes impacts on cultural heritage items and places as well as archaeological sites and deposits. The EP&A Act also requires that Local Governments prepare planning instruments (such as Local Environmental Plans [LEPs] and Development Control Plans [DCPs]) in accordance with the EP&A Act to provide guidance on the level of environmental assessment required. The current study area falls within the boundaries of the Northern Beaches Council local government area (LGA).

2.4.1 City of Sydney Local Environment Plan 2012

The study area falls within the City of Sydney LGA and is administered under the City of Sydney LEP 2012. The City of Sydney LEP 2012 aims to conserve the heritage significance of heritage items and heritage conservation areas, including associated fabric, settings and views; and to protect archaeological sites. The LEP stipulates development controls in relation to development proposed on or near heritage listed properties, archaeological sites, or Aboriginal places of heritage significance. The relevant (Development Control Plan) DCP for the study area remains the City of Sydney DCP 2012.

The following heritage listed items on the City of Sydney LEP 2012 are located within the study area:

• Terrace Group (No. 24-32 Argyle Place), including interiors’ (Item No. I950) • Millers Point/Dawes Point Conservation Area (Item No. C35)

The statement of significance for the ‘Terrace Group (No. 24-32 Argyle Place), including interiors states:

No 24-32 Argyle Place, part of the Cole’s Building together with the adjacent Osborne House, are the only survivors of the series of buildings in The Rocks and Millers Point constructed by local publican William Cole in the mid-1840s. A rare surviving example of modest housing built shortly after the introduction of building regulations in Sydney, the terrace retains the character, layout and detailing of modest housing of the period. The Cole’s Building is a rare combination of terrace and townhouse built for the same owner; no other mid-1840s examples have been located.

William Cole’s bankruptcy and the forced sale of his estate, including the Cole’s buildings, demonstrates the volatile economy of the late 1840s and 1850s and the transition from an economy that relied on assigned labour to a free market economy.

Later purchased by the Merriman family, who built an additional terrace (Wentworth Terrace, Nos 36-42 Argyle Place) and ‘Victorianised’ the earlier Colonial Georgian houses originally built by Grimes (Nos 52-58 Argyle Place), the terrace is one of the group of buildings in Argyle Place that not only contributes to the streetscape but also demonstrates the transition in standard housing types in Sydney during the mid-nineteenth century from examples based on London precedents to the distinctive Australian variant of the terrace house. Argyle Place is

Page 7

24 Argyle Place, Millers Point Historical Archaeological Assessment

a unique streetscape, designed to take advantage of the topography and the buildings fronting the park were built of materials quarried locally.

Built to be tenanted, the building was in private ownership until 1900 and then owned by the Sydney Harbour Trust and its successors, who managed the property. This continued until 2014 when the NSW Government made the decision to sell the terraces on freehold title.

Evidence of the original layout of the building survives, including the basement kitchen and storage area. The central passage to the rear lane survives and is still used, and this is a rare surviving example of a night soil land that only serves one group of buildings.

The terrace, as part of Argyle Place, is held in high esteem by the local Millers Point Community as well as the wider NSW community.5

2.5 Non-statutory registers

The Register of the National Estate (RNE) is a list of natural, Aboriginal and historic heritage places throughout Australia. It was originally established under the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975. Under the Act, the Australian Heritage Commission entered more than 13,000 places un the register. Following amendments to the Australian Heritage Council Act 2003, the RNE was frozen on 19 February 2007 and ceased to be a statutory register in February 2012. The RNE is now maintained on a non-statutory basis as a publicly available archive and educational resource.

Archaeological Zoning Plan

The site of the Coles Buildings is listed within an Archaeological Zoning Plan by the City of Sydney and the individual terrace addresses are graded as ‘Extreme’ or ‘Significant.’ Number 24 is graded as Extreme within the Archaeological zoning plan.6 The site is described as an intact standing structure.

2.6 Summary of heritage listings

A summary of relevant heritage listings is provided in Table 1 and illustrated in Figure 2.

5 NSW Office of Environment and Heritage, 2015. ‘Terrace Group (24-32 Argyle Place) including interiors.’ NSW Government Office of Environment & Heritage. Accessed online 13/11/2019 at: https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/heritageapp/ViewHeritageItemDetails.aspx?ID=2423572 6 NSW Office of Environment and Heritage, 2019. ‘Archaeological Item – Allotment of Land.’ NSW Office of Environment and Heritage. Accessed online 15/11/2019 at: https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/heritageapp/ViewHeritageItemDetails.aspx?ID=2425895

Page 8

24 Argyle Place, Millers Point Historical Archaeological Assessment

Table 1. Heritage listings within the study area

Item/Listing Relevant Item Name Address Lot No. Significance Number Legislation

SHR 00905

Sydney LEP 2012 (Item No. I950) 22, 24, 26, 30, 32 Heritage Act 1977 Lot 30-35 Terrace Argyle Place, Millers State RNE (Item No. DP1199181 Point, NSW 2000 2146) Sydney LEP 2012

Archaeological Zoning Plan (SHI no. 2425895)

Millers Point Millers Point, NSW Multiple State SHR 00884 Heritage Act 1977 Conservation Area 2000

SHR 01682 Millers Point and Heritage Act 1977 Upper Fort Street, Dawes Point Multiple State Millers Point Sydney LEP 2012 Sydney LEP 2012 Village Precinct (Item No. C35)

Page 9

24 Argyle Place, Millers Point Historical Archaeological Assessment

Figure 2: Heritage curtilages of heritage listed items within and near to the study area

Page 10

24 Argyle Place, Millers Point Historical Archaeological Assessment

3.0 HISTORICAL CONTEXT

3.1 Millers Point

European activity in Millers Point began in 1797, with the erection of the first government windmill at the highest point in the area (Figure 3).7 Further windmills were erected in the area in the early 1800s, which were operated through to the 1820s. The abundance of sandstone in this area provided valuable building materials and during the 1830s and 1840s Millers Point was heavily quarried.8 The streets of Millers Point were established during this process.

Millers Point was established as an intense maritime area within Sydney by the 1850s, with the majority of the business in the area related to the wharves and associated maritime industries (Figure 4). Additional businesses and buildings in the area included the Australian Gas Light Company works, and several shops, hotels and boarding houses.9 At the time, there were few families in the area, with the majority of residents comprised of men who worked on the wharves or in the gasworks.

Residential development intensified from the mid-1840s, as a developing middle class of merchants and entrepreneurs saw the value of housing close to the major ports. As industry intensified in Walsh Bay, the area began to shift from primarily mercantile to a higher proportion of working class residents by the end of the 19th century.

The 1900 outbreak of plague saw the resumption of much of the land in The Rocks and Millers Point, leading to a number of redevelopment schemes. The resumption included the demolition of sub- standard houses and wharves and the construction of modern, rat-proof wharves and higher density housing to accommodate waterfront workers previously displaced by the slum clearance operations of the government.10 The redevelopment resulted in the public construction of modern wharves throughout Sydney from Woolloomooloo to White Bay. The resumptions also benefitted the construction of the Sydney Harbour Bridge, as the onramps required large areas of land in Millers Point and Dawes Point.11 The Sydney Harbour trust resumed control of a number of the properties in this area in the 1920s and by 1936 they had been transferred to the Maritime Services Board.

During the control of the area by the Sydney Harbour Trust, the backyard of properties were covered by concrete or asphalt for hygiene reasons, sealing the nineteenth century deposits.12 By the 1980s many of the properties were under the control of the Housing Commission (later the Department of Housing). Many of these properties have now been sold into private ownership, and the suburb is undergoing beautification and upgrade works.

7 Fitzgerald, S., 2008. ‘Millers Point.’ Dictionary of Sydney. Accessed online 31/10/2019 at: https://dictionaryofsydney.org/entry/millers_point 8 Ibid 9 Ibid 10 Ibid 11 Ibid 12 Bairstow, D., July 1987. Millers Point Site 8900. Archaeological Master Strategy, p. 3. Report prepared for Department of Housing.

Page 11

24 Argyle Place, Millers Point Historical Archaeological Assessment

Figure 3. Western View of Sydney Cove, by Edward Dayes, 1797. Source: National Library of Australia

Figure 4. Millers Point Wharf by Frederick Garling, c.1847. Source: State Library of New South Wales

Page 12

24 Argyle Place, Millers Point Historical Archaeological Assessment

3.2 Argyle Place

Argyle Street was gazetted by Governor Lachlan Macquarie in 1810.13 The original alignment of Argyle Street was the northern carriageway, while the southern section of the street was a later addition constructed for the continuation of Argyle Street through the Argyle Cut.14 For much of the 1800s, what is now known as Argyle Place was part of Argyle Street. The remaining land between the northern and southern carriageways was seemingly inadvertently formed, and in the mid-nineteenth century was laid out as a park.15 By the 1870s, the park was encircled by a stone and iron palisade fence.16 Development appears to have occurred quickly after the construction of Argyle Street, as Harpers Plan of 1823 shows several buildings fronting Argyle Street (Figure 5). This included a structure at the location of 24 Argyle Place, within the study area. Other evidence suggests that by the early 1820s there were less than a dozen houses in Millers Point, suggesting that the early houses in Argyle Street could have been amongst the earliest houses in the suburb, which was still isolated at the time.17 These were possibly timber or slab buildings constructed slightly below the road level, however there are nearby extant cottages in Millers Point from the 1820s which were constructed of stone.18 The Glover Cottages, located on Kent Street, are constructed on sandstone foundations and are above the current road surface of Kent Street.

Within Argyle Street itself, Thomas Newman – a stonemason - built a large stone residence prior to 1834, which is located at modern 46-48 Argyle Place. In 1843, Newman’s residence was described in detail in The Sydney Morning Herald as including

Every convenience and luxury for a respectable family residence, with verandah, yard, stable, and garden ground, and in such a situation as will always command a respectable tenant (the last paid £140 per annum)… The property was built by the late Mr Thomas Newman who was admitted to be one of the best tradesmen in the colony.19

Additional newspaper articles from the time state that the estate contained a coach house and views of Darling Harbour.20 Newman’s residence and prosperity suggests that some tradesmen in the area were capable of making considerable wealth for themselves, and shows that by the 1840s residents in Millers Point and around Argyle Street were gradually becoming wealthy middle class merchants and tradesmen who were constructing family houses.

The 1833 City of Sydney Survey Plans show the lot – referred to a No. 18 - as belonging to Susan Newman, with no structures surveyed or illustrated in the plan (Figure 6). Furthermore, the 1845 City of Sydney Sheilds Map of the area shows no structures within the study area, however this likely represents the area prior to the construction of the extant buildings in the mid-1840s. The structures evident on the Harpers Plan were certainly demolished by 1833, as Thomas Newman had constructed his estate on the location by 1834. The 1845 plan shows Newman’s stone house at 46-

13 Robertson & Hindmarsh, July 2014. Cole’s Buildings 24-32 Argyle Place Millers Point Conservation Management Plan, p. 35. 14 Weir Phillips, 2016. Heritage Impact Statement 24 Argyle Place Millers Point. Part of Coles Buildings, p. 3. 15 Ibid 16 Robertson & Hindmarsh, July 2014. Cole’s Buildings 24-32 Argyle Place Millers Point Conservation Management Plan, p. 35. 17 Fitzgerald, S., 2008. ‘Millers Point.’ Dictionary of Sydney. 18 NSW Office of Environment and Heritage, 2006. ‘Terrace Group “Glover Cottages” Including Interiors.’ NSW Office of Environment & Heritage. Accessed online 31/10/2019 at: https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/heritageapp/ViewHeritageItemDetails.aspx?ID=2423504 19 The Sydney Morning Herald, 12 April 1844. ‘Advertising.’ Accessed online 31/10/2019 at: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/12410342?searchTerm=%22mr%20thomas%20newman%22%20resid ence&searchLimits=l-title=35|||l-decade=184|||l-year=1844 20 Ibid

Page 13

24 Argyle Place, Millers Point Historical Archaeological Assessment

48, however at the time, the study area was a vacant plot of land following Newman’s subdivision and sale to William Cole.

Figure 5. Overlay of the study area onto Harpers 1823 Plan, showing structure within the study area

Figure 6. Overlay of 1833 City of Sydney Survey Plan, showing vacant land in Newman's Estate

Page 14

24 Argyle Place, Millers Point Historical Archaeological Assessment

3.3 Cole’s Buildings

3.3.1 William Cole

William Cole was publican who ran several successful public houses within The Rocks, including the Bee Hive on the corner of Prince Street and Argyle Street, close to the study area. Cole owned several other properties within The Rocks and Millers Point, including houses, a small number of shops, and a bakehouse in Argyle Street.21 It appears that the Bee Hive was the residence of Cole and his wife Sarah, who died at the Bee Hive in 1848.22 Cole purchased the properties at 24-32 Argyle Place sometime in the mid-1840s, and demolished the extant original buildings in the location. At the same time, the construction of the Argyle Cut was occurring, which required the lowering of the Argyle Street level, and the construction of bridges to continue the alignments of Gloucester, Cumberland and Princes Streets.23 Princes Street no longer exists, as it was demolished in the late 1920s for the construction of the southern approach and pylon of the Sydney Harbour Bridge. The alignment of Princes Street roughly continued north of York Street to the southern pylon of the Harbour Bridge.24 It is uncertain whether Argyle Street required lowering in the proximity of the study area, as the Argyle Cut is located approximately 300 metres east of the study area. It has been suggested that stone from the Argyle Cut was purchased by Cole and used for the construction of a new public house and possibly the terraces at 24-32 Argyle Street.

In the mid-1840s, the terraces at 24-32 Argyle Street (now Argyle Place) were constructed. At the time, building regulations in Sydney dating to 1837 had established rules to ensure that interior walls traversed into the roof areas, completely separating each residence, and timber cladding and walls were banned for fire safety.25 By 1848, tenants were in each terrace. Number 24 was occupied by Sarah Murphy, who lived at the address until 1866.26 At the time, the newly constructed terraces were referred to as Cole’s Buildings, with several of the tenants giving their addresses as ‘Coles Buildings’.27

Following the death of his wife, Cole and his family moved to Fort Street, however by 1851 they had returned to Millers Point, living in Princes Street. In 1855, Cole was insolvent and passed away in the following year. It has been speculated that the gold rush and the subsequent lack of workers in Sydney and increase of prices may have resulted in Cole’s bankruptcy. Following Cole’s death, the sale of the Argyle Street buildings took several years to finalised, however several tenants remained at the address.

By 1855, work had occurred in the yards of Coles Buildings, with shed and outhouses established in each property (Figure 7). Number 24, the study area leased by Sarah Murphy, contained one outhouse in the rear yard, at the very north-western corner of the lot (Figure 8). A back entry passageway was also constructed behind Coles Buildings to enable access from Kent Street, and a passage was also constructed between numbers 26 and 28. These structures are visible in the 1855 Trigonometric Survey of Sydney, however they are much more clearly illustrated and labelled within the 1880 Doves Plan of Sydney.

21 Robertson & Hindmarsh, July 2014. Cole’s Buildings 24-32 Argyle Place Millers Point Conservation Management Plan, p. 39. 22 Ibid 23 Ibid 24 Lost Sydney, 2019. ‘Lost Sydney: Princes Street.’ Lost Sydney. Accessed online 31/10/2019 at: http://www.visitsydneyaustralia.com.au/lost-princes-street.html 25 Weir Phillips, 2015. Heritage Impact Statement 24 Argyle Place Millers Point. Part of Cole’s Buildings, p. 3. 26 Roberston & Hindsmarsh, July 2014, p. 41 state until 1863, however The Sydney Morning Herald 7 December 1866 shows that she remained in the building until 1866, when she passed away within the building. 27 Robertson & Hindmarsh, July 2014. Cole’s Buildings 24-32 Argyle Place Millers Point Conservation Management Plan, p. 41.

Page 15

24 Argyle Place, Millers Point Historical Archaeological Assessment

In 1862, Cole’s Buildings were sold by Richardson and Wrench for £2500.28 The Sands Directory shows that in 1863 Sarah Murphy was using Number 24 to run a boarding house, a suitable use for the house, which contained 6 rooms over 3 floors.29 Little further information about Murphy is available. Her age, occupation, children, or whether she had been a convict or free migrant is unknown. She remained at the address until 1866 and passed away within the house, as was reported in The Sydney Morning Herald from 7 December 1866.30 The same article indicates that she was the widow of John Morris Murphy, a Sergeant, and provides an age of 75 years – however it is uncertain if this refers to Sarah Murphy’s age at death or her husband’s. It is likely that she was widowed at the time that she inhabited Coles Building, as John Murphy is not recorded as having leased the residence.

Figure 7. 1855 Trigonometric survey plan of Argyle Place. Source: Historical Atlas of Sydney

28 Robertson & Hindmarsh, July 2014. Cole’s Buildings 24-32 Argyle Place Millers Point Conservation Management Plan, p. 47. 29 Ibid, p. 47 30 The Sydney Morning Herald, Fri 7 December 1866. ‘Family Notices.’ Accessed online 31/10/2019 at: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/13145526?searchTerm=%22Coles%20Buildings%22&searchLimits=l- decade=186

Page 16

24 Argyle Place, Millers Point Historical Archaeological Assessment

Figure 8. Detail of Argyle Place Trigonometric Survey, 1855, showing WC and passage at rear of study area. Source: Historical Atlas of Sydney

3.3.2 James Merriman

In 1867, James Merriman purchased Coles buildings, and moved into No. 34 with his family. Like Cole, Merriman was a publican, and ran the Gladstone Hotel in The Rocks. Merriman purchased several other houses throughout The Rocks and Millers Point, having made himself a small fortune through trading maritime products from the South Pacific, including sea cucumbers, pearls, and whaling by-products, possibly including baleen and blubber.31

The tenants within Number 24 and the other houses within Coles Buildings at this time are unknown. Photographs from the late 1870s show the study area and Argyle Street at the time to be situated on a wide street, with gas street lighting, and several plantings within the Argyle Street Park (Figure 9). The 1880 Doves Plan of Sydney (Figure 10) shows that there were verandahs at the rear of the Coles Buildings established, and that the neighbouring properties on the corner of Kent Street and Argyle Place included a butcher, grocer, draper, and a public house on Windmill Street. Additional hotels were located on the corner of Lower Fort Street and Windmill Street, portraying the area as a well- resourced and pleasant area in the Late Victorian era.

By the end of the 1880s however, Millers Point was no longer a fashionable area.32 The depression of the 1890s resulted in a maritime industry strike in 1890 and the collapse of the wool trade in Sydney.33 The wharves and their surrounds became unsanitary areas that were criticised by local politicians.34 Merriman died in 1883 and the estate was inherited by his wife, Anne, and five children.

31 Robertson & Hindmarsh, July 2014. Cole’s Buildings 24-32 Argyle Place Millers Point Conservation Management Plan, p. 49 32 Ibid, p. 51. 33 Fitzgerald, S., 2008. ‘Millers Point.’ Dictionary of Sydney. 34 Ibid

Page 17

24 Argyle Place, Millers Point Historical Archaeological Assessment

Additions to Coles Buildings by Merriman included the construction of a secondary outbuilding, which is first illustrated on the 1889 detail plan of the City of Sydney (Figure 11). The outbuilding extended into the yard of 26 Argyle Place, however the building would have been separated down the middle by internal walls. The outbuilding was a brick construction and would have likely been a secondary outhouse. The time period of construction suggests that the outhouse would not have been a cesspit structure and would have utilised public water supply and sewerage sources, which were installed in the area by the 1880s.

Figure 9. View from Observatory Hill, c.1875-1880 showing Coles Buildings. Source: ML PXA 970

Page 18

24 Argyle Place, Millers Point Historical Archaeological Assessment

Figure 10. Detail of the Doves Plan of Sydney, 1880. Source: Historical Atlas of Sydney

Figure 11. 1889 detail plan of the City of Sydney, study area in red

Page 19

24 Argyle Place, Millers Point Historical Archaeological Assessment

3.3.3 Argyle Street in the 1900s

Following the outbreak of the plague in The Rocks, a widespread resumption scheme was undertaken by the NSW Government in the area. The buildings and area on the northern side of Argyle Place were marked for resumption and demolition, including Coles Buildings.35 One resident in this period was Lawrence Blake, who had lived at the property between 1898 and 1914. The redevelopment scheme was abandoned, leaving Coles Buildings intact and demolishing and redeveloping a small group of buildings at the western end of Windmill Street.36 The new buildings on Windmill Street were developed by Walter Liberty Vernon, the Government Architect at the time.37 This area became known as the Observatory Hill Resumed Lands by 1905.38 The main ambition of the Sydney Harbour Trust was to rebuild many of the wharves and housing areas in Millers Point, the Rocks, and Dawes Point, which led to the construction of the finger wharves at Walsh Bay (Figure 12). In the early 20th century the extensive Sydney tram network passed along Argyle Street and Argyle Place, directly in front of Coles Buildings, likely serving as the terminus of a tram line due to the looping track configuration (Figure 13).

Throughout the twentieth century, little alteration occurred to the buildings, excluding the construction of rear wings at all but 24 Argyle Place. In 1927 ownership of the Coles Buildings were transferred to the Sydney Harbour Trust, and in 1936 they were transferred again to the Maritime Services Board.39 Limited maintenance occurred at this time, and the housing slightly deteriorated.40 However, the 1930s and 1940s saw the Great Depression hit The Rocks and Millers Point particularly hard, with many hundreds of men walking ‘The Hungry Mile’ through Millers Point for a day of work.41 Returned serviceman were hit particularly hard by the collapse of the maritime industries and lack of opportunity for employment.42 The construction of the Harbour Bridge, between 1924 and 1932 provided employment for hundreds of men,43 however it also resulted in the demolition of large built up areas and streets, including Princes Street (Figure 14).44 Large areas of public housing were constructed, by the Sydney Harbour Trust, however this was largely to house its workforce, rather than those in need.45

Little modification has occurred to the Coles Buildings throughout their history, although the original parapet was removed between 1965 and 1970 for the replacement of the roofing.46 In 1982 Coles Buildings were transferred to the Housing Commission or Department of Housing and rehabilitation works were undertaken.47 These works occurred at No. 24 and No. 32, however no plans survive.48 In the 1990s the neighbouring block, which was vacant land following the demolition of the earlier terraces, was developed by Phillip Cox & Partners.49 No. 24 was sold to private owners in 2014, before being sold again in 2016 and 2018.50

35 Weir Phillips, 2016. Heritage Impact Statement 24 Argyle Place Millers Point. Part of Coles Buildings, p.7. 36 Ibid 37 Ibid 38 Ibid 39 Ibid 40 Ibid 41 Stevens, A., n.d. ‘Skint! Making do in the Great Depression.’ Sydney Living Museums. Accessed online 1/11/2019 at: https://sydneylivingmuseums.com.au/stories/skint-making-do-great-depression 42 Stevens, A., n.d. ‘Skint! Making do in the Great Depression.’ Sydney Living Museums. 43 Ibid 44 Lost Sydney, 2019. ‘Lost Sydney: Princes Street.’ Lost Sydney. 45 Fitzgerald, S., 2008. ‘Millers Point.’ Dictionary of Sydney. 46 Weir Phillips, 2016. Heritage Impact Statement 24 Argyle Place Millers Point. Part of Coles Buildings, p.7. 47 Ibid; Robertson & Hindmarsh July 2014. P. 63. 48 Robertson & Hindmarsh July 2014, p. 63. 49 Weir Phillips, 2016. Heritage Impact Statement 24 Argyle Place Millers Point. Part of Coles Buildings, p.7. 50 Real Estate, 2019. ’24 Argyle Place Millers Point Property History.’ RealEstate.com.au. Accessed online 1/11/2019 at: https://www.realestate.com.au/property/24-argyle-pl-millers-point-nsw-2000?pid=p4ep-pdp|sold- pdp:property-history-cta#timeline

Page 20

24 Argyle Place, Millers Point Historical Archaeological Assessment

Figure 12. Birds eye view of proposed Walsh Bay wharfage scheme, 1913. Coles Buildings are highlighted in red. Source: National Library of Australia

Figure 13. Argyle Place and tram network in Central City of Sydney Plan, 1910. Source: Historical Atlas of Sydney

Page 21

24 Argyle Place, Millers Point Historical Archaeological Assessment

Figure 14. Demolition of Princes Street for the Harbour Bridge construction, 1927. Source: Lost Sydney

Page 22

24 Argyle Place, Millers Point Historical Archaeological Assessment

4.0 PHYSICAL CONTEXT

4.1 The study area

An inspection of the study area was undertaken by Jayden van Beek (Senior Heritage Consultant) and Sarah Hawkins (Heritage Consultant) from Artefact Heritage on 5 November 2019. The study area is situated on Argyle Place in Millers Point, east of Kent Street and west of the Garrison Church.

4.1.1 Interiors

The main entrance to 24 Argyle Place is accessed via two steps featuring an air vent, indicating that the floor surface beneath is hollow (Figure 15). Upon entry, there is a narrow hallway with a lounge area to the right and bedroom at the rear of the hallway. The ground level is the central level of the house, with the staircase located at the rear western corner of the house and a staircase leading both upstairs and downstairs (Figure 16). The ceiling of the entrance hallway features a manhole, which is likely a somewhat recent addition as utilises a bulkhead construction technique (Figure 17). The floor surface throughout the ground floor is carpeted with floorboards beneath (Figure 15 and Figure 16). At the landing of the staircase the floorboards were sighted and noted to be historic, however it is uncertain if they would be the original flooring (Figure 19). At the entrance to the bedroom the floorboards were relatively modern pinewood (Figure 20). It is uncertain how far each variation of floorboarding extends beneath the carpeting. The sighted locations are illustrated in Figure 23.

The lower ground floor is beneath the street level of Argyle Place and would have involved extensive excavation for its construction (Figure 16). The lower ground floor features an open living room at the rear which opens on to the rear veranda and yard. The front rooms include a kitchen, toilet and storage.

The first floor of the house contains a separate toilet and bathroom, both of which feature a floor of late 20th century tiling and mortar over a timber structure (Figure 21). Sighted floorboards within the first floor bedroom adjacent to the built in wardrobe are historic, however it uncertain if they are original (Figure 22).

Figure 15. Front door threshold, northern Figure 16. Stairs from ground to lower ground aspect floor, southern aspect

Page 23

24 Argyle Place, Millers Point Historical Archaeological Assessment

Figure 17. Possible later addition of manhole Figure 18. Tile in kitchen on lower ground in ground floor ceiling floor

Figure 19. Floorboards at landing of staircase Figure 20. Replaced pine floorboards in on ground floor hallway on ground floor

Figure 21. Tiling and mortar in first floor Figure 22. Floorboards within bedroom on bathroom first floor

Page 24

24 Argyle Place, Millers Point Historical Archaeological Assessment

Figure 23. Plan of ground floor with location of sighted possible original (blue) and replaced (orange) floorboards indicated. Source: Virginia Kerridge Architect

Figure 24. Plan of first floor with sighted location of possible original floorboards indicated in blue. Source: Virginia Kerridge Architect

Page 25

24 Argyle Place, Millers Point Historical Archaeological Assessment

4.1.2 Yard

The rear yard is accessed from the lower ground floor via the rear verandah. The yard is relatively narrow and features brick wall boundaries in close proximity to the house, timber fencing on a brick retaining wall on the rear western side, and a corrugated iron fence along the northern and eastern sides (Figure 25 and Figure 26). The lawn is manicured grass and landscaping is limited to a garden bed featuring banana trees, a worked sandstone yard surface adjoining the verandah, and some clusters of sandstone blocks.

The rear verandah is narrow in depth and is the extent of the house in width. The verandah is decked with thin timber slats which are at grade with the sandstone yard surface immediately to the north (Figure 27). It was noted during the site inspection that the area beneath the decking is hollow, and several items including bottle caps were noticeable through gaps in the flooring. The decking timber may date from the early to mid-20th century and the associated trend of the Californian Bungalow architectural style. On the northern side the verandah is bordered by a low sandstone wall (Figure 28) with the exception of approximately one metre in the centre, where a sandstone flagging yard surface extends into the lawn (Figure 29). At the rear eastern side abutting the fence, the c.1889 brick outbuilding has been partially demolished except for five courses of brick, and has been repurposed into a garden bed for the extant banana trees. A small cluster of sandstone blocks are situated at the southern side, abutting the outbuilding remains (Figure 30). At the north-western corner of the structure, the two faces have separated following damage, possibly from the root systems of the banana trees (Figure 31). At the rear north-western corner of the yard is a small cluster of sandstone blocks.

Behind the rear northern fencing and on the northern boundary of the study area is the original rear passage which connects Coles Buildings and served as the night soil and service lane for the buildings (Figure 33). This area has been asphalted, most likely during the twentieth century, and is accessible through a corrugated iron gate in the north-east corner of the yard. The level of the rear passage is slightly lower than the level at the rear of the yard (Figure 34), suggesting that the yard may have been levelled with introduced soils, reducing the natural slope north.

Figure 25. Overview of yard from rear veranda, Figure 26. Overview of yard from first floor, northern aspect northern aspect

Page 26

24 Argyle Place, Millers Point Historical Archaeological Assessment

Figure 27. Detail of veranda decking at grade Figure 28. Low stone wall at rear veranda with stone yard surface

Figure 29. Stone yard surface at rear of Figure 30. Southern face of c.1889 outbuilding veranda remains repurposed as garden bed

Figure 31. North and western face of c.1889 Figure 32. Sandstone blocks at north-west outbuilding remains repurposed as a garden corner of yard, in location of mid-1800s WC bed

Figure 33. Rear passage connecting Coles Figure 34. Comparison of level of yard and Buildings, western aspect rear passage, western aspect

Page 27

24 Argyle Place, Millers Point Historical Archaeological Assessment

5.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

5.1 Methodology

Historical archaeological potential is assessed by identifying former land uses and associated features through historical research and comparative analysis, and evaluating whether subsequent development may have impacted on evidence for these former land uses.

Heritage NSW, DPC (formerly NSW Heritage Division of the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) issued a new set of guidelines in 2009: Assessing Significance for Historical Archaeological Sites and ‘Relics.’ These guidelines call for broader consideration of multiple values of archaeological sites beyond their research potential and assessment against all the NSW heritage significance criteria should also be undertaken.

5.2 Previous archaeological studies

5.2.1 28 Argyle Place, Millers Point Historical Archaeological Assessment

In 2016, Artefact Heritage prepared an Historical Archaeological Assessment for 28 Argyle Place, Millers Point, which forms part of Coles Buildings. The report determined that there was low to moderate potential for locally significant subsurface drainage and associated deposits within the interior of the house. Within the yard area, it was determined that there was moderate to high potential for locally significant remains of the former WC, cesspit and associated artefact bearing deposits; moderate potential for locally significant rubbish dumps, yard surfaces and associated artefacts; and moderate potential for garden soils, twentieth century services, and other yard features which were unlikely to reach the threshold of significance.

5.2.2 32 Argyle Place, Millers Point Historical Archaeological Assessment

In 2017, Artefact Heritage prepared an Historical Archaeological Assessment for 32 Argyle Place, Millers Point, which forms part of Coles Buildings. It was determined that there was low to moderate potential for archaeological remains of local significance, including underfloor deposits, drainage features, and ground surface structures including stone flagging in the interior spaces. Within the yard areas it was determined that there is low potential for remains associated with a former kitchen building, garden and yard surfaces, stone flagging, rubbish dumps and associated deposits.

5.2.3 34 Argyle Place, Millers Point Archaeological Report

In 2013 AMAC undertook archaeological excavation in the yard of 34 Argyle Place, and prepared an excavation report for their findings. The excavations uncovered sandstone blocks within the north- western corner of the yard, which were identified as in situ footings of the two-room former privy outbuilding. The sandstone blocks included sockets which would have fit in secondary materials such as timber door posts or floor joists. The remains were assessed as reaching the threshold of state significant archaeological and cultural materials. Artefact bearing deposits were not excavated during works within the yard or within the interiors.

Page 28

24 Argyle Place, Millers Point Historical Archaeological Assessment

5.2.4 The Rocks and Millers Point Archaeological Management Plan

In 1991 Edward Higginbotham and associates prepared an Archaeological Management Plan in four volumes for The Rocks and Millers Point.51 The Archaeological Management Plan created an inventory of sites with archaeological potential throughout the suburbs and established a brief management plan. The Cole’s Buildings were inventoried in Higginbotham’s Management Plan and the site was assessed as “partly disturbed” due to the construction of the basement level.52 It was recommended that an archaeological conservation plan would be established.

5.3 Land Use Phases and Archaeological Potential

5.3.1 Phase 1: Early Development (c.1823-1833)

Harpers Plan of 1823 shows that there was a structure present within the study area at the time. Throughout the 1820s residences in Millers Point and The Rocks, particularly within the vicinity of the Harbour and the associated maritime industries, were often timber slab huts or similar modest structures. The c.1823 structure within the study area may have housed maritime workers, a prominent industry in the locality. Historical documentation suggests that at the beginning of the 1820s there were less than a dozen houses in Millers Point, and as such, the structure within the study area may be one of the earlier buildings within the suburb.53

There is no documented source indicating the materials used in the construction of the structure. Therefore, archaeological remains may consist of those typically associated with a timber slab building (post holes, associated flooring remnants or compacted surfaces) or be more substantial (sandstone footings). Potentially, the flooring surface may have included timber slabs or floorboards situated on bearers and joists. Some timber demolition material associated with walls and roofing may be remnant. The excavation for the basement level may have resulted in partial truncation of the front portion of the structure, however the rear portion of the yard may reflect the natural slope, and as such, there may be low potential for structural remains associated with the c.1823 building in the rear portion of the yard.

The rear, northern portion of the yard at 24 Argyle Place appears to be largely intact with the exception of disturbance for the construction of the c.1855 toilet in the north-western corner of the yard and the secondary outbuilding dating to c.1889. The natural landform within the study area is uncertain however it is likely that it was slightly undulating bedrock. Potential rubbish pits or undocumented deeper subsurface features such as a well or a cesspit associated with the c.1823 building may be present within the study area and may contain backfilled archaeological artefact- bearing deposits. Potential remains within these deposits may include zooarchaeological and archaeobotanical remains associated with food and dietary staples, in addition to discarded items including broken ceramic or glass artefacts. There is also potential for yard scatters to be present within the rear portion of the yard.

Due to the basement excavation for the extant building at number 24 Argyle Place and the low survivability of earlier structures, there is low archaeological potential for remains of the c.1823 building to be present within the study area. There is also low archaeological potential for associated subsurface structures, including a well or cesspit, and for rubbish pits or yard scatters to be present.

51 Higginbotham, E., 1991. The Rocks and Millers Point archaeological management plan. Vol. 3 Part 1 Inventory (Millers Point). 52 Higginbotham, E., 1991. The Rocks and Millers Point archaeological management plan. Vol. 3 Part 1 Inventory (Millers Point), p. 67. 53 Fitzgerald, S., 2008. ‘Millers Point.’ Dictionary of Sydney.

Page 29

24 Argyle Place, Millers Point Historical Archaeological Assessment

5.3.2 Phase 2: Newman’s Residence (1833-c.1845)

By 1834 the study area and surrounds had been purchased by Thomas Newman, who likely demolished the c.1823 structure and other structures within his land. Newman built his house at the far eastern extent of the property and no documented development occurred within the study area at this time. Some activity, such as gardening, may have occurred in the study area however this is undocumented.

Potential archaeological remains associated with this phase may include demolition material associated with the removal of the c.1823 structure, including mixed timber fragments. There is no positive evidence to suggest that any gardening activity was undertaken in the study area by the Newman family, however the rear yard appears to be relatively intact and as such there may be potential for garden soils to be present throughout much of the yard. Additional archaeological remains including yard scatters and rubbish pits may also be present within the rear yard area. In areas of localised disturbance however, including the location of the c.1855 WC and the c.1889 outbuilding it is likely that these remains have been truncated.

Therefore, there is low potential for archaeological remains associated with Phase 2 to be present within the study area.

5.3.3 Phase 3: Cole’s Buildings (c.1845-1900)

Exterior

In the mid-1840s, the publican William Cole purchased Newman’s land and constructed ‘Cole’s Buildings’, including 24 Argyle Place. Within the study area in this phase some basement excavation likely occurred for the lower ground level of the house, creating a distinctive drop from the street level to the yard area, where a more gradual slope may have previously existed. In addition to the construction of the house in this phase, the rear passage connecting the Coles Buildings was established, fences were erected to separate the rear yards, and a WC was established in the north- west corner of the yard area.

The construction of the WC would have required localised excavation for the outhouse pit, which would not have been connected to any sewerage or drainage at this time. The outbuilding may have been a privy structure rather than a cesspit, which may have been later connected to the public water supply introduced to Millers Point in the late 1800s. If the structure was not a cesspit, this indicates that initial excavation for the toilet would have been shallow (in comparison to a cesspit) and that any filled or backfilled archaeological deposits would be relatively shallow in nature. Potential archaeological remains associated with mid-nineteenth century WC in the north-western corner of the study area may include sandstone footings or foundations, partial remains of flooring surfaces, and at depth it is possible that artefact-bearing deposits containing zooarchaeological and archaeobotanical remains could be present. The archaeological deposits may also include discarded items such as ceramic and glass, often fragmented. There is high archaeological potential for sandstone footings associated with the WC to be located in the area, as several sandstone blocks were sighted on the surface in the area during the site inspection. There is low potential for artefact bearing deposits to be present at depth. Potential remains associated with the WC would have further been preserved by the introduced-fill event, likely from the 20th century. It is also expected that stone flagging or cobbled yard surfaces would have been established, and that drainage structures would have been installed. In c.1880 a rear verandah was constructed, adjoining number 24. For much of this phase, number 24 was a boarding school run by the original tenant Sarah Murphy.

By 1889, as attested in the 1889 City of Sydney detail plan for the area, a secondary outbuilding was constructed against the eastern fence, and extended into the rear yard of number 26. The function of this building is unknown, however due to the size of the structure, the most likely function would be a

Page 30

24 Argyle Place, Millers Point Historical Archaeological Assessment shed or possibly an external kitchen. Several courses of brick associated with the secondary c.1889 outbuilding were identified and remain extant and repurposed as a garden bed during the site inspection. Therefore, there is high potential for archaeological structural remains associated with this building. It is likely that the original flooring surface has been removed during the conversion of the structure into a garden bed. There may be potential for some artefacts to be present within the area, however it is likely that any intact subsurface archaeological deposits have been truncated through bioturbation. The introduction of the banana trees has resulted in some minor damage to the above- ground brick remains of the structure. There may be potential for drainage systems connected to the outhouse to be present below ground and beneath the extant brick wall structures. Some demolition material, including damaged brick or tile may be present in the garden bed fill. Overall there is high archaeological potential for brick structural remains of the outhouse, moderate potential for drainage systems, and low potential for subsurface deposits including archaeological or artefactual deposits and demolition fabric.

Interior

There is low-moderate archaeological potential for underfloor deposits to be present below the ground floor of the building. As discussed above, it was noted during the site inspection that some localised areas of floorboarding had been replaced with modern pine floorboards. Other localised areas still featured earlier floorboards, which were not tongue and groove floorboards. The absence of tongue and groove floorboards suggests that there is a possibility of various artefacts being present, which were either unintentionally lost or purposely discarded by tenants, particularly during the operation of number 24 as Sarah Murphy’s boarding house. It is also possible that these underfloor remains would be present in the ceiling and floor spaces in the first and ground floor ceiling cavities. In areas where the floorboards have been replaced, it is possible that any deposits were cleaned or removed, however there is overall low to moderate potential throughout the building.

5.3.4 Phase 4: Twentieth Century (1900-present)

Exterior

During the early twentieth century and following the acquisition of the Coles Buildings by the Sydney Harbour Trust, some remediation and repair works were undertaken at Coles Buildings, however there is limited documentation to suggest what these works were, except for the removal of parapets and replacement of the roofing. It is likely that the works were largely contained to the interior at this time, however aerial imagery of the area suggests that the WC at the north-western corner of the yard was demolished and backfilled by this time. Following the backfilling of the external WC, it is likely that introduced fill was brought into the far rear portion of the yard during landscaping works, indicated by the difference in height between the current yard and the back passage connecting the Coles Buildings. As the Coles Buildings passage is consistent in level for its extent and the sheer drop down to the houses at Windmill Street at the rear, it is unlikely that the Coles Building passage has been lowered. During the mid to late twentieth century the secondary outbuilding dated to c.1889 was partially demolished, with the lower brick courses repurposed as a garden bed.

There is moderate to high archaeological potential for archaeological deposits associated with the backfilling event of the external WC to be present within the study area. This material may include rubbish and discarded twentieth century items.

Interior

It is evident that during the twentieth century the possible original floorboards were replaced in localised areas. The rear verandah flooring has been replaced with bungalow-style timber decking, possibly dating to the mid-twentieth century. Excavation beneath the decking area was noticeable during site inspection, indicating that any previous flooring surfaces in the area had been removed.

Page 31

24 Argyle Place, Millers Point Historical Archaeological Assessment

Some localised areas on the ground level and upper level show that earlier floorboards had been replaced with modern pine floorboards. If underfloor deposits were present in these localised areas, it is likely they have been impacted by excavation associated with floorboard replacement.

Potential archaeological remains associated with this phase may include accidentally or intentionally discarded items or rubbish below flooring. There is low to moderate potential of these underfloor deposits to be remnant.

5.3.5 Summary of potential archaeological remains within the study area

Table 2 provides an overview of potential for archaeological material to be located within and near to the study area. The location of potential remains is illustrated in Figure 35.

Table 2. Potential Archaeological Remains within the Study Area

Archaeological Phase Potential archaeological remains potential

Structural remains of the c.1823 building Low Phase 1: Early Development Undocumented outbuildings (WC) Low (c.1823-1833) Rubbish pit, yard scatters, well, cesspit Low

Demolition material of earlier structure Low Phase 2: Newman’s Residence (1833- Gardening evidence including soils or archaeobotany Low c.1845) Yard scatters or rubbish pits Low

Structural remains of WC (sandstone footings) High

Artefactual deposits within cesspit Low

Phase 3: Coles Structural remains of c.1889 secondary outbuilding High Buildings (c.1845- 1900) Drainage system associated with secondary outbuilding Moderate

Subsurface deposits, structure or demolition fill of secondary Low outbuilding

Underfloor deposits (localised) Low-Moderate

Phase 4: Underfloor deposits (localised) Low-Moderate Twentieth Century (1900-present) Artefactual deposits associated with backfilling of WC Moderate to High

Page 32

24 Argyle Place, Millers Point Historical Archaeological Assessment

Figure 35. Potential archaeological remains within the study area

Page 33

24 Argyle Place, Millers Point Historical Archaeological Assessment

5.4 Assessment of archaeological significance

An assessment of the archaeological significance for potential remains is assessed below in Table 3.

Table 3. Assessment of Archaeological Significance against the NSW Heritage Act criteria

Criterion Discussion

Substantial intact and in situ remains associated with the c.1823 building and any other associated structures or deposits would be a rare representation of the earliest stages of settlement in Millers Point and would be connected to the residential development of Sydney and its establishment as a town with trading and the intention of long term settlement. These archaeological remains may also represent the development of Millers Point and the surrounding area as an important location for Sydney’s maritime trading and wharfage industries. Due to the early date of the structure these remains may reach the threshold of state significance.

Potential archaeological remains within the study area, including structural remains of outbuildings, subsurface deposits, and underfloor deposits, would be linked to the historical development of the study area as a A) Historical residential property for over 150 years. The development of the house and its initial function as a boarding house can be linked to broader historical events in Millers Point, largely the mid-1800s change to a residential area and the need for the area to house large numbers of workers involved in the maritime industry.

Furthermore, potential archaeological remains associated with the study area’s ownership by the Department of Housing and the Sydney Harbour Trust would also reflect the early 1900s historical event of land resumption in Millers Point and remediation works, including within the study area.

The potential archaeological remains within the study area would reach the threshold of local significance under this criterion. Intact and in situ remains associated with the c.1823 building or associated structures may reach the threshold of state significance.

The study area is associated with the publicans William Cole and James Merriman, both of which were owners of the extant building, no. 24 Argyle Place. Each of these men owned several inns and buildings throughout Millers Point, however potential archaeological remains are not expected to be associated with either owner as neither lived within the study area. Furthermore, Cole and Merriman are not overly significant historical B) Associative characters associated with the development of Millers Point. Remains dating to mid-1800s may be associated with Sarah Murphy and her boarding house.

The potential archaeological remains within the study area may reach the threshold of local significance under this criterion.

Potential archaeological remains associated with former outbuildings are unlikely to demonstrate any uncommon architectural styles or technical achievements. Furthermore, while some artefacts may be considered aesthetically pleasing, it is unlikely that they would represent significant or C) Aesthetic or Technical uncommon decorative arts styles.

The potential archaeological remains within the study area are unlikely to reach the threshold of local significance under this criterion.

Page 34

24 Argyle Place, Millers Point Historical Archaeological Assessment

Criterion Discussion

Potential archaeological remains associated with former outbuildings or artefacts within archaeological subsurface or underfloor deposits may provide intact evidence related to working class tenants and inhabitants of Sarah Murphy’s boarding house, or the twentieth century use of the study area by the Department of Housing. Archaeological remains associated with working class inhabitants may hold social significance to a variety of groups. This could include previous inhabitants of the house (including D) Social previous Department of Housing tenants), the broader Millers Point community, and social historians. Artefactual or dietary evidence in the form of archaeological remains may provide information about the daily activities, tastes, and possessions of working-class people in the mid-1800s, which are rarely documented in the historical record.

The potential archaeological remains within the study area may reach the threshold of local significance under this criterion.

Potential archaeological remains, including underfloor deposits and artefact bearing deposits within the potential WC, may hold valuable research potential regarding the use of 24 Argyle Place as a boarding house. Artefacts dating to the twentieth century may similarly provide information regarding the use of the study area by the Department of Housing. The daily activities, possessions owned, and diet consumed by boarding house and public housing tenants are unlikely to be revealed through other historical sources. Furthermore, artefact bearing deposits or undocumented structural remains such as a cesspit or well dating to the 1820s would also provide valuable information about the settlement of the site within the 1820s, prior to the construction of Cole’s Buildings.

E) Research Potential Other potential remains, including structural remains or outbuildings, are unlikely to hold valuable research potential. Several other settlements dating to the mid and late 1800s have been previously excavated within the Millers Point and The Rocks district, and the design and construction methodologies of mid-1800s outbuildings are well documented in various other sources.

Potential archaeological remains, especially intact artefact bearing deposits associated with the use of the study area by working class tenants (particularly boarding house tenants) may have research potential, however other archaeological remains are unlikely to reach the threshold of local significance under this criterion.

Potential archaeological remains, including sandstone or brick outbuilding footings and structural remains, remains of WC structures, or artefact bearing deposits dating to the mid- and late-nineteenth century and twentieth century would not be considered rare within the urban context of Millers Point and The Rocks, or in the broader Sydney CBD setting.

Archaeological remains associated with the c.1823 structure within the F) Rarity study area – while being assessed at low archaeological potential – would be uncommon if it is found to be substantially intact. If archaeological remains of the structure were located, particularly if the building was a timber slab hut, these remains would be rare archaeology for the inner city of Sydney.

The potential archaeological remains within the study area are unlikely to reach the threshold of local significance under this criterion.

Page 35

24 Argyle Place, Millers Point Historical Archaeological Assessment

Criterion Discussion

It is expected that potential archaeological remains, including sandstone or brick structural remains of outbuildings or yard surfaces would be representative of Georgian and Victorian era outbuilding structures and that potential artefact bearing deposits would contain somewhat typical artefacts, including glass and ceramic artefacts and zooarchaeological (and potentially archaeobotanical) remains associated with diet.

G) Representativeness Potential underfloor deposits and the expected findings – including zooarchaeological remains, rubbish, and potential personal items (either lost or purposely discarded) may be considered representative of underfloor deposits from the mid to late 1800s.

The potential archaeological remains within the study area may reach the threshold of local significance under this criterion.

5.5 Summary of archaeological potential and significance

A summary of the archaeological potential and significance of archaeological remains in and near the study area is provided in Table 4.

Table 4: Summary of potential and significance of archaeological remains near to the study area

Phase Potential archaeological remains Arch. potential Significance

Structural remains of the c.1823 building Low Local to State Phase 1: Early Development (c.1823- Undocumented structures Low Local to State 1833) Rubbish pits or yard scatters Low Local to State

Demolition of earlier structure Low Local Phase 2: Newman’s Residence Gardening evidence including soils or Low Local archaeobotany

Structural remains of WC (sandstone High Local footings)

Phase 3: Coles Artefactual deposits within cesspit Low Local Buildings (c.1845-1900) Structural remains of c.1889 secondary High Local outbuilding

Underfloor deposits (localised) Low-Moderate Local

Underfloor deposits (localised) Low-Moderate Not Significant Phase 4: Twentieth Century (1900-present) Artefactual deposits associated with High Not Significant backfilling of WC

Page 36

24 Argyle Place, Millers Point Historical Archaeological Assessment

6.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

6.1 Proposed works

The proposed project would involve works throughout the interior of the house and within the yard. Landscaping works will involve minor excavation to create a gentle slope from the rear verandah to the northern boundary of the study area at the rear fence. The landscaping works would also involve the removal of banana trees within the garden bed created from the repurposing of the c.1889 outbuilding structural remains. The c.1889 outbuilding remains will be demolished as part of the proposed works. Sandstone blocks and yard surfaces present throughout the yard will be removed during works, however it is intended that any existing sandstone would be reused within the new landscaping design.

Within the interiors of the building floorboards would be removed and replaced where necessary if termite or water damage has occurred. Existing damage and floorboards requiring removal will be assessed following the removal of carpeting, tile, and linoleum flooring throughout the house. It is not expected that any underfloor remediation would be required as a result of floorboard replacement.

The proposed works would also involve the construction of an extension at the rear of the house, to house a new kitchen. The approved architectural designs are provided in Figure 36 to Figure 38.

Page 37

24 Argyle Place, Millers Point Historical Archaeological Assessment

Figure 36. Lower ground floor plans. Source: Virginia Kerridge Architect

Page 38

24 Argyle Place, Millers Point Historical Archaeological Assessment

Figure 37. Ground floor proposed works. Source: Virginia Kerridge Architect

Page 39

24 Argyle Place, Millers Point Historical Archaeological Assessment

Figure 38. First floor proposed works. Source: Virginia Kerridge Architect

Page 40

24 Argyle Place, Millers Point Historical Archaeological Assessment

6.2 Assessment of Archaeological Impact

6.2.1 Interior Works

The proposal includes the replacement of damaged floorboards in localised areas throughout each of the three interior floors of 24 Argyle Place. The exact locations where floorboards would be removed is yet to be determined. Following the removal of carpet the structural integrity of the floorboards will be assessed and individual floorboards will be removed and replaced if needed. These works, in addition to proposed remediation works, such as repairing any water damage to structural subfloor timber, have the potential to impact underfloor deposits including deposits within ceiling and flooring cavities on the upper levels, should they exist. The works would require archaeological management if disturbance or removal of deposits is necessary.

6.2.2 Yard Works

Intended landscaping works have the potential to impact on locally significant archaeological remains.

The proposed works would include the removal of the timber decking of the rear verandah to facilitate construction of the rear extension. During the site inspection it was noted that the area below the verandah was hollow and several items including bottle caps and other miscellaneous rubbish were sighted. There may be potential for additional archaeological deposits or artefacts from the late 20th century and early 21st century to be present in the below deck area. Some installation for any additional services, such as water and heating may involve some localised impact at shallow depth if archaeological deposits are present.

The rear extension for the new kitchen would also involve the removal of sandstone yard surface, which would be reused in new landscaping. The sandstone is above ground and is therefore not considered archaeological, however the depth of the sandstone is unknown and the yard surface may continue beneath the current lawn surface or may be associated with other remains such as the secondary outbuilding. The removal of the sandstone yard surface may inadvertently impact other archaeological remains.

The proposed landscaping works throughout the study area would involve the creation of a gradual slope to the north of the study area and would involve some minor excavation. These works would involve the removal of the banana trees situated within the garden bed created from the repurposed secondary outhouse, and the removal of the remains of the brick outbuilding itself. The removal of the remnant outbuilding may result in below ground disturbances to associated archaeological remains, including drainage, artefactual deposits, or subsurface structural remains. The removal of the banana trees would likely also impact any potential remains. Additional excavation in the area would create additional impacts to any potential remains associated with the secondary outbuilding. However, as the landscaping would be shallowest at the rear of the existing structure the excavations would also be the shallowest in the location of the c.1823 structure. This would help to avoid potential impacts to remains of the former structure.

Excavation within the yard may also result in some impacts to the potential archaeological remains associated with the first outhouse, dating to the mid-1800s. Extant sandstone blocks located in the rear north-western corner of the study area may be associated with the former outhouse in the area and additional subsurface remains, including sandstone footings or foundations may be present and would likely be impacted by the works. Additional archaeological remains such as archaeological deposits associated with the use or backfilling event of the structure would be located at depth, likely around 0.5 metres below the current ground surface, and would not likely be impacted by the excavation works.

Page 41

24 Argyle Place, Millers Point Historical Archaeological Assessment

6.2.3 Conservation Management Strategy Policy

The CMP prepared by Robertson & Hindmarsh in 2014 established several policies for archaeological management. The consistency of the proposal against these policies is assessed below in Table 5.

Table 5. Assessment of proposal against CMP policies

Policy Discussion

8.8.1 Archaeological assessment by a suitably qualified and experienced historical archaeologist should be carried out in the identified area prior to the commencement of any works. The aim of this This Historical Archaeological Assessment has archaeological assessment is to gather information investigated potential archaeological remains with the about the previous layouts and character of the yard areas and identified possible locations and impacts. houses’ rear yards to inform future conservation, interpretation and upgrading work and determine if any archaeological investigation or approvals are likely to be required.

8.8.2 An appropriate on-site investigation strategy (an archaeological methodology and Research Design) should be prepared and submitted to the NSW An on-site investigation strategy has been prepared by Heritage Council (now Heritage NSW, DPC) as Artefact Heritage. See Section 7.0 of this document. supporting documentation for any applications for excavation on this property.

8.8.3 As the property is on the State Heritage Register, an approval under the Heritage Act will be necessary for any excavation work as well as any Relevant approvals will be sought from Heritage NSW, building work, informed by an appropriate Research DPC and all works and archaeological findings will be Design and archaeological methodology undertaken recorded within an archaeological monitoring report. by a suitably qualified and experienced historical archaeologist. Approved works must be appropriately documented.

8.8.4 All ground disturbance associated with future development of the site in areas not previously All works which may impact identified potential investigated through archaeological excavation should archaeological remains will be monitored by a qualified be undertaken consistent with the proposed archaeologist adhering to the works method statement archaeological methodology and any conditions of the and any conditions associated with approval from archaeological approval, which may include Heritage NSW, DPC. archaeological monitoring or salvage excavation.

8.8.5 Suitable clauses should be included in all contractor and subcontractor contracts to ensure that This report has recommended a heritage induction be on-site personnel are aware of their obligations and provided for all contractors on site. requirements in relation to the archaeological provisions of the NSW Heritage Act.

6.2.4 Statement of heritage impact

• Proposed excavation and construction activities have the potential to impact archaeological resources. The following potential impacts have been identified, relating to the proposed works, Landscaping works within the yard area have potential to impact potentially state significant archaeological remains associated with the c.1823 building and any undocumented associated structures including a cesspit, well, rubbish pits or yard scatters. However, the works in the location of these potential remains are the shallowest part of the landscaping works which would help to reduce the potential impact

Page 42

24 Argyle Place, Millers Point Historical Archaeological Assessment

• Landscaping works within the yard have potential to impact locally significant archaeological remains associated with the Cole’s Buildings, including the remains and deposits of the former mid-1850s outhouse, yard scatters or rubbish pits, yard surfaces, and the remains of the c.1889 outbuilding • Construction of the kitchen extension at the rear of the house will impact the timber decking verandah at the rear of the house, the sandstone walls and the sandstone yard surface. However, these are not considered to be archaeological in nature • Removal of floorboards in localised areas throughout the three levels of the house may reveal underfloor deposits and deposits within the ceiling/flooring cavities of each level. It is unlikely that the works will impact potential archaeological remains unless these works determined that remediation is required. An archaeologist should inspect the cavities prior to installing new surfaces or services.

Overall the proposal has nil to low potential to impact State significant relics and low-moderate potential to impact locally significant relics.

Page 43

24 Argyle Place, Millers Point Historical Archaeological Assessment

7.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH DESIGN

7.1 Archaeological Methodology

The study area has low – moderate potential for archaeological remains of local significance. The following sections outline the proposed archaeological management for the study area. Generally, these guiding precepts are followed:

• Manage archaeological resources in accordance with the relics provisions of the Heritage Act 1977 with appropriate approval from the Heritage NSW, DPC in the form of a Section 60 permit • Investigate and record archaeological resources in accordance with archaeological best practice, NSW Heritage Division (now Heritage NSW, DPC) guidelines, the conditions of any permits issued under the Heritage Act and any requirements of the City of Sydney Council.

Archaeological investigations would be managed by a suitably qualified Excavation Director with experience in the historical archaeology of Sydney.

7.1.1 Heritage Induction

A heritage induction would be prepared and presented to contractors and included in site inductions for the project. The heritage induction would outline the heritage significance of the site, the archaeological program and role of the project archaeologist, and responsibilities and requirements of the section 60 approval.

7.1.2 Monitoring and Recording

To ensure impacts to archaeological resources are managed appropriately, a program of archaeological monitoring and recording during the construction phase of the proposed works at 24 Argyle Place, Millers Point is proposed.

The archaeological methodology would include the following:

• Ground disturbance and excavation with potential to impact archaeological remains would be monitored by the project archaeologist. Such works include: − Removal of the sandstone yard surface and the sandstone wall − Removal of the banana trees and secondary brick outbuilding − Excavations for landscaping works. • Archaeological site inspection following the removal of internal ground floor surface and prior to preparation for installation of new services and new surfacing on each floor of the house, including recording and photography of any underfloor or ceiling cavity deposits • Should potential archaeological remains be identified, works would cease in that location and they would be investigated by the archaeologist • If the proposed works cannot be altered or redesigned to avoid impact, archaeological salvage excavation of locally significant remains would be undertaken where necessary • Archaeological remains would be recorded by the archaeologist in accordance with archaeological best practise

Page 44

24 Argyle Place, Millers Point Historical Archaeological Assessment

• It is not anticipated that works would encounter a substantial archaeological resource. However, should the monitoring program identify an unexpectedly intact or significant archaeological resource, Heritage NSW, DPC would be notified. It is noted, in order to impact any unexpected significant archaeological remains, a modification of existing approvals, or application for a new approval, may be required.

7.1.3 Recording Methodology

The recording would be undertaken in accordance with best practice and Heritage NSW, DPC. The recording methodology includes the following:

• Significant archaeological structural remains, deposits and features would be recorded on context sheets • A photographic record of the program and details of significant archaeological remains made • Survey and/or scale drawings would be prepared and include location of remains within the overall site • Significant artefacts would collected by context for later analysis • Building material, soil and pollen samples would be collected for further analysis (as appropriate) • Registers of contexts, photos, samples and drawings would be kept.

7.1.4 Artefacts

Artefacts from secure or in situ contexts would be collected and recorded. It is proposed that only diagnostic pieces and other items whose analysis would contribute to the research questions for this site are retained.

Should diagnostic or significant artefacts be present within the fill layers (out-of-context), a sample will be retained as part of the archaeological record.

Retained artefacts would be processed, catalogued and analysed by an archaeologist experienced in historical artefact assemblages. The resulting information would be included in the final archaeological investigation report.

7.1.5 Research Questions

It is not expected that the proposal would result in a large amount of archaeological data for research purposes. However, the following research questions would guide the archaeological investigation:

• Do remains associated with the pre-1823 structure survive within the study area? If so, what can they tell us about construction techniques adopted at this time? • Do the archaeological remains provide any information specific to the Millers Point area? Can the artefacts or remains be identified as being associated with the local area’s quarrying, maritime and wharf industries? • Do artefact deposits, if any, provide any information relating to the taste, function, class, status and occupations of the residents, who are largely unknown from the historical record? How do

Page 45

24 Argyle Place, Millers Point Historical Archaeological Assessment

these compare to those recovered from similar sites including those from the Big Dig Archaeological Centre on Cumberland Street, The Rocks? • Do the archaeological remains provide information about drainage, construction material availability, construction techniques and the adaption of infrastructure to the local landscape?

7.1.6 Post-excavation analysis and final reporting

Following the completion of on-site archaeological works, post-excavation analysis of the findings would be undertaken. An archaeological monitoring report will be produced that will comprehensively describe and interpret the findings of the investigation within the context of the research design and research questions.

The document would be issued as a single report incorporating the findings of the archaeological program. This would include artefact analysis, environmental and building material sample analysis, stratigraphic reporting and production of Harris Matrices, production of illustrations and detailed site plans interpretation of site plans and illustrations final excavation report detailing the archaeological program and results would be prepared. It would include photographs and plans, catalogue and analysis of artefacts, and also respond to the research questions. The report would include a reassessment of archaeological significance based on the investigation results.

The report would be prepared in accordance with any conditions included in the s60 permit.

7.1.7 Unexpected Finds Procedure

If unanticipated archaeological items are uncovered at any time throughout the life of the project the following actions must be followed:

• Cease all activity in the vicinity of the find

• Leave the material in place and protect it from harm

• Take note of the details of the material and its location, take a photograph of the find in situ

• Inform the site manager, who would then inform the superintendent / principal

The superintendent / principal must:

• Notify the Department of Environment, Industry and Environment (DE, IE) (formerly Office of

Environment and Heritage) on the Environment Line: 131 555 • Call the archaeologist to identify whether additional investigation is required in accordance with

the conditions of approval and DE, IE guidelines

• Notify DE, IE if confirmed as an Aboriginal object or relic

• Await further advice before proceeding with work in the area.

7.1.8 Archaeological Team

Jayden van Beek would act as Excavation Director and would manage monitoring and any other archaeological requirements.

Archaeological Assistants would include Sarah Hawkins and others as necessary.

Page 46

24 Argyle Place, Millers Point Historical Archaeological Assessment

Should archaeological survey be required, Artefact Heritage use Guy Hazell (Archaeological Surveying and Illustration).

Artefact analysis would be undertaken by Michael Lever.

Page 47

24 Argyle Place, Millers Point Historical Archaeological Assessment

8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Conclusions

• The site at 24 Argyle Place was originally part of a land grant made to Susan and/or Thomas Newman in the 1830s. the site as purchased by William Cole in 1844, at which time the terraces known as Cole’s Buildings were constructed • The terrace was rented by several working-class tenants throughout the 19th century. It was acquired by the NSW Housing Commission in the early 1900s in association with the resumption of the Millers Point area • 24 Argyle Place is an item of state significance on the SHR (SHR No. 00905), Sydney LEP 2012 (Item No. I950), and is within two SHR listed heritage conservation areas (SHR No. 00884 and SHR No. 01682) • 24 Argyle Place has potential to contain archaeological remains of state and local significance including: − Interior » Low-moderate potential for locally significant underfloor deposits including within ceiling cavities − Exterior » Low potential for State significant remains associated with a c.1823 building, undocumented structures including cesspits or wells, rubbish pits and yard scatters, demolition fills, and gardening soils » High potential for locally significant structural remains associated with the mid-1850s outhouse and the (partially extant) c.1889 outbuilding » Low archaeological potential for locally significant artefactual deposits associated with cesspits, rubbish pits or yard scatters from 1845-1900 » High potential for artefactual deposits associated with the backfilling of former outbuildings • The proposed renovation, extension and landscaping works have low potential to impact significant archaeological resources: − Internal replacement of floorboards would not be expected to impact underfloor deposits unless it is determined that remediation is required − Landscaping works may impact former structures, artefactual deposits associated with wells, cesspits, or rubbish pits, yard scatters, or yard surfaces from the 1800s. However, the landscaping works would be relatively shallow • Impacts to significant archaeological remains within an SHR curtilage require approval under the NSW Heritage Act 1977 (Heritage Act).

Page 48

24 Argyle Place, Millers Point Historical Archaeological Assessment

Recommendations

Page 49

24 Argyle Place, Millers Point Historical Archaeological Assessment

9.0 REFERENCES

Bairstow, D., July 1987. Millers Point Site 8900. Archaeological Master Strategy, p. 3. Report prepared for Department of Housing.

Fitzgerald, S., 2008. ‘Millers Point.’ Dictionary of Sydney. Accessed online 31/10/2019 at: https://dictionaryofsydney.org/entry/millers_point

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

Lost Sydney, 2019. ‘Lost Sydney: Princes Street.’ Lost Sydney. Accessed online 31/10/2019 at: http://www.visitsydneyaustralia.com.au/lost-princes-street.html

NSW Office of Environment and Heritage, 2006. ‘Terrace Group “Glover Cottages” Including Interiors.’ NSW Office of Environment & Heritage. Accessed online 31/10/2019 at: https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/heritageapp/ViewHeritageItemDetails.aspx?ID=2423504

NSW Office of Environment and Heritage, 2015. ‘Terrace Group (24-32 Argyle Place) including interiors.’ NSW Government Office of Environment & Heritage. Accessed online 13/11/2019 at: https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/heritageapp/ViewHeritageItemDetails.aspx?ID=2423572

Real Estate, 2019. ’24 Argyle Place Millers Point Property History.’ RealEstate.com.au. Accessed online 1/11/2019 at: https://www.realestate.com.au/property/24-argyle-pl-millers-point-nsw- 2000?pid=p4ep-pdp|sold-pdp:property-history-cta#timeline

Robertson & Hindmarsh, July 2014. Cole’s Buildings 24-32 Argyle Place Millers Point Conservation Management Plan

Stevens, A., n.d. ‘Skint! Making do in the Great Depression.’ Sydney Living Museums. Accessed online 1/11/2019 at: https://sydneylivingmuseums.com.au/stories/skint-making-do-great-depression

The Sydney Morning Herald, 12 April 1844. ‘Advertising.’ Accessed online 31/10/2019 at: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/12410342?searchTerm=%22mr%20thomas%20newman% 22%20residence&searchLimits=l-title=35|||l-decade=184|||l-year=1844

The Sydney Morning Herald, 30 March 1844. ‘Advertising.’ Accessed online 31/10/2019 at: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/12408799?searchTerm=%22mr%20thomas%20newman% 22%20residence&searchLimits=l-title=35|||l-decade=184|||l-year=1844

The Sydney Morning Herald, Fri 7 December 1866. ‘Family Notices.’ Accessed online 31/10/2019 at: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/13145526?searchTerm=%22Coles%20Buildings%22&sear chLimits=l-decade=186

Weir Phillips, 2016. Heritage Impact Statement 24 Argyle Place Millers Point. Part of Coles Buildings

Page 50