DOCSLIB.ORG

Site 2 – Sydney Olympic Park: Historical Archaeological Assessment and Statement of Heritage Impact

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Site 2 – Sydney Olympic Park: Historical Archaeological Assessment and Statement of Heritage Impact Site 2 – Sydney Olympic Park: Historical Archaeological Assessment and Statement of Heritage Impact FINAL REPORT Prepared for Ecove Group 14 August 2019 Biosis offices Document information NEW SOUTH WALES Report to: Ecove Group Newcastle Prepared by: Charlotte Allen Phone: (02) 4911 4040 Email: [email protected] Biosis project no.: 28338 File name: 28338.OlympicPark.HAA.SoHI.FIN.20190814 Sydney Phone: (02) 9101 8700 Citation: Biosis 2018. Site 2 – Sydney Olympic Park: Historical Archaeological Email: [email protected] Assessment and Statement of Heritage Impact. Report for Ecove Group. Authors: C Allen, Biosis Pty Ltd, Wollongong. 28338. Wollongong Phone: (02) 4201 1090 Email: [email protected] Document control Albury Phone: (02) 6069 9200 Email: [email protected] Version Internal reviewer Date issued Draft version 01 Jane Raithby-Veall 04/10/2018 Final version 01 Matthew Tetlaw 14/08/2019 VICTORIA Acknowledgements Melbourne Phone: (03) 8686 4800 Biosis acknowledges the contribution of the following people and Email: [email protected] organisations in undertaking this study: Ballarat Phone: (03) 5304 4250 • Ecove Group: Michael Azar Email: [email protected] Biosis staff involved in this project were: Wangaratta • Samantha Keats (project management) Phone: (03) 5718 6900 Email: [email protected] • James Cole (assistance in the field) • Lucy Wilson and Jason Prasad (mapping) • Jane Raithby-Veall (quality assurance) Biosis Pty Ltd This document is and shall remain the property of Biosis Pty Ltd. The 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: Biosis Pty Ltd has completed this assessment 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 report content or for any purpose other than that for which it was intended. © Biosis 2019 - Leaders in Ecology and Heritage Consulting - www.biosis.com.au i Contents Glossary ................................................................................................................................................................... v Summary ............................................................................................................................................................... vi 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 8 Project background ......................................................................................................................................... 8 Location of the study area ............................................................................................................................. 8 Scope of assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 8 Limitations ......................................................................................................................................................... 9 2 Statutory framework ............................................................................................................................... 12 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 ........................................................ 12 NSW Heritage Act 1977 ................................................................................................................................. 12 2.2.1 State Heritage Register ...................................................................................................................... 13 2.2.2 Archaeological relics .......................................................................................................................... 13 2.2.3 Section 170 Heritage and Conservation Registers ....................................................................... 14 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 ................................................................................ 14 2.3.1 Local Environmental Plan ................................................................................................................. 14 2.3.2 Auburn Development Control Plan 2010 ....................................................................................... 14 2.3.3 State Environmental Planning Policy (State Significant Precincts) 2005 ................................... 15 2.3.4 State Environmental Planning Policy (Major Development) 2005 ............................................. 15 2.3.5 Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No 24 – Homebush Bay Area ........................................ 15 Summary of heritage listings ....................................................................................................................... 15 3 Historical context ..................................................................................................................................... 18 Topography and resources .......................................................................................................................... 18 Aboriginal past ............................................................................................................................................... 18 Historical development ................................................................................................................................. 19 3.3.1 Exploration and early land grants (1788 to 1827) ........................................................................ 19 3.3.2 Development of the Home Bush Estate and attempts at subdivision (1830s to 1880s) ................................................................................................................................................... 20 3.3.3 Government resumption and industrial development (1900s to 1980s) ................................ 23 3.3.4 Redevelopment of Homebush (1980s to present) ....................................................................... 27 Chronology of the study area ...................................................................................................................... 27 Research themes ........................................................................................................................................... 28 4 Physical inspection ................................................................................................................................... 30 4.2.2 Integrity of sub-surface deposits ..................................................................................................... 34 4.2.3 Research potential ............................................................................................................................. 35 5 Significance assessment .......................................................................................................................... 38 Levels of heritage significance ..................................................................................................................... 39 Statement of significance ............................................................................................................................. 39 © Biosis 2019 – Leaders in Ecology and Heritage Consulting II 6 Statement of heritage impact................................................................................................................. 42 7 Recommendations.................................................................................................................................... 43 References ............................................................................................................................................................ 44 Tables Table 1 Summary of heritage listings within and adjacent to the study area ............................................ 16 Table 2 Chronological development of the study area ................................................................................. 27 Table 3 Identified historical themes for the study area ................................................................................ 29 Table 4 Assessment of archaeological potential ............................................................................................ 36 Table 5 Evaluation and statement of signifiance for possible archaeological material within the study area ............................................................................................................................................... 40 Figures Figure 1 Location of the study area ................................................................................................................... 10 Figure 2 Study area detail ................................................................................................................................... 11 Figure 3 Location of heritage items within the study area and in the vicinity ............................................. 17 Figure 4 Extract from an 1818 Concord Parish map, showing D'Arcy Wentworth's grant of Home Bush, with the study area highlighted (Source: NSW Land Registry Services, 1818 Concord Parish Map) ............................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Sydney Harbour Superyacht Guidelines
    Sydney Harbour superyacht guidelines Guidelines for Masters operating Superyachts on Sydney Harbour Contents Executive Summary 1 Qualifications and registration 9 Port procedures 2 Boat licences and certificates of competency 9 Directions for navigation 2 Registration of vessels 9 Directions and regulations to be observed 2 Protected animals 10 Required charts 2 Approach distances 10 Port services 2 Speed 10 Pilotage requirements 2 Approach directions 10 Wind and weather 3 Action if a marine mammal approaches 11 Port Authority of NSW Vessel Traffic Service 3 Communications 11 Pilot boarding place 3 VHF channels 11 Sydney Harbour – general considerations 3 Important contact details 11 General 3 Useful websites 12 Speed limits 3 Photographs 13 Speed restricted areas 4 Anzac Bridge 13 Conduct within Sydney Harbour 7 Rozelle Bay Superyacht Marina 13 Prohibited areas for general navigation 7 Campbells Cove 14 General 7 Sydney Cove – Circular Quay 15 Restricted access areas 7 Fort Denison 15 Collision or incident reports 8 Garden Island Naval Base 15 Berthing at commercial wharves 8 Walsh Bay 16 Pollution, nuisance or danger 8 Sydney Harbour Bridge 17 Marine Pollution Act 1987 8 Jones Bay Wharf, Pyrmont 17 Pump-out facilities 8 Kirribilli Point 17 Garbage 9 Anzac Bridge 18 Causing of nuisance or danger 9 Glebe Island Bridge 18 Farm Cove 18 Wind frequency analyses 19 FRONT COVER PHOTO: ANDREA FRANCOLINI Executive Summary Welcome to Sydney. The aim of these guidelines is to assist superyacht masters Superyachts are free to enter and move around with their preparations for a visit to Sydney Harbour and to Sydney Harbour subject to compliance with the provide a reference document during the visit.
    [Show full text]
  • 1.0 Introduction 2.0 Background 3.0 Existing Waterway Navigation and Usage
    Hanson Construction Materials Pty Ltd ABN 90 009 679 734 Level 18 2 ‐ 12 Macquarie Street Parramatta NSW 2150 Tel +612 9354 2600 Fax +612 9325 2695 www.hanson.com.au 1.0 Introduction This report is prepared in relation to a State Significant Development Application (SSDA) for an Aggregate Handling and Concrete Batching facility at Glebe Island (SSD 8854). Glebe Island currently operates as a working industrial port under the management of Ports Authority of NSW (Port Authority). The aggregate handling and concrete batching facility is proposed adjacent to the existing Glebe Island Berth 1 (GLB1) terminal. Aggregate is proposed to be delivered by ship to the GLB1 berth at Glebe Island. This report provides information relating to marine traffic, navigation and safety and outlines any potential maritime safety issues, and measures required to minimise and mitigate any impacts resulting from the proposed development. 2.0 Background The SSDA was submitted to the Department of Planning and Environment (DP&E) in March 2018 and subsequently placed on formal public exhibition for 5 weeks, between 11 April 2018 and 15 May 2018. On 20 August 2018, a Request for Additional Information (RFI) was issued by the DP&E. This report responds to the additional information sought in relation to the maritime traffic, safety and navigation impact assessment (Issues 30 – 32 under Schedule 1) for the new facility at Glebe Island. For the purposes of this SSDA, this statement provides a preliminary navigation impact assessment and outlines the general processes and guidelines in place that governs marine traffic flow within the context of the site at GLB1, Glebe Island and Sydney Harbour.
    [Show full text]
  • Bays West Draft Place Strategy
    Draft Bays West Place Strategy NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment March 2021 Welcome to Country The stretch of Country now known as Bays West Welcome to Country provided by Shannon Foster, has been known for millennia as Gari Gurad/ D'harawal Sydney Traditional Owner and Knowledge Nura (Saltwater Country) and Nattai Gurad/ Keeper. Artwork titled 'Guriwal Dreaming' by Shannon Nura (Freshwater Country). This Country is Foster. celebrated for vast expanses of garaban (rock Within the Bays West Place Strategy, you will and sandstone) which in some places provides encounter stories of the Bays West location gibbaragunya (stone/cave shelters), and in other specifically. These are a small selection of the places creates yiningmah (steep cliffs) where D'harawal stories of this place. They are shared by a ceremony can be performed privately without contributor to this document, D'harawal Knowledge uninitiated onlookers. Keeper Shannon Foster, whose Ancestors kept these knowledges alive, and whose Elders and Knowledge For thousands of generations, local Aboriginal Keepers still celebrate, live by and share them today. people have lived an abundant and sustainable lifestyle within a complex kinship system of The cultural Intellectual Property (IP) of all Aboriginal numerous families and clans on this Country peoples, including the cultural IP of these stories, including the D’harawal, Dharug, Eora, Gai- remains with the people they belong to and can never maragal, Gundangara and Guringai peoples, be vested or assigned. In this case the stories belong among others. We pay our respects to their to the D'harawal people of the Sydney region who Ancestors and Elders past, present and know themselves as Iyora here, and these stories emerging and acknowledge that through may not be duplicated or used without the express honouring Country, we also honour their timeless permission of Sydney D'harawal Elders or Knowledge connections to Country.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Outcomes of Residential Development, Sydney Olympic Park Stage 1: Local Area Analysis
    Social outcomes of residential development, Sydney Olympic Park Stage 1: Local Area Analysis Bill Randolph, Darren Holloway and Kristian Ruming Social outcomes of residential development, Sydney Olympic Park Stage 1: Local Area Analysis Bill Randolph, Darren Holloway and Kristian Ruming © City Futures Research Centre October 2005 City Future Research Centre Faculty of the Built Environment University of New South Wales Kensington, NSW 2052 1 THE AUTHORS Professor Bill Randolph is the Director of the City Futures Research Centre, Faculty of the Built Environment, University of NSW, Sydney 2052, Australia. Email: [email protected]. Darren Holloway is a Senior Research Officer at the City Futures Research Centre, Faculty of the Built Environment, University of NSW, Sydney 2052, Australia. Email: [email protected]. Kristian Ruming is a Research Officer at the City Futures Research Centre, Faculty of the Built Environment, University of NSW, Sydney 2052, Australia. Email: [email protected] 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...........................................................................................5 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................9 2. PROFILE OF RESIDENTS IN HIGHER DENSITY DEVELOPMENTS NEAR OLYMPIC PARK........................................................................................................12 2.1 Socio-Economic Profile...................................................................................12 2.1.1
    [Show full text]
  • Contextual Analysis and Urban Design Objectives
    Rozelle Interchange Urban Design and Landscape Plan Contextual Analysis and Urban Design Objectives Artists impression: Pedestrian view along Victoria Road Caption(Landscape - Image shown description at full maturity and is indicative only). 03 White Bay Power Station Urban Design Objectives 3 Contextual analysis 3.1 Contextual analysis Local context WestConnex will extend from the M4 Motorway at The Rozelle Interchange will be a predominately Parramatta to Sydney Airport and the M5 underground motorway interchange with entry and Motorway, re-shaping the way people move exit points that connect to the wider transport through Sydney and generating urban renewal network at City West Link, Iron Cove and Anzac opportunities along the way. It will provide the Bridge. critical link between the M4 and M5, completing Sydney’s motorway network. Iron Cove and Rozelle Rail Yards sit on and are adjacent to disconnected urban environments. While the character varies along the route, the These conditions are the result of the historically WestConnex will be sensitively integrated into the typical approach to building large individual road built and natural environments to reconnect and systems which disconnect suburbs and greatly strengthen local communities and enhance the reduce the connectivity and amenity of sustainable form, function, character and liveability of Sydney. modes of transport such as cycling and walking. Rather than adding to the existing disconnection, An analysis of the Project corridor was undertaken the Project will provide increased
    [Show full text]
  • Existing Port Facilities CHAPTER 3
    Existing Port Facilities CHAPTER 3 Summary of key outcomes: Sydney’s ports provide a vital economic gateway for the Australian and NSW economies. In 2001/02, Sydney’s ports handled approximately $42 billion worth of international trade which represents 17% of Australia’s total international trade and 56% of NSW’s international air and sea cargo trade by value. Due to its proximity to the Sydney market, Port Botany is and will remain the primary port for the import and export of containerised cargo in NSW. Currently, over 90% of container trade passing through Sydney’s ports is handled at Port Botany. Port Botany Expansion Environmental Impact Statement – Volume 1 Existing Port Facilities CHAPTER 3 3 Existing Port Facilities 3.1 Role and Significance of Sydney’s Ports The port facilities of Sydney are located at Port Botany and within Sydney Harbour. These ports, along with the airport, are the economic gateways to NSW. This is reflected by the fact that in 2001/02 Sydney’s ports handled approximately $42 billion worth of international trade. This represents: $10,000 for each person in the greater Sydney region, which has a population of close to 4 million; 56% of NSW’s total international air and sea cargo trade by value; and 17% of Australia’s total international trade. Cargo throughput through Sydney’s ports (Sydney Ports Corporation owned and private berths) during 2001/02 was 24.3 million mass tonnes, with containerised cargo accounting for 43.9%. This trade comprised more than 1 million TEUs, 183,000 motor vehicles and about 13.6 million mass tonnes of bulk and general cargo.
    [Show full text]
  • Glebe Island and White Bay Master Plan Incorporating the Ports Improvement Program and SEPP 61 Exempt and Complying Development November 2000 Introduction
    Glebe Island and White Bay Master Plan Incorporating the Ports Improvement Program and SEPP 61 Exempt and Complying Development November 2000 Introduction Glebe Island and White Bay form part of the area covered by State Regional Environmental Plan 26 (SREP 26). The State Government is committed to Sydney Harbour continuing to be a working harbour. Under the provisions of the SREP the site is zoned for “Port and Employment” uses. SREP 26 provides that development consent for development in the Glebe Island and White Bay Port Area is subject to a Master Plan adopted by the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning. The Glebe Island and White Bay Master Plan will control and direct the future development of the Port facilities. The consent authority must take the Master Plan into consideration when determining a development application. The Master Plan requires a Ports Improvement Program to be established. The Ports Improvement Program includes guidelines that will enhance the appearance of the port through landscaping, signage and selected colour schemes and provide standards against which development will be assessed. This document is divided into two parts: Part A Master Plan Part B Ports Improvement Program Each part is an independent document. Future development needs to consider both parts. In order to provide a comprehensive set of planning instruments relating to the Glebe Island and White Bay Master plan area, a copy of State Environmental Planning Policy 61 is attached. This provides a simpler approvals process for routine proposals and clarifies the extent of exempt and complying development on port land. Letters from the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning indicating adoption of the Master Plan, approval of the Port Improvement Program and gazettal of SEPP 61 have also been inserted in front of each relevant part.
    [Show full text]
  • 12 May Delivery West
    Delivery suburbs and surcharge for 12 MAY 2019 $10 Surcharge $15 Surcharge $20 Surcharge 2037 Forest Lodge 2046 Rodd Point 2114 Denistone West 2041 Balmain East 2047 Drummoyne 2115 Ermington 2050 Camperdown 2049 Lewisham 2122 Eastwood 2050 Missenden Road 2110 Woolwich 2128 Silverwater 2038 Annandale 2204 MarricKville 2200 BanKstown North 2039 Rozelle 2045 Haberfield 2200 BanKstown SQuare 2040 Lilyfield 2046 Russell Lea 2117 Dundas Valley 2041 Balmain 2110 Hunters Hill 2141 Berala 2041 Birchgrove 2130 Summer Hill 2143 Birrong 2040 Leichhardt 2203 Dulwich Hill 2143 Potts Hill 2048 Stanmore 2046 Abbotsford 2143 Regents ParK 2049 Petersham 2046 ChiswicK 2144 Auburn 2049 Petersham North 2046 Five DocK 2199 Yagoona 2204 MarricKville Metro 2046 Wareemba 2199 Yagoona West 2066 Linley Point 2200 BanKstown 2111 Henley 2116 Rydalmere 2111 Huntleys Cove 2117 Dundas 2111 Huntleys Point 2117 Telopea 2131 Ashfield 2142 Clyde 2046 Canada Bay 2142 Rosehill 2066 Lane Cove 2162 Sefton 2066 Lane Cove North 2117 Oatlands 2111 Boronia ParK 2142 Camellia 2111 Gladesville 2142 Granville 2132 Croydon 2142 South Granville 2133 Croydon ParK 2162 Chester Hill 2193 Ashbury 2200 Condell ParK 2066 Lane Cove West 2150 Harris ParK 2111 Tennyson Point 2150 Parramatta 2113 East Ryde 2197 Bass Hill 2134 Burwood 2200 BanKstown Aerodrome 2134 Burwood North 2142 Holroyd 2136 Burwood Heights 2145 Mays Hill 2137 BreaKfast Point 2150 Parramatta Westfield 2137 Cabarita 2151 North Parramatta 2137 Concord 2151 North RocKs 2137 MortlaKe 2160 Merrylands 2112 Putney 2161 Guildford
    [Show full text]
  • The Common Cause Report Into Sydney's Key Social Issues 2009
    The Common Cause Report into Sydney’s key social issues 2009 Debbie Haski-Leventhal with Mark Lyons & Sarah Adams UUNI100_United_Way_A4_Cover_2a.inddNI100_United_Way_A4_Cover_2a.indd 1 66/7/09/7/09 111:17:371:17:37 AAMM Table of Contents 1 Introduction 4 2 Foreword 5 3 Executive Summary 6 4 Preface 8 4. About the “Common Cause” initiative 8 4.2 Major Partners 8 4.2. Supporting Partners 9 4.2.2 Pro Bono Partners 9 4.3 Methods 9 4.4 The structure of the report 0 4.5 Limitations of the study 5 Introduction 12 5. Studying social exclusion and social disadvantage 2 5.. Social exclusion in Australia 3 5.2 Background data on Sydney 3 5.2. Population by age and gender 3 5.2.2 Population growth 4 5.2.3 Diversity, immigration and minorities 5 5.2.4 Families and children 6 5.2.5 The Elderly 7 5.2.6 Groups with special needs 7 5.3 Sydney Geography 8 6 Housing 20 6. Housing Affordability 20 6.. Purchasing 2 6..2 Renting 23 6..3 Households with housing costs 30% or more of gross income 24 6..4 Vacancy Rate and Dwelling Characteristics 25 6.2 Housing occupancy standard 26 6.3 Social and Public Housing 26 6.4 Homelessness 27 6.4. Caravan Park Residents 28 6.5 Housing and specific social groups 29 6.5. Older Australians 29 6.5.2 Indigenous Australians 29 6.5.3 People with a disability 29 6.6 Housing in specific areas 29 7 Economic Well-being 31 7.
    [Show full text]
  • Glebe Society Bulletin 2010 Issue 10
    Steaming around our Bays Under perfect weather condi- tions, and with a full head of steam, the coal fired tugWaratah sailed out of its berth in Rozelle Bay with its complement of 50 Glebe Society members and friends. We sailed as close as was possible to the shore to view local landmarks and develop- ment sites such as the proposed White Bay passenger terminal, Glebe Island, the Fish Markets and the Hanson facility, the proposed new site The Waratah aproaching the Harbour Bridge. for the Heritage Fleet and Barangaroo. With Photo: Phil Young the benefit of commentary from John Brooks, Harold Park convenor of the Blackwattle Cove Coalition, and aided by the Bays Coalition Group over- view publication, we had the opportunity of We must keep up the viewing development sites from the water, which was very instructive. momentum! Just what we all need - a public meeting in the Our journey also took us into the harbour past pre-Christmas madness!! Goat Island and Birchgrove and Balmain. But we think we must keep the momentum Our bosun gave us the history of the Waratah going and keep the doors open to community from its original construction on Cockatoo engagement with planning the future of Harold 10/2010 November/December Island and use as a sea-going tug, its refitting Park. history, and the eventual purchase by the Herit- age Fleet for its current use for educational The proposed rezoning controls agreed by trips and as a charter vessel. All maintenance, Council and the Central Sydney Planning refurbishment and crewing is provided by Committee with the Harness Racing Club are volunteers.
    [Show full text]
  • R2a Case Studies Sydney Ports Pilotage Safety Due Diligence Review Background Sydney Ports Pilotage Safety Due Diligence Review 01
    DUE DILIGENCE ENGINEERS R2A CASE STUDIES SYDNEY PORTS PILOTAGE SAFETY DUE DILIGENCE REVIEW BACKGROUND SYDNEY PORTS PILOTAGE SAFETY DUE DILIGENCE REVIEW 01 BACKGROUND The following case study has been developed based on the review for R2A is an independent Sydney Harbour (Port Jackson). It is presented with the approval of consultancy of due diligence engineers specialising not only the Harbour Master. in due diligence and defensible risk management, but also In late 2013, R2A were commissioned to complete a safety due consulting, education and general diligence review to confirm that all reasonable practicable precautions troubleshooting. are in place for all credible, critical safety issues associated with the movement of ships in Port Botany and Sydney Harbour. The results of which were incorporated into the Pilotage Safety Management System (PSMS). This case study only considers Sydney Harbour. PORT JACKSON SYDNEY PORTS PILOTAGE SAFETY DUE DILIGENCE REVIEW 02 PORT JACKSON Port Jackson containing Sydney Harbour is a thriving port that caters The port handles a wide range of vessels through its 11 berths shown for an unrivalled mix of commercial shipping and recreational boating here, including dry liquids, general activities. Sydney Harbour’s commercial wharves are located less than cargo and cruise. Facilities covering 10km from bluewater shipping lanes. a total of 41.7 hectares are located in Walsh Bay, Glebe Island, White Sydney Harbour is a leading destination for cruise ships, with passenger Bay and Circular Quay. Private facilities are located at Gore Cove. vessel facilities located at the Overseas Passenger Terminal at Circular Quay and the White Bay Cruise Terminal.
    [Show full text]
  • Proposal to Demolish Glebe Island Bridge Ignores Strategic Links
    CEO Roads and Maritime Services SYDNEY 2000 Proposal to demolish Glebe Island Bridge ignores strategic links It is economically inept, environmentally unsustainable and culturally insensitive to demolish the Glebe Island Bridge. The asset provides future opportunity that has not been considered in any analysis so far. The Glebe Island Bridge is a vital link in Sydney’s transport system for it can provide low level city access for cycle, pedestrian and public transport. The Cost Benefit Analysis Report has relied upon current cycle and pedestrian use of the ANZAC Bridge for its calculation of transport benefit. It has not projected use of Glebe Island Bridge as a low level safe alternative, which is likely to induce considerably increased demand. Increased cycle and pedestrian traffic is noted by Transport NSW in its City Access Strategy as directly economically beneficial to Sydney and NSW. It shows that safe pedestrian and cycle ways induce demand, if they interconnect with the transport network. In further detailing the NSW Long Term Transport Plan it prominently mentions increased pedestrian and cycle access as providing substantial economic benefits, The Glebe Island Bridge is a vital potential feeder link to the network of transport options. The City of Sydney, Leichhardt Municipal Council and the community in its submissions to the Bays Precinct Taskforce have all emphasised the need to retain this Bridge as low level access for cycle, pedestrian and public transport. The Glebe Island Bridge has been recommended for inclusion on the State Heritage Register by the NSW Heritage Council. “The swing bridges [designed by engineer Percy Allan]… at Pyrmont and Glebe Island are among the structures standing as monuments to his skill.”1 Through a trick of timing and geography, the former has been declared a National Engineering Landmark; the latter, despite its LEP listing, has suffered years of neglect.
    [Show full text]