Torrens Rail Junction

National Heritage Impact Assessment DA153199 : Revision A : 09.12.15

Table of Contents Table of Contents ...... 2 1 Scope ...... 3 1.1 Project Scope ...... 3 1.2 Author Identification ...... 5 1.3 Scope of Assessment ...... 6 2 Heritage Impact Assessment Overview ...... 7 3 Heritage Places ...... 8 3.1 Scope of Listing ...... 8 3.2 Historic Context ...... 11 4 Summary of Works That May Result in Potential Impacts ...... 27 5 National Heritage Impact Assessment ...... 29 5.1 Criterion A Assessment ...... 30 5.1.1 Potential Heritage Impacts ...... 31 5.2 Criterion B Assessment ...... 32 5.2.1 Potential Heritage Impacts ...... 32 5.3 Criterion D Assessment ...... 32 5.3.1 Potential Heritage Impacts ...... 33 5.4 Criterion F Assessment ...... 34 5.4.1 Potential Heritage Impacts ...... 34 5.5 Criterion G Assessment ...... 35 5.5.1 Potential Heritage Impacts ...... 36 5.6 Criterion H Assessment ...... 37 5.6.1 Potential Heritage Impacts ...... 37 6 National Heritage Impact ‘Self Assessment’ ...... 38 7 Summary ...... 40 Appendix A ...... 41 National Heritage Listing ...... 41 Adelaide Park Lands and City Layout ...... 41 2 0 : DA153199 : Assmt Impact Heritage National A Torrens Rail: Rev Junction 8 Adelaide Park Lands and City Layout ...... 42 Summary Statement of Significance ...... 42 Official Values ...... 43 Description ...... 45 History ...... 47 Appendix B ...... 55 Bibliography ...... 55

9 .12.15

1 Scope 1.1 Project Scope DASH Architects has been engaged by The Department of Planning Transport & Infrastructure (DPTI) to undertake a National Heritage Impact Assessment of the proposed Torrens Rail Junction Project. This project was summarised (in broad terms) in our project brief provided by the Department as follows: The department is currently in the planning phase for the upgrade of the Torrens Rail Junction; between the River Torrens rail bridge and Chief Street, Brompton. The interstate mainline freight railway crosses the Outer Harbor metropolitan passenger railway at-grade at the existing Torrens Rail Junction, imposing restrictions on rail freight. The project will involve removing the junction by lowering the metropolitan passenger railway below ground level and underneath the interstate mainline railway. Once completed, freight trains up to 1,800 metres (currently restricted to 1,500 metres when coming from the north) will be able to pass through this location without reducing speed, which will provide significant improvements to freight rail productivity. Traffic delays caused by Outer Harbor passenger trains at the existing Park Terrace Bowden level crossing will be eliminated through the continuation of the rail underpass underneath Park Terrace and through to Bowden. The project also includes provision of some temporary rail track works outside of the project corridor....

This assessment is based upon the following documentation: • “Outer Harbor, Torrens Rail Junction Grade Separation, Outer Harbor (Down Track)” Option 2 (by DPTI): - IW089300-ESR-SK-0009 (Rev B, dated 23.06.15): Plan and Profile; - IW089300-ESR-SK-0048 (Rev B, dated 28.07.15): Bowden Station Plan and Profile; - IW089300-ESR-SK-0101 (Rev A, dated 31.07.15): Construction Staging (Option 5)- Stage 1 General Construction; - IW089300-ESR-SK-0102 (Rev A, dated 31.07.15): Construction Staging (Option 5)- Stage 2 General Construction; 3 0 : DA153199 : Assmt Impact Heritage National A Torrens Rail: Rev Junction - IW089300-ESR-SK-0103 (Rev A, dated 31.07.15): Construction Staging (Option 5)- Stage 3 General Construction; - IW089300-ESR-SK-0104 (Rev A, dated 31.07.15): Construction Staging (Option 5)- Stage 4 General Construction; - IW089300-ESR-SK-0105 (Rev A, dated 31.07.15): Construction Staging (Option 5)- Stage 5 General Construction; - IW089300-ESR-SK-0106 (Rev A, dated 31.07.15): Construction Staging (Option 5)- Stage 6 General Construction; - IW089300-ESR-SK-0107 (Rev A, dated 31.07.15): Construction Staging (Option 5)- Stage 7 General Construction. 9 .12.15

• Concept visualisation (file provided 12 August titled TorrensJunction_v011.mp4); • Torrens Rail Junction Concept Study (by Cox and Outer Space, 17 Sept 2015 Rev C, drawings: - Site Plan; - Station Precinct Plan; - Longitudinal Section Through Station Section A; - Longitudinal Section Through Station Section B and C; - Longitudinal Section Through Station Section D and E; and - 3D massing. • Torrens Rail Junction Construction Noise and Vibration Management Framework (dated 1 Sept 2015, Rev A), by Resonate Acoustics. The Torrens Rail Junction Construction Noise and Vibration Management Framework (CNVMF) prepared by Resonate Acoustics provides the following project description: The Torrens Rail Junction project is the second project planned as part of the separation of freight and passenger rail lines in metropolitan Adelaide, the first being the recently completed Goodwood Rail Junction project. The project will grade separate the Melbourne to Adelaide freight line and the Outer Harbor passenger rail line at the existing crossing point near Bonython Park and will also underground the passenger line beneath Park Terrace and Gibson Street in Bowden.

The concept design includes: • creation of a cutting along the alignment of the existing Outer Harbor passenger rail line from just north of the Torrens River Rail Bridge in the Adelaide Parklands to just north of the current Gibson Street level crossing in Bowden; • a rail bridge to allow the Melbourne to Adelaide freight line and Gawler passenger rail line to cross the Outer Harbor line at the existing junction point; • removal of the existing level crossings at Park Terrace and Gibson Street; 4 • creation of a new underground railway station in the Bowden 0 : DA153199 : Assmt Impact Heritage National A Torrens Rail: Rev Junction urban development site; and • improved cycling and pedestrian facilities. The rail junction currently creates problems for operation of the freight line in particular, in the form of delays and length restrictions for trains. The project will have a number of significant benefits for the transport network including: • removal of the requirement for freight trains to wait for passenger trains to pass through the junction, thereby increasing efficiency of movements on the freight line; 9 • increased safety by the removal of the Park Terrace and Gibson .12.15

Street level crossings; • removal of the Park Terrace level crossing improving traffic flows and reducing waiting times on Park Terrace, an important part of Adelaide’s inner ring route; • reduced traffic waiting times at the Hawker Street and Torrens Road level crossings; and • creation of a new passenger railway station at Bowden, which is an important urban development site for Adelaide. It is expected that construction will commence in 2016 and be completed by 2017. During the construction phase, a temporary rail alignment will be established for all three lines, largely on the western side of the existing junction. The key project features, including the temporary rail line proposal, and the surrounding areas are shown on Figure 1.

5 0 : DA153199 : Assmt Impact Heritage National A Torrens Rail: Rev Junction

Image 1. Project Overview as included in Resonate Acoustics CNVMF.

1.2 Author Identification This report has been prepared by Jason Schulz B Arch St, B Arch (Hons) FRAIA, Director of DASH Architects.

9 .12.15

1.3 Scope of Assessment The scope of this report is limited to the potential impact on the non-Aboriginal formally identified National Heritage values of the Adelaide Park Lands and City Layout. The primary purpose of this report is to assess the proposed works to determine whether they will likely result in any significant impacts to the National Heritage values of the place such as to require a referral under Section 68 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC). This report is structured as follows: • undertake a self assessment under the EPBC Act to identify potential impacts to the National Heritage Values of the place; • provide recommendations to avoid or mitigate potential impacts; • identify if any resulting impacts are “significant”; and • determine whether a referral under the Act is necessary. While the works may also potentially impact on the State and Local Heritage listed places in the vicinity of the proposed works, this assessment will be undertaken as part of a separate report.

6 0 : DA153199 : Assmt Impact Heritage National A Torrens Rail: Rev Junction

Image 2. Locality Plan. Base Image Source: Location.sa.gov.au (annotated by author) 9 .12.15

2 Heritage Impact Assessment Overview In board terms, under the EPBC Act, any action that a person takes that may result in a ‘significant impact’ to the ‘national environmental importance’ of a place is considered a ‘Controlled Action’ and requires approval from the Minister. ‘National Environmental Importance’ in the case of this project is the National Heritage listed Adelaide Park Lands and City Layout (refer Section 3 of this report). The Australian Government Department of the Environment publication titled ‘Matters of National Significance, Significant Impact Guideline 1.1’ provides the following guidance with regards to ‘Significant Impacts’: What is a Significant Impact A ‘significant impact’ is an impact which is important, notable, or of consequence, having regard to its context or intensity. Whether or not an action is likely to have a significant impact depends upon the sensitivity, value, and quality of the environment which is impacted, and upon the intensity, duration, magnitude and geographic extent of the impacts. You should consider all of these factors when determining whether an action is likely to have a significant impact on matters of national environmental significance. In the case of National Heritage places, Guideline 1.1 notes: Significant Impact Criteria An action is likely to have a significant impact on the National Heritage values of a National Heritage place if there is a real chance or possibility that it will cause: • one or more of the National Heritage values to be lost; • one or more of the National Heritage values to be degraded or damaged; or • one or more of the National Heritage values to be notably altered, modified, obscured or diminished. An action is likely to have a significant impact on historic heritage values of a National Heritage place if there is a real chance or possibility that the action will:

• permanently remove, destroy, damage or substantially alter the fabric of a National Heritage place in a manner which is 7

inconsistent with relevant value; 0 : DA153199 : Assmt Impact Heritage National A Torrens Rail: Rev Junction • extend, renovate, refurbish or substantially alter a National Heritage place in a manner which is inconsistent with relevant values; • permanently remove, destroy, damage or substantially disturb archaeological deposits or artefacts in a National Heritage place; • involve activities in a National Heritage place with substantial and/or long-term impacts on its values;

• involve the construction of buildings or other structures within, adjacent to, or within important sight lines of, a National Heritage place which are inconsistent with relevant values; 9 .12.15

• make notable changes to the layout, spaces, form or species composition of a garden, landscape or setting of a National Heritage place in a manner which is inconsistent with relevant values; • restrict or inhibit the continuing use of a National Heritage place as a cultural or ceremonial site causing its values to notably diminish over time; • permanently diminish the cultural value of a National Heritage place for a community or group to which its National Heritage values relate; • destroy or damage cultural or ceremonial, artefacts, features, or objects in a National Heritage place; and • notably diminish the value of a National Heritage place in demonstrating creative or technical achievement. If the above ‘self-assessment’ concludes that a Significant Impact will arise from the proposed action, then a referral is required under Section 68 of the EPBC Act to the Australian Government Department of the Environment. While this report will undertake the above ‘self-assessment’ (Section 6), it will not make a determination on whether an EPBC referral is required. Final determination as to whether such a referral should be undertaken remains vested under the EPBC Act by those persons proposing to undertake the action (ie the proposed works).

3 Heritage Places 3.1 Scope of Listing National heritage listing has been established to list places of outstanding heritage significance to Australia. Once a place has been designated to be of National Heritage Significance, the provisions of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act (1999) apply. Procedural matters associated with the EPBC Act are discussed in more detail below.

The Adelaide Park Lands and City Layout is identified as a place of National Heritage significance. The extent of the listing is outlined in Image 3 below. 8 • Legal Status: 07/11/2008 0 : DA153199 : Assmt Impact Heritage National A Torrens Rail: Rev Junction • Place ID: 105758 • Place File No: 3/03/001/0279

9 .12.15

Fitzroy Tce

Ro be Tce t Wes

Tce arton B L e M f e a v n r e n

T T e c c Tc e e n to e gs c in T K k r M a i P l l St s e am d Ad T P c e

Tce on ways inn rang ck St a P h M R t o i i r v m t

S r P R en n e nin i d gt v on w Golf Course A T d ce H E a r i c

T S Botanic Park k o n r r e e y

P or North Tce t Rd

Henley Beach G Rd love r D Rd e q u e t te vi Bartels lle Rd

T ce

Wakefield Rd

n Dr radma nald B

Sir Do

s Racecourse

a l

Cemetery l

u F South Tce G l en O sm Y on W d H c a z n A R d Richmond Rd Greenhill Rd

0 250 500 Metres Scale 1:23,000

LEGEND Data Sources: The Adelaide Park Lands and City Layout Cadastre for Australia (SA) - Cadlite RoadNet Comprehensive - Roads Listed place RoadNet Comprehensive - Railways © 2008 MapData Sciences Pty Ltd, PSMA National Heritage List Produced by: Heritage Division Canberra, GDA94, 7/11/2008/ Place ID: 105758 File: 3/03/001/0279 © Commonwealth of Australia, 2008.

Image 3. Extent of National Heritage Listing of Park Lands and City Layout A full copy of the National Heritage Listing is provided in Appendix A of this report. Extracts for the Summary Statement of Significance for the listing notes: The Adelaide Park Lands and City Layout is a significant example of early 9

colonial planning which has retained key elements of its historical layout for 0 : DA153199 : Assmt Impact Heritage National A Torrens Rail: Rev Junction over one hundred and seventy years… The Adelaide Plan was the basis for attracting free settlers, offering certainty of land tenure and a high degree of amenity. Being formally laid out prior to settlement, with a grid pattern and wide streets and town squares, the Plan reflected new town planning conventions and contemporary ideas about the provision of common or reserved land for its aesthetic qualities, public health and recreation.

The Plan endures today in the form of the Adelaide Park Lands and City Layout. The key elements of the Plan remain substantially intact, including the layout of the two major city areas, separated by the meandering 9 .12.15

Torrens River, the encircling Park Lands, the six town squares, the gardens and the grid pattern of major and minor roads. The Park Lands, in particular, are significant for the longevity of protection and conservation and have high social value to South Australians who regard them as fundamental to the character and ambience of the city of Adelaide. The national significance of the Adelaide Park Lands and City Layout lies in its design excellence. The Adelaide Plan is regarded as a masterwork of urban design, a grand example of colonial urban planning. The city grid and defining park lands were laid over the shallow river valley with its gentle undulations, described by Light as the Adelaide Plains. The city layout is designed to take full advantage of the topography, an important innovation for the time. The streets were sited and planned to maximise views and vistas through the city and Park Lands and from some locations to the Adelaide Hills… The tree planting designed and implemented since the 1850s and the living plant collection of the Park Lands, particularly within the Adelaide Botanic Gardens are outstanding features. The encircling Park Lands provide for health and recreation for the inhabitants while setting the city limits and preventing speculative land sales on the perimeter… Of relevance to this project is that the current rail corridor within which the works will ultimately be contained is specifically excluded from the National Heritage listing. Of note, however is that temporary staging works are proposed within the listed area, and that works within the rail corridor may nonetheless impact on the identified National Heritage values of the surrounding areas.

10 0 : DA153199 : Assmt Impact Heritage National A Torrens Rail: Rev Junction

9 .12.15

Image 4. Extract from National Heritage listing extent. Arrow added by author. 3.2 Historic Context Planning As outlined in the National Heritage Listing, the Adelaide Park Lands and City Layout is a significant example of early colonial planning which has retained key 11 elements of its historic layout for over one hundred and seventy years. 0 : DA153199 : Assmt Impact Heritage National A Torrens Rail: Rev Junction Light’s 1837 Plan was divided into two distinct sections that straddled the River Torrens, locating the City centre to the southern portion. The City had a hierarchical grid pattern, containing six town squares (five of which were in the southern portion) and entirely surrounded by park lands. While the basic “encircling” layout of the Park Lands remains readily discernable today, approximately one third of its original area has been alienated since the original survey, albeit for generally public use. The extent to which such alienation was part of Light’s intent remains a source of debate, however his 1837 plan (Image 5) clearly illustrates a number of public uses, including a Hospital, Barracks,

Cemetery, Market, Government House, School and Store House. 9 .12.15

Image 5. 1837 Plan of the City of Adelaide, Colonel William Light. Source: Mapco.net. 12 As noted in the National Heritage Listing: 0 : DA153199 : Assmt Impact Heritage National A Torrens Rail: Rev Junction In 1836, the Commissioners appointed Colonel William Light as Surveyor General, and instructed him to select the site and plan the new capital. Light’s plan of 1837 included nine ‘Government Reserves’, and indicated the likely future routes of roads through an encircling belt of park lands to the port and country lands. Other areas of the park lands have also since been alienated for uses including new street alignments, railways and public and recreational buildings, but most of these functions have played

significant roles in the historical development of South Australia, and in terms of the Adelaide Plan, they have maintained, or increased, the intended public use of the park lands and squares. 9 .12.15

The Adelaide to Port Adelaide Railway The history of the Adelaide City and Port Adelaide Railway is an important chapter to the development of not only the City of Adelaide, but also the State of South Australia. With the City located inland on the banks of the River Torrens, connection to its nearby Port was always going to be critical. The eight miles between Port Adelaide and Adelaide were initially connected by Port Road. During these early years, goods were generally carried by bullock drays, while passengers were transported on horse drawn “Port Carts” (two wheeled traps). During its early years this roadway was often in poor condition and little more than a basic track. A dust bowl in summer and mud bath in winter, alternatives were soon sought. By 1839 the Colony had established a railway committee (the South Australian Railway Company) to explore and promote rail alternatives, with George Strickland Kingston appointed as a consultant. By 1848 the populations of Adelaide and Port Adelaide were approaching 10000 and 3000 respectively, however rail advocates were urged to pursue a privately operated railway.1 This was enabled by the passing of Australia’s first public Railways Act in 1847. In 1850 the South Australian Legislative Council passed the Ordinance No 1 entitled “For making a railway from the City to the Port of Adelaide”. Following the formation and amalgamation of several private railway companies, the proposed construction of the new railway was abandoned due to (amongst other reasons) disagreements between its operator and the Government regarding legislated charge limits.2 In 1851 the Legislative Council passed the necessary legislation to take over control of the City to Port Adelaide railway project, and in doing so it became the first Government railway in the British Empire. The railway was formally opened on 19 April 1856. The route of the City to Port Railway is clearly illustrated on Freeling’s below 1869 Map of Adelaide (Image 6), while Image 7 also shows the railway line though the Park Lands in 1865.

13 0 : DA153199 : Assmt Impact Heritage National A Torrens Rail: Rev Junction

1 Stewien R, “A History of South Australian Railways Volume 1: The Early Years”, Australian Railway Historical Society (Victorian Division), pp 91-99 2 Thompson M, “Rails Through Swamp & Sand A History of the Port Adelaide Railway”, Port Dock 9

.12.15 Station Railway Museum, p7

Image 6. Map of Adelaide 1849 (updated 1855 and 1865), with arrows added by author indicating City to Port Adelaide Railway. Source: State Records, GRG35/585/41

14 0 : DA153199 : Assmt Impact Heritage National A Torrens Rail: Rev Junction

Image 7. Extract from Duryea Panorama, 1865, showing the rail bridge over Torrens, as viewed from City (arrow added by author). Source: SLSA, B 5099/14

9 .12.15

With the primary impetus for the establishment of the City to Port Adelaide railway occurring after Light’s death in 1839 it would be unreasonable to assume that this rail connection specifically formed part of his planning for the City. Light’s original planning for the City provided only ‘likely future’3 transportation connections through the Park Lands, which were subsequently formalised (and altered) with the surveying and subdivision of outlying areas, and general growth and expansion of the State’s Capital City. The important connection of the City to the Port was one of only two such connections specifically labeled (along with the connection to Holdfast Bay), albeit as a roadway.

Image 8. Extract of Light’s 1837 Plan of Adelaide, red arrow added by author. Source: Mapco.net

Irrespective of whether Light’s original planning for the City of Adelaide could have 15

envisaged a rail connection to the Port, its provision was somewhat inevitable. 0 : DA153199 : Assmt Impact Heritage National A Torrens Rail: Rev Junction Further, this rail connection has gone on be an integral aspect of the historical development of both the State and the City of Adelaide. Being the first Government railway in the British Empire is also illustrative of the unique method of the settlement of the State of South Australia. Notwithstanding this, and that the National Heritage listing acknowledges the railway as having played a significant role in the historical development of South Australia, the railway itself should not be considered to be part of the National Heritage values of the place as:

3 National Heritage Listing Summary Statement of Significance, www.environment.gov.au/cgi- 9

.12.15 bin/ahdb/search.pl?mode=place_detail;place_id=105758

• the railway post-dates the original plan for Adelaide; • the railway itself has been specifically excised from area identified in the National Heritage listing (ref Image 4) That said, the railway is of historic interest and of some relevance to the potential heritage impacts associated with this project. The history to the design of the railway itself is provided in the Department of Environment Water and Natural Resources (DEWNR) file for the State Heritage listed Railway Bridge over the River Torrens (ID 13670), which notes: In November 1851, 2112 stumps were stated as being required to set out the line to the Port. The Board of Undertakers appointed Benjamin Herschell Babbage (1815-1878) as the Local Chief Engineer, and in England the services of Isambard Kingdom Brunel chief engineer of the Great Western Railway Company were enlisted as agent and consulting engineer. This association is important as Brunel made highly significant contributions to the increased use and exploitation of Industrial technology in the mid nineteenth century. It is of additional interest that Babbage as an associate of Brunel designed and built railways in England and Italy during the years 1842-1848. It is therefore not surprising that the rails originally laid in the Adelaide and Port railway were of the same type as those used in the Great Western Line in England and laid on longitudinal timbers… In 1854 tenders were called for major works such as the Railway station and Terminus and in October the abutments and groynes for the bridge over the Torrens were in the process of erection. In 1855 the Torrens Railway Bridge crossed the water at a height of 32 ft. The arch was constructed of timber and had a clear span of 106 feet over the Torrens with girders at 13 feet intervals and stone abutments on 5 feet thick concrete foundations protected by sheet piling… Jacob Pitman constructed this Babbage designed bridge… In 1876 the bridge over the Torrens was upgraded and a bowstring arch built on the eastern section of the 1854 abutments (North Line). It… was transferred into its present position in 1925 when the track was further upgrades. At present, as a result of track standardisation the western side of the abutment has been compromised by the preparations for a new bridge… 16

While this railway line though the Park Lands to the north generally remained in the 0 : DA153199 : Assmt Impact Heritage National A Torrens Rail: Rev Junction same general setout as the original 1851 line, the line (and associated infrastructure) has undergone several upgrades to accommodate its modernisation and expansion. Within the first 10 years of operation the originally laid longitudinal timbers were allegedly warping under South Australia’s hot dry weather creating a ride described as “life on the ocean waves”, while the sand ballast ‘played havoc with rolling stock’4. This saw the longitudinal timbers and original Barlow wrought iron “saddle-back” rails replaced.

4 .12.15 Stewien R, Op Cit, p134

Image 9. Since replaced Barlow Rail profile. Source: A History of the South Australian Railways Volume 1: The early years, p 132 Other changes and upgrades to the line have included: • expansion of rail yards and station at North Terrace; • modifications to the rail bridge over the Torrens; • inclusion of the Gawler line (and North Adelaide Railway Station); • upgrade and replacement of rail lines and ballast; • additional rail lines (interstate mainline freight). The evolution of the City to Port Adelaide rail lines is illustrated in the below map series:

17 0 : DA153199 : Assmt Impact Heritage National A Torrens Rail: Rev Junction

Image 10. Freeling Map of Adelaide 1849 (updated 1855 and 1865) 9 .12.15

Image 11. Map of Adelaide 1879. Source: State Records

18 0 : DA153199 : Assmt Impact Heritage National A Torrens Rail: Rev Junction

9 Image 12. Map of Adelaide (1899 update of Image 11 above). Source: State Records .12.15

Image 13. Map of Adelaide 1916 Source: State Records

19 0 : DA153199 : Assmt Impact Heritage National A Torrens Rail: Rev Junction

9 Image 14. Aerial photograph of Adelaide, 1949. .12.15

Image 15. Aerial photograph of Adelaide, 30 August 2015. Source: Nearmap The ‘Aboriginal Location’ (or ‘Native Location’) The ‘management’ of the local indigenous population in the very early days of settlement is also an important chapter in the history of the settlement of South Australian. In order to quell potential tensions between early settlers and Aboriginals, an interim Protector of Aborigines was appointed in 1837 (Capitan Walter Bromley). In December 1837 a public Committee was established to set up a ‘Location’ for addressing the needs of the local indigenous people to provide “habitation and regular meals for all who will come from them…”

That year, Colonel William Light was instructed “to send one of [his] officers to point out to Capt. Bromley… the piece of land reserved for the Botanic Gardens 20 which… may temporarily be used by him for the employment of natives…” 0 : DA153199 : Assmt Impact Heritage National A Torrens Rail: Rev Junction (GRG24/4, 8 May 1837).5 Eventually the ‘Aboriginal Location’ was established on the northern side of the Torrens, south of the later constructed River Torrens railway (refer Image 16 below). The ‘Aboriginal Location’ remained in this location between 1838 to 1845, after which it was relocated to land east of the Government House Domain. During these early years, the original Location was developed with several quarters, a

‘Native School’, Aboriginal ‘sheds’ and a Colonial Store. The ‘Native School’ was

5 Jones D, Adelaide Park Lands & Squares Cultural Landscape Assessment Study, Corporation of the 9

.12.15 City of Adelaide, p437

said to have displayed “an enlightened approach to Indigenous education by teaching students in their native language but made a fatal error in seeking to separate the Aboriginal children from their parents to reduce the latter’s influence in terms of location and residence thereby establishing the first ‘stolen generation’ children (Cawthorne, Literarium Diarum 22 October 1842-31 December 1843, reproduced in Hemming 1998, p. 38, fig 38; Gara 1998, p.117; Harris 2005, p. 7; Draper et al 2005, p. 26).6

21 0 : DA153199 : Assmt Impact Heritage National A Torrens Rail: Rev Junction

Image 16. part Kingston Survey, 1842, with annotations by author.

6 .12.15 ibid pp440-442

Freelings Map of 1849 (updated 1855 and 1865) similarly depicts the ‘Native Reserve’ and associated structures (Image 17).

22 0 : DA153199 : Assmt Impact Heritage National A Torrens Rail: Rev Junction

Image 17. part Freeling Map, 1849 (updated 1855 and 1865), showing 1851 railway location and Native Reserve. Like the history of the railway noted above, however, the potential heritage values associated with the ‘Aboriginal Location’ should not be considered to be part of the National Heritage values of the Adelaide Park Land and City Layout, as: • they are representative of a phase of settlement post planning of the City; and • any potential heritage values associated with this phase of the State’s development are not specifically intrinsic to the identified heritage values of

the Park Lands and City Layout. 9 .12.15

Once again, however, the presence of the nearby ‘Aboriginal Location’ is of historic interest and of some relevance to the potential heritage impacts associated with this project. Social and Aesthetic Qualities Like most of the City’s Park Lands, the area affected by this project has generally evolved socially, culturally and physically with the ongoing development, growth and modernisation of the City. These cultural and physical qualities, however, have been strongly influenced by the legal excision of the land accommodating the City to Port (and subsequent Gawler) rail lines from their Park Lands designation. The Adelaide Park Lands & Squares Cultural Landscape Assessment Study (Oct 2007, prepared by Dr David Jones for the Corporation of the City of Adelaide) noted for for this locality: [This locality has] experienced the largest amount and most regular attempts for alienation negotiations and legislation in the Park Lands. Land was excised for the Adelaide Gaol, Police Barracks, and successive excisions to enable railway line corridors and railway service and maintenance yards. Thus, while the overall space as envisaged by Light in 1836 is extant, the excision of land for government functions has been excessive resulting in the significant deterioration of the actual overall spatial pattern …7

23 0 : DA153199 : Assmt Impact Heritage National A Torrens Rail: Rev Junction

Image 18. City to Port rail corridor through Park Land looking City bound, August 2015

7 .12.15 Ibid, p923

Image 19. City to Port rail corridor through Park Land looking City bound, August 2015. Line to right of image.

Image 20. City to Port rail corridor through Park Land looking City bound, August 2015

24 0 : DA153199 : Assmt Impact Heritage National A Torrens Rail: Rev Junction

9 Image 21. City to Port rail corridor through Park Land looking Port bound, August 2015 .12.15

Image 22. City to Port rail corridor through Park Land with landscape edge in sections, August 2015

Image 23. City to Port rail corridor through Park Land looking City bound, August 2015

25 0 : DA153199 : Assmt Impact Heritage National A Torrens Rail: Rev Junction

Image 24. City to Port rail corridor with interstate mainline freight crossing and Gawler line, August 2015 9 .12.15

Image 25. City to Port rail corridor through Park Land with landscape buffer to line in sections (left of image), August 2015

Image 26. City to Port rail corridor through Park Land as viewed from North Adelaide Golf Links, August 2015

26 0 : DA153199 : Assmt Impact Heritage National A Torrens Rail: Rev Junction

Image 27. City to Port rail corridor through Park Land as viewed from North Adelaide Golf Links, August 9

2015 .12.15

Image 28. Pedestrian crossing infrastructure associated with the City to Port rail corridor through Park Park, August 2015

4 Summary of Works That May Result in Potential Impacts While the proposed project extends from the River Torrens Railway Bridge though to Chief Street, Brompton (refer Image 2), those works likely to impact on the National Heritage values of the Adelaide Park Lands and City Layout are limited to that contained between the River Torrens Railway Bridge and Park Terrace.

27 0 : DA153199 : Assmt Impact Heritage National A Torrens Rail: Rev Junction

Image 29. General scope of works. Part plan SK-0107

9 .12.15

Image 30. General scope of temporary works (track diversion). Part plan SK-0102

For the purposes of this assessment, the potential National Heritage impacts shall be considered as follows: • those associated with the overall proposal (refer Image 29) • those associated with required temporary works (refer Image 30). Works proposed within the area surrounded by Park Lands includes: Overall Proposal The Overall Proposal generally consists of: • creation of a cutting along the alignment of the existing Outer Harbor passenger rail line from just north of the Torrens River Rail Bridge in the Adelaide Park Lands to Park Terrace (and beyond); • a rail bridge to allow the Melbourne to Adelaide freight line and Gawler passenger rail line to cross the Outer Harbor line at the existing junction point. It is our understand that this bridge is ‘at grade’ (ie the grade separation is achieved by lowering the passenger rail line, not raising the freight line)

• removal of the existing level crossings at Park Terrace; • upgrading existing pedestrian crossing adjacent North Adelaide Golf 28

Course; 0 : DA153199 : Assmt Impact Heritage National A Torrens Rail: Rev Junction • provision of new (additional) pedestrian crossing over lowered line (at grade) south of Park Terrace; and • improved cycling and pedestrian facilities. With the exception of extended pedestrian pathways associated with the new rail crossings, it is understood that the overall proposal will be contained within the existing rail corridor. This corridor has been historically excised from the Park Lands, and accordingly is excluded from the National Heritage listing.

9 .12.15

Temporary Works A temporary realignment of the two affected rail lines will be necessary to undertake the works. The temporary works associated with this process are outlined on the following documentation provided to me:

• IW089300-ESR-SK-0101 (Rev A, dated 31.07.15): Construction Staging (Option 5)- Stage 1 General Construction; • IW089300-ESR-SK-0102 (Rev A, dated 31.07.15): Construction Staging (Option 5)- Stage 2 General Construction; • IW089300-ESR-SK-0103 (Rev A, dated 31.07.15): Construction Staging (Option 5)- Stage 3 General Construction; • IW089300-ESR-SK-0104 (Rev A, dated 31.07.15): Construction Staging (Option 5)- Stage 4 General Construction; • IW089300-ESR-SK-0105 (Rev A, dated 31.07.15): Construction Staging (Option 5)- Stage 5 General Construction; • IW089300-ESR-SK-0106 (Rev A, dated 31.07.15): Construction Staging (Option 5)- Stage 6 General Construction; • IW089300-ESR-SK-0107 (Rev A, dated 31.07.15): Construction Staging (Option 5)- Stage 7 General Construction. Temporary works include: • a temporary realignment of the Outer Harbor and Gawler rail lines. • While not explicitly identified, this rail realignment will result in the removal of some existing landscaping outside of the rail corridor; • It is unclear to what extent area outside of the existing rail corridor will be required for undertaking the general construction (eg storage, access). Much of the required temporary works will take place outside of the existing rail corridor. On the completion of the project, these works will be removed and the area reinstated. 5 National Heritage Impact Assessment Under the EPBC Act, a place is considered to have National Heritage value if it meets one or more of the National Heritage Criteria (as set out in Section 10.01A of the EPBC Regulations 2000). The National Heritage values of the Adelaide Park Lands and City Layout have been formally recognised against the following of 29

these criteria: 0 : DA153199 : Assmt Impact Heritage National A Torrens Rail: Rev Junction (a) the place has outstanding heritage value to the nation because of the place’s importance in the course, or pattern, of Australia’s natural or cultural history; (b) the place has outstanding heritage value to the nation because of the place’s possession of uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of Australia’s natural or cultural history; (d) the place has outstanding heritage value to the nation because of the place’s importance in demonstrating the principal characteristics of: (i) a class of Australia’s natural or cultural places; or 9 (ii) a class of Australia’s natural or cultural environments; .12.15

(f) the place has outstanding heritage value to the nation because of the place’s importance in demonstrating a high degree of creative or technical achievement at a particular period; (g) the place has outstanding heritage value to the nation because of the place’s strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group for social, cultural or spiritual reasons; (h) the place has outstanding heritage value to the nation because of the place’s special association with the life or works of a person, or group of persons, of importance in Australia’s natural or cultural history. For the purposes of this report, this National Heritage Impact Assessment is undertaken individually against these respective criteria. 5.1 Criterion A Assessment Criterion A: Events, Processes The Adelaide Park Lands and City Layout is the physical expression of the 1837 Adelaide Plan designed and laid out by Colonel William Light. It has endured as a recognisable historical layout for over 170 years retaining the key elements of the plan; encompassing the layout of the two major city areas separated by the Torrens River, the encircling Park Lands, the six town squares, and the grid pattern of major and minor roads. It is substantially intact and reflects Light's design intentions with high integrity. The Adelaide Park Lands and City Layout is of outstanding importance because it signifies a turning point in the settlement of Australia. It was the first place in Australia to be planned and developed by free settlers, not as a penal settlement or military outpost. The colony of South Australia was established by incorporation as a commercial venture supported by the British Government, based on Edward Wakefield's theory of systematic colonisation. To be commercially successful, there needed to be contained settlement to avoid speculative land sales and this settlement needed to be designed and planned to attract free settlers and to provide them with security of land tenure. The city layout with its grid plan expedited the process of land survey enabling both rapid settlement of land and certainty of title. The wide streets, public squares and generous open spaces provided amenity and the surrounding park lands ensured a defined town boundary while still allowing for public institutional domains. These elements are discernable today. 30

The Adelaide Park Lands is also significant for the longevity of its protection and 0 : DA153199 : Assmt Impact Heritage National A Torrens Rail: Rev Junction conservation. The Adelaide Municipal Corporation Act (1840) established the city council as the ‘conservators’ of the city and park lands. The establishment of the Park Lands Preservation Society in 1903, along with successive community organisations marks a continuing pattern in community support for safeguarding the significance of the Park Lands for the Adelaide community. The Adelaide Plan was highly influential as a model for planning other towns in Australia and overseas. It is acknowledged by town planners and historians as a major influence on the Garden City Planning movement, one of the most important urban planning initiatives. 9 .12.15

5.1.1 Potential Heritage Impacts Overall Proposal The proposed works do not fundamentally impact on the events and processes that lead to the settlement of South Australia, and in turn its planning. As noted in the Historic Context discussion, however, while the railway is not considered to be intrinsic to the National Heritage values of the Adelaide Park Lands and City Layout, it is of some historical importance as the first Government owned railway in the British Empire. The proposed works seek to continue the ongoing modernisation of this important rail connection. Such modernisation is historically consistent, as the Adelaide to Port Adelaide rail line has regularly undergone extensive upgrades and expansions with the ongoing development and growth of the City. As a result of this ongoing historic modernisation, all of the early rail infrastructure within the Park Lands associated with the 1851 rail line appears to have been removed (with the exception of the North Adelaide Railway Station). Of particular interest, however, would be the original Barlow rail line. Very little of the original Barlow profile rail exists today. In 1954 a piece of Barlow rail was discovered in Moonta, having been used as an anchor point for staying an electricity pole. Additional disused Barlow rail had also been known at one time to be used on a boat slipway at Robe.8 While it is reasonable to assume that most (if not all) of the original Barlow rail infrastructure had been removed at the time of its early replacement (due to the need to also replace the ballast), some remnant elements or artefacts may nonetheless remain underground. In addition to this, excavation may also uncover other disused infrastructure, equipment or tools of potential historical interest. The heritage value of any potential artefacts associated with this early rail history are, however, most relevant to State heritage values, rather than National, as addressed under this report. This is similarly the case for potential artefacts associated with the nearby ‘Aboriginal Location’.

Mitigation Measure 1 It is understood that a suitable qualified archaeologist has been engaged by DPTI to undertake a desktop review to determine the likelihood of potential archaeological deposits. This review will determine the monitoring requirements during excavations works. 31 0 : DA153199 : Assmt Impact Heritage National A Torrens Rail: Rev Junction Temporary Works With the proposed works outside of the rail corridor being of a temporary nature only, they are not considered to have any long term impacts on the National Heritage values under this criterion provided the land is appropriately remediated on reversion to Park Lands.

8 .12.15 Ibid, p134

Mitigation Measure 2 Land affected by the temporary works should be relandscaped and remediated back to ‘Park Lands’ on the completion of the project. Such remediation should include the re-establishment of a strong landscaped edge to the rail corridor, as presently exists, in order to minimise the adverse visual impacts of the rail corridor on the landscape qualities of the Park Lands 5.2 Criterion B Assessment Criterion B: Rarity The Adelaide Park Lands and City Layout is rare as the most complete example of nineteenth century colonial planning where planning and survey were undertaken prior to settlement. The historical layout as conceived in the 1837 Adelaide Plan remains clearly legible today. The place is also the only Australian capital city to be completely enclosed by park lands and is the most extensive and substantially intact nineteenth century park lands in Australia. 5.2.1 Potential Heritage Impacts Overall Proposal The proposed works do not impact on the legibility of the historic layout of the 1837 Adelaide Plan, as they maintain the existing historic rail corridor that has been present for all but 15 years to the State’s post-settlement history. Further, the works proposed are entirely consistent with the historic use of the rail corridor, providing the essential connection of the City to its Port (refer further discussion under Criterion D below). For this reason, the proposed works are not considered to impact on the National Heritage values of the Adelaide Park Lands and City layout as identified under this criterion. Temporary Works With the proposed works outside of the rail corridor being of a temporary nature only, they are not considered to have any long term impacts on the National Heritage values under this criterion provided the land is appropriately remediated on reversion to Park Lands. Refer Criterion A Remediation Measure 2 for land remediation following the works. 32 5.3 Criterion D Assessment 0 : DA153199 : Assmt Impact Heritage National A Torrens Rail: Rev Junction Criterion D: Principal characteristics of a class of place The Adelaide Park Lands and City Layout is an exemplar of a nineteenth century planned urban centre. It demonstrates the principal characteristics of a nineteenth century city including a defined boundary, streets in a grid pattern, wide streets, public squares, spacious rectangular blocks and expansive public open space for commons and public domains. The expression of these features with their generous open space reflects the early theories and ideas of the Garden City movement of an urban area set in publicly accessible open space with plantings, gardens, designed areas and open bushland. 9 .12.15

5.3.1 Potential Heritage Impacts Overall Proposal With the primary impetus for the establishment of the City to Port Adelaide railway occurring after Light’s death in 1839, it would be unreasonable to assume that this rail connection specifically formed part of his planning for the City. As noted, however, Light’s original planning for the City provided only ‘likely future’9 transportation connections through the Park Lands, which were subsequently formalised (and altered) with the general growth and expansion of the State’s Capital City. The important connection of the City to the Port was one of only two such connections specifically labeled (along with the connection to Holdfast Bay), albeit as a roadway. Irrespective of whether Light’s original planning for the City of Adelaide could have envisaged a rail connection to the Port, its provision was somewhat inevitable. Further, this rail connection has gone on be an integral aspect of the historical development of the both State and the City of Adelaide. Being the first Government railway in the British Empire is also illustrative of the unique method of the settlement of the State of South Australia (refer Criterion A discussion). The presence of the City to Port Adelaide railway line is acknowledged in the National Heritage listing: In 1836, the Commissioners appointed Colonel William Light as Surveyor General, and instructed him to select the site and plan the new capital. Light’s plan of 1837 included nine ‘Government Reserves’, and indicated the likely future routes of roads through an encircling belt of park lands to the port and country lands. Other areas of the Park Lands have also since been alienated for uses including new street alignments, railways and public and recreational buildings, but most of these functions have played significant roles in the historical development of South Australia, and in terms of the Adelaide Plan, they have maintained, or increased, the intended public use of the Park Lands and squares. The City to Port Adelaide railway has been present in the Adelaide Park Lands for all but 15 years of the State’s post-settlement history. The works proposed by this project do not change this. With the exception of pedestrian / cycle pathways (and temporary works as noted below), the works are confined to the existing rail corridor, and continue the originally historic rail alignment, albeit now incorporating a grade separation. 33 Further, the modernisation of this railway is historically consistent, as the Adelaide 0 : DA153199 : Assmt Impact Heritage National A Torrens Rail: Rev Junction to Port Adelaide rail line has regularly undergone extensive upgrades and expansions with the ongoing development and growth of the City. For these reasons, the proposed works are not considered to impact on the National Heritage values of the Adelaide Park Lands and City layout as identified under this criterion.

9 National Heritage Listing Summary Statement of Significance, www.environment.gov.au/cgi- 9

.12.15 bin/ahdb/search.pl?mode=place_detail;place_id=105758

Temporary Works With the proposed works outside of the rail corridor being of a temporary nature only, they are not considered to have any long term impacts on the National Heritage values under this criterion provided the land is appropriately remediated on reversion to Park Lands. Refer Criterion A Remediation Measure 2 for land remediation following the works. 5.4 Criterion F Assessment Criterion F: Creative or technical achievement Adelaide Park Lands and City Layout is regarded throughout Australia and the world as a masterwork of urban design. Elements of the Adelaide Plan that contribute to the design excellence are the use of the encircling park lands to define the boundary of the development of the city and to provide for health, public access, sport, recreation and public institutional domains, thereby meeting both economic and social requirements. Designing the city layout to respond to the topography was highly innovative for its time with the northern sections of the city located and angled to take advantage of the rising ground while retaining the Torrens River as a feature within the Park Lands. The judicious siting and wide streets maximised views and vistas through the city and Park Lands and from some locations to the Adelaide Hills. The plan features a hierarchy of road widths with a wide dimension to principal routes and terraces and alternating narrow and wide streets in the east-west direction. Light's planning innovation is supported by substantial historical documentation. The formal organisation, delineation and dedication of the Park Lands space was a pioneering technical achievement of William Light in the Adelaide Plan. The overall landscape planting design implemented by several successive landscape designers/managers incorporated designed vistas, formal avenues, plantations, gardens, use of specimen trees, botanically important living plant collections particularly at the Adelaide Botanic Garden and the strategic placement of buildings and statuary in their settings. The creativity of the city and parkland design is clearly legible in the contemporary landscape viewed from the air or from the Adelaide Hills. The civic design of Adelaide was used as a model for founding many other towns in Australia and New

Zealand and it is cited in later seminal Garden City planning texts including Garden Cities of Tomorrow by Ebenezer Howard. 34 5.4.1 Potential Heritage Impacts 0 : DA153199 : Assmt Impact Heritage National A Torrens Rail: Rev Junction Overall Proposal As noted in the assessment of the above Criteria, the overall proposal does not impact on the legibility of the historic layout of the 1837 Adelaide Plan, nor in turn its creative and technical achievement. Further, the proposed works are fully contained within the existing rail corridor, with the exception of connecting pedestrian and cycle pathways (and temporary works as noted below). At present, the rail corridor is devoid of any landscaping, with the exception of some areas of low grass. The proposed development does not fundamentally alter this, and accordingly does not impact on the landscape character of the Park

Lands. 9 .12.15

The aesthetic qualities of the Park Lands are, however, also intrinsic to its National Heritage values. The proposed works include the design and construction of several elements of infrastructure that, if undertaken inappropriately, could adversely impact on these qualities.

Mitigation Measure 3 The project is currently at an early stage of conceptual development. While it is acknowledged that engineering, functional and safety requirements will heavily influence the design of much of the proposed infrastructure, careful consideration should nonetheless be given to ensuring the aesthetic qualities of the Park Lands are not adversely affected by the project outcomes. Accordingly, wherever possible new infrastructure should be designed to a high standard of design excellence befitting a place of Nationally recognised aesthetic qualities. Such infrastructure may include pedestrian / cycle pathways and crossings, and line segregation retaining walls.

Temporary Works The proposed temporary works will necessitate the removal of some of the existing landscaping and plantings to land adjacent the rail corridor. This landscaping presently provides a visual ‘buffer’ to the corridor, softening any adverse visual impacts on the landscape qualities of the surrounding Park Lands in this locality. Refer Images 20 and 25. The potential adverse impacts on the aesthetic qualities of the Park Lands arising from the removal of this landscaping can be readily mitigated however through the relandscaping and remediation of land affected by the temporary works. Such remediation should include the re-establishment of a strong landscaped edge to the rail corridor, as presently exists, in order to minimise the adverse visual impacts of the rail corridor on the landscape qualities of the Park Lands. Refer Criterion A Remediation Measure 2 for land remediation following the works. 5.5 Criterion G Assessment Criterion G: Social value The Adelaide Park Lands has outstanding social value to South Australians who see it as fundamental to the character and ambience of the city. The Park Lands with their recreation areas, sports grounds, gardens and public facilities provide venues for individual and group activities and events, meetings and passive and active recreation. The Park Lands also have significant social value due to the 35 range of important civic, public, and cultural assets and institutions within it. 0 : DA153199 : Assmt Impact Heritage National A Torrens Rail: Rev Junction The present Adelaide Parklands Preservation Society is the latest in a long history of community groups dedicated to protecting the Adelaide Park Lands. These have included the Park Lands Defence Association (1869-87), the Park Lands Preservation League (1903, 1948) and the National Trust of South Australia. The longevity of the involvement of community groups in campaigning for the protection and safeguarding of the Park Lands is exceptional.

9 .12.15

5.5.1 Potential Heritage Impacts Overall Proposal The introduction of the City to Port Adelaide railway line in 1851 resulted in several notable impacts to the social values of the Park Lands in this locality, including: • the dissection of otherwise open landscaped areas. This in turn impacted on the manner by which the public would go on to use these areas of Park Lands; • visual impacts on the landscaped qualities (ie the provision of a rail corridor and associated infrastructure); and • the excitation of the rail corridor from the Park Lands itself, and in turn its alienation from the intended ‘Green Belt’. Whilst these impacts are not immediately consistent with the social values as identified under Criterion G, they are similarly not inconsistent with the National Heritage values of the Adelaide Park Lands and City Layout. As noted under Criterion D assessment, the National Heritage listing acknowledges: In 1836, the Commissioners appointed Colonel William Light as Surveyor General, and instructed him to select the site and plan the new capital. Light’s plan of 1837 included nine ‘Government Reserves’, and indicated the likely future routes of roads through an encircling belt of park lands to the port and country lands. Other areas of the park lands have also since been alienated for uses including new street alignments, railways and public and recreational buildings, but most of these functions have played significant roles in the historical development of South Australia, and in terms of the Adelaide Plan, they have maintained, or increased, the intended public use of the park lands and squares. As noted in the Historic Context discussion above, this section of Park Lands has evolved socially, culturally and physically with the ongoing development, growth and modernisation of the City. These cultural and physical qualities, however, have been strongly influenced by the legal excision of the land accommodating the City to Port (and subsequent Gawler) rail lines from their Park Lands designation. The Adelaide Park Lands & Squares Cultural Landscape Assessment Study (Oct 2007, prepared by Dr David Jones for the Corporation of the City of Adelaide) noted for this locality (Park 27): Tulya Wodli/Park 27 experienced the largest amount and most regular attempts for alienation negotiations and legislation in the Park Lands. Land 36 0 : DA153199 : Assmt Impact Heritage National A Torrens Rail: Rev Junction was excised for the Adelaide Gaol, Police Barracks, and successive excisions to enable railway line corridors and railway service and maintenance yards. Thus, while the overall space as envisaged by Light in 1836 is extant, the excision of land for government functions has been excessive resulting in the significant deterioration of the actual overall spatial pattern of Tulya Wodli/Park 27…10

10 Jones D, Adelaide Park Lands & Squares Cultural Landscape Assessment Study, Corporation of the 9

.12.15 City of Adelaide, p923

While the proposed works, being contained within the existing rail corridor, do not fundamentally alter this existing condition, the upgrading of the existing pedestrian crossing adjacent the North Adelaide Golf Course, and provision of an additional crossing near Park Terrace, will be a notable improvement to the social amenity and connection of Park Lands on either side of the rail corridor. At present, pedestrian and cycle access across the rail line is limited to the crossing adjacent the Golf Links. This crossing (Image 28 above) is generally of poor design quality and amenity. The upgrading of this crossing, and provision of an additional crossing, is considered to positively contribute to the social values of the Park Lands. The design of such infrastructure, however, should be undertaken to a high standard, befitting a place of Nationally recognised aesthetic values (refer Recommendation Criterion F). For these reasons, the proposed works are not considered to impact on the National Heritage values of the Adelaide Park Lands and City layout as identified under this criterion. Temporary Works The temporary works associated with the proposed project will impact on the character and ambience of the Park Lands in this locality. These impacts will, however, be short term, provided the affected area of Park Lands are appropriately landscaped and remediated. Refer Criterion A Remediation Measure 2 for land remediation following the works. 5.6 Criterion H Assessment Criterion H: Significant People Colonel William Light is most famously associated with the plan of Adelaide. He bore the ultimate responsibility, as recorded in his surviving publications and letters. 5.6.1 Potential Heritage Impacts Overall Proposal The proposed works do not impact on the National Heritage values of the Adelaide Park Lands and City Layout as identified under this criterion. Temporary Works The proposed temporary works do not impact on the National Heritage values of the Adelaide Park Lands and City Layout as identified under this criterion. 37 0 : DA153199 : Assmt Impact Heritage National A Torrens Rail: Rev Junction

9 .12.15

6 National Heritage Impact ‘Self Assessment’ The below step-by-step ‘self-assessment’ is based on The Australian Government Department of the Environment publication ‘Matters of National Significance, Significant Impact Guideline 1.1, as outlined in Section 2 of this report, and the Heritage Impact Assessment undertaken in Section 5.

Repot Answer Step 1 Reference Are there matters of National Environmental Significance Section 5 Yes located in the area of the proposed works? Guideline 1.1 Commentary The EPBC Act protected matters search tool allows you to search for matters of national environmental significance in an area where you propose to take an action

Repot Answer Step 2 Reference

Are there potential for Impacts on matters of Section 5 Yes environmental significance? Guideline 1.1 Commentary If there are matters of national environmental significance in the vicinity of your proposed action, you need to consider whether there is potential for your proposed action to impact upon those matters. The proposed action should be considered at its broadest possible scope. This includes all stages and components of the action, all related activities, and all related infrastructure such as roads and powerlines, if applicable. If the action consists of a series of activities or a number of related activities, you should consider the impacts of each activity, and then consider the combined impacts of those activities. It is also necessary and important to consider off-site and indirect impacts of your proposed action on matters of national environmental significance

Repot Answer Step 3 Reference

Are there proposed measures to avoid of reduce impacts? Section 5 Yes It is important to consider the environmental impacts of the proposed action early in the planning of the proposal. Careful planning of the action can avoid, or reduce, the likelihood of a significant impact on matters of national environmental significance. Where possible and practicable it is 38

best to avoid impacts. If impacts cannot be avoided then they should be 0 : DA153199 : Assmt Impact Heritage National A Torrens Rail: Rev Junction minimised or mitigated as much as possible. You should consider impacts on matters of national environmental significance in relation to the following: • site selection and the location of buildings or activities on the selected site • the timing of the action or its component activities, and • the design of any buildings, or other structures or infrastructure. However you should not conclude that a significant impact is not likely to occur because of management or mitigation measures unless the effectiveness of those measures is well-established (for example through demonstrated application, studies or surveys) and there is a high degree of certainty about the avoidance of impacts or the extent to which impacts

will be reduced. 9 .12.15

Repot Answer Step 4 Reference

Are any Impacts of the proposed action on matters of Section 5 No National Environmental Significance likely to be Significant Impacts? Guideline 1.1 Commentary In order to decide whether an action is likely to have a significant impact, it is necessary to take into account the nature and magnitude of potential impacts. In determining the nature and magnitude of an action’s impacts, it is important to consider matters such as:

• the sensitivity of the environment which will be impacted the timing, duration and frequency of the action and its impacts • all on-site and off-site impacts • all direct and indirect impacts • the total impact which can be attributed to the action over the entire geographic area • affected, and over time • existing levels of impact from other sources, and • the degree of confidence with which the impacts of the action are known and understood.

National Heritage Places Significant Impact Criteria:

An action is likely to have a significant impact on the National Heritage values of a National Heritage place if there is a real chance or possibility that it will cause:

• one or more of the National Heritage values to be lost • one or more of the National Heritage values to be degraded or damaged, or • one or more of the National Heritage values to be notably altered, modified, obscured or diminished. Historic Heritage Values • permanently remove, destroy, damage or substantially alter the fabric of a National Heritage place in a manner which is inconsistent with relevant values • extend, renovate, refurbish or substantially alter a National Heritage place in a manner which is inconsistent with relevant values • permanently remove, destroy, damage or substantially disturb archaeological deposits or artefacts in a National Heritage place • involve activities in a National Heritage place with substantial and/or long-term impacts on its values 39 0 : DA153199 : Assmt Impact Heritage National A Torrens Rail: Rev Junction • involve the construction of buildings or other structures within, adjacent to, or within important sight lines of, a National Heritage place which are inconsistent with relevant values, and • make notable changes to the layout, spaces, form or species composition of a garden, landscape or setting of a National Heritage place in a manner which is inconsistent with relevant values.

9 .12.15

Repot Answer Step 5 Reference

Is a Referral under the EPBC Act Required? Section 5 No Guideline 1.1 Commentary If after undertaking a self-assessment you conclude that your action is likely to have a significant impact on a matter of national environmental significance, or if you are unsure, you should refer the action to the Australian Government environment minister.

7 Summary The purpose of this report is to assist in the determination of whether the proposed Torrens Rail Junction project has the potential to result in ‘significant impacts’ to the National Heritage values of the Adelaide Park Lands and City Layout. The proposed works will either be confined to land that has been specifically excluded from the Adelaide Park Lands and City Layout National Heritage listing, or will be undertaken outside of the footprint of the heritage listing designation. The exceptions to this is are the temporary works necessary to complete the project, however in these instances mitigation methods in the form of relandscaping and remediation back to Park Lands on completion of the project negates long term impacts to the National Heritage values of the place. Provided that the Mitigation Measures noted in this report are implemented, this Heritage Impact Assessment finds that there would also be no significant impacts to the National Heritage values of the Adelaide Park Lands and City Grid arising from the project. On this basis a referral under Section 68 of the EPBC Act is not considered necessary. Final determination as to whether a referral should be undertaken, however, remains vested under the EPBC Act by those persons proposing to undertake the action (ie the proposed works).

40 0 : DA153199 : Assmt Impact Heritage National A Torrens Rail: Rev Junction

9 .12.15

Appendix A National Heritage Listing Adelaide Park Lands and City Layout

8 Adelaide Park Lands and City Layout The following extracts have been sourced from the Australian Government Department of the Environment’s Australian Heritage Database:

Summary Statement of Significance The Adelaide Park Lands and City Layout is a significant example of early colonial planning which has retained key elements of its historical layout for over one hundred and seventy years. The 1837 Adelaide Plan attributed to Colonel William Light and the establishment of Adelaide marks a significant turning point in the settlement of Australia. Prior to this, settlement had been in the form of penal colonies or military outposts where the chief labour supply was convicts. The Colony of South Australia was conceived as a commercial enterprise based on Edward Gibbon Wakefield’s theory of systematic colonisation. It was to be established by free settlers who would make a society that would be ‘respectable’ and ‘self-supporting’. The Adelaide Plan was the basis for attracting free settlers, offering certainty of land tenure and a high degree of amenity. Being formally laid out prior to settlement, with a grid pattern and wide streets and town squares, the Plan reflected new town planning conventions and contemporary ideas about the provision of common or reserved land for its aesthetic qualities, public health and recreation. The Plan endures today in the form of the Adelaide Park Lands and City Layout. The key elements of the Plan remain substantially intact, including the layout of the two major city areas, separated by the meandering Torrens River, the encircling Park Lands, the six town squares, the gardens and the grid pattern of major and minor roads. The Park Lands, in particular, are significant for the longevity of protection and conservation and have high social value to South Australians who regard them as fundamental to the and ambience of the city of Adelaide.

The national significance of the Adelaide Park Lands and City Layout lies in its design excellence. The Adelaide Plan is regarded as a masterwork of urban design, a grand example of colonial urban planning. The city grid and defining park 42 lands were laid over the shallow river valley with its gentle undulations, described 0 : DA153199 : Assmt Impact Heritage National A Torrens Rail: Rev Junction by Light as the Adelaide Plains. The city layout is designed to take full advantage of the topography, an important innovation for the time. The streets were sited and planned to maximise views and vistas through the city and Park Lands and from some locations to the Adelaide Hills. A hierarchy of road widths with a wide dimension to principal routes and terraces and alternating narrow and wide streets in the east-west direction were featured on the historic plan. Features within the Park Lands area included a hospital, Government House, a school, barracks, a store house, a market and a botanic garden and roads.

The tree planting designed and implemented since the 1850s and the living plant collection of the Park Lands, particularly within the Adelaide Botanic Gardens are 9 outstanding features. The encircling Park Lands provide for health and recreation .12.15

for the inhabitants while setting the city limits and preventing speculative land sales on the perimeter. The emphasis on public health, amenity and aesthetic qualities through civic design and provision of public spaces were to have an influence on the Garden City Movement, one of the most significant urban planning initiatives of the twentieth century. Ebenezer Howard, the founder of the Garden City Movement cites the Adelaide Plan as an exemplar in his Garden Cities of Tomorrow. Even before this influence, however, the Adelaide Plan was used as a model for the founding of many towns in Australia and New Zealand. It is regarded by historians and town planners as a major achievement in nineteenth century town planning. The Adelaide Park Lands and City Layout is also significant for its association with Colonel William Light who is credited with the Adelaide Plan and its physical expression in the form of the Adelaide Park Lands and City Layout.

Official Values Criterion A Events, Processes The Adelaide Park Lands and City Layout is the physical expression of the 1837 Adelaide Plan designed and laid out by Colonel William Light. It has endured as a recognisable historical layout for over 170 years retaining the key elements of the plan; encompassing the layout of the two major city areas separated by the Torrens River, the encircling Park Lands, the six town squares, and the grid pattern of major and minor roads. It is substantially intact and reflects Light's design intentions with high integrity. The Adelaide Park Lands and City Layout is of outstanding importance because it signifies a turning point in the settlement of Australia. It was the first place in Australia to be planned and developed by free settlers, not as a penal settlement or military outpost. The colony of South Australia was established by incorporation as a commercial venture supported by the British Government, based on Edward Wakefield's theory of systematic colonisation. To be commercially successful, there needed to be contained settlement to avoid speculative land sales and this settlement needed to be designed and planned to attract free settlers and to provide them with security of land tenure. The city layout with its grid plan expedited the process of land survey enabling both rapid settlement of land and certainty of title. The wide streets, public squares and generous open spaces 43 provided amenity and the surrounding park lands ensured a defined town 0 : DA153199 : Assmt Impact Heritage National A Torrens Rail: Rev Junction boundary while still allowing for public institutional domains. These elements are discernable today. The Adelaide Park Lands is also significant for the longevity of its protection and conservation. The Adelaide Municipal Corporation Act (1840) established the city council as the ‘conservators’ of the city and park lands. The establishment of the Park Lands Preservation Society in 1903, along with successive community organisations marks a continuing pattern in community support for safeguarding the significance of the Park Lands for the Adelaide community.

The Adelaide Plan was highly influential as a model for planning other towns in

Australia and overseas. It is acknowledged by town planners and historians as a 9 .12.15 major influence on the Garden City Planning movement, one of the most important

urban planning initiatives. Criterion B: Rarity The Adelaide Park Lands and City Layout is rare as the most complete example of nineteenth century colonial planning where planning and survey were undertaken prior to settlement. The historical layout as conceived in the 1837 Adelaide Plan remains clearly legible today. The place is also the only Australian capital city to be completely enclosed by park lands and is the most extensive and substantially intact nineteenth century park lands in Australia. Criterion D: Principal characteristics of a class of place The Adelaide Park Lands and City Layout is an exemplar of a nineteenth century planned urban centre. It demonstrates the principal characteristics of a nineteenth century city including a defined boundary, streets in a grid pattern, wide streets, public squares, spacious rectangular blocks and expansive public open space for commons and public domains. The expression of these features with their generous open space reflects the early theories and ideas of the Garden City movement of an urban area set in publicly accessible open space with plantings, gardens, designed areas and open bushland. Criterion F: Creative or technical achievement Adelaide Park Lands and City Layout is regarded throughout Australia and the world as a masterwork of urban design. Elements of the Adelaide Plan that contribute to the design excellence are the use of the encircling park lands to define the boundary of the development of the city and to provide for health, public access, sport, recreation and public institutional domains, thereby meeting both economic and social requirements. Designing the city layout to respond to the topography was highly innovative for its time with the northern sections of the city located and angled to take advantage of the rising ground while retaining the Torrens River as a feature within the Park Lands. The judicious siting and wide streets maximised views and vistas through the city and Park Lands and from some locations to the Adelaide Hills. The plan features a hierarchy of road widths with a wide dimension to principal routes and terraces and alternating narrow and wide streets in the east-west direction. Light's planning innovation is supported by substantial historical documentation. The formal organisation, delineation and dedication of the Park Lands space was a pioneering technical achievement of William Light in the Adelaide Plan. The overall landscape planting design implemented by several successive 44 landscape designers/managers incorporated designed vistas, formal avenues, 0 : DA153199 : Assmt Impact Heritage National A Torrens Rail: Rev Junction plantations, gardens, use of specimen trees, botanically important living plant collections particularly at the Adelaide Botanic Garden and the strategic placement of buildings and statuary in their settings. The creativity of the city and parkland design is clearly legible in the contemporary landscape viewed from the air or from the Adelaide Hills. The civic design of Adelaide was used as a model for founding many other towns in Australia and New Zealand and it is cited in later seminal Garden City planning texts including Garden Cities of Tomorrow by Ebenezer Howard.

Criterion G: Social value

The Adelaide Park Lands has outstanding social value to South Australians who 9 see it as fundamental to the character and ambience of the city. The Park Lands .12.15

with their recreation areas, sports grounds, gardens and public facilities provide venues for individual and group activities and events, meetings and passive and active recreation. The Park Lands also have significant social value due to the range of important civic, public, and cultural assets and institutions within it. The present Adelaide Parklands Preservation Society is the latest in a long history of community groups dedicated to protecting the Adelaide Park Lands. These have included the Park Lands Defence Association (1869-87), the Park Lands Preservation League (1903, 1948) and the National Trust of South Australia. The longevity of the involvement of community groups in campaigning for the protection and safeguarding of the Park Lands is exceptional. Criterion H: Significant People Colonel William Light is most famously associated with the plan of Adelaide. He bore the ultimate responsibility, as recorded in his surviving publications and letters. Description The City of Adelaide is divided into two distinct sectors that straddle the River Torrens, the City centre to the south, and suburban North Adelaide. The City has a hierarchical grid street pattern, contains six town squares and is entirely surrounded by Park Lands. The city of Adelaide was originally laid out as 1042 town acres and in some instances the original boundaries are still evident. South Adelaide, the city centre comprises 700 acres while the North Adelaide residential area covers the remaining 342 acres. Six squares were laid out within the City of Adelaide. The city streets are organised into four blocks, with the City centre encompassing one large block, and North Adelaide three smaller blocks. The siting of the blocks reflects the topography of the area, with the main block situated on generally flat ground and the other three blocks, each at an angle with the others, on higher land in North Adelaide. The main block, the City centre, is defined by four major roads: East Terrace, North Terrace, West Terrace and South Terrace. In total, eleven original streets traverse the City east-west and six original streets traverse it north- south. Nine streets which traverse the City east-west culminate in the centre at King William Street which also defines name changes for the streets running east- west. The streets are primarily named after key historical figures: Rundle, Grenfell, Pine, Flinders, Wakefield, Angas, Carrington, Halifax, Gilles, Gilbert, Start, Wright, Gouger, Grote, Franklin, Waymouth, Currie and Hindley Streets. The central streets 45 in this grid, Wakefield and Grote Streets are marginally wider than the others, to 0 : DA153199 : Assmt Impact Heritage National A Torrens Rail: Rev Junction illustrate their greater importance. The City also contains numerous minor streets that were constructed within a few years of survey, but were not part of the original plan. North Adelaide comprises three smaller grids in which the majority of original streets run east-west. The major grid of North Adelaide is defined by Barton Terrace, Lefevre Terrace, Ward Street and Hill Street, with O’Connell Street as the major thoroughfare and Wellington Square in the centre.

The streets in both the City centre and North Adelaide are broken up intermittently by six town squares before they culminate at the Park Lands. Five squares,

Victoria, Hurtle, Whitmore, Hindmarsh and Light Squares are located within South 9 .12.15

Adelaide, while Wellington Square is in North Adelaide. Some squares have been altered with the road ways around and through some of the squares changed, both from an urban design perspective and to address traffic management issues. The substantial design of each Square, except Victoria Square, remains intact. These changes reflect changing aesthetic tastes and requirements in the twentieth century. Each square retains a distinct character, with different development on the edges. The form of Victoria Square remains, but its design, driven primarily by traffic changes, has changed markedly. It is no longer a focus for the City for pedestrians. It has retained a primarily public function with and office development around its perimeter. Hurtle and Whitmore Squares are more residential, while Hindmarsh and Light Squares accommodate more commercial uses. Wellington Square, the only square in North Adelaide, is surrounded by primarily single storey development, but of a village character, which includes a former shop, former Church and public house. The squares contribute to the public use of the City, providing open green spaces for residents, workers and visitors who value them highly. The Park Lands comprise over 700 hectares providing a continuous belt which encircle the City and North Adelaide. The Park Lands vary in character from cultural landscapes, to recreational landscapes, and natural landscapes. Some areas are laid out as formal gardens, other areas have a rural character and others are used primarily for sporting uses. The Park Lands act as a buffer to the City Centre, and also provide both passive and active recreational uses to the community. They are the setting for numerous public functions, and serve an aesthetic function in defining the city. The Park Lands are visible from many parts of the City and North Adelaide and form end points for vistas through the City streets. They contribute to views out of the City, together with the distant views of the Adelaide Hills in the background, as well as providing views into the City. The visual character of the Park varies with its many uses - formal gardens and lawns, informal parks of turf and trees, a variety of sports fields, with associated buildings and facilities. The Adelaide Park lands have been valued by many South Australians over time for their aesthetic qualities, and as a place for recreation and other community activities.

The Park Lands are described as a single feature, yet they vary in character greatly from area to area. Some areas are laid out as formal gardens, others have a rural 46 character and others are used primarily for sporting uses. The Park Lands also 0 : DA153199 : Assmt Impact Heritage National A Torrens Rail: Rev Junction accommodate many other, mostly public, uses in areas identified as reserves by Light, such as the West Terrace Cemetery and the Governor’s Domain, as well as in other areas alienated from the original Park Lands as defined by Light, such as the civic uses of North Terrace and Victoria Park Racecourse. Many cultural institutions occupying the Park Lands: the Botanic Gardens, Zoo, the State Library, Migration Museum, the Art Gallery, the SA Museum, Government House, Parliament House, the Festival Theatre and Playhouse, the Convention Centre, the Parade Ground, the hospital, Adelaide University and Adelaide High School. Other reserves include the Torrens linear park, Government Walk, the Parade Ground, the Pioneer Women’s Gardens, the Adelaide Oval and two public golf courses. 9

Today there is little physical archaeological evidence remaining in the Adelaide .12.15

Parklands of Aboriginal occupation and of the pre-colonial landscape. The South Australian Old and New Parliament Houses is entered into the National Heritage List (Data Base No. 105710). The Adelaide Park Lands and the City of Adelaide Historic Layout and Park Lands are listed in the Register of the National Estate (RNE) (Register Nos: 6442 and 102551). The following places are individually listed within the RNE: the Zoological Gardens (Register Nos: 8593 and 18585), the Botanic Gardens (Register No. 6433), the Elder Park Bandstand (Register No. 6351), the Women's War Memorial Gardens (Register No. 14568), the Adelaide Oval and Surrounds (Register No.19236), Victoria Park Racecourse (Register No. 18546), Art Gallery of South Australia (Register No. 6396), Barr Smith Library (within the University grounds) (Register No. 6365), Bonython Hall (within the University grounds) (Register No. 6368), Brookman Hall (Register No. 6382), Catholic Chapel, West Terrace Cemetery (Register No. 6357), Cross of Sacrifice/Stone of Remembrance (Register No. 14568), Elder Hall (Register No. 6367), Government House and Grounds (Register No. 6328), Union Building Group, Margaret Graham Nurses Home, Adelaide Oval Scoreboard, Yarrabee, River Torrens (outside Adelaide City), Institute Building (former), Bank of Adelaide (former), Tropical House, Main Gates, Botanic Gardens, Watch House, Catholic Chapel, Chapel to Former Destitute Asylum, Mitchell Building, Albert Bridge (road bridge), Schoolroom to Former Mounted Police Barracks, Historical Museum, Mortlock Library, South Australian Museum, Art Gallery of South Australia, Old Parliament House, Old Mounted Police Barracks, Adelaide Gaol (former), Powder Magazine (former) and Surrounding Walls, North Adelaide Conservation Area, Victoria Square Conservation Area, River Torrens (within Adelaide City), Mitchell Gates and Fencing, Adelaide Railway Station, Administration Building and Bays 1 - 6 Running Shed, South African War Memorial, Royal Adelaide Hospital Historic Buildings Group, North Adelaide Railway Station, Old Grandstand, Hartley Building, Torrens Training Depot, University Foot Bridge, Adelaide Bridge, Torrens Lake Weir and Footbridge, Rose Garden Fountain and Botanic Garden Toolshed. Over 70 places in the Adelaide Park Lands are entered in the South Australian Heritage Register. Most notably these include the institutions along North Terrace, including the Adelaide Railway Station, Old and New Parliament Houses, and buildings belonging to the State Library and South Australian Museum, Art Gallery of South Australia, University of Adelaide and Royal Adelaide Hospital (SA Heritage Branch, 2005). History 47 0 : DA153199 : Assmt Impact Heritage National A Torrens Rail: Rev Junction Background At the time of settlement, the Adelaide Plains were occupied by Kaurna people, whose descendants continue to maintain connections with their traditional lands. It is unclear as to how long the Kaurna people have occupied the area, however it would be thousands of years as sites on Kangaroo Island have been dated to the Pleistocene at 21,000 years (Jones 2007:32). The River Torrens or Karrawirra Parri was an important resource for Aboriginal people that provided the most reliable water source in the area and abundant marine and bird life. It is believed that

occupation patterns across the area would have been between the estuary and the hills (Jones 2007:32).

9 .12.15

The colony of South Australia was founded in 1836, after the colonies of New South Wales, Western Australia and Tasmania had been established. Unlike the other colonies, South Australia was not established as penal settlement, but rather as a commercial venture. Established fifty years after the colony of New South Wales, the colonisation of South Australia was carefully considered by the British government. Edward Gibbon Wakefield was concerned about the instability that land speculation and social problems had caused in these earlier settlements, and sought to find the right conditions for the success of new colonies. Wakefield developed his theory of systematic colonisation, believing that careful planning would provide a balance between land, capital and labour and thus the conditions for economic and social stability. He promoted the establishment of South Australia as a model colony that would be settled on this basis. In 1834, Wakefield’s ideas were partially realised when legislation was passed that provided for the establishment of South Australia. The colony would be overseen by the British Government through the Colonial Office, but with land, emigration, labour and population matters managed by a Board of Colonisation Commissioners. The South Australian Company was established in 1835 to expedite the sale of land in the colony, and much of the colony of South Australia had been planned, advertised and sold before the colony was settled. The Board of Colonisation Commissioners was formed in May 1835. GS Kingston (1807-1880), civil engineer, architect and later politician, was employed as Deputy Surveyor. The Commissioners appointed Colonel William Light (1786-1839) as Surveyor-General early in 1836. He had experience in ‘infantry, cavalry, navy, surveying, sketching and [an] interest in cities’ and had initially been recommended for the position of Governor of South Australia. BT Finniss (1807-1893) and H Nixon were also employed with Kingston as surveying staff, and they arrived in South Australia in August 1836. The Commissioners gave Light sole responsibility for choosing the site of the colony’s first town and clear instructions about its planning: ‘When you have determined the site of the first town you will proceed to lay it out in accordance with the Regulations…’ and ‘you will make the streets of ample width, and arrange them with reference to the convenience of the inhabitants, and the beauty and salubrity of the town; and you will make the necessary reserves for squares, public walks and quays’ (Johnson 2004:12-13). 48 The Commissioners also directed Light to ‘look to any new town precedent in 0 : DA153199 : Assmt Impact Heritage National A Torrens Rail: Rev Junction America and Canada’ for guidance. The grid plan was by then an established planning convention for colonial new towns in the English-speaking world. It probably had its origins in Roman military camps, and was first used by the English for fortified towns or bastides during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, the grid pattern making it easy to collect property taxes. The grid plan was later evident in the plans developed for colonial new towns. Many of the new towns established in Upper Canada and in the southern colonies of North America in the eighteenth century had gridded plans and one or more town squares. William Penn’s

Philadelphia (1687) was followed by Charleston (1672). In Savannah (1733), and a number of other towns in Georgia, a belt of encircling parkland was also provided. 9

Savannah was laid out by social reformer Oglethorpe who influenced Granville .12.15

Sharp, a British anti-slavery campaigner and utopian who attempted to establish model towns for freed slaves in which he promoted the benefits of the grid and greenbelt (The Adelaide Review 2004:2). In around 1789, the Governor-General of Canada, Lord Dorchester, developed a model town plan for use by surveyors in Upper Canada, probably with the assistance of Captain Gother Mann, a commander of the Royal Engineers in Upper Canada. The model for inland sites was one-mile square, with regularly spaced roads and one-acre lots. It was encircled by a belt of reserved land that provided a barrier between the township and surrounding farm lots. In 1788, Mann prepared a plan for Toronto, in which the town would be one mile square, with a grid system of streets, five symmetrically positioned squares and a sixth square that opened to the waterfront. As with Dorchester’s model, it was provided with a belt of reserved land. This plan, which was not actually used for Toronto, has been described as ‘a blueprint for successive new towns in Canada, Australia and New Zealand’. In the 1790s, the newly appointed Lieutenant-Governor of Upper Canada, Colonel John Graves Simcoe, promoted the use of Dorchester’s and Mann’s town designs, including the ‘park belt’ idea, as a model for the surveying of Upper Canada. It has been argued that the use of common or reserved land for ‘enclosure and separation’ became an established planning convention during this period. A number of model plans for new towns were also developed in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries with provision for a belt of park lands around the town. In 1794, a model plan was developed by the English social reformer Granville Sharp, outlined in A General Plan for Laying Out Townships on the New Acquired Lands in the East Indies, America, or Elsewhere. It had a grid road pattern, a central square and a strip of common land that surrounded the town lots. In 1830, retired English naval officer Allen Gardiner published Friend of Australia under the name of TJ Maslen, outlining his idea of a model town for the Australian colonies. He suggested that ‘a park [should] surround every town, like a belt one mile in width’ and that ‘all entrances to every town should be through a park, that is to say a belt of park of about a mile or two in diameter, should entirely surround every town, save and excepting such sides as are washed by a river or lake’. He included the Park Lands for health, recreation and aesthetic reasons. In 1833 the House of Commons Select Committee considered 'the best means of 49 securing Open Spaces in the vicinity of Populous Towns, as Public Walks and 0 : DA153199 : Assmt Impact Heritage National A Torrens Rail: Rev Junction Places of exercise' …to study 'the relationship between general health in densely populated towns and the psychological and recreational value of public open spaces' (Johnson 2004). The report found that there was a need for more open spaces in cities, and that ‘during the last half century many enclosures of open spaces in the vicinity of towns have taken place and little or no provision has been made for public walks or open spaces, fitted to afford means of exercise of amusement to the middle and humbler classes’. Reformers like John Arthur Roebuck campaigned against the enclosure of traditional commons and argued that towns should be provided with parks and gardens for ‘health and recreational purposes’. 9 The Board of Colonisation Commissioners were possibly influenced by the social .12.15

utopian and utilitarian ideas of Robert Owen and Jeremy Bentham. Wakefield and Bentham had collaborated in developing ideas for the colonisation of South Australia, and Bentham advocated a ‘principle of spatial containment and concentration with social and economic control’. Around ten years before the settlement of South Australia, Owen wrote about his ideas for self-supporting cooperative communities or ‘villages of unity and mutual cooperation’. The idea was essentially for a ‘town in a building set in open space’ and was similar to Bentham’s ‘industry-house establishment’. In both instances, spatial elements would shape and control the social relations within the town. The Adelaide Park Lands may have been provided as a form of enclosure that would concentrate the population in the City and control the supply and value of land, ideas that could have been derived from the work of Wakefield and Bentham. It has also been argued that South Australia’s planners sought to control social relations by utilising a town layout that maximised the visibility of the population and encouraged people to form small social groups within well-defined areas. Possibly it was used as a form of concentric zoning that was intended to shape economic and social relationships. Providing democratic access to public lands for health and recreation were other reasons. It has also been suggested that the park belt was intended to provide protection from a perceived threat of attack by Aborigines. Social and economic context The study by City Futures Research Centre (2007 Vol 2:183) notes that the design of Adelaide was a crucial part of British planning for the new colony of South Australia as a self-supporting land settlement, and the city’s plan forms the most enduring and tangible evidence of that colonial experiment. South Australia was the last of the colonies to be settled and was intended as a free settlement. British intentions for establishing South Australia were different to those for New South Wales and Western Australia. The colony was founded by British legislation in 1834. Control of all the land was delegated to a Board of Colonization Commissioners with proceeds from the sale of land to be put towards an Emigration Fund. This new approach to planting a colony applied the Wakefield principles of systematic colonisation, concerning land, labour and capital. Instead of granting free land to settlers, land was to be sold, and the proceeds used to fund the emigration of free settlers (labourers) to the colony. The scheme involved advanced planning, and controlled land survey before settlement. The new city (named by royal request after Queen Adelaide) 50 was planned as ‘bait’ to attract capitalist investors by purchase of cheap city 0 : DA153199 : Assmt Impact Heritage National A Torrens Rail: Rev Junction sections, while the generous layout also reflected the aspirations of British reformers, and their hopes of developing a new, more civilized, social order in Australia (City Futures 2007 Vol 2:183). In 1836, the Commissioners appointed Colonel William Light as Surveyor General, and instructed him to select the site and plan the new capital. Light’s plan of 1837 included nine ‘Government Reserves’, and indicated the likely future routes of roads through an encircling belt of park lands to the port and country lands. Other areas of the Park Lands have also since been alienated for uses including new street alignments, railways and public and recreational buildings, but most of these functions have played significant roles in the historical development of South 9 Australia, and in terms of the Adelaide Plan, they have maintained, or increased, .12.15

the intended public use of the Park Lands and squares (City Futures 2007 Vol 2:183). Planning history The Garden City Movement had a profound effect on town planning in the early twentieth century. Social reformer Ebenezer Howard had referred to the Adelaide Park Lands in his influential book Garden Cities of Tomorrow (1902). Mumford believed that Howard had introduced the Greek concept of colonisation by fully equipped communities, in line with the views of social reformers like Robert Owen and Edward Wakefield (Mumford 1961:586). The London based Garden City Association advanced Howard’s ideas as a model for city planning and organisation. The City Beautiful movement promoted the creation of new parks, boulevards and street beautification by linking aesthetics with growth. The Garden City movement endorsed garden suburbs with generous open spaces amongst other characteristics. Influenced by Howard, the ideology of civic beautification started to develop at the start of the twentieth century in Australia (Sulman 1919). Reflecting the significance of the Adelaide Plan, there has been intense debate both about the plan’s origins, and its planners. The principal role of South Australia’s first Surveyor General, Colonel William Light, has been affirmed, with acknowledgement of major contributions by George Strickland Kingston. Light, as instructed, looked at other examples of the planting of towns of this kind for ideas about its layout, and several sources can be identified. The South Australian Colonization Commission in London appointed Kingston Assistant Surveyor in 1835, and he supervised preparation of a preliminary ‘Plan of Town’ by other surveying staff, Boyle Travers Finniss and Edward O’Brien. This notional plan was used to raise funds for the new colony through ‘preliminary purchases’ of town acres (City Futures 2007 Vol 2: 183-184). Light was appointed Surveyor General in 1836, and departed in that year with a group of surveyors, including Kingston and Finniss. They were sent ahead of the first settlers to locate and lay out the new capital and survey the surrounding country lands in advance of other development. Light was given clear responsibility for selecting the site, but little was said in his instructions about the plan except that it was to be spacious, with wide streets, squares and public reserves, and in accordance with ‘Regulations for the preliminary sales of colonial lands in the country’. These included the requirement of creating a town of 1,000 one-acre lots (the final total, including the squares and places, was 1,042), and these Town Acres are still recognized by the city’s planners (City Futures 2007 Vol 2:184). 51 0 : DA153199 : Assmt Impact Heritage National A Torrens Rail: Rev Junction The choice of site was critical, and was done only after careful reconnaissance. Light’s selection of the site of the capital city and seat of government was decided in December 1836, and the city was laid out in January-March 1837 with opportunism informing the placement of the layout on the landscape. Light reserved encircling ‘Park Lands’ on his Map of ‘The Port And Town of Adelaide’ (1837) which also delineated nine Government Reserves on the park lands. Two of these, the Government Domain (including the present site of Government House), and the (West Terrace) Cemetery were used as designated, and remain in those locations today, forming significant elements of the surviving Adelaide Plan.

Another Government Reserve was indicated for a Botanic Gardens. Although these were established elsewhere in the park lands, they represent another feature of the 9 original Adelaide Plan, as well as a significant designed element in their own right, .12.15

dating from the preparation of the first botanic gardens plan (1850s) for Australia (City Futures 2007 Vol 2:184). With a grid street pattern, systemic provision of town squares, and defining parkland, the 1837 city plan of Adelaide combined numerous physical planning ideas and innovations of the colonial era. Many influences have been identified, from ancient Roman camps to ideal city plans such as William Penn’s Philadelphia and James Oglethorpe’s Savannah, as well as more abstract models including Granville Sharp’s ideal township of 1794 and T.J. Maslen’s ideal town in his The Friend of Australia (1830). Most of the Adelaide Plan’s elements were not novel but their arrangement on the ground was an inspired response to site and opportunity, and represented the culmination of the whole colonial planning movement of the time (City Futures 2007 Vol 2:184). The Adelaide plan, with its three layers of town land, parkland and suburban land, was later used as a model for many of the towns surveyed in South Australia, such as Gawler, Mylor and Alawoona, and the Northern Territory, particularly between 1864 and 1919. The government had a substantial role in creating and planning South Australia’s towns, unlike the other Australian colonies where speculative development led to more varied results. South Australia’s surveyors provided some parkland in around half of the towns established prior to 1864, probably in imitation of the Adelaide plan. In 1864, Surveyor-General G W Goyder provided instructions to his staff that all new towns should have encircling park lands, and that town land should be laid out in the form of a square, with the roads at right angles to each other, and with five public squares. The parkland town remained popular until 1919, when South Australia’s newly appointed town planner, Charles Reade, recommended that it no longer be used. The study by City Futures (2007 Vol 1:97) notes that 'the town was surveyed in two stages. The major portion of 700 acres south of the river was laid out first. The fretted edge on the eastern side took advantage of the local topography and provided more lots with a parkland outlook. The northern section was broken into three parts to reflect the land form and address the river: a small section of 32 lots closest to the river, a larger section with a western edge serrated by steep slopes, and a third eastern section whose layout secures the required number of lots ‘in a triumphant coda in the north-east where the last three lots turn west with a final flourish’. North Adelaide was destined to be predominantly residential and South Adelaide commercial. The rectangular grid plan oriented to the cardinal directions is distinguished by the encircling parklands and six town squares, five in South 52

Adelaide. Government offices and other civic buildings were to be grouped around 0 : DA153199 : Assmt Impact Heritage National A Torrens Rail: Rev Junction the largest, central square. The street layout features an alternating system of narrow and wide streets in the east-west direction, with the two principal routes and the terraces being made wider still. Few north-south streets were inserted apparently due to Light’s concern with the effect of hot northerly summer winds'. The Adelaide Plan displayed all of the key elements that made up the ‘grand modell’ of the era, including: a policy of deliberate urbanisation, or town planning, in preference to dispersed settlement; land rights allocated in a combination of town, suburban and country lots; the town planned and laid out in advance of settlement; wide streets laid out in geometric, form, usually on an area of one square mile; public square; spacious, standard–sized rectangular plots; plots 9 reserved for public purposes; and a physical distinction between town and .12.15

country, by common land or an encircling green belt (City Futures 2007 Vol 2:184). The Adelaide Plan has provided a robust framework for the development of the central city and has been an important influence on its attractive and scenic character. Whilst the Plan was essentially a one-off morphological design rather than a comprehensive urban plan, it was also lauded from the nineteenth century onwards within modern town planning circles. The 1893 meeting of the Australian Association for the Advancement of Science recorded universal credit to Light for his selection of the site and for the design of Adelaide. The early Australian planning movement celebrated its originality. The leading architect-planning advocate John Sulman singled out Adelaide as an exception to the usual prosaic planning of Australian towns, and A.J. Brown and H.M. Sherrard made the same assessment in their 1951 textbook for a later generation of planners (City Futures 2007 Vol2:184). The Adelaide Plan was interconnected with the international and post-colonial planning movement when used in Ebenezer Howard’s manifesto, Garden Cities of Tomorrow (1902) to illustrate ‘the correct principle of a city’s growth’. The plan also influenced the Garden City movement that developed at the turn of the century. In Garden Cities of Tomorrow, Ebenezer Howard cited Adelaide as an example of an existing city that conformed to the Garden City idea, ‘Consider for a moment the case of a city in Australia which in some measure illustrates the principle for which I am contending. The city of Adelaide, as the accompanying sketch map shows, is surrounded by its ‘Park Lands’. The city is built up. How does it grow? It grows by leaping over the ‘park-lands’ and establishing North Adelaide. And this is the principle which it is intended to follow, but improve upon, in Garden City. Based on ideas of cellular and constrained expansion, Howard’s garden city movement had an international impact. The plan of Adelaide was an undoubted influence on Howard’s thinking, and the connection underpins its planning heritage significance (City Futures 2007 Vol 2:184). A number of towns in New Zealand were also based on the Adelaide plan, including Wellington, Christchurch, Dunedin, Invercargill, Wanganui, Hamilton, Alexandra, Clyde, Cromwell, Gore, Port Chalmers and New Plymouth. In Wellington, a crescent-shaped town belt was provided, and in conjunction with the harbour it encloses the city and separates it from the surrounding land. It remains substantially intact. 53 0 : DA153199 : Assmt Impact Heritage National A Torrens Rail: Rev Junction History of the Adelaide Park Lands The Park Lands and the layout of the City of Adelaide remain substantially intact and still recognisable as the 1837 Plan. The original plan is evident in the boundaries of the City, the width and layout of the main streets, the belt of Park Lands, the squares and remnant town acres. The alienation of the Park Lands from general public access has been occurring since they were laid out, primarily for public uses. Approximately one third of the original area has now been alienated for other purposes. The Adelaide City Council has the ‘care, control and management’ of approximately 74 percent of the originally designated Adelaide Park Lands, which is around 1700 acres, and these 9 areas are generally well maintained (RNE No.102551: June 2001). New road .12.15

routes, primarily through the Park Lands link the City and North Adelaide with the suburbs. The City and North Adelaide were originally divided into one-acre blocks. Few entire one acre blocks remain although it is possible to discern the original boundaries of the town acres in some instances (particularly in North Adelaide where the town acres were often subdivided into four blocks). These sites tend to primarily be in the ownership of government and church, including use by schools and hospitals. The area now known as the cultural and institutional precinct along North Terrace contains institutions such as the University of Adelaide and the Art Gallery of South Australia which form a visual barrier between the northern and southern parts of the Light Plan. These institutions have also acquired heritage significance. The Railway Station, a hotel and convention centre adjoining it were alienated from Park Lands in the western part of North Terrace. The City contains numerous minor north-south streets constructed within a few years of survey, that were not part of the original plan. In addition, Frome Road was cut through the western part of the City in the 1960s, and runs from Angas Street to North Terrace. In other instances, streets were realigned or extended through the Park Lands to link Adelaide with the surrounding suburbs. For example, King William Street was realigned in the early twentieth century to link North Adelaide and the City, Kintore Avenue was extended from North Terrace down to the River Torrens and the alignment of Montefiore Hill which leads to Light’s Vision, an outlook point at North Adelaide over the City, was changed to create a major thoroughfare from Morphett Street to Jeffcott Street. Numerous roads were built through the Park Lands to connect with the suburbs, including Glover Avenue, Burbridge Road, Goodwood Road, Sir Lewis Cohen Avenue, Peacock Road, Unley Road, Hutt Road, Wakefield Street and Rundle Road. War Memorial Drive was built as a war memorial along the River Torrens. Medindie Road, Lefevre Road, Main North Road, Prospect Road and Jeffcott Street were all extended from North Adelaide through the Park Lands to link with the suburbs. Of the six squares, the changes to Victoria Square, the central and largest Square, are the most noticeable. Victoria Square was planned to be a focal point for the City but it has become surrounded by office development around its perimeter. The Square has been encroached upon by King William Street, which has had an impact on views through the square. Hindmarsh, Light and Hurtle Square have also been subdivided by roads. Whitmore Square and Wellington Square are the 54 0 : DA153199 : Assmt Impact Heritage National A Torrens Rail: Rev Junction most intact of the squares.

9 .12.15

Appendix B Bibliography

Australian Government Department of the Environment, http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/places/national/adelaide-parklands, 17 April 2015. Jones, D 2007, Adelaide Park Lands & Squares Cultural Landscape Assessment Study volumes 1-6. Report prepared for the Corporation of the City of Adelaide. Llewellyn-Smith, M 2012, Behind the Scenes The Politics of Planning Adelaide, University of Adelaide Press. Mapco Map and Plan Collection Online, http://mapco.net/aust.htm, 17 March 2015-05-11

55 0 : DA153199 : Assmt Impact Heritage National A Torrens Rail: Rev Junction

9 .12.15

Torrens Rail Junction

State and Local Heritage Impact Assessment DA153199 : Revision – : 18.12.15

Table of Contents Table of Contents ...... 2 1 Scope ...... 3 1.1 Project Scope ...... 3 1.2 Scope of Assessment ...... 5 1.3 Author Identification ...... 5 2 Heritage Places ...... 5 2.1 River Torrens Rail Bridge (State Heritage Place) ...... 6 2.2 Bowden Railway Station (State Heritage Place) ...... 12 2.3 Brompton Gasworks (State Heritage Place), Provisional Listing 22 2.4 North Adelaide Railway Station ...... 28 2.5 Chief Street Underpass (Local Heritage Place) ...... 30 3 Heritage Impact Assessment ...... 32 3.1 Direct physical impacts associated with the works (ie physical alteration of a structure) ...... 32 3.1.1 The Bowden Railway Station ...... 33 3.1.2 Assessment of Heritage Impacts ...... 35 3.1.3 Recommendation ...... 36 3.2 Potential impacts to the context / setting of the place ...... 37 3.2.1 Bowden Railway Station ...... 37 3.2.1.1 Assessment of Heritage Impacts ...... 38 3.2.1.2 Recommendations ...... 39 3.2.2 Brompton Gas Works...... 40 3.2.2.1 Assessment of Heritage Impacts ...... 40 3.3 Excessive Construction Vibration ...... 40 3.3.1 Ballast Tamping ...... 41 3.3.2 Dynamic Pile Testing ...... 43 3.3.3 12T Vibratory Roller ...... 44 3.3.4 Piling (CFA or Bored Piling) ...... 46 3.3.5 CNVMF Recommendations ...... 47 3.3.6 Assessment of Heritage Impacts ...... 48

3.4 Potential accidental damage arising from construction in very close proximity to a Heritage place ...... 49 2

3.4.1 Heritage Impact Assessment ...... 50 State Heritage Local and : Assmt1 : Impact DA153199 Torrens Rail Ju 4 Archaeological Potential ...... 50 4.1 Historic Background ...... 51 4.2 Assessment of Heritage Impacts ...... 57

4.2.1 Recommendation ...... 58 nction – : Rev 5 Summary ...... 58 Appendix A ...... 60 Brompton Gasworks Summary of State Heritage Place (Provisional) ...... 60

8 .1 2 .15

1 Scope 1.1 Project Scope DASH Architects has been engaged by The Department of Planning Transport & Infrastructure (DPTI) to undertake a State and Local Heritage Impact Assessment of the proposed Torrens Rail Junction Project. This project was summarised (in broad terms) in our project brief provided by the Department as follows: The department is currently in the planning phase for the upgrade of the Torrens Rail Junction; between the River Torrens rail bridge and Chief Street, Brompton. The interstate mainline freight railway crosses the Outer Harbor metropolitan passenger railway at-grade at the existing Torrens Rail Junction, imposing restrictions on rail freight. The project will involve removing the junction by lowering the metropolitan passenger railway below ground level and underneath the interstate mainline railway. Once completed, freight trains up to 1,800 metres (currently restricted to 1,500 metres when coming from the north) will be able to pass through this location without reducing speed, which will provide significant improvements to freight rail productivity. Traffic delays caused by Outer Harbor passenger trains at the existing Park Terrace Bowden level crossing will be eliminated through the continuation of the rail underpass underneath Park Terrace and through to Bowden. The project also includes provision of some temporary rail track works outside of the project corridor, which will be made available at the Project initiation meeting.

3 State Heritage Local and : Assmt1 : Impact DA153199 Torrens Rail Ju nction – : Rev

Image 1. Project Overview as included in Resonate Acoustics CNVMF.

8 .1 2 .15

This assessment is based upon the following documentation: • “Outer Harbor, Torrens Rail Junction Grade Separation, Outer Harbor (Down Track)” Option 2 (by DPTI): - IW089300-ESR-SK-0009 (Rev B, dated 23.06.15): Plan and Profile; - IW089300-ESR-SK-0048 (Rev B, dated 28.07.15): Bowden Station Plan and Profile; - IW089300-ESR-SK-0101 (Rev A, dated 31.07.15): Construction Staging (Option 5)- Stage 1 General Construction; - IW089300-ESR-SK-0102 (Rev A, dated 31.07.15): Construction Staging (Option 5)- Stage 2 General Construction; - IW089300-ESR-SK-0103 (Rev A, dated 31.07.15): Construction Staging (Option 5)- Stage 3 General Construction; - IW089300-ESR-SK-0104 (Rev A, dated 31.07.15): Construction Staging (Option 5)- Stage 4 General Construction; - IW089300-ESR-SK-0105 (Rev A, dated 31.07.15): Construction Staging (Option 5)- Stage 5 General Construction; - IW089300-ESR-SK-0106 (Rev A, dated 31.07.15): Construction Staging (Option 5)- Stage 6 General Construction; - IW089300-ESR-SK-0107 (Rev A, dated 31.07.15): Construction Staging (Option 5)- Stage 7 General Construction. • Concept visualisation (file provided 12 August titled TorrensJunction_v011.mp4); • Torrens Rail Junction Concept Study (by Cox and Outer Space, 17 Sept 2015 Rev C, drawings: - Site Plan; - Station Precinct Plan; - Longitudinal Section Through Station Section A; - Longitudinal Section Through Station Section B and C; - Longitudinal Section Through Station Section D and E; and - 3D massing.

• Torrens Rail Junction Construction Noise and Vibration Management Framework (dated 1 Sept 2015, Rev A), by Resonate Acoustics. 4

It should be noted that, due to the project’s programming requirements, this State Heritage Local and : Assmt1 : Impact DA153199 Torrens Rail Ju Heritage Impact Assessment has not been prepared on the final design documentation, but rather preliminary information provided in the above drawings and reports. In some instances this information remains conceptual only. Any changes to the project scope, or further design resolution that may alter the nction – : Rev potential impacts on the identified heritage places should be further review and assessed for potential heritage impacts. Any additional reviews should also consider the implications to any existing Development Approvals for the works if relevant.

8 .1 2 .15

1.2 Scope of Assessment The scope of this report is limited to the potential impact on non-Aboriginal formally identified heritage places (State and Local), as outlined in Section 2 below. While the works may also potentially impact on the National Heritage listed Adelaide Park Land and City layout, this assessment will be undertaken as part of a separate report. Separate to this report, DASH Architects has also been engaged by DPTI to prepare a Building Condition Surveys for the Bowden Railway Station. This Condition Survey included: • an assessment of the existing building condition for comparative purposes during the works; • an assessment of potential damage to the place arising from the risks identified in the CNVMF; and • recommendations for temporary measures to protect against cosmetic or structural damage (where possible). Potential heritage impacts arising from any temporary protective measures are not considered as part of this State and Local Heritage Assessment, but rather within the noted Condition Surveys themselves. 1.3 Author Identification This report has been prepared by Jason Schulz B Arch St, B Arch (Hons) FRAIA, Director of DASH Architects. 2 Heritage Places The following State and Local Heritage places are located within and surrounding the immediate area affected by the proposed works:

5 State Heritage Local and : Assmt1 : Impact DA153199 Torrens Rail Ju nction – : Rev

Image 2. Locality Plan. Base Image Source: Location.sa.gov.au (annotated by author) 8 .1 2 .15

State Heritage Places 1. River Torrens Rail Bridge 2. Bowden Railway Station 3. Brompton Gas Works Factory (multiple heritage place), Provisional listing as of 17 June 2015 4. North Adelaide Railway Station Local Heritage Places 5. Chief Street Rail Underpass 2.1 River Torrens Rail Bridge (State Heritage Place) Details: Railway Bridge over the River Torrens [Metal Truss] Heritage Listing: State Heritage Place State Heritage ID: 13670 Limited details are held by the Department of Environment Water and Natural Resources (DEWNR) on the State Heritage listed Rail Bridge over the River Torrens. An assessment sheet held by the DEWNR undertaken by Donovan Marsden Stark in 1982 provides discussion on all “Items associated with the development and subsequent expansion of the South Australian Rail Network, situated in and near the west park lands”, only some of which are relevant to the Rail Bridge over the River Torrens. It notes: … It is significant that the opening of the line to Port Adelaide took place on 19 April 1856 less that two years after the opening of the first supposed railway in Australia, the horse tram-way form Port Elliot to Goolway.[sic] It must then be realised that any remnants from the Adelaide-Port line are among early, if not the earliest remains of steam powered railways in Australia.

In November 1851, 2112 stumps were stated as being required to set out the line to the Port. The Board of Undertakers appointed Benjamin Herschell Babbage (1815-1878) as the Local Chief Engineer, and in England 6

the services of Isambard Kingdom Brunel chief engineer of the Great State Heritage Local and : Assmt1 : Impact DA153199 Torrens Rail Ju Western Railway Company were enlisted as agent and consulting engineer. This association is important as Brunel made highly significant contributions to the increased use and exploitation of Industrial technology in the mid nineteenth century. It is of additional interest that Babbage as an associate of Brunel designed and built railways in England and Italy during the years nction – : Rev 1842-1848. It is therefore not surprising that the rails originally laid in the Adelaide and Port railway were of the same type as those used in the Great Western Line in England and laid on longitudinal timbers… In 1854 tenders were called for major works such as the Railway station and Terminus and in October the abutments and groynes for the bridge over the Torrens were in the process of erection. In 1855 the Torrens Railway Bridge 8 .1 2 .15

crossed the water at a height of 32 ft. The arch was constructed of timber and had a clear span of 106 feet over the Torrens with girders at 13 feet intervals and stone abutments on 5 feet thick concrete foundations protected by sheet piling… Jacob Pitman constructed this Babbage designed bridge… It is significant that much of the abutments of this original bridge survive and appear to be constructed of Torrens Valley limestone. Not only are these abutments important to the history of steam locomotion in Australia but they are also the earliest surviving remains of a bridge across the Torrens. The bridge, the abutments and its surviving structure are well illustrated in a watercolour by H Glover and dated 1856. They correspond closely with the form of the extant abutments and it would appear that even upper walling with brick arched recesses is original due to a contemporary description with stated that 80 cubic yards of brick arches and inverts were used. In 1876 the bridge over the Torrens was upgraded and a bowstring arch built on the eastern section of the 1854 abutments (North Line). It… was transferred into its present position in 1925 when the track was further upgrades. At present, as a result of track standardisation the western side of the abutment has been compromised by the preparations for a new bridge…

7 State Heritage Local and : Assmt1 : Impact DA153199 Torrens Rail Ju nction – : Rev

Image 3. Plan diagram of bridge configuration. Source: Donovan Marsden Stark assessment 8 .1 2 .15

Image 4. Sketch of Port Railway Bridge over River Torrens by H Glover, 1856. Source: SLSA, B 11901

8 State Heritage Local and : Assmt1 : Impact DA153199 Torrens Rail Ju nction – : Rev

Image 5. Extract from Duryea Panorama, 1865, showing rail bridge, as viewed form City (arrow added by author). Source: SLSA, B 5099/14

8 .1 2 .15

Image 6. Port Railway Bridge over River Torrens, c1872. Source: SLSA, B 11695

9 State Heritage Local and : Assmt1 : Impact DA153199 Torrens Rail Ju

Image 7. Port Railway Bridge over River Torrens, c1872. Source: SLSA, B 11707 nction – : Rev 8 .1 2 .15

Image 8. Port Railway Bridge over River Torrens, c1890. Source: SLSA, B 26485

State Heritage Local and : Assmt1 : Impact DA153199 Torrens Rail Ju Image 9. Port Railway Bridge over River Torrens, c1928. Source: SLSA, B 4726 nction – : Rev 8 .1 2 .15

Image 10. River Torrens Rail Bridge, August 2015

Image 11. River Torrens Rail Bridge, August 2015

11 State Heritage Local and : Assmt1 : Impact DA153199 Torrens Rail Ju nction – : Rev

Image 12. River Torrens Rail Bridge, August 2015 8 .1 2 .15

Image 13. River Torrens Rail Bridge, August 2015

Image 14. River Torrens Rail Bridge, August 2015

2.2 Bowden Railway Station (State Heritage Place) Details: Bowden Railway Station Heritage Listing: State Heritage Place 12 State Heritage Local and : Assmt1 : Impact DA153199 Torrens Rail Ju State Heritage ID: 10557 The Planning SA Heritage Places Database provides the following Statement of Significance for the Bowden Railway Station:

Bowden Railway Station is significant for being one of the three original nction – : Rev intermediate stations which were established when the Colony's first steam railway (Adelaide to Port Adelaide) opened in April 1856. The station building is significant for being one of the two surviving original stations buildings, the other being Alberton (registered place 10934), which was built to the same design. The only major change to the external appearance of both stations has been the removal of the colonnade on the platform side and its replacement with a canopy. It is believed that 8 .1 2 .15

they are now the oldest station buildings in Australia, the earlier station buildings on New South Wales' and Victoria's first lines having been demolished. Assessment sheets held by DEWNR provide the following additional information: Railway Heritage of South Australia HISTORICAL Date: 1856 This station was built as part of the first steam railway in South Australia which was built to connect Adelaide with its port. In 1879 a ladies waiting room was added for £460 by Burge & Kestel. In 1892 a further waiting room was added by J. King & Son for £209 13s 5d. In 1895-6 the passenger platform was rebuilt. In its early years the railway line to the Port, passing through Bowden, was a vital link for the transport of goods between the city and the Port, but it also divided the young community. The line caused much local hostility because little provision was made to provide access across the line. Two underpasses were eventually provided at Gibson and Chief Streets. The location of the station prompted the location of the gas works nearby in 1861. The location was chosen by the young South Australian Gas Company because it was close to the railway for the convenient transportation of coal from Port Adelaide. The gas works became operational in 1863. Later, in 1891, a siding was built specifically for use by the Gas Company. As the South Australian Gas Co reduced the operations of its gas works at Bowden, its sidings became redundant and were closed in June 1973. The station was closed to all goods traffic on 1 September 1977 and the signal cabin was subsequently demolished.

Heritage Survey Item Identification Sheet A most significant event for the residents of Hindmarsh in its second

historical period was the construction of the railway between Adelaide and the Port. The line caused much local hostility as it sliced through 13

backyards and effectively cut access to the Port Road. State Heritage Local and : Assmt1 : Impact DA153199 Torrens Rail Ju Bowden Station was built in 1860 and is one of the oldest in the State. Looking down from a slight rise at the end of Station Place it creates an historically dominant element in the streetscape.

There remains some conjecture as to whether the extent of heritage listing for the nction – : Rev place extends to the station platforms. In 2010 DASH Architects undertook a high level review of the Bowden Railway Station for the Land Management Corporation (now Renewal SA) which (amongst other things) considered the extent of significant fabric.

8 .1 2 .15

This report noted: The Bowden (and Alberton) Railway Station is a simple rectangular building of random bluestone and brick quoins. It is a well-executed local example of classically influenced/ adaptation of ‘Old Colonial Georgian’ period architecture in South Australia. It has round-arched opening and a gabled corrugated iron roof form. The (later) timber platform awning is supported by brackets and the roof has turned timber finials, cut out timber bargeboards and timber-slatted eaves. Five openings on the platform side were for probable double doors. A fireplace is located within one of the openings. Original 1856 plans and elevations for the Bowden & Alberton Railway Stations indicate that the building was originally a mostly symmetrical design, with a masonry colonnade along the platform edge. It had five openings, four of which contained double doors.

Image 15. Bowden Railway Station 1856 plan

14 State Heritage Local and : Assmt1 : Impact DA153199 Torrens Rail Ju nction – : Rev

Image 16. Bowden Railway Station 1856 side elevation

8 .1 2 .15

Image 17. Bowden Railway Station 1856 front elevation

For reasons unable to be confirmed, the platform of the Alberton Railway Station was increased by approximately 300mm prior to 1879. The 2007 Alberton Railway Station CMP noted the following; Unlike Alberton Railway Station, the platform of the Bowden Station is not raised above the floor level of the Station. The Port Dock National Rail Museum confirmed that train heights had not dramatically changed during the 1856-1879 period. During 1879, both Stations were extended to accommodate a Ladies Waiting Room.

15 State Heritage Local and : Assmt1 : Impact DA153199 Torrens Rail Ju nction – : Rev 8 .1 2 .15

Image 18. Drawings showing the 1879 extensions to the Bowden Railway Station (photo courtesy of the Alberton Railway Station CMP) … An 1895 photo (see below) of the Alberton Railway Station indicates that the colonnade was extended along with the Waiting Room so it can be safely assumed that the same happened with the Bowden Railway Station.

16 State Heritage Local and : Assmt1 : Impact DA153199 Torrens Rail Ju nction – : Rev

Image 19. Alberton Railway Station 1895 (photo courtesy of the State Library of South Australiana) 8 .1 2 .15

During the 1890’s the building was dramatically altered with the removal of the masonry colonnade and remodelling of the gabled roof. It was at this time that the timber canopy that remains today was added. It is unclear as to why this work was undertaken, however, it is possible that the piers of the original colonnade restricted passenger and baggage movement along the platform and a more open arrangement was sought. Unfortunately, the integrity of the original building was compromised with the removal of the masonry colonnade.

Image 20. Bowden Railway Station 1908 (photo courtesy of the State Library of South Australiana), showing the remodeled canopy The south-west platform is faced with ashlar stone. It appears that the current length of the platform is consistent with the photos above. However, it is ambiguous as to whether the alignment and level of the current platform dates from the original 1856 construction, or later 1879 or 1890 redevelopments. The era (and significance) of the north-east platform (opposite the station building) is less clear, as later finishes may be concealing original fabric. The early photographs noted above appear to indicate the presence of a platform of comparable length to that existing today. 17 State Heritage Local and : Assmt1 : Impact DA153199 Torrens Rail Ju Accordingly, further exploratory investigations would be recommended should the heritage significance of these platforms become critical to any future works packages. Notwithstanding this, the current south-west platform clearly dates from an early period of the station’s development,

and is considered to be significant accordingly. In the absence of nction – : Rev evidence to the contrary, the north-east platform could be considered similarly. Confronted with the same lack of clarity on the scope of listing, this report considered the Conservation Management Plan (CMP) undertaken by another practice on the similar ‘twin’ complex at Alberton. The DASH report noted: 8 .1 2 .15

Following the findings of the Alberton CMP, the remaining significant fabric within the Bowden Station includes;

• Roof • Face masonry walls and face brickwork • Arch openings • Later timber canopy over platform • Fireplace shaft • Timber architraves, doors, windows and associated joinery • Timber partition wall joinery • Platform The later canopy, even though it is detrimental to the integrity of the original building, retains historic significance as it helps to provide an understanding of the early operation of a South Australian railway. As mentioned in Section 2.3 above, it is plausible that the length and extent of the platform is as originally built. Should it become critical to any future works packages, it would be recommended that exploratory investigations be undertaken to confirm the extent and nature of any remaining original fabric. The significance of the Station building and the platform is integral to their location along the Adelaide to Port Adelaide railway.

18 State Heritage Local and : Assmt1 : Impact DA153199 Torrens Rail Ju

Image 21. Enlarged section of Image 20 showing station platforms c1908. Source: SLSA B 45099

nction – : Rev 8 .1 2 .15

Image 22. Bowden Station c1910. Source: “Rails Through Swamps & Sand” A History of the Port Adelaide Railway, p34

19 State Heritage Local and : Assmt1 : Impact DA153199 Torrens Rail Ju

Image 23. Bowden Station 1952. Source: “Rails Through Swamps & Sand” A History of the Port Adelaide Railway, p33

nction – : Rev

8 .1 2 .15

Image 24. Bowden Railway Station platforms looking towards City (2015)

Image 25. Bowden Railway Station (2015) 20

State Heritage Local and : Assmt1 : Impact DA153199 Torrens Rail Ju

nction – : Rev 8 .1 2 .15

Image 26. Bowden Railway Station (2015)

21 State Heritage Local and : Assmt1 : Impact DA153199 Torrens Rail Ju nction – : Rev

Image 27. Bowden Railway Station platform (2015)

8 .1 2 .15

Image 28. Bowden Railway Station (2015) 2.3 Brompton Gasworks (State Heritage Place), Provisional Listing In June 2015 the South Australia Heritage Council Provisionally entered the Brompton Gasworks site on the South Australian Heritage Register as a State Heritage place. Prior to this, the site contain a State Heritage listing for 3 elements on the site, namely the 1879 Retort House, Remains of the 1891 Retort House, and Chimney. Both State Heritage listings remain in place. In addition to this, the site also contains places identified as Contributory Items under the City of Charles Sturt’s Development Plan. Whilst the site contains multiple valid State Heritage listings, the most recent ‘whole of site’ listing is considered to be the most relevant as it includes not only the places identified under the individual listings, but also identifies and categorises the significance levels of other elements on the site. Importantly, this later listing also designates the site as a place of archaeological significance. For these reasons, the below assessment will primarily consider the most recent ‘whole of site’ listing. The extent of State Heritage listings on the site are as follows: 22 Overall Site Listing State Heritage Local and : Assmt1 : Impact DA153199 Torrens Rail Ju Details: Brompton Gasworks (including designated place of archaeological significance) Heritage Listing: State Heritage Place nction – : Rev State Heritage ID: 26449 Individual Listings on the Site Details: Brompton Gasworks, 1879 Retort House, Remains of 1891 Retort House and Chimney Heritage Listing: State Heritage Place State Heritage ID: 11823 8 .1 2 .15

In addition to the recent 2015 heritage assessments undertaken for the ‘whole of site’ confirmation, a Conservation Management Plan has been prepared (by Flightpath) for Renewal SA in May 2015. No details could be sourced from DEWNR for the State Heritage listing under ID 11823. A copy of the Summary of State Heritage Place held by DEWNR for the ‘whole of site’s provisional listing (ID 26449) is included in the appendix of this report however in summary: Statement of Significance The Brompton Gasworks site has significant historic associations with South Australia’s industrial development from 1863 to 1964. The Gasworks influenced the early pattern of industrial and economic growth in western Adelaide during the late 19th and early 20th century. The site was a catalyst for the early industrial growth of the region, supplying an efficient fuel supply from 1863 onwards for manufacturing needs. The works are an integral part of the industrial history and character of the western suburbs, a reminder of an earlier way of life and an industry no longer practiced today. The Gasworks site also demonstrates rare qualities of cultural significance, being the only surviving former 19th and early 20th century coal carbonisation gasworks industrial site extant in South Australia. While retort furnaces and equipment have been removed, there is sufficient remaining building fabric of significance – retort houses, chimney, purifying house and ancillary buildings – to understand the scale and functions of the place during its period of operation. The site also has a special association with the SA Gas Co, an organisation of historic importance to South Australia. The SA Gas Co was established in response to the need for heating and lighting in the young colony, becoming publicly listed in the year of its foundation (1861). Testimony to its significance were the many prominent South Australians who served as company directors, including its first Chairman Henry Ayers. Statement of Archaeological Designation The former Brompton Gasworks site played a significant role in the industrial development of western Adelaide and was in operation for over one hundred years. During that time, various changes in the methods for gas production were reflected in the technologies installed, the design of new structures and modifications to existing structures at the site. Some of these 23

changes are apparent in the surviving structures, including the remaining State Heritage Local and : Assmt1 : Impact DA153199 Torrens Rail Ju walls and chimney which illustrate the functional requirements of a horizontal retort coal carbonisation gas plant of the late 19th century. Others are no longer present. The site has archaeological significance as it is likely that it will yield information that will inform a better understanding of these gas nction – : Rev production processes and the significant periods of development of the Brompton Gasworks. 8 .1 2 .15

Image 29. Brompton Gasworks significance plan Source: DEWNR Summary of State Heritage Place.

Having inspected the site it was note that a short length of wall extending from Retort House No 3 toward the rail corridor (refer Image 30) does not appear to have been identified in the above significance plan. Notwithstanding this, this section of wall appears to date from a similar era to the Retort House it adjoins, 24 and accordingly should similarly be considered fabric of heritage value. State Heritage Local and : Assmt1 : Impact DA153199 Torrens Rail Ju nction – : Rev 8 .1 2 .15

Image 30. Section of wall not identified in DEWNR Significance plan, but should be considered to be of heritage value. (2015)

25 Image 31. Enlarged portion of larger aerial image of Brompton Gasworks. Date unknown. Source: State Heritage Local and : Assmt1 : Impact DA153199 Torrens Rail Ju SLSA, BRG 350/34/1/2/381 nction – : Rev 8 .1 2 .15

Image 32. Enlarged portion of larger aerial image of Brompton Gasworks (left), and Bowden Railway station (right) c 1968. Source: SLSA, BRG 350/34/1/2/380

Image 33. Brompton Gas Works (2015)

26 State Heritage Local and : Assmt1 : Impact DA153199 Torrens Rail Ju nction – : Rev

Image 34. Brompton Gas Works (2015) 8 .1 2 .15

Image 35. Brompton Gas Works (2015)

Image 36. Brompton Gas Works (2015)

27 State Heritage Local and : Assmt1 : Impact DA153199 Torrens Rail Ju nction – : Rev

Image 37. Brompton Gas Works (2015)

8 .1 2 .15

2.4 North Adelaide Railway Station Details: North Adelaide Railway Station Heritage Listing: State Heritage Place State Heritage ID: 13657 The Planning SA Heritage Places Database provides the following Statement of Significance for the North Adelaide Railway Station: Opened in 1857, North Adelaide is the third-oldest railway station building in the State, after Bowden and Alberton, and is the only surviving original station building on the Adelaide - Gawler line, which opened to Gawler in 1857 and was extended to Kapunda in 1860. The Register of the National Estate citation records that 'the design is of interest to architectural history for the way it combines a typical mid-Victorian four room cottage under the same roof with the Station's business functions, in a way that presents a symmetrical front to both portions. This variation on the station with residence theme may be compared with early NSW and Victorian stations which, if they did incorporate residences, were usually two storey (eg on the Geelong-Ballarat line, 1862) and it contrasts with later nineteenth century station buildings where standard designs with detached residences became more common. It also contrasts with Bowden and Alberton stations, which had no attached residences.'

28 State Heritage Local and : Assmt1 : Impact DA153199 Torrens Rail Ju

Image 38. North Adelaide Railway Station c1880. Source: SLSA

nction – : Rev 8 .1 2 .15

Image 39. North Adelaide Railway Station 1993. Source: SLSA

Image 40. North Adelaide Railway Station, Sept 2015 State Heritage Local and : Assmt1 : Impact DA153199 Torrens Rail Ju nction – : Rev 8 .1 2 .15

Image 41. North Adelaide Railway Station, Sept 2015

Image 42. North Adelaide Railway Station, Sept 2015

2.5 Chief Street Underpass (Local Heritage Place) Details: Railway Underpass Heritage Listing: Local Heritage Place 30 State Heritage Local and : Assmt1 : Impact DA153199 Torrens Rail Ju Heritage NR 9167 The City of Charles Sturt Development Plan has identified the Chief Street Railway Underpass as a Local Heritage Place. The Development Plan provides limited details as to the basis of this listing, however the Hindmarsh Heritage Survey nction – : Rev (1984) provides the following Statement of Heritage Significance: The Adelaide and Port Adelaide Railway was constructed in 1856 as South Australia’s first steam powered railway. This underpass is thus significant as one of the surviving structures of this original line. However, local residents did not share the general enthusiasm for the railway, which cut through Bowden and Brompton and prevented movement through the villages. 8 .1 2 .15

The Chief Street underpass stands as a reminder of the antagonism which raged over the issue: residents complained that it was too narrow and only eight feet high, furthermore, that it was “quite impassible for days till a ferry boat was placed in it”. Complaints that the Railway Board was using gullies that had already existed instead of making proper roadways were raised in the Legislative Assembly, and with some adjustments, residents were finally satisfied. The Bluestone walling appears to date from the period of original construction. Wrought iron girders for the overpass railway bridge were provided by J Hooker in 1880, but the present girders are of a later date.

Image 43. Chief Street Railway Underpass (2015)

31 State Heritage Local and : Assmt1 : Impact DA153199 Torrens Rail Ju

Image 44. Chief Street Railway Underpass (2015) nction – : Rev

8 .1 2 .15

Image 45. Chief Street Railway Underpass (2015) 3 Heritage Impact Assessment For the purposes of this assessment DASH Architects will consider the potential heritage impacts of the proposed works starting at the southern end of the proposed works and working northward. Considering of the potential impact to the respective heritage places will be as follows: • Direct physical impacts associated with the works (eg physical alteration of a structure); • Potential impacts to the context / setting of the place; • Potential damage arising from excessive construction vibration in close proximity to fragile or delicate structures; and • Potential accidental damage arising from construction in very close proximity to a Heritage place. 3.1 Direct physical impacts associated with the works (ie physical alteration of a structure) Based on the information provided to me (as cited in Section 1 of this report), direct physical impacts (ie physical alteration of a structure) arising from the works will be limited to the Bowden Railway Station. In reaching this understanding it is noted: 32 River Torrens Railway Bridge State Heritage Local and : Assmt1 : Impact DA153199 Torrens Rail Ju The embankments of the River Torrens Railway Bridge appear to extend below ground under the rail corridor approximately 10m. While no works appear to extend into this area, the presence of this heritage listed fabric below ground

should be noted and measures established to ensure its protection. nction – : Rev 8 .1 2 .15

Image 46. Torrens Rail Bridge embankments. Author annotations in red. Source: A History of South Australian Railways Volume 1, p119 Brompton Gasworks With works contained within the existing rail corridor, I understand there will be no alterations to fabric contained on the Brompton Gasworks site. If temporary works are to encroach into the site, a separate assessment to their potential heritage impacts will be required. In such an instance, regard should be given to both the 33 established fabric of heritage significance (Image 29) and the section of wall not State Heritage Local and : Assmt1 : Impact DA153199 Torrens Rail Ju specifically identified in the heritage listing, but likely to be of heritage value (Image 30). 3.1.1 The Bowden Railway Station Works within the vicinity of the Bowden Railway Station include: nction – : Rev • lowering of the existing rail line approximately 5m below existing level; • provision of a new pedestrian bridge between the Bowden Railway Station and Drayton Street; • new landscaping works to the south east of the Bowden Railway Station, and opposite (north eastern side of the tracks). 8 .1 2 .15

Image 47. Station Precinct Plan. Red arrow added by author showing heritage listed Bowden Station. Source: Torrens Rail Project Junction Concept Study by Cox and Outerspace.

34 State Heritage Local and : Assmt1 : Impact DA153199 Torrens Rail Ju

Image 48. Part Station Precinct Plan. Red arrow added by author showing heritage listed Bowden Station. Source: Torrens Rail Project Junction Concept Study by Cox and Outerspace. nction – : Rev While the design concept remains in an early stage of development, it is understood the works within the vicinity of the Bowden Station will necessitate: • the removal of the north-eastern (inbound) platform; • provision of a new fence along the remaining south-western (outbound) platform; • new landscaping to the south-western side of the outbound platform; and 8 .1 2 .15

• new pedestrian bridge towards the northern end of the remaining outbound platform. 3.1.2 Assessment of Heritage Impacts Based on the current level of design resolution the key impacts appear to be as follows: The removal of the north-eastern (inbound) platform As noted in Section 2.2 of this report, there is no specific mention of the station platforms in the State Heritage entry, nor associated files held by DEWNR, and accordingly there remains some conjecture as to whether this fabric is included in the State Heritage listing. An earlier report prepared by DASH Architects on the Bowden Railway Station (for Renewal SA, 2010) identified this anomaly and noted: The era (and significance) of the north-east platform (opposite the station building) is less clear, as later finishes may be concealing original fabric. The early photographs noted above appear to indicate the presence of a platform of comparable length to that existing today. Accordingly, further exploratory investigations would be recommended should the heritage significance of these platforms become critical to any future works packages. Notwithstanding this, the current south-west platform clearly dates from an early period of the station’s development, and is considered to be significant accordingly. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the north-east platform could be considered similarly. [Refer Section 3.1.3 Recommendations regarding further exploratory works]. Notwithstanding its provenance, the north-east platform also contributes to the setting and context of the Bowden Station. These impacts will be considered in detail in Section 3.2.1 of this report. Based on the assumption that the north-east platform dates from an early period, its removal will impact the heritage values of the place. These impacts, however, are not considered to be significant, as:

• later maintenance and alterations to the platform have concealed any interpretability of its provenance; • the ‘primary’ heritage values of the place are embodied in the Station 35 building, more that the platforms (as evident from the lack of commentary State Heritage Local and : Assmt1 : Impact DA153199 Torrens Rail Ju on the platforms in the listing); and • the outbound platform is of high significance than the inbound platform, as it accommodates the station building itself.

Whilst not an expert in such matters, it is our understanding that it is not nction – : Rev uncommon for the platforms opposite a stations to require alteration to accommodate the historical growth of rail gauge and track separation. Irrespective of the arising heritage impacts, such alterations were commonly necessary in order 8 .1 2 .15

to maintain a modern rail system. The existing “tight loading gauge” of the Port line at the Bowden Station had been noted as atypical1.

Image 49. Bowden Station c1970. Source: “Rails Through Swamps & Sand” A History of the Port Adelaide Railway, p35 Impacts for landscaping and urban infrastructure upgrades Current proposals for landscaping and urban infrastructure upgrades in the vicinity of the Bowden Station include: • provision of a new fence along the remaining south-western (outbound) platform; • new landscaping to the south-western side of the outbound platform; and • new pedestrian bridge towards the northern end of the remaining outbound platform. Subject to final design resolution, landscaping to the south-western side of the outbound platform should not result in any direct impacts on the heritage values of the place. The new pedestrian bridge connects to the existing platform, and accordingly has the potential to directly impact fabric of heritage value. The lowering of the rail line in the proximity of the heritage listed station will also necessitate the provision of a new fence along the original platform. Subject to further design resolution, this fence may both directly impact fabric of significance, as well as the setting and context of the heritage place itself (refer Section 3.2). 36

The extent of such impacts, and their appropriateness (or otherwise) will be subject State Heritage Local and : Assmt1 : Impact DA153199 Torrens Rail Ju to the final design resolution. These potential impacts, however, appear to be manageable, and in turn likely acceptable, if the below recommendations are appropriately implemented.

3.1.3 Recommendation nction – : Rev Given the current conceptual nature of the proposal, the following guidelines are provided to assist its ongoing development in order to mitigate potential heritage impacts. These guidelines are neither mandatory, nor guaranteed to result in acceptable heritage impacts (and associated approvals). Rather, they establish

1 Thompson, M, “Rails Through Swamps & Sand” A History of the Port Adelaide Railway, p35 8 .1 2 .15

one approach to managing and mitigating the heritage risks in the further design development of the proposed works. Guidelines for Further Design Resolution Further consideration is to be given to the following when further developing the design and documentation for the Bowden heritage station pedestrian bridge, platform fencing and landscaping: • The design of any new infrastructure fixed to the outbound platform should seek to minimise any physical impacts on fabric of significance; • landscaping setout to the south-west of the outbound platform should seek to retain the historic footprint of the early platform; • the design of the fence across the historic platform should have regard to both the setting of the heritage place, and its historic context. Appropriate design responses to this context could include: - visually differentiating the fence design along the historic platform from elsewhere in the proposal; and / or - consideration of interpretative material associated with the historic station and railway; and/or - a visually discrete design, which does not ‘overwhelm’ the scale The and setting of the historic station. 3.2 Potential impacts to the context / setting of the place While all of the heritage places considered by this report have differing settings and contexts, their common denominator is their historic relationship to the Adelaide to Port Adelaide railway line (or in the case of the North Adelaide Railway Station the Adelaide to Gawler railway line). These historically important railways are the sole reason for the construction of 4 of the 5 heritage places assessed in detail by this report. Further, the Brompton Gas works was sited due to the presence of the railway line. Accordingly the setting of the place to this railway corridor is intrinsic to its historic context. While the proposed works do not seek to permanently realign the rail line (with the exception of minor adjustments within the rail corridor), the proposed grade separation will have an impact on the setting and context of the following heritage places: • Bowden Railway Station; and 37 State Heritage Local and : Assmt1 : Impact DA153199 Torrens Rail Ju • Brompton Gas Works. The setting and context of the remaining heritage places is not materially affected by the proposed works.

3.2.1 Bowden Railway Station nction – : Rev Works within the vicinity of the Bowden Railway Station include: • lowering of the existing rail line approximately 5m below existing level; • provision of a new pedestrian bridge between the Bowden Railway Station and Drayton Street; • new landscaping works to the south east of the Bowden Railway Station, and opposite (north eastern side of the tracks); 8 .1 2 .15

• removal of the inbound (north eastern) platform; and • decommissioning of the historic Bowden Railway Station as an active station servicing the Adelaide to Port Adelaide rail line. These works are illustrated in 3.1.1 above. While the proposed works will include the provision of a new substantially larger (replacement) station between Gibson Street and Park Terrace, which incorporates pedestrian bridges and new Gibson Street vehicle bridge, these are not consider to impact on the context or setting of the historic Bowden Railway Station as they are sufficiently divorced from its primary setting (namely its immediate relationship to the servicing rail line).

Image 50. Station Precinct 3D Massing. Source: Torrens Rail Project Junction Concept Study by Cox and Outerspace. 3.2.1.1 Assessment of Heritage Impacts The potential impacts to the setting and context of the historic Bowden Railway Station will be considered as follows: New Pedestrian Overpass 38

The proposal seeks to provide a new pedestrian overpass linking the north- State Heritage Local and : Assmt1 : Impact DA153199 Torrens Rail Ju western end of the historic outbound platform to Drayton Street. While detail of this overpass remains highly conceptual, it is unlikely to be significantly elevated above the platform level due to the lowering for the rail lines in

this location. Further, elevated infrastructure over the rail lines is not inconsistent nction – : Rev with the setting of the Station (ie a rail corridor), nor specifically the historic context of the Bowden Railway Station itself (refer Images 21,22). While further design resolution of this pedestrian bridge is still necessary, it is consider unlikely to have a material affect on the context or setting of the Bowden Railway Station.

8 .1 2 .15

New Platform Fence / Grade Separation / Removal of Inbound Platform As noted in 3.1.1 above, the new fence to the outbound platform may result in direct impacts to fabric of significance, as well as the setting and context of the heritage place itself. Historically, the Bowden Railway Station has had an immediate and direct contextual relationship with the rail line to which it services. The inbound platform opposite assisted in defining the curtilage of this relationship. While the proposed works will alter this, the fundamental relationship to the active rail corridor will remain, albeit in a different configuration. While these impacts to the setting and context of the place are generally undesirable, they are neither uncommon, nor historically inconsistent with an active modern railway. The ongoing needs of rail modernisation regularly impact the historic setting of early rail infrastructure. Whilst it would be unrealistic to assume the setting of an 1850s railway station could remain historically consistent in perpetuity, fundamental reconfigurations of the important contextual relationship between the station and the rail line should nonetheless be mitigated wherever possible. The design of the new platform fencing is one such opportunity, as are interpretative opportunities. Its final design resolution will strongly influence the extent of potential impacts to the setting and context of the Bowden Railway Station. Station Decommissioning The decommissioning of the historic Bowden Railway Station as an active station complex will adversely impact on the heritage values of the place. Having provided active service since 1856, the Bowden Station was one of only two remaining active stations dating from the inception of the historically important railway. While the Bowden station building will remain in use as commercial premises, its decommissioning as a station complex will leave the Alberton Railway station as the sole active station dating from the railway’s commencement. While again it would be desirable for the Bowden Railway Station to remain an active station, it is similarly unrealistic to assume such ongoing use can be assured in the context of ever the changing needs and demands of a modern railway.

3.2.1.2 Recommendations Guidelines for Further Design Resolution Further consideration is to be given to the following when further developing the 39 design and documentation for the Bowden heritage station platform fencing: State Heritage Local and : Assmt1 : Impact DA153199 Torrens Rail Ju • the design of the fence across the historic platform should have regard to both the setting of the heritage place, and its historic context. Appropriate design responses to this context could include:

- visually differentiating the fence design along the historic platform nction – : Rev from elsewhere in the proposal; and / or - consideration of interpretative material associated with the historic station and railway; and/or - a visually discrete design, which does not ‘overwhelm’ the scale The and setting of the historic station. 8 .1 2 .15

3.2.2 Brompton Gas Works. The Brompton Gas works was sited due to the presence of the railway line. Accordingly the setting of the place to this railway corridor is intrinsic to its historic context. So integral was the relationship of the Brompton Gas Works site to the railway that it incorporated its own rail sidings and platforms to service the complex. These platforms remain today and are specifically identified in its State Heritage listing. The current proposal indicates the final transition of the lowered railway back to grade across the Gasworks frontage, with the tracks being approximately 1.2m below ground at the south-eastern end of the site, transitioning to match existing by the north-western end. 3.2.2.1 Assessment of Heritage Impacts Whilst the Gasworks’ setting to the railway line is intrinsic to its historic context, the proposed works do not fundamentally alter this, with the maximum grade separation being only 1.2m, transitioning to grade. Further, the Gasworks complex itself incorporates rail sidings and platforms (as part of the State Heritage listing) within its own site that demonstrate this important historical context. For these reasons the proposed works are not considered to materially affect the context of the Brompton Gasworks. 3.3 Excessive Construction Vibration Major civil works of the nature necessary to carry out the works can result in excessive construction vibration that present a risk to the physical condition of a place. This assessment has been heavily guided by the Torrens Rail Junction Construction Noise and Vibration Management Framework (CNVMF) report prepared by Resonate Acoustics (dated 1 Sept 2015). This report, amongst other things, identifies: • potential heritage places within the vicinity of the project potentially affected by construction vibration; • the types of construction works associated with the project, and their respective potential vibration levels; • existing vibration levels associated with the existing rail line use; and • recommended vibration targets in relation to potential effects on 40 State Heritage Local and : Assmt1 : Impact DA153199 Torrens Rail Ju structures. The CNVMF seeks Vibration Target Levels in the proximity of “structures sensitive to vibration” to be no greater than a Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) of 3* mm/s (at frequencies less than 10Hz) so as to avoid “cosmetic and structural damage” based on recognised standards. [*For heritage listed railway bridges, where nction – : Rev existing PPV may be higher due to rail use, the PPV is recommended at 3, or no greater than existing, whichever is greater.] The CNVMF identifies the following construction techniques as presenting the greatest risk of exceeding the target PPV: 8 .1 2 .15

• Ballast tamping: Ballast tamping is the process of packing (or tamping) the track ballast under railway tracks to make the tracks more durable.2 • Dynamic Pile Testing: A dynamic pile test is a method to assess a pile’s bearing capacity by applying a dynamic load to the pile head (a falling mass) while recording acceleration and strain on the pile.3 • 12T Vibratory Roller: A 12T vibratory roller is a 12 tonne roller that vibrates to assist compaction • Piling: CFA (Continuous Flight Auger) or bored piling. Assessments undertaken for each of these by Resonate note: 3.3.1 Ballast Tamping Ballast tamping to the rail line may result in a PPV in excess of the cited 3mm/s at the River Torrens Railway Bridge and Bowden Railway Station.

Image 51. Ballast Tamping PPV in the proximity of the Torrens Railway Bridge. Part plan (Fig B3). Source: Resonate CNVMF

41 State Heritage Local and : Assmt1 : Impact DA153199 Torrens Rail Ju nction – : Rev

2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamping_machine, 25 September 2015 3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_load_testing, 25 Sept 2015 8 .1 2 .15

Image 52. Ballast Tamping PPV in the proximity of the Bowden Railway Station. Part plan (Fig B3). Source: Resonate CNVMF

State Heritage Local and : Assmt1 : Impact DA153199 Torrens Rail Ju Image 53. Ballast Tamping PPV in the proximity of the Brompton Gas Works. Part plan (Fig B3). Source: Resonate CNVMF nction – : Rev 8 .1 2 .15

Image 54. Ballast Tamping PPV in the proximity of the North Adelaide Railway Station. Part plan (Fig B3). Source: Resonate CNVMF 3.3.2 Dynamic Pile Testing The CNVMF notes that “piling will likely be undertaken using a bored or CFA piling system. This produces significantly lower noise and vibration levels than driven piling.” Piling works will be required where rail line separation occurs. Dynamic pile testing will, however, result in ground vibrations that may exceed target levels. To mitigate this, the CNVMF recommends exclusion zones for dynamic pile testing in the proximity of potentially affected heritage places, as outlined in the below images.

43 State Heritage Local and : Assmt1 : Impact DA153199 Torrens Rail Ju

Image 55. Dynamic pile test exclusion zone of Bowden Railway Station. Part plan (Fig B1). Source: nction – : Rev Resonate CNVMF 8 .1 2 .15

Image 56. Dynamic pile test exclusion zone of Brompton Gas Works. Part plan (Fig B1). Source: Resonate CNVMF 3.3.3 12T Vibratory Roller The use of a 12T vibratory roller in the proximity of heritage places will result in an exceedance of the target PPV of 3mm/s. To mitigate this, the CNVMF recommends the following exclusion zones, within which compaction is to be undertaken by a static roller.

44 State Heritage Local and : Assmt1 : Impact DA153199 Torrens Rail Ju

Image 57. Static Rolling Zone of Bowden Railway Station. Part plan (Fig B2). Source: Resonate CNVMF nction – : Rev 8 .1 2 .15

Image 58. Static Rolling Zone of Torrens Railway Bridge. Part plan (Fig B2). Source: Resonate CNVMF

Image 59. Static Rolling Zone of North Adelaide Railway Station. Part plan (Fig B2). Source: Resonate CNVMF

45 State Heritage Local and : Assmt1 : Impact DA153199 Torrens Rail Ju nction – : Rev

Image 60. Static Rolling Zone of Brompton Gas Works and Chief Street Underpass. Part plan (Fig B2). Source: Resonate CNVMF 8 .1 2 .15

Having considered these types of probable works, the associated construction vibrations, their proximity and amplitude to nearby heritage places, the CNVMF notes: …there is a risk of exceedance of the relevant 3 mm/s vibration limit for heritage-listed structures at up to 45 m from dynamic pile testing and up to 17 m from large vibratory rollers… To mitigate the risk of any exceedances of the vibration limits at residential and heritage-listed structures, the Contractor shall undertake vibration monitoring as described in Section 9.2 and shall implement reasonable and practicable vibration mitigation measures as detailed in Section 10.5. 3.3.4 Piling (CFA or Bored Piling) The CNVMF notes that piling for the project will “likely be undertaken using a bored or CFA piling system”. It is our understand that these piling systems result in a relatively low PPV. Table 10 of the CNVMF notes that PPV associated with a bored pile will not exceed 3mm/s, and that 5mm/s will only be exceeded within 5m of CFA piling. Advice received from Tonkin Consulting as part of DASH Architects’ Condition Survey & Heritage Risk Report for the Bowden Station noted: The CFA piling however could affect the bluestone wall to the face of the platform. The face of the platform could be covered with a sheeting material that is fixed to the platform above the bluestone wall and then somehow to the soil at the base of the wall, to hold the stones in place but it will not prevent any cracking to the wall. As the piling is to occur right next to the wall, braces at an angle to push on the sheeting cannot be provided. Unless the sheeting is a clear material you will also not be able to see what damage may be occurring to the wall. The 3mm/s figure is recommended as at this level no damage should be caused to a heritage building or structure. The vibrations at the face of the wall will be higher than 3mm/s, the figure for a CFA piling rig 5m from the rig, as the piling is to occur much closer to the wall at about 1.2m from the wall. The piling however will be occurring at the base of the wall and not directly behind the wall so its impact on the wall will likely be less severe than if the piling was occurring directly behind the wall. 46 State Heritage Local and : Assmt1 : Impact DA153199 Torrens Rail Ju As the CFA piling could possibly cause damage to the bluestone wall it would be better to install bored piles that create slightly less vibrations during their construction then CFA piles. The bluestone wall would need to be monitored as the piles are being constructed and if this form of piling

causes damage to the wall then it may be necessary, if possible, to realign nction – : Rev the tracks so the piling occurs at least 3 to 5m away from the face of the platform.

8 .1 2 .15

3.3.5 CNVMF Recommendations The CNVMF goes on to provide recommendations for: • Building Condition Surveys for the following heritage places to assist in the ongoing monitoring and risk management of potential damage: - Bowden Railway Station; - North Adelaide Railway Station; - Bowden GasWorks; and - Chief Street Underpass. • Continuous Vibration Monitoring during the works with automated exceedance notifications both prior and during major construction works near to the following heritage places: - Brompton Gasworks site; - Bowden Railway Station building; and - Chief Street underpass. • Attended monitoring where vibration compaction works occur within; - 20m of a heritage listing structure (other than the Brompton Gas Works and Bowden Railway Station building).

• Attended monitoring where dynamic piling testing occurs within; - 50m of a heritage listing structure (other than the Brompton Gas Works and Bowden Railway Station building). The CNVMF provides further detail and guidance to the above monitoring and construction requirements, however also notes that: …it is unlikely that the implementation of the mitigation measures listed in this Section will result in construction noise and vibration from the project meeting the noise targets and vibration targets at all times. This is due to the nature and scale of the project, the proximity to residential land uses, and the specific construction processes that will be required. The intention of this Framework is that, through implementation of reasonable and practicable mitigation measures listed in this Section, noise and vibration from construction will be limited to acceptable levels that: • minimise disturbance to neighbouring sensitive land uses as much 47 as is practical State Heritage Local and : Assmt1 : Impact DA153199 Torrens Rail Ju • do not result in cosmetic or structural damage to structures • allow efficient and safe construction of the project. In accord with the recommendations of the CNVMF, DPTI has engaged DASH

Architects to undertake a Building Condition Survey of the Bowden Railway nction – : Rev Station. This Condition Survey includes: • an assessment of the existing building condition for comparative purposes during the works; • an assessment of potential damage to the place arising from the risks identified in the CNVMF; 8 .1 2 .15

• provision of temporary measures to protect against cosmetic or structural damage (where possible). DASH Architects has been advised that any other building condition surveys recommended within the CNVMF will be undertaken by the Construction Contractor. The intent of the CNVMF is to identify the location and type of sensitive land uses (eg heritage sites), establish appropriate vibration targets for the project and appropriate guidelines and work method practices to achieve them. These recommendations, and the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure’s (DPTI) Operational Instruction 21.7 Management of Noise and Vibration – Construction and Maintenance Activities (OI 21.7), are to be used as the basis for a Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan (CNVMP) to be prepared by the appointed contractor. The CNVMP will describe how the CNVMF and OI 21.7 requirements will be achieved during construction. 3.3.6 Assessment of Heritage Impacts The CNVMF noted that it was “unlikely” that vibration targets would be met at all times due to “the nature and scale of the project… and specific construction processes that will be required”. Key risk areas appear to be: • Ballast tamping (It is our understand ballast tamping to be an essential part of the construction works, with no reasonable alternatives); • Piling in close proximity to the heritage Bowden Station platform; • non-conformance with recommendations; and • residual exceedance of target PPV (not withstanding recommendations). This exceedance, however, appears to present minimal risk of damage to the affected heritage places as: • heritage places along the rail line are presently exposed to relatively high PPV levels; • risk of damage arising from ballast tamping is minimal, and we have been advised that this process occurs regularly as part of general track maintenance. Proposed tamping will be consistent with this existing base level vibration; • PPV estimates undertaken in the CNVMF are based on the ‘worst case’ 48

scenario; State Heritage Local and : Assmt1 : Impact DA153199 Torrens Rail Ju • stringent PPV monitoring at heritage places is recommended; • Building Condition Surveys (and provision of temporary measures4.) are being undertaken to both mitigate and monitor potential damage. nction – : Rev The final CNVMP and any associated work method statements will need to be reviewed to ensure that they meet the intentions of the CNVMF and be re- assessed for potential heritage impacts.

4 Heritage impact assessments of any proposed temporary protective measures will be undertaken in the relevant Building Condition Survey 8 .1 2 .15

3.4 Potential accidental damage arising from construction in very close proximity to a Heritage place Working in very close proximity to delicate heritage places with heavy, and at times cumbersome, civil construction equipment can present risks of accidental damage. Based upon the current project information provided, the key risk areas for accidental damage appear to be: Temporary Line Diversion at Torrens Railway Bridge The temporary line diversion at the Torrens Railway Bridge is currently shown as commencing approximately 10m off the heritage structure’s bridge span. The heritage listing itself, however, includes the embankment structures that flank each end, and are embedded underground.

Image 61. Works adjacent Torrens Railway Bridge. Part plan extract. Author annotations in red. Piling adjacent the Bowden Railway Station In order to achieve the necessary grade separation within the existing rail corridor, piling construction will be necessary in very close proximity to the outbound station platform.

49 State Heritage Local and : Assmt1 : Impact DA153199 Torrens Rail Ju nction – : Rev

Image 62. Piling adjacent Bowden Station outbound platform schematic. Sketch provided by DPTI. 8 .1 2 .15

Brompton Gasworks Retort House 3 wall Retort House 3 at the Brompton Gasworks includes a short length of wall that extends from the Retort House toward the rail corridor (refer Image 30). This section of wall stands in very close proximity to the rail corridor, and is only supported at the Retort House end.

Image 63. Retort House 3 wall. Red arrow added by author.

3.4.1 Heritage Impact Assessment The nature of the proposed works, and the confines of the site, will result in heavy, and at times cumbersome, civil construction equipment working in close proximity to heritage places, which in turn presents a risk of accidental damage to a heritage place. Such damage could have a minor, or catastrophic impact on the heritage values of a place. A detailed Work Method Statement for undertaking work in close proximity of State and Local Heritage places is required to enable a detailed heritage impact assessment to be undertaken for this component of the works. This Work Method Statement should include consideration of both protective measures and work methods to prevent damage to heritage fabric. 50 State Heritage Local and : Assmt1 : Impact DA153199 Torrens Rail Ju 4 Archaeological Potential None of the State Heritage places affected by the proposed works have been designated as places of archaeological significance under the Heritage Places Act

1993. Part 5 Special Protection of the Heritage Places Act, however, still affords nction – : Rev protection to places knowing or having reasonable cause to suspect that excavation or disturbance will or is likely to result in an archaeological artifact of heritage significance being discovered, exposed, moved, damaged or destroyed5.

5 Section 26 South Australian Heritage Places Act 1993 8 .1 2 .15

It is unknown as to whether the excavation works associated with the project will either: • result in an archaeological artifact being discovered; and • that any such artefacts would be of heritage significance. While the Adelaide to Port Adelaide railway is not a State Heritage place (and there is no suggestion that it should be), it is of historic interest and importance. 4.1 Historic Background The Adelaide to Port Adelaide Railway The history of the Adelaide City and Port Adelaide Railway is an important chapter to the development of not only the City of Adelaide, but the State of South Australia. With the City located inland on the banks of the River Torrens, connection to its nearby Port was always going to be critical. The eight miles Port Adelaide and Adelaide were initially connected by Port Road. During these early years, goods were generally carried by carriers using bullock drays, while passengers were transported on horse drawn “Port Carts” (two wheeled traps). During its early years this roadway was often on poor condition and little more than a basic track. A dust bowl in summer and mud bath in winter, alternatives were soon sought. By 1839 the Colony had established a railway committee (the South Australian Railway Company) to explore and promote rail alternatives, with George Strickland Kingston appointed as a consultant. By 1848 the populations of Adelaide and Port Adelaide were approaching 10000 and 3000 respectively, however rail advocates were urged to pursue a privately operated railway.6 This was enabled by the passing of Australia’s first public railways Act in 1847. In 1850 the South Australian Legislative Council passed the Ordinance No 1 entitled “For making a railway from the City to the Port of Adelaide”. Following the formation and amalgamation of several private railway companies, the proposed construction of the new railway was abandoned due to (amongst other reasons) disagreements between its operator and the Government regarding legislated 7 charge limits. In 1851 the Legislative Council passed the necessary legislation to take over control of the City to Port Adelaide railway project, and in doing so it became the 51 first Government railway in the British Empire. State Heritage Local and : Assmt1 : Impact DA153199 Torrens Rail Ju The railway was formally opened on 19 April 1856. The route of the City to Port Railway is clearly illustrated on Freeling’s below 1869 Map of Adelaide (Image 64). nction – : Rev

6 Stewien R, “A History of South Australian Railways Volume 1: The Early Years”, Australian Railway Historical Society (Victorian Division), pp 91-99 7 Thompson M, “Rails Through Swamp & Sand A History of the Port Adelaide Railway”, Port Dock Station Railway Museum, p7 8 .1 2 .15

Image 64. Map of Adelaide 1865, with arrows added by author indicating City to Port Adelaide Railway. Source: State Records, GRG35/585/41 The Adelaide to Port Adelaide rail connection has gone on be an integral aspect of the historical development of both the State and the City of Adelaide. Being the first Government railway in the British Empire is also illustrative of the unique method of the settlement of the State of South Australia. The history to the design of the railway itself is provided in the Department of Environment Water and Natural Resources (DEWNR) file for the State Heritage listed Railway Bridge over the River Torrens, which notes: In November 1851, 2112 stumps were stated as being required to set out the line to the Port. The Board of Undertakers appointed Benjamin Herschell Babbage (1815-1878) as the Local Chief Engineer, and in England the services of Isambard Kingdom Brunel chief engineer of the Great 52 State Heritage Local and : Assmt1 : Impact DA153199 Torrens Rail Ju Western Railway Company were enlisted as agent and consulting engineer. This association is important as Brunel made highly significant contributions to the increased use and exploitation of Industrial technology in the mid nineteenth century. It is of additional interest that Babbage as an associate

of Brunel designed and built railways in England and Italy during the years nction – : Rev 1842-1848. It is therefore not surprising that the rails originally laid in the Adelaide and Port railway were of the same type as those used in the Great Western Line in England and laid on longitudinal timbers… In 1854 tenders were called for major works such as the Railway station and Terminus and in October the abutments and groynes for the bridge over the Torrens were in the process of erection. In 1855 the Torrens Railway Bridge 8 .1 2 .15

crossed the water at a height of 32 ft. The arch was constructed timber and had a clear span of 106 feet over the Torrens with girders at 13 feet intervals and stone abutments on 5 feet thick concrete foundations protected by sheet piling… Jacob Pitman constructed this Babbage designed bridge… In 1876 the bridge over the Torrens was upgraded and a bowstring arch built on the eastern section of the 1854 abutments (North Line). It… was transferred into its present position in 1925 when the track was further upgrades. At present, as a result of track standardisation the western side of the abutment has been compromised by the preparations for a new bridge… Railway technology during the 1850s remained in its relative infancy. Only 10 years earlier, the best way of laying “road-rail” had yet to be determined in Britain8. By the 1850s, development rail manufacturing methods in the southern hemisphere remained slow9. William Henry Barlow was appointed the first Engineer-in-Chief of the Midland Railway (Britain) in 1844, and took a keen interest in developing better railway track technology. In 1850 he developed a “saddle-back” rail that was notably lighter than its predecessors. These rails would become known as Barlow rails, and were utilised by Brunel on Britain’s Great Western Railway. These rails were also subsequently utilised in the Adelaide to Port Adelaide line, laid on longitudinal timbers. Within the first 10 years of operation, however, the longitudinal timbers allegedly warped under South Australia’s hot dry weather creating a ride described as “life on the ocean waves”, while the sand ballast ‘played havoc with rolling stock’. This saw the timbers and original Barlow wrought iron “saddle-back” rail replaced. This problem was not assisted by the sand ballast used, which would not stay in place10. Other changes and upgrades to the line have included: • expansion of rail yards and station at North Terrace; • modifications to the rail bridge over the Torrens; • inclusion of the Gawler line (and North Adelaide Railway Station); • upgrade and replacement of rail lines and ballast; • additional rail lines (interstate mainline freight). 53 State Heritage Local and : Assmt1 : Impact DA153199 Torrens Rail Ju nction – : Rev

8 Ibid, p129 9 Ibid, p130 10 Inbid, p134 8 .1 2 .15

Image 65. Since replaced Barlow Rail profile. Source: A History of the South Australian Railways Volume 1: The early years, p 132 The ‘Aboriginal Location’ (or ‘Native Location’) The ‘management’ of the local indigenous population in the very early days of settlement is also an important chapter in the history of the settlement of South Australian. In order to quell potential tensions between early settlers and Aboriginals, an interim Protector of Aborigines was appointed in 1837 (Capitan Walter Bromley). In December 1837 a public Committee was established to set up a ‘Location’ for addressing the needs of the local indigenous people to provide “habitation and regular meals for all who will come from them…” That year, Colonel William Light was instructed “to send one of [his] officers to point out to Capt. Bromley… the piece of land reserved for the Botanic Gardens which… may temporarily be used by him for the employment of natives…” (GRG24/4, 8 May 1837).11 Eventually the ‘Aboriginal Location’ was established on the northern side of the Torrens, south of the later constructed River Torrens railway (refer Image 16 below). The ‘Aboriginal Location’ remained in this location between 1838 to 1845, after which it was relocated to land east of the Government House Domain. During these early years, the original Location was developed with several quarters, a ‘Native School’, Aboriginal ‘sheds’ and a Colonial Store. The ‘Native School’ was said to have displayed “an enlightened approach to Indigenous education by 54 State Heritage Local and : Assmt1 : Impact DA153199 Torrens Rail Ju teaching students in their native language but made a fatal error in seeking to separate the Aboriginal children from their parents to reduce the latter’s influence in terms of location and residence thereby establishing the first ‘stolen generation’ children (Cawthorne, Literarium Diarum 22 October 1842-31 December 1843, reproduced in Hemming 1998, p. 38, fig 38; Gara 1998, p.117; Harris 2005, p. 7; nction – : Rev Draper et al 2005, p. 26).12

11 Jones D, Adelaide Park Lands & Squares Cultural Landscape Assessment Study, Corporation of the City of Adelaide, p437 12 ibid pp440-442 8 .1 2 .15

State Heritage Local and : Assmt1 : Impact DA153199 Torrens Rail Ju Image 66. part Kingston Survey, 1842, with annotations by author.

nction – : Rev 8 .1 2 .15

Freelings Map of 1849 (updated 1855 and 1865) similarly depicts the ‘Native Reserve’ and associated structures (Image 67).

56 State Heritage Local and : Assmt1 : Impact DA153199 Torrens Rail Ju

Image 67. part Freeling Map, 1849 (updated 1855 and 1865), showing 1851 railway location and Native Reserve. nction – : Rev

8 .1 2 .15

4.2 Assessment of Heritage Impacts Barlow rail has an interesting and unique association with the original Adelaide to Port Adelaide railway, with very little currently remaining. In 1954 a piece of Barlow rail was discovered in Moonta, having been used as an anchor point for staying an electricity pole. Additional disused Barlow rail had also been known at one time to be used on a boat slipway at Robe.13 While it is reasonable to assume that most (if not all) of the original Barlow rail infrastructure had been removed at the time of its early replacement (due to the need to also replace the ballast), some remnant elements or artefacts may nonetheless remain underground. In addition to this, excavation may also uncover other disused infrastructure, equipment or tools of potential historical interest. While the proposed excavation works do not affect land identified as being associated with the ‘Aboriginal Location’ or ‘Native Reserve’, they are nonetheless in relatively close proximity, and accordingly care should be given when undertaking site excavations to identify any artefacts of potentially State or Aboriginal heritage value. While we do not consider there to be reasonable cause to suspect that the excavation or disturbance will or is likely to result in an archaeological artefacts of heritage significance being discovered, exposed, moved, damaged or destroyed, some degree of caution is nonetheless recommended in the areas of civil excavation. It should also be noted that Section 27(2) of the South Australian Heritage Places Act notes: A person who is aware or believes that he or she may have discovered or located an archaeological artefact of heritage significance (other than a person acting under the authority of a permit) must— (a) cease to excavate or disturb the place where the relevant object has been discovered (if relevant);

(b) within the period specified by the regulations— (i) notify the Council of the location of the relevant object, unless the person has reasonable grounds to believe that the Council 57

is aware of the location of the relevant object; and State Heritage Local and : Assmt1 : Impact DA153199 Torrens Rail Ju (ii) furnish the Council with such information as the Council may reasonably require; (c) take no further action in relation to the recovering of the relevant

object without a permit or other authorisation from the Council; nction – : Rev (d) if required by the Council, surrender the relevant object to the Crown. Maximum penalty: $25 000.

13 Ibid, p134 8 .1 2 .15

4.2.1 Recommendation A suitable qualified archaeologist should be engaged to undertake a desktop review to determine the likelihood of potential archaeological deposits. This review will determine the monitoring requirements during excavations works.

5 Summary The historically important Adelaide to Port Adelaide railway, and Gawler line, accommodates several State and Local heritage places, all of which have a direct association and historical context to the rail line adjacent to which they are located. The proposed Torrens Rail Junction Project involves the modernisation of an existing rail junction, provision of new station at Bowden, and associated infrastructure. This work is, in many respects, continues the historic pattern of development of the railways in South Australia. While this upgrade will maintain the contextual relationship of these heritage places to the rail corridor, it will result in some impacts to their setting, and in some instances physical impacts to the fabric of the places themselves. In order to mitigate these impacts the following recommendations are offered:

Recommendation: Direct Physical Impacts on the Heritage Place Further consideration is to be given to the following when further developing the design and documentation for the Bowden heritage station pedestrian bridge, platform fencing and landscaping: • An audit of the existing platforms should be undertaken by a suitably qualified heritage consultant to establish extent and degree of fabric of heritage significance. • The design of any new infrastructure fixed to the outbound platform should seek to minimise any physical impacts on fabric of significance (based on noted audit); • landscaping setout to the south-west of the outbound platform should seek to retain the historic footprint of the early platform. • the design of the fence across the historic platform should have regard to both the setting of the heritage place, and its historic context. Appropriate design responses to this context could include: 58 - visually differentiating the fence design along the historic platform from State Heritage Local and : Assmt1 : Impact DA153199 Torrens Rail Ju elsewhere in the proposal; and / or - consideration of interpretative material associated with the historic station and railway; and/or a visually discrete design, which does not ‘overwhelm’ the scale The and setting of nction – : Rev the historic station. Recommendation: Potential Impacts to the context / setting of the Place Further consideration is to be given to the following when further developing the design and documentation for the Bowden heritage station platform fencing: 8 .1 2 .15

• the design of the fence across the historic platform should have regard to both the setting of the heritage place, and its historic context. Appropriate design responses to this context could include: - visually differentiating the fence design along the historic platform from elsewhere in the proposal; and / or - consideration of interpretative material associated with the historic station and railway; and/or a visually discrete design, which does not ‘overwhelm’ the scale The and setting of the historic station. Recommendation: Excessive Construction Vibration A Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan (CNVMP) is to be prepared for the works in accordance with the recommendations of the Construction Noise and Vibration Management Framework (CNVMF) and Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure’s (DPTI) Operational Instruction 21.7 Management of Noise and Vibration. The CNVMP is to outline clear monitoring and mitigation measures to provide protection of heritage places from cosmetic and / or structural damage in accord with both the recommendations of the CNVMF (by Resonate Acoustics) and the State and Local Heritage Impact Assessment (by DASH Architects). Recommendation: Potential accidental damage arising from construction A Work Method Statement for undertaking works in close proximity to State and Local heritage places is to be prepared. This statement should include physical protective measures and work methods to mitigate or prevent damage to heritage fabric.

59 State Heritage Local and : Assmt1 : Impact DA153199 Torrens Rail Ju nction – : Rev 8 .1 2 .15

Appendix A Brompton Gasworks Summary of State Heritage Place (Provisional)

Torrens Junction Cultural Heritage Desktop Assessment

23 June 2016

Version 1

Prepared by EBS Heritage for Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure

Document Control

Revision No. Date issued Revision type Media Issued to 1 16/10/2015 Draft Electronic Jody Zander, DPTI 2 23/6/2016 Final Electronic Jody Zander, DPTI

EBS Heritage Project Number: H50703

COPYRIGHT: Use or copying of this document in whole or in part (including photographs) without the written permission of EBS Heritage’s client and EBS Heritage constitutes an infringement of copyright.

LIMITATION: This report has been prepared on behalf of and for the exclusive use of EBS Heritage’s client, and is subject to and issued in connection with the provisions of the agreement between EBS Heritage and its client. EBS Heritage accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for or in respect of any use of or reliance upon this report by any third party.

CITATION: EBS Heritage (2016) Torrens Junction Cultural Heritage Desktop Assessment . Report to Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure. EBS Heritage, Adelaide.

EBS Heritage 3/119 Hayward Avenue Torrensville, South Australia 5031 t: 08 7127 5607 http://www.ebsheritage.com.au email: [email protected]

Torrens Junction Cultural Heritage Desktop Assessment

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

EBS Heritage has been engaged by the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (DPTI) to undertake a detailed cultural heritage desktop assessment for the proposed Torrens Junction Railway upgrade. This assessment covers areas immediately parallel to the current rail between Railway Bridge and Park Terrace and partially along Port Road.

EBS has conducted a cultural heritage risk assessment for the project area and provides recommendations based on a review of available background literature including both primary and secondary sources, and an assessment of previous disturbances at the current project location. EBS Heritage has provided the risk assessment as a map showing areas of high, moderate and low risk including mitigation and recommendations for management of these areas during construction works.

The project area has been significantly modified and disturbed by previous historical activity and there is a low to moderate likelihood of works encountering cultural material, with a high risk in previously undisturbed soils and in soft soils adjacent to the River Torrens. The presence of recorded cultural heritage sites nearby as well as the proximity of the River Torrens indicates that there still remains some likelihood for works to encounter cultural heritage items, objects and/or remains in previously undisturbed soils. In the event works encounter cultural heritage items, objects and/or remains, these should be managed under the South Australian Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988 (SA) and by following the guidelines set out in the Aboriginal Site Discovery Procedure (Appendix 1).

Resulting from the assessment, EBS Heritage makes the following recommendations.

 A site discovery procedure should be designed and implemented for the duration of the works.

 Cultural heritage awareness training for all workers prior to commencement of works

 Archaeological monitoring in areas assessed to be of ‘high’ risk and where proposed works may impact previously undisturbed soil profiles.

 An archaeologist should be available ‘on call’ to inspect any suspected cultural heritage in areas assessed as presenting a moderate risk

 A cultural heritage management plan should be implemented between DPTI and the relevant Aboriginal community group(s) to manage the construction phase of the program and any monitoring requirements

Torrens Junction Cultural Heritage Desktop Assessment

Table of Contents

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Objectives ...... 1

2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 3 2.1 Project Area ...... 3 2.2 Topography ...... 3 2.3 Vegetation ...... 3

3 COMPLIANCE AND LEGISLATIVE SUMMARY ...... 4 3.1 Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988 (SA) ...... 4 3.2 Native Title Act 1993 (Commonwealth) ...... 4 3.3 Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 ...... 4 3.4 Environmental Protection & Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (amended 2003)...... 5

4 HERITAGE REGISTER SEARCHES ...... 7 4.1 DSD-AAR Register Search ...... 7 4.2 SA Museums Database ...... 9

5 PREVIOUS WORK ...... 10 5.1.1 Hemming and Harris 1998 ...... 10 5.1.2 Harris 1999 ...... 10 5.1.3 ACHM 2005 ...... 10 5.1.4 McDougall & Vines 2006 ...... 10 5.1.5 Harris 2009 ...... 10 5.1.6 Gara 2010 ...... 11

6 BACKGROUND RESEARCH ...... 12 6.1 History of Aboriginal Occupation ...... 12 6.1.1 Aboriginal Land Use ...... 12 6.1.2 Historical Aboriginal Land Use ...... 13 6.2 European Settlement ...... 14 6.2.1 The River Torrens ...... 15 6.2.2 Western Parklands ...... 16 6.2.3 Parkland Development and Rejuvenation Projects ...... 17

7 CULTURAL HERITAGE RISK ASSESSMENT ...... 23 7.1 Risk Assessment ...... 23

iii

Torrens Junction Cultural Heritage Desktop Assessment

7.2 Discussion ...... 25

8 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 26 8.1 Summary ...... 26 8.2 Recommendations ...... 26

9 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 27

10 APPENDICES ...... 29

Appendix 1 Site Discovery Procedure (Sites & Objects) ...... 29 Appendix 2 Site Discovery Procedure (Skeletal Remains) ...... 30

List of Figures Figure 1. Kaurna People, Adelaide 1836 ...... 12 Figure 2. Bonython Park prior to the beginning of earthworks (ACA 1258 23[81] ...... 19 Figure 3. Bonython Park during landscaping works, c. 1960 (ACA 3554 053 073) ...... 19 Figure 4. Bonython Park Lake after completion of landscaping works, c. 1962 (ACA 1258 0023[62] ...... 20 Figure 5. Landscaping works at North Adelaide Golf Club close to the Torrens weir, 1959 (ACA12580024[57]) ...... 20 Figure 6. Aerial view of golf course in Parks 26 and 27 during the 1960s, facing southeast (ACA HP438) ...... 21 Figure 7. Probable location of historic features within Piltawodli north of the River Torrens (Harris 1999) ...... 22

List of Maps Map 1. Project Area Location ...... 2 Map 2. Kaurna Peoples Native Title Claim Area ...... 6 Map 3. Heritage Register Search Results ...... 8 Map 4. Cultural Heritage Risk ...... 24

Torrens Junction Cultural Heritage Desktop Assessment 1 INTRODUCTION

EBS Heritage has been engaged by the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (DPTI) to conduct a cultural heritage desktop for works associated with the Torrens Junction upgrade (Map 1). This report includes a review of primary sources including journals, newspaper articles, original drawings and photographs of the project area, as well as a review of any previous heritage work conducted in the area and the results of the DSD-AAR Register search and other State Heritage databases.

EBS Heritage has been asked to provide DPTI with a targeted approach to managing heritage risk during construction activities and early works. EBS has used all the available data to provide a comprehensive risk assessment and provide recommendations in light of legislative guidelines and requirements to mitigate any cultural heritage risk.

1.1 Objectives

 Conduct background research including heritage register searches and review of primary and secondary archival sources;

 Review archival aerial photographs where available to determine levels of historical disturbance in project area;

 Identify State and Commonwealth legislative heritage requirements;

 Assess heritage risks for the project area and formalise recommendations to mitigate/manage these risks

Torrens Junction Cultural Heritage Desktop Assessment

Map 1. Project Area Location

Torrens Junction Cultural Heritage Desktop Assessment 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 Project Area

The Project Area covers two of the 28 parklands located in the Adelaide Central Business District; Piltawodli (Park 1) and Tulya Wodli (Park 27). The park boundaries have altered over time but this report uses the areas defined by the City of Adelaide in Jones (2007). Piltawodli incorporates all parklands north of War Memorial Drive and is bounded by Strangways Terrace, Mills Terrace, Barton Terrace, Jeffcott Road and Park Terrace to the east, and the North Adelaide Rail Line to the west. Tulya Wodli lies to the west of the Adelaide Rail Line and is bounded by Park Terrace to the north, the River Torrens to the west and includes Bonython Park.

2.2 Topography

The topography of the City of Adelaide and its immediate surrounds is generally flat with gentle undulations. The landscape of the River Torrens has been altered at the current project location, with the banks as they are today having been modified to suit urban development and recreational activity as highlighted in the background research section below.

2.3 Vegetation

The vegetation communities around the River Torrens at the time of European occupation consisted of shrubby woodland dominated by tall River Red Gums (Eucalyptus camaldulensis var. Camaldulensis) and South Australian Blue Gum (Eucalyptus leucoxylon). Vegetation was highly diverse with over 100 different individual plant species in the riparian areas and over 600 more species in the broader Adelaide region.

Approximately 40 years after the arrival of the first Europeans, George Hamilton wrote the following account of Adelaide (including the River Torrens and Parklands); it provides an idea of what the natural environment looked like at the time:

“The first thing that struck us was the beauty of the situation of Adelaide. The streets of course at this time were not formed; houses stood here and there in the midst of a beautiful open forest of gum trees. The River Torrens separated as it does now, north from South Adelaide. The land in the vicinity of this river was timbered with noble trees, and its banks sloped down to the water in gentle undulations, thickly clothed with grass. The river itself meandered through a tangle of tea-trees, rushes, reed and many flowering weeds here and there almost hidden by vegetation, but at intervals opening out into pretty ponds or tolerably large waterholes; along its banks grew in profusion the wattle (acacia) with its golden sweet blossoms, as well as the noble eucalyptus, here at time in great beauty” (Hamilton 1879 in Kraehenbuel 1996).

Torrens Junction Cultural Heritage Desktop Assessment 3 COMPLIANCE AND LEGISLATIVE SUMMARY

3.1 Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988 (SA)

The South Australian Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988 (AHA) is administered by the South Australian Department of State Development, Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation division (DSD-AAR). This legislation outlines that any Aboriginal site, object or remains whether previously recorded or not, are covered by the AHA. The Act provides the following definition of an Aboriginal site in Section 3.

“Aboriginal Site” means an area of land;

a) That is of significance according to Aboriginal tradition;

b) That is of significance according to Aboriginal archaeology, anthropology or history.

The AHA states that it is an offence under section 23 (s.23) of the AHA to ‘damage, disturb or interfere’ with an Aboriginal site, object or remains unless written authorisation is obtained from the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation. Penalties for an offence under s.23 are up to $10,000 or six months’ imprisonment for an individual or $50,000 in the case of a corporate body.

It is also an offence under s.35 of the Act to divulge information relating to an Aboriginal site, object, remains or Aboriginal tradition without authorisation from the relevant Aboriginal group or groups. Penalties for an offence under this section are up to $10,000 or six months imprisonment.

The Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988 is the most relevant piece of legislation for this particular project. The cultural heritage desktop have been conducted to determine if the proposed Torrens Junction project is likely to damage, disturb or interfere with any cultural heritage sites.

3.2 Native Title Act 1993 (Commonwealth)

The Commonwealth Native Title Act 1993 (NTA) is part of the Commonwealth’s response to the High Court’s decision in Mabo v Queensland (No.2) and adopts the common law definition of Native Title which is defined as the rights and interests that are possessed under the traditional laws and customs of Aboriginal people in lands and waters.

The NTA recognises the existence of Indigenous land ownership tradition where connections to country have been maintained and where acts of government have not extinguished this connection. The current project area is within the traditional lands of the Kaurna People (SC2000/001) Map 2.

3.3 Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984

The Commonwealth Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 provides a mechanism for the Commonwealth Minister for Environment to make declarations regarding the protection of an Aboriginal area when the Minister is not satisfied that under State or Territory Law there is effective protection of the area from a threat of injury or desecration. Declarations made under this Act involve restricting activities and/or access to an Aboriginal site.

Torrens Junction Cultural Heritage Desktop Assessment

Under Section 21H of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Protection Act 1984 it is an offence to conduct behaviour or partake in an action that contravenes a declaration made by the Minister. Penalties under this section are $10,000 or imprisonment for 5 years, or both for an individual, or $50,000 for a corporate body where an Aboriginal place is concerned and $5,000 and imprisonment for 2 years or both for an individual, or $25,000 for a corporate body where an Aboriginal object is concerned.

If the requirements of the South Australian Aboriginal Heritage Act are adhered to and sufficiently protect any Aboriginal heritage in the eyes of the Federal Minister, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 will not any relevant for any cultural heritage site that may be in the project area.

3.4 Environmental Protection & Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (amended 2003).

The Commonwealth EPBC Act 1999 (amended 2003) protects places of national cultural and environmental significance from damage and interference by establishing a National Heritage list (for places outside of Commonwealth land) and a Commonwealth Heritage List (for places within Commonwealth land). Under the EPBC Act any action that has, will have, or is likely to have a significant impact on a place of national culture and/or environmental significance must be referred to the Minister for the Environment for approval. The EPBC Act 1999 sets out a procedure for obtaining approval, which may include the need to prepare and environmental impact statement for the proposed action (an action is defined in sect 523 to include a project, development or undertaking or an activity or series of activities).

The EPBC Act is only relevant in relation to Aboriginal heritage sites if the site is entered onto the National Heritage List or the Register of the National Estate. If not, there is no current referral process required to the Commonwealth Department for Environment and Heritage under the EPBC Act and this Act has little relevance for an Aboriginal site that may be in the project area.

Torrens Junction Cultural Heritage Desktop Assessment

Map 2. Kaurna Peoples Native Title Claim Area

Torrens Junction Cultural Heritage Desktop Assessment 4 HERITAGE REGISTER SEARCHES

4.1 DSD-AAR Register Search

The Central Archive is maintained by Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation (DSD-AAR) and includes the Register of Aboriginal Sites and Objects. The Central Archive is a record of previously recorded heritage sites in South Australia and allows the identification of known sites. The Central Archive is not an exhaustive list of heritage sites in a specific area, it contains only sites that have been report and/or registered.

A search of the DSD-AAR Register was conducted on the 8 September 2015 for the proposed project footprint and adjacent areas with two sites recorded in the Register of Aboriginal Sites and Objects (Map 3). DSD-AAR does advise that all Aboriginal sites recorded are protected under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988 and pursuant to the Act, it is an offence to damage, disturb or interfere with any Aboriginal site or damage any Aboriginal object (registered or not) without Authority from the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation.

EBS understands that DPTI will seek determination under Section 23 of the AHA in relation to this project.

Torrens Junction Cultural Heritage Desktop Assessment

Map 3. Heritage Register Search Results

Torrens Junction Cultural Heritage Desktop Assessment

4.2 SA Museums Database

The South Australian Museum Database (SAM) contains information regarding Aboriginal cultural remains (including human remains and items) recorded prior to the establishment of the DSD-AAR Register. Where available the database contains information on how the item(s) came into the collect, the location as found and the date acquired. EBS conducted a search of the SAM Database for references to Adelaide, Parklands, Piltawodli and Tulya Wodli, and River Torrens, and returned three results (Table 1).

It should be noted that the SAM database is not a complete list of Aboriginal sites for a given area and that the collection represents cultural material turned over to the Museum as discovered. The records are therefore without archaeological context and often incomplete, with minimal details and frequently very approximate or general reference to material provenance. As such, they should only be considered a guide to the types of materials likely to be found in the general region.

Table 1. SA Museums Database Search Result Heritage ID Place Description Location 18225 Skull with Jaw Adelaide, River Torrens, Lake

54681 NA River Torrens, at Hindmarsh, below railway bridge

1369 Skull with jaw and skeleton River Torrens, Walkerville

Torrens Junction Cultural Heritage Desktop Assessment 5 PREVIOUS WORK

There is a large body of work available covering the early history of Adelaide and the first European use of the River Torrens and the parklands. While it is not possible and outside the scope of this project to detail every record, some of the most recent and relevant examples of previous work conducted within or near the vicinity of the current project area, or that provide information pertinent to the project area are included here.

5.1.1 Hemming and Harris 1998

Hemming and Harris prepared a report for the Kaurna Aboriginal Community Heritage Association in 1998. This report documents traditional, cultural and historical sites within the parklands that have significance to the Aboriginal people of the Adelaide plains. A number of important sites are discussed including camp grounds and burial grounds in the parklands of the River Torrens.

5.1.2 Harris 1999

Harris writes extensively about the history of European and Aboriginal occupation and interaction within the western parklands. Harris analyses a diverse range of historical first-hand accounts, maps, city plans and archaeology in order to provide a well-rounded and detailed history for this area. This thesis is of direct relevance to this desktop study and constitutes a key resource.

5.1.3 ACHM 2005

Australian Cultural Heritage Management Pty Ltd (ACHM) prepared a management plan to identify and confirm the cultural values and significant sites previously recorded within the parklands. ACHM consulted with Kaurna as part of this assessment and outlined in detail a number of significant historic associations, including the main camping areas North of the River Torrens and also burials that have been found in the vicinity of the river. This report is of direct relevance to this desktop study and constitutes a key resource.

5.1.4 McDougall & Vines 2006

McDougall and Vines prepared a thematic history of the city of Adelaide which includes detailed information regarding the early European occupation and interaction between the settlers and the Aboriginal people of the Adelaide region. This document also bears direct relevance to this desktop study as it addresses a number of specific historical sites which are located in close proximity to the current study area.

5.1.5 Harris 2009

Harris prepared a detailed report for the new Royal Adelaide Hospital and immediate surrounds which includes a comprehensive review of historical records demonstrating the impact and changes European settlement has had on the landscape. .

Torrens Junction Cultural Heritage Desktop Assessment

5.1.6 Gara 2010

Gara prepared a detailed overview of the history of the Adelaide oval and its surround as part of a desktop assessment for the Adelaide oval redevelopment. Gara provides an overview of previous studies in the area and identifies a number of Aboriginal cultural heritage matters that are pertinent to any works conducted in the vicinity of the River Torrens..

Torrens Junction Cultural Heritage Desktop Assessment 6 BACKGROUND RESEARCH

The following provides an overview of previous research and an ethno-historic background of the study area, which provides insight into Aboriginal social organisation, land use and daily life, and the effects of European of settlement.

6.1 History of Aboriginal Occupation

6.1.1 Aboriginal Land Use

The role of the River Torrens as a source of fresh water was one of the main reasons why European settlers decided to establish the City of Adelaide in its present location. However, long before Europeans colonists first arrived in Adelaide, this area was an important and significant site for the Aboriginal people of the Adelaide plains.

Figure 1. Kaurna People, Adelaide 1836

The Aboriginal people who would have used the Torrens valley were the people of the Adelaide plains and western Mount Lofty Ranges region. Today, these people are recognized as the Kaurna people (Edwards 1972; Groome and Irvine 1981; Hemming 1990) with their traditional lands extending from Crystal Brook and the Clare Valley in the north to Cape Jervis at the southern end of the Fleurieu Peninsula (See Map 2). Kaurna was identified as a collective name for Aboriginal people of the Adelaide region by Ivaritji, a revered Kaurna elder in the 1930s (Tindale 1974:213). The Kaurna people have a long connection to the River Torrens and surrounding lands (Hemming and Harris 1998:5).

Torrens Junction Cultural Heritage Desktop Assessment

The Kaurna people called the River Torrens karra wirra-parri (meaning River of Red Gum forest) which referred to the dense eucalypt forest that lined its banks in the years before the European settlement (Altmann 1992:2). Traditionally, Aboriginal camps would have existed in the alluvial trench between north and south Adelaide, as this was an ideal place to access fresh water and the abundant resources adjacent (Figure 1).

Much of the evidence regarding Aboriginal campsites and activities in the parklands come from early European accounts in diaries, newspaper articles and personal correspondence. It is clear from these accounts that the combination of available fresh water, wood for fire, shelter and hunting opportunities furnished by a forest of river red gums would have made the River Torrens bush land highly sought after as a camp location, while the soft alluvial soils provided ample locations for Aboriginal people to bury their dead.

Kraehenbuel (1996:4) includes an excerpt from a “walk by the Torrens” in which the author described the untouched nature of the River Torrens in the early days of the colony, as well as the activities of a group of Aboriginal people living traditionally on its banks;

“on the whole, the waters are not very prolific in animal life, which may be accounted for from the fact that the heat of summer diminishes the water and reduces the stream into mere pools sometimes far distant from one another … our ramble is conducting us … let us turn aside and see what all that noise is about … just as I thought! What a wild, laughing, merry set they seem! The women with their loads and the younger children are seated on a dry sandbank; the bigger boys and the men occupied in the pools, disturbing the water and frightening the unfortunate fish out of their propriety. Every now and then the spear hooks a victim, which is thrown to the women, who at once with their teeth decapitate the fish and then deposit them in their little green baskets or rather nets” (Kraehenbuel (1996:4).

6.1.2 Historical Aboriginal Land Use

Following settlement, the rapid expansion of European colonial interests quickly impacted upon the traditional settlement patterns of the Aboriginal people. While initially the two groups co-existed, tensions between colonists and Aboriginal people eventually grew, leading to the exclusion or removal of Aboriginal people from certain areas of the Parklands and necessitating the establishment of a delineated Aboriginal Location for resettlement (Harris 2009:41-42). Despite attempts at relocation, historical accounts reveal that Aboriginal people continued to use the parklands for camping, corroboree, and burial activities (Harris 2009:40-42). For example, a “townsman” writes in The Register of August 15 1840, regarding Aboriginal people cutting down trees near the Torrens (in Kraehenbuel 1996:4):

“not long ago, I saw in the Gazette, a notice to the effect that the police and park keepers were to consider it their duty to prevent as far as possible the natives from cutting wood on …the parklands… After this notice, I was rather surprised the other Monday to see a whole body of natives hewing and cutting away at the fine trees … and not only this, but one tree was set on fire and continued burning through the whole day the succeeding night”.

Torrens Junction Cultural Heritage Desktop Assessment

The diaries of Cawthorne and Chittleborough provide remarkable accounts of Aboriginal cultural activities and cross-cultural interaction as well as providing valuable observations regarding the nature of daily life and activities of the Aboriginal groups. Chittleborough is a key resource for establishing a location for Bromley’s Camp, the temporary precursor to the Piltawodli Aboriginal Location, (Chittleborough 1906; Harris 1999:65-66). Cawthorne records observations of Aboriginal cultural activities in the Parklands providing valuable insight into the continuation of Aboriginal traditions including corrobborees, initiations, burial practices, tribal fights, and the construction of traditional shelters, or wurlies (Harris 2009:45).

The correspondence and diaries of the Missionaries Teichelmann and Schürmann who operated the Piltawodli Aboriginal location are an important source pertaining to Aboriginal land use patterns within this area (Schürmann 1839; Harris 2009:24; Harris 1999:72-76). The Piltawodli Aboriginal Location was established in 1838 on the northern bank of the Torrens close to the weir, before being relocated further northwest in 1846. It was established as a relocation point and school for Aboriginal people who had been removed, or dispossessed in the face of the rapidly expanding European colony. Although outside of the current Project Area, the site of the Piltawodli Aboriginal Location, and its successor, is of relevance due to the very deliberate decision to locate this settlement in a location already known and utilised as an Aboriginal camp site. Schürmann writes:

“…the Governor has had a house built [sic] for each of us… and that on the site of the parklands between North and South Adelaide where the natives most commonly have their camp.” (Schürmann 1839).

It seems that Aboriginal groups provided important input in the decision to move the Aboriginal Location to Piltawodli enabling the maintenance of traditional ties to this particular area (Hemming and Harris 1998:35; Harris 1999; 67) as Bromley reveals:

“it being desirable that I should remove my tent [to] about a mile from the town to a place chosen by the natives close to the river.” (State Records, CO 13/9 29 Nov. 1837).

On the northern banks of the River Torrens, in Piltawodli Park, the site of the former Colonial Store holds strong post-contact associations for the Kaurna people. Located at the site of the present Golf Course immediately south of Mills and Strangways Terrace, this site was the backdrop for regular interactions between colonists and Aboriginal people, as well as the site of the public hanging of Aboriginal men (Jones 2007:86). Schürmann, describes the area surrounding the Colonial Store as a major camping area of the Wirra meyunna – possibly the Ngadjuri people who regularly visited the Kaurna people (Schürmann Diary, Jan 7, 1840; Hemming and Harris 1998: 40).

6.2 European Settlement

The history of European settlement in Adelaide has its beginning in 1836 when Colonel William Light (the inaugural surveyor-general for the colony of South Australia) undertook a survey of the Adelaide plains to identify a suitable location for the future capital city. Light’s City of Adelaide Plan, dated 1837, depicts a visually ordered Garden City which considered the topographical constraints and “urgent real estate imperatives at hand” (Jones 2007:35).

Torrens Junction Cultural Heritage Desktop Assessment

While Light and his team searched for a suitable location for a settlement, the immigrants of the first seven ships camped in the sand dunes at Holdfast Bay, the current site of Glenelg, until their new town had been selected and surveyed. Once a suitable location had been chosen, the immigrants made the journey inland and made their first settlement on the banks of the Torrens on a gentle slope between the Newmarket Hotel and the River; an area now occupied by the Adelaide railway yards (MacDougall and Vines 2006:6). Initially, between January and March 1837, the new migrants camped in tents and temporary wooden huts in camps named after the first two migrant ships, the HMS Buffalo and the HMS Coromandel (MacDougall and Vines 2006:6). Little is known of this early settlement, making it difficult to locate it spatially ; however what is known is that the early Adelaide settlement lay on the parkland on the southern side of the river and extended in rows Parkland opposite or below Trinity Church into the area which is currently Bonython Park (Harris 2009:38, 69). Personal accounts by early settlers describe the first European settlement as:

“... many huts were erected on the space in front of North Terrace. Governor Hindmarsh had a large hut; Colonel Light lodged in a reed hut, and most the early arrivals had tends or shelters of sails stretched across ropes or poles” (Morphett 1939:9).

Apart from tents, the earliest buildings constructed in Adelaide were made of wood and pise using mud, pebbles and gravel from the bed and bank of the River Torrens. In time, limestone and clay from the region became a source of building materials and this meant that temporary housing was replaced by more substantial buildings (MacDougall and Vines 2006:53).

6.2.1 The River Torrens

The current location of the city of Adelaide was chosen by Colonel Light based on the good fertile soil and easy access to fresh water supplied by a river. The River Torrens was described by Chittleborough as a beautiful “chain of large waterholes connected by a small stream, nearly level with the top of the bank which rippled over a gravelly bottom through thick tea-tree scrub, reeds and rushes...” (Observer, 29 December 1906, p. 37). Chittleborough also describes large deep pools that remained full throughout summer filled with crayfish, mussels and six-inch minnows (Observer, 29 December 1906, p. 37; Sumerling 2011:164.). There are a number of early written accounts of the Torrens and parklands which paint an idyllic picture of the area before it was modified into the form we know today. F.R Nixon (in Wilson 1973:93) gives an early account of the environment and comments on the changes he saw within his own lifetime:

“the River Torrens itself then wore a very different aspect to what it now does. Then its banks were clothed with a rich carpet of grass and shrubs, and were enlivened by a variety of rude cottages of the early settlers. The trees, too, along its margin, had not then felt the devastating effect of the saw and the axe, and were as remarkable for their beauty as for the extent of their number. But all is now so altered as not to be longer recognisable”.

This idyllic beauty was, however, not to last. Within only a few short years of the establishment of the colony, the area had undergone a dramatic change. Shortly after the first European settlements were established, the parklands had become significantly dilapidated at an ever increasing rate:

Torrens Junction Cultural Heritage Desktop Assessment

Wherever the eye wanders it encounters broken fences... excavations varied by heaps of broken bottles, old clothes and rubbish, with other more obnoxious abominations... [and] drainage from slaughter-houses to pollute the waters of the Torrens (Sumerling 2011:172).

A lack of regulation during the early years of the colony saw the stripping of trees and natural scrub which denuded the once open wooded landscape. (Observer, 29 December 1906, p. 37; Sumerling 2011:165). The clearing of natural vegetation through sawmilling, overgrazing and frequent fires along First Creek, which flows into the Torrens from Waterfall Gully, accelerated and aggravated the natural forces of erosion and resulted in an increase in the volume and speed of the natural water flow, which in turn caused substantial vertical and horizontal erosion of the water course (Warburton 1977: 56) as highlighted by Helen Mantegani (in O’Connor 1996:73-4):

“the River Torrens as I first saw it in the winter of 1837 was very pretty and picturesque, high and steep banks on either side, closely covered with beautiful shrubs of all sorts; splendid gum trees also were growing on the banks, and in the streams overhanging the water which was narrow and deep, small fish were plentiful, and that strange creature the platypus was occasionally seen on its banks. But some stupid people cut away the shrubs and trees that still held the banks together. Consequently the soft alluvial soil fell away, and the river became broad and shallow and very ugly. After this, the winter flood carried away the banks that remained making it a most unsightly spot for many years, and entailing an enormous expense to restore it to anything like beautiful although it will never be as picturesque as nature made it”.

Increased water flow also resulted in unusual quantities of silt, sand and clay being carried down the watercourses, blocking and distorting water channels and further carving out banks (Warburton 1977; 56). The result of these processes were more frequent and destructive floods which were to carry considerable implications for the growing municipality of Adelaide and play a key role in future urban planning along the riverfront.

Vegetation removal was not the only activity which had a profound impact on the Torrens and the parklands. The extensive limestone and clay deposits were a convenient source of building materials as temporary housing was replaced by more substantial buildings. The pebbles and gravel that lined the riverbed were also extracted for paving and building (Observer, 29 December 1906, p. 37; Sumerling 2011:165). The consequence of limestone quarrying in the parklands was unsightly potholes which were utilised as dumps and filled with rubbish – (Sumerling 2011:188). Jones identifies the North-eastern extent of Bonython Park as one of many areas throughout the Adelaide CBD area in which green waste, rubbish, night soil dumping may have occurred (Jones 2007: 78).

6.2.2 Western Parklands

The current project area retains is located in an area of the western parklands that have been considerably disturbed by early landscaping and construction activities. However, areas immediately to the south and the east abound with firsthand historical accounts stretching back to the earliest European settlement, all of which convey the significance of this area in terms of its cultural heritage.

Torrens Junction Cultural Heritage Desktop Assessment

Immediately south of the project area, lies Bonython Park, and a State recognised Heritage Place (Adelaide Gaol) as well as a number of other buildings including the Cattle Yards, Slaughter House, Bromley’s ration depot, and the first European immigrant camps - Buffalo Row and Coromandel Row (Harris 2009). Today much of Piltawodli has been subsumed by the North Adelaide Golf Course (established 1923) and little of the original landscape remains. Foster (1990), Hemming and Harris (1998), and Harris (1998) have conducted their research using early maps of Adelaide by Kingston (1842) and Freeling (1849) to create an accurate impression of the location of buildings and features associated with the Aboriginal Location and the Colonial Store (also known as the Iron Store).

The Colonial Store has been highlighted as the location of important archaeological remains, with some surface evidence recorded (Hemming and Harris 1998; Harris 1999). Harris (2009) conducted a detailed study of the area confirming the presence of surface archaeological evidence such as in situ building remains and rubbish dumps. While these features have since largely disappeared due to subsequent landscaping there is potential for further subsurface materials in the area (Jones 2007:89).

While few surface features remain, the western parklands possess general historical significance due to their connection for Aboriginal communities, the early colonial history of Adelaide and the contact history of Adelaide (Foster 1990; Hemming & Harris 1998; Harris 1999).

6.2.3 Parkland Development and Rejuvenation Projects

Until the 1850s, the parklands were left to fall into an ever increasing state of neglect. In order to ameliorate the devastating consequences, the colonial government initiated a number of programs such as large scale revegetation in an effort to stabilise the banks of the Torrens and manage the risk of further erosion. Despite the practical nature of these works programs, the key aim at the heart of such landscaping projects was to enhance the aesthetic qualities of the city.

Substantial revegetation programs began as early as 1856 in order to bind and stabilise the river banks and make them impregnable to flooding. By 1867 over 1800 trees and shrubs were planted including willow slips, bamboo shoots, roses and iris plants (Sumerling 2011:177) Sloping of the ugly dangerous perpendicular banks of the river was undertaken in December 1860 (Sumerling 2011: 174; Warburton 1977:58) . By 1872, the parklands were being transformed from “the receptacle for all kinds of filth and the origin of blinding dust storms” to a landscape “clothed with succulent grass and groves of shady trees” (ACC November 1872, p. 5; Sumerling 2011: 177-178)

During the late 1870’s the colonial government who had already appropriated several hundred acres for the creation of new roads, expanded railway activities, waterworks, reservoirs, embarked on the construction of public buildings along North Terrace (Sumerling 2011:184-185). A symptom of the ever expanding city, the construction of the Adelaide and Port Railway line began in 1857. Initially the railway to Port Adelaide had minimal impact on the parklands however over time; increasing tracts of parkland were used to facilitate the expansion of the Adelaide rail network. The rail link provided a vital link to Port Adelaide, Gawler and beyond, and was also economically beneficial to the Government as it raised much needed revenue and serviced the Council (Daly 1987:108).

Torrens Junction Cultural Heritage Desktop Assessment

From 1901 to 1960 the parklands became the focus of large-scale ‘Beautification’ schemes amidst increased public criticism of their poor state and a renewed demand for access and recreational use. Following the Second World War, the Adelaide Council made a concerted effort to transform neglected areas of the western parklands. This Post-War management comprised substantial modifications to the landscape including road re-alignment, and works to beautify four Parks, including Bonython Park (Tulya Wodli) (Sumerling 2011: 220). Referred to as the ‘Siberia of the parklands’ the western parklands was not a priority for beautification projects due to its location on the fringes of the city. As a result of this neglect, the area had become a “picture of ruin and desolation”, and constituted little more than a “dry barren watercourse turned into a smouldering smelling rubbish dump” (Advertiser 11 January 1956; Sumerling 2011:241). Between 1947 and 1962 a rejuvenation program was undertaken under the direction of town clerk William Charles Douglas Veale. Bonython Park was one of four parklands at the forefront of Veale’s program undergoing a drastic transformation (Sumerling 2011:196). During the process of revitalising this area, over a thousand feet of the River Torrens was diverted and straightened, and the steep ravine-like river banks reduced to form a series of terraced banks. These landscaping works saw the removal over 35,000 cubic yards of soil and three concrete weirs were constructed to form shallow lakes surrounded by lawns, picnic grounds, and gardens (Sumerling 2011:196). (See Figures 2 -6)

Extensive research carried out by Harris (1999) has resulted in a map which provides the most probable location for the Piltawodli Aboriginal Location (also referred to as the Native Location) and the Colonial Store (Figure 5). Harris’s map also demonstrates the location of surface archaeological features noted during the field survey (in red). The Piltawodli Native Location and the Colonial Store are both significant sites for Aboriginal people due to their post-contact association. While the Piltawodli Native Location has been registered Aboriginal heritage site since 1990, Draper et al (2005:44) note that the area suffers ongoing damage from landscaping works and its current use as a golf course.

Torrens Junction Cultural Heritage Desktop Assessment

Figure 2. Bonython Park prior to the beginning of earthworks (ACA 1258 23[81]

Figure 3. Bonython Park during landscaping works, c. 1960 (ACA 3554 053 073)

Torrens Junction Cultural Heritage Desktop Assessment

Figure 4. Bonython Park Lake after completion of landscaping works, c. 1962 (ACA 1258 0023[62]

Figure 5. Landscaping works at North Adelaide Golf Club close to the Torrens weir, 1959 (ACA12580024[57])

Torrens Junction Cultural Heritage Desktop Assessment

Figure 6. Aerial view of golf course in Parks 26 and 27 during the 1960s, facing southeast (ACA HP438)

Torrens Junction Cultural Heritage Desktop Assessment

Figure 7. Probable location of historic features within Piltawodli north of the River Torrens (Harris 1999)

Torrens Junction Cultural Heritage Desktop Assessment 7 CULTURAL HERITAGE RISK ASSESSMENT

7.1 Risk Assessment

There is often a close association between particular landscape features and archaeological and/or ethnographic sites. Waterways, streams, rivers and other bodies of water are often associated with creation stories and long term occupation sites. EBS Heritage conducted a cultural heritage risk assessment for the Torrens Junction upgrade project areas, based on a desktop analysis of existing environmental features, background research including modern disturbances and impacts since European arrival to South Australia, and the experience of EBS Heritage consultants.

The results of this risk assessment have been broken down into risk categories; high, moderate and low as seen on Map 4.

High Risk: identifies landforms where traditionally cultural heritage sites have been found and there is a high risk of proposed works encountering cultural heritage sites. This risk has been assessed based on the limited modern disturbance in these areas and the intactness of soil profiles. Areas traditionally considered to be of ‘high’ risk include undisturbed, natural waterways such as rivers and streams and mature trees pre-dating European settlement.

Moderate Risk: identifies areas where traditionally or opportunistically used by Aboriginal people and where at comparable locations cultural heritage sites have been found. These areas would generally be identified as “high” risk areas but the level of past disturbance is not known or unverifiable; therefore there is a moderate risk that soil profiles have not been previously impacted and there is a moderate risk of project activities disturbing in situ cultural heritage. Areas traditionally considered to be ‘moderate’ may include secondary waterways or areas which may have once been classified as ‘high’ risk but for which there is evidence of modern disturbance.

Low Risk: identifies areas where there is a very low or no chance of encountering cultural heritage sites and where there is a low likelihood of proposed works impacting heritage sites. Areas assessed as having a ‘low’ risk are areas where there has been considerable modern impact and disturbance and therefore there is a low likelihood for cultural heritage sites to remain undisturbed.

Torrens Junction Cultural Heritage Desktop Assessment

Map 4. Cultural Heritage Risk

Torrens Junction Cultural Heritage Desktop Assessment 7.2 Discussion

The Project Area lies in an area of the western parklands that have been subject to significant ground disturbance. The presence of known cultural heritage sites in the vicinity highlights that the area has been in use by both Aboriginal and European people for a long period of time and that therefore, there is a moderate risk that ground works may uncover heritage items in previously undisturbed soils. Where significant past disturbance has impacted soil profiles (landscaping, major modification, construction), there is a low risk of ground works encountering cultural heritage items, objects and/or remains.

The River Torrens was intrinsic to the subsistence and settlement patterns of the Kaurna people and continues to carry strong associations with traditional and historic camping, hunting, burial and ceremonial practices. Therefore any excavation into previously undisturbed soils in areas close to or near the banks of the River Torrens have been assessed as having a high risk of encountering cultural heritage items, objects and/or remains.

This risk assessment is based on the information available to date and does not include geotechnical information. The risk assessment can benefit from being refined once geotechnical data becomes available and can be further refined by an archaeologist in the field once soil profiles are exposed by proposed work.

Torrens Junction Cultural Heritage Desktop Assessment 8 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

8.1 Summary

EBS Heritage has been engaged by the DPTI to conduct a cultural heritage assessment for the proposed Torrens Junction Upgrade works, situated near Bonython Park in the western suburbs of Adelaide. Although there are no registered sites in the project area; it is an area with a rich history for both Aboriginal and European use of the region.

8.2 Recommendations

Resulting from the assessment, EBS Heritage makes the following recommendations. These recommendations are made to ensure that proposed works are managed as required under the South Australian Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988. EBS Heritage proposes that DPTI undertakes the following to manage the potential heritage risks of the project area;

 A site discovery procedure should be designed and implemented for the duration of the works.

 Cultural heritage awareness training for all workers prior to commencement of works

 Archaeological monitoring in areas assessed to be of ‘high’ risk and where proposed works may impact previously undisturbed soil profiles.

 An archaeologist should be available ‘on call’ to inspect any suspected cultural heritage during proposed works

Torrens Junction Cultural Heritage Desktop Assessment 9 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aboriginal Heritage Act (1988) (South Australia)

Adelaide City Council Archives, Digest of Proceedings, 19 November 1872, p. 5

Advertiser, 11 January 1956

Altmann, K., Butcher, M., Rodda, L., Stacey, B., Stewien, R., Venus, R. 1999 Ponds, Ponts & Pop-eye: Notes for an Afternoon Afloat on Adelaide's River Torrens. North Adelaide: Institution of Engineers Australia, South Australian Division.1992.

Chittleborough J. ‘Primitive Adelaide: Recollections and Impressions’, The Observer, 29 December 1906, p. 37

Cawthorne, W. Diary, 24 December 1842 in Foster, R. (ed) 1991 Sketch of the Aborigines of South Australia, References in the Cawthorne Papers. Aboriginal Heritage Branch, SA Department of Environment and Planning, Adelaide.

Damhuis, S., N. Butler, A. Morley, N. Draper & D. Mullen. Cultural Heritage Survey of the New Royal Adelaide Hospital Location in Adelaide South Australia. Report by Australian Cultural Heritage Management to South Australian Health.

Daly, J. 1987 Decisions and Disasters: Alienation of the Adelaide Parklands. Bland House: Adelaide.

Davis, A.H. 1996 “A walk by the Torrens” taken from the “leaves from the notebook of a naturalist” in Kraehenbuehl, D.(ed). Pre-European Vegetation of Adelaide: A Survey from the Gawler River to Hallett Cove. Nature Conservation Society of South Australia Inc. Adelaide.

Draper, N., J. Mollan, A. Maland, F. Pemberton. 2005. Community Land Management Plans: Adelaide Parklands and Squares – Aboriginal Heritage. Report by Australian Cultural Heritage Management to the Adelaide City Council.

Edwards, R. 1972. The Kaurna People of the Adelaide Plains. South Australian Museum, Adelaide.

Freeling 1849 Map of City of Adelaide. File c348 Lands Department Adelaide, also State Government Records, GRG 35/585/41, also C724 (SLSA)

Foster, R. 1990 The Aborigines Location in Adelaide: South Australia’s First Mission to the Aborigines, Anthropological Society of South Australia, Journal 28(1):11-37.

Frost, L. 1991 Nineteenth-Century Adelaide in a Global Context. Australian Economic History Review 31(2):28-44.

Gara, T. 2008 Aboriginal fringe camps in Adelaide, 1836‐1911. Paper originally presented to the Royal Geographical Society of South Australia, 28 June, 2001.

Groome, H and J. Irvine. 1981. The Kaurna, First People in Adelaide. Tjintu Books, Adelaide.

Torrens Junction Cultural Heritage Desktop Assessment

Hamilton, G. 1880. Experiences of a colonist forty years ago: A journey from Port Phillip to South Australia in 1839 and A voyage from Port Phillip to Adelaide in 1846/ by an Old Hand. Printed in Adelaide 1880.

Harris, R. 1999 Archaeology and Post-Contact Indigenous Adelaide. Unpublished Honours Thesis, Flinders University, Adelaide.

Harris, R. 2009. Background Research Paper: regarding the proposed site for the Marjorie Jackson-Nelson Hospital (MJNH) Adelaide South Australia. Produced for the Department of Health, South Australia.

Hemming, S. & Harris, R. 1998. Tamdanyangga Kaurna Yerta: A report on the Indigenous Cultural Significance of the Adelaide Parklands., Adelaide Parklands Management Strategy. Prepared for Hassell Pty Ltd & the Adelaide City Council

Jones, D. 2007 Adelaide Park Lands and Squares Cultural Landscapes Assessment Study. Prepared for the Corporation of the City of Adelaide. Adelaide Research and Innovation Ltd, Adelaide.

Kingston G.S. 1842 Map of Adelaide South Australia. JC Hailes London, State Library of South Australia (SLSA), no 831.51 P, Adelaide

Kraehenbuehl, D. 1996. Pre-European Vegetation of Adelaide: A Survey from the Gawler River to Hallett Cove. Nature Conservation Society of South Australia Inc. Adelaide.

Native Title Act (1993) (Commonwealth)

MacDougall and Vines 2006 The City of Adelaide: A Thematic History. McDougall and Vines Conservation and Heritage Consultants. Norwood, South Australia.

O'Connor, D. 1996. Mantegani letters in Italian Settlers in South Australia between 1839 and the Second World War. Wakefield Press. Adelaide.The Register, 6thFebruary 1841. (Available at the State Library of South Australia).

Schurmann, C. W. 1839a. Correspondance, translated copy held in Lutheran Archives, Adelaide.

Schurmann, C.W. 1839-1840, Diary, translated copy held in the Lutheran Archives, Adelaide.

Tindale, N.B. 1935-39,AA338, notes from Mr Chalk, 7 November 1926

Tindale, N.B. 1974. Aboriginal Tribes of Australia: Their Terrain, Environmental Controls, Distribution, Limits, and Proper Names. Australian National University Press. Canberra.

Warburton, W.J. (ed) 1997 Five Metopolitan Creeks of the River Torrens, South Australia: An Environmental and Historical Study. Department of Adult Education, University of Adelaide for the Civic Trust of South Australia.

Wilson, D.S. 1995 The Making of the River Torrens: A Study of the Forces Working on the Planned Cultural Landscape of the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. Unpublished Honours Thesis, Flinders University, Adelaide.

Torrens Junction Cultural Heritage Desktop Assessment 10 APPENDICES

Appendix 1 Site Discovery Procedure (Sites & Objects)

Torrens Junction Cultural Heritage Desktop Assessment Appendix 2 Site Discovery Procedure (Skeletal Remains)

EBS Heritage 3/119 Hayward Avenue Torrensville, SA 5031 www.ebsheritage.coma.u t. 08 7127 5607

Torrens Rail Junction Construction Noise and Vibration Management Framework

Report Date: Tuesday, 1 September 15 Reference: A15419RP1, Revision A

Torrens Rail Junction Construction Noise and Vibration Management Framework A15419RP1 Revision A

Document Information

Project Torrens Rail Junction

Client Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure

Report title Construction Noise and Vibration Management Framework

Project Number A15419

Author Tom Evans Associate Director p+61 3 9020 3888 m+61 421 279 929 [email protected]

Reviewed by Darren Jurevicius

Revision Table

Report revision Date Comments

0 24 August 2015 Draft Issue

A 1 September 2015 Updated Draft Issue

Torrens Rail Junction Construction Noise and Vibration Management Framework A15419RP1 Revision A

Glossary

A-weighting A spectrum adaption that is applied to measured noise levels to approximate human hearing. A-weighted levels are used as human hearing does not respond equally at all frequencies. Characteristic Associated with a noise source, means a tonal, impulsive, low frequency or modulating characteristic of the noise that is determined in accordance with the Guidelines for the use of the Environment Protection (Noise) Policy (Noise EPP) to be fundamental to the nature and impact of the noise. Day For construction noise, between 7 am and 7 pm Mondays to Saturdays and between 9 am and 7 pm on Sundays and Public Holidays. dB Decibel—a unit of measurement used to express sound level. It is based on a logarithmic scale which means a sound that is 3 dB higher has twice as much energy. We typically perceive a 10 dB increase in sound as a doubling of that sound level. dB(A) Units of the A-weighted sound level. Frequency (Hz) The number of times a vibrating object oscillates (moves back and forth) in one second. Fast movements produce high frequency sound (high pitch/tone), but slow movements mean the frequency (pitch/tone) is low. 1 Hz is equal to 1 cycle per second.

L90 Noise level exceeded for 90% of the measurement period. Commonly used to assess background noise in an environment.

Leq Equivalent Noise Level—Energy averaged noise level over the measurement time.

Lmax The maximum noise level measured. mm/s Millimetres per second, unit of vibration velocity. Night Before 6 am Mondays to Saturdays, 8 am on Sundays and Public Holidays, or after 10 pm on any day. Peak Particle Velocity The maximum speed of a particle in a particular component direction due to (PPV) vibration during a measurement.

th Rating Background The 10 percentile of the measured L90 levels for a time period (day, shoulder Level (RBL) or night). The RBL is representative of the typical minimum background noise level. Shoulder period Between 6 am and 7 am Mondays to Saturdays, 8 am and 9 am on Sundays and Public Holidays, and 7 pm and 10 pm on any day.

Torrens Rail Junction Construction Noise and Vibration Management Framework A15419RP1 Revision A

Table of Contents 1 Introduction ...... 1 2 Project description ...... 2 3 Existing environment ...... 4 3.1 Existing noise environment ...... 4 3.2 Existing vibration environment ...... 5 4 Management framework ...... 7 4.1 General environmental duty ...... 7 4.2 CNVMP requirements ...... 7 4.3 Responsibilities ...... 8 4.4 Justification for works at evening and night ...... 9 5 Community engagement & complaints ...... 10 5.1 Community engagement ...... 10 5.2 Complaints resolution process ...... 11 6 Construction noise targets ...... 12 6.1 Assessment periods...... 12 6.2 Noise targets ...... 13 7 Construction vibration targets and limits ...... 15 7.1 Vibration targets ...... 15 7.2 Vibration limits ...... 16 8 Predicted noise and vibration levels ...... 19 8.1 CNVMP requirements ...... 19 8.2 Typical construction noise levels ...... 19 8.3 Typical vibration levels ...... 24 8.4 Temporary rail line realignment ...... 26 9 Monitoring ...... 27 9.1 Noise monitoring requirements ...... 27 9.2 Vibration monitoring requirements ...... 28 10 Mitigation ...... 30 10.1 Work programming ...... 31 10.2 Worksite training ...... 31 10.3 Broadband reversing alarms ...... 31 10.4 Construction noise mitigation ...... 32 10.5 Vibration mitigation ...... 34 Appendix A—Construction noise contours ...... 36 Appendix B—Construction vibration contours ...... 37

Torrens Rail Junction Construction Noise and Vibration Management Framework A15419RP1 Revision A

Appendix C—Building condition survey locations ...... 38

Torrens Rail Junction Construction Noise and Vibration Management Framework A15419RP1 Revision A

1 Introduction

The Australian and South Australian Governments are constructing the Torrens Rail Junction project, which will separate the Melbourne to Adelaide interstate freight rail line and the Outer Harbor passenger rail line near Bonython Park in North Adelaide. The project will also involve grade separation of the Outer Harbor passenger rail line beneath Park Terrace and Gibson Street and the creation of a new Bowden Railway Station.

Rail construction works can have adverse noise and vibration impacts on sensitive land uses near to the works. Management of these impacts requires appropriate community engagement and the implementation of suitable work practices and mitigation measures, balanced against the need to complete construction as efficiently as possible to reduce impacts on the wider community.

The Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (DPTI) is committed to effectively managing the noise and vibration impact of construction works as part of the Torrens Rail Junction works. This Construction Noise and Vibration Management Framework (the Framework), has been developed in accordance with DPTI Operational Instruction 21.7 Management of Noise and Vibration – Construction and Maintenance Activities (OI 21.7).

This Framework defines the location and type of sensitive land uses within the project area, and outlines construction noise and vibration targets for the project. It also establishes the minimum requirements for the Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan (CNVMP) to be developed by the appointed Contractor.

The objectives of the Framework are to: ensure that unavoidable noise and vibration impacts are minimised to the extent practicable during construction justify the need for flexible working arrangements and the need for night works establish appropriate procedures to minimise vibration impacts on sensitive structures adjacent to the project area outline the community engagement requirements relevant to construction noise and vibration establish requirements for construction noise and vibration mitigation measures, including monitoring, during construction minimise impacts on the broader community, including local businesses, by expediting completion of the project.

The Contractor will be required to develop a CNVMP, which must describe how noise and vibration during construction will be managed in accordance with both the Framework and with OI 21.7.

Torrens Rail Junction Construction Noise and Vibration Management Framework A15419RP1 Revision A

2 Project description

The Torrens Rail Junction project is the second project planned as part of the separation of freight and passenger rail lines in metropolitan Adelaide, the first being the recently completed Goodwood Rail Junction project. The project will grade separate the Melbourne to Adelaide freight line and the Outer Harbor passenger rail line at the existing crossing point near Bonython Park and will also underground the passenger line beneath Park Terrace and Gibson Street in Bowden.

The concept design includes: creation of a cutting along the alignment of the existing Outer Harbor passenger rail line from just north of the Torrens River Rail Bridge in the Adelaide Parklands to just north of the current Gibson Street level crossing in Bowden a rail bridge to allow the Melbourne to Adelaide freight line and Gawler passenger rail line to cross the Outer Harbor line at the existing junction point removal of the existing level crossings at Park Terrace and Gibson Street creation of a new underground railway station in the Bowden urban development site improved cycling and pedestrian facilities.

The rail junction currently creates problems for operation of the freight line in particular, in the form of delays and length restrictions for trains. The project will have a number of significant benefits for the transport network including: removal of the requirement for freight trains to wait for passenger trains to pass through the junction, thereby increasing efficiency of movements on the freight line increased safety by the removal of the Park Terrace and Gibson Street level crossings removal of the Park Terrace level crossing improving traffic flows and reducing waiting times on Park Terrace, an important part of Adelaide’s inner ring route reduced traffic waiting times at the Hawker Street and Torrens Road level crossings creation of a new passenger railway station at Bowden, which is an important urban development site for Adelaide.

It is expected that construction will commence in 2016 and be completed by 2017. During the construction phase, a temporary rail alignment will be established for all three lines, largely on the western side of the existing junction.

The key project features, including the temporary rail line proposal, and the surrounding areas are shown on Figure 1.

Torrens Rail Junction Construction Noise and Vibration Management Framework A15419RP1 Revision A

3 Existing environment 3.1 Existing noise environment Noise sensitive receivers

Construction noise impacts on sensitive receivers may include disturbance to daily activities, sleep disturbance, annoyance and anger, fright, interrupted learning and interference with communication.

The primary noise sensitive land uses relevant to the project are residential properties in the suburbs of North Adelaide, Bowden and Hindmarsh. For North Adelaide, this is residential properties on Strangways Terrace and Mills Terrace, which are over 150 m away from the works area.

For Bowden and Hindmarsh, relevant residential properties include: The townhouses on First Street, near Bowden Station, approximately 12 m from the rail line. The residence at 2 Gibson Street, Bowden, approximately 12 m from the rail line near the Gibson Street level crossing. The townhouses on First Street, near the Chief Street underpass in Hindmarsh, approximately 12 m from the rail line and 30 m from the north-west end of the project works. New apartment buildings in the Bowden area, currently under construction, which are further than 100 m from the works area.

Commercial land uses in the Bowden and Hindmarsh area are not normally considered noise sensitive but may require consideration on a case-by-case basis. Existing noise levels

Existing noise levels were measured at two locations between 18 August and 21 August 2015, considered to be representative of the nearest residences to the works in either area: Australian Company of Performing Arts at 11 Gibson Street, Bowden. The noise logger was located approximately 7 m from the existing Outer Harbor passenger rail line. Residence at 16 Mills Terrace, North Adelaide. The noise logger was positioned at the front of the residence, approximately 170 m from the nearest Gawler passenger rail line.

The monitoring locations are shown on Figure 1.

Table 1 summarises the measured existing noise levels at the two locations for the time periods relevant for construction noise, namely: Daytime – 7 am to 7 pm Monday to Saturday and 9 am to 7 pm on Sundays and Public Holidays Shoulder period – 6 am to 7 pm Monday to Saturday, 8 am to 9 am on Sundays and Public Holidays, and 7 pm to 10 pm on any day Night time – 10 pm to 6 am Monday to Saturday, and 10 pm to 8 am on Sundays and Public Holidays.

It is clear that the typical ambient noise environment in the Bowden and Hindmarsh area is louder than that in North Adelaide during the various time periods. 4

Torrens Rail Junction Construction Noise and Vibration Management Framework A15419RP1 Revision A

Table 1 Measured existing noise levels in project area

Reference Measurement Measured range of typical Measured RBL1, dB(A) (Figure 1) position ambient Leq,15min levels, dB(A)

Day Shoulder Night Day Shoulder Night

1 11 Gibson Street, 64 – 69 64 – 70 44 – 60 46 46 39 Bowden

2 16 Mills Terrace, 53 – 61 48 – 62 41 – 52 46 39 36 North Adelaide

th (1) Rating Background Level (RBL) is calculated as the 10 percentile of the measured L90,15min levels for a time period. The RBL is representative of the typical minimum background noise level.

3.2 Existing vibration environment Vibration sensitive receivers

Potential construction vibration impacts on sensitive receivers are largely the same as those for construction noise. However, high levels of construction vibration can also have the potential to impact on structures, particularly heritage-listed structures.

Heritage-listed structures in the area, with approximate distance to rail line in works area, include: State heritage-listed: - Brompton Gas Works, including wall along Chief Street and the chimney stack (10 m) - former Brompton Wesleyan Methodist Church at 155 Port Road, Hindmarsh (80 m) - Bowden Railway Station building (5 m) - Governor Hindmarsh Hotel building, Hindmarsh (80 m) - North Adelaide Railway Station (15 m) - railway bridge over the River Torrens (5 m). Local heritage-listed: - Chief Street Railway Underpass (underneath Outer Harbor rail line) - former Convent at 173 Port Road, Hindmarsh (80 m) - House at 27 Mills Terrace, North Adelaide (200 m) - House at 19 Mills Terrace, North Adelaide (170 m) - House at 16 Mills Terrace, North Adelaide (170 m) - House at 155 – 156 Strangways Terrace, North Adelaide (175 m) - House at 153 Strangways Terrace, North Adelaide (190 m). Contributory: - Former Salvation Army Hall at 2B Chief Street, Hindmarsh (25 m).

Torrens Rail Junction Construction Noise and Vibration Management Framework A15419RP1 Revision A

Existing vibration levels

Existing vibration in the project area is controlled by train movements, with vibration levels at residential locations dependent on their distance from the relevant rail line.

Measurements of existing vibration levels around the site were conducted at various locations to quantify the existing exposure of heritage-listed structures and residences to rail vibration. The measured vibration levels are summarised in Table 2. Note that a peak particle velocity (PPV) level of 0.3 mm/s is the typical point at which vibration may become perceptible.

Table 2 Measured existing vibration levels in project area

Distance to Location Measurement period Measured PPV, mm/s rail, m

11 Gibson Street, Bowden 18 – 21 August 2015 7 0.7 – 1.5

Brompton Gas Works 20 August 2015 15 0.8

Chief Street underpass 20 August 2015 Under rail 2 – 2.6

Bowden Railway Station 20 August 2015 5 0.4

The measured vibration levels indicate that short-term vibration from rail is likely to be perceptible at the residences in both Bowden and Hindmarsh, due to their proximity to the rail. Peak vibration levels in the order of 0.8 – 1 mm/s would be expected at these locations.

For the heritage-listed structures in the Bowden area, it is clear that there is exposure to existing vibration but that this level of vibration does not currently exceed the relevant cosmetic or structural damage limits outlined in Section 7.2. At this stage only short-term monitoring has been undertaken on the Chief Street underpass and it is possible that vibration levels do periodically increase above 3 mm/s on this structure.

Torrens Rail Junction Construction Noise and Vibration Management Framework A15419RP1 Revision A

4 Management framework 4.1 General environmental duty

Under the South Australian Environment Protection Act 1993 (EP Act), both DPTI and those performing work for DPTI have a duty of care for the environment during public infrastructure works. This general environmental duty is defined in Section 25 of the EP Act as:

A person must not undertake an activity that pollutes, or might pollute, the environment unless that person takes all reasonable and practicable measures to prevent or minimise any resulting environmental harm.

As part of addressing the general environment duty, the Contractor shall follow the requirements of both OI 21.7 and this Framework, which prescribe the minimum principles through which all reasonable and practicable measures will be undertaken to minimise impacts associated with construction noise and vibration.

Major public infrastructure construction works performed for DPTI as part of the Torrens Rail Junction project are exempt from Part 6, Division 1 of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Policy 2007 (Noise EPP). However, the Contractor must still meet their general environmental duty under the EP Act. Implementing the requirements of OI 21.7 can contribute towards meeting this general environmental duty.

This Framework will be sent to the South Australian Environment Protection Authority (EPA) for comment and/or endorsement. 4.2 CNVMP requirements

To ensure that construction noise and vibration impacts at sensitive receivers adjacent to the project site are appropriately managed, an effective CNVMP shall be developed and implemented by the Contractor.

The CNVMP shall describe how the Contractor will manage noise and vibration impacts during construction in accordance with both this Framework and with OI 21.7. As a minimum, it shall incorporate the following: Identification of noise and vibration sensitive land uses. A summary of approval process and responsibilities. Justification for undertaking works at night. A summary of the construction noise targets and vibration limits for the project. Predictions of construction noise and vibration levels at sensitive land uses and comparison with the relevant targets and limits. A summary of community engagement procedures and complaint management and resolution processes. Noise and vibration monitoring regime. Identification of noise and vibration mitigation measures to be adopted where required, including worksite training requirements.

The construction noise and vibration requirements of the CNVMP shall be included in all site inductions.

Torrens Rail Junction Construction Noise and Vibration Management Framework A15419RP1 Revision A

4.3 Responsibilities Contractor

With respect to construction noise and vibration, the Contractor shall: Prepare a CNVMP that meets the requirements of the Framework, OI 21.7 and the contract documents. Obtain approval of the CNVMP from DPTI prior to the commencement of construction. Appoint an Environmental Manager (EM) for the duration of the construction process. The EM shall have responsibility for implementation of the CNVMP during construction. Implement the CNVMP during construction including: - implementation of noise and vibration mitigation measures where specified during construction - monitoring of construction noise and vibration as specified during construction. Prepare a Night Works Management Plan (NWMP) for any works during the night time period in accordance with OI 21.7 and this Framework. Maintain a project information line and email for the local community to raise concerns. In conjunction with DPTI, undertake community engagement regarding construction noise and vibration including: - preparation and distribution of construction noise and vibration community engagement information - maintenance of a project telephone information line - field and respond to complaints and queries from members of the community. Consult with the EPA on management of construction noise, vibration and night works. Appropriately modify work practices in response to any complaints received, where required. Maintain a database using a GIS Based Customer Relationship Management System will details of all comments/complaints received by the Contractor over the life of the project and received direct by DPTI as well as details of responses provided to these complaints. All details are to be included in the database within 24 hours of a complaint being received. Update the CNVMP as required during the construction process to adequately reflect project conditions and work practices. Any updated CNVMP shall be provided to DPTI as required by the Project Scope and Technical Requirements (PSTR). DPTI

With respect to construction noise and vibration, DPTI shall: Approve the CNVMP prior to the commencement of construction. Liaise with the EPA as required prior to and during construction. Audit compliance with the CNVMP and relevant contractual requirements during construction. Conduct community engagement in conjunction with the Contractor.

Torrens Rail Junction Construction Noise and Vibration Management Framework A15419RP1 Revision A

4.4 Justification for works at evening and night

Works at evening and night will need to be undertaken at times during the construction phase to minimise wider impacts on the transport network (such as passenger train movements and traffic on Park Terrace) and to improve worker safety.

Under this Framework, shoulder and night works are defined as construction works occurring after 7 pm on any day, and before 7 am on Mondays to Saturdays or 9 am on Sundays and Public Holidays. It is important that justification is provided for any shoulder and night works due to the increased impact of noise and vibration during these hours.

In accordance with OI 21.7, the CNVMP shall provide justification for any shoulder and night works based on social, environmental and/or economic reasons. For example: expediting the construction phase as much as possible to minimise significant disruptions to the transport network, local community and local businesses work on rail lines at night to minimise the impact on the public transport network improving worker safety by conducting works near busy transport corridors at night reducing the overall noise and vibration impact of the project on residents by completing works as quickly as practicable.

Torrens Rail Junction Construction Noise and Vibration Management Framework A15419RP1 Revision A

5 Community engagement & complaints

It is likely that residents and other community members will raise issues regarding construction noise and vibration impacts as the project progresses, in particular during any works at night. Effective community engagement and complaints resolution procedures are essential to minimise community concerns. 5.1 Community engagement

In conjunction with DPTI, the Contractor shall organise and undertake community engagement activities regarding construction noise and vibration. Two different levels of community engagement activities regarding noise and vibration shall be implemented where the predicted noise or vibration levels exceed the relevant construction targets. Level 1 Engagement

The following Level 1 Engagement activities shall be undertaken in accordance with the construction noise target requirements outlined in Section 6 and the vibration targets outlined in Section 0: Regular Community Information to provide details of the construction plan and duration of predicted construction noise and vibration. Letterbox drops detailing the proposed work, the location of the work, the day(s) and date(s) of the work and the hours involved and a 24-hour contact number for questions and complaints. Notice of road works sign on site boundary. Advise Local Council and local Police station to assist complaint management. Prepare a Noise Complaints Procedure and Register. Complaints to be answered by a public relations professional where possible then lodged and processed in accordance with the complaint management procedure. If a public relations professional is not available during the night time period, the on-site supervisor should field any phone calls from the public. Any media advertisement regarding the works, for example due to traffic disruption, shall include a reference to night noise if appropriate.

Level 2 Engagement

Level 2 Engagement activities are relevant to noisy night time works and shall be undertaken in accordance with the construction noise target requirements outlined in Section 6 and is Level 1 Engagement with the addition of: Advanced notice of road work signs. Contact the local community potentially affected by the proposed out-of-hours noise (residents and businesses) and inform them by letter of the proposed work, the location of the work, the day(s) and date(s) of the work and the hours involved: - this contact shall be made at least 2 days before the proposed commencement of the work. - it is preferable to overestimate the hours of work, rather than aggravate people by extending the work hours for longer than anticipated - a 24-hour contact number shall be provided for questions and complaints. Media release to media and emergency services, also notifying the affected community and other organisations (e.g. local Police, EPA and local Council) to assist with complaint management. 10

Torrens Rail Junction Construction Noise and Vibration Management Framework A15419RP1 Revision A

5.2 Complaints resolution process

A project information line shall be available 24 hours a day. The person receiving complaints shall be appropriately trained in community consultation and shall have the ability to implement reasonable and practicable measures to action the complaint. These measures may include modification of the work site or work practices, or a review of night activities.

The Contractor shall implement a complaint management procedure, including the following processes as a minimum: 1) Assess whether the issue can be resolved easily and take immediate action if possible. 2) If not, assess the construction site and activities and determine whether there is any reason to believe the exposure of receivers is higher than anticipated. 3) Undertake monitoring of noise or vibration (where this is an appropriate response). 4) Ensure that any night works have been ranked correctly based on predictions or monitoring results (e.g. Low, Moderate or High Noise Activity as outlined in Section 6.2). 5) Check that the appropriate Engagement level has been undertaken for the activity based on the ranking of the activity. 6) Ensure all planned mitigation measures have been appropriately implemented. 7) If steps 4, 5 and 6 are correct, no further site actions are required (proceed to step 9). 8) If steps 4, 5 and 6 are incorrect, implement all reasonable and practicable mitigation measures where possible and implement correct engagement procedures. 9) Ensure person receiving complaints is well briefed on the existing mitigation measures in place during the activity and the justification for the activity, and understands the details of the NWMP (if applicable). 10) Advise complainant of actions undertaken.

The Contractor shall maintain a record of complaints over the life of the project. Details of all complaints received shall be forwarded to DPTI.

Torrens Rail Junction Construction Noise and Vibration Management Framework A15419RP1 Revision A

6 Construction noise targets 6.1 Assessment periods Daytime

Daytime works are those that occur between 7 am and 7 pm Monday to Saturday, or 9 am to 7 pm on Sundays and Public Holidays.

These hours correspond with the standard hours specified by OI 21.7 and are normally less sensitive as ambient noise levels are generally higher and people are less likely to be sleeping. Therefore noise management procedures for works during these hours are less critical. Shoulder periods

Shoulder periods occur between 6 – 7 am Monday to Saturday, 8 – 9 am on Sundays and Public Holidays, or 7 – 10 pm on any day.

These hours are outside of the standard hours specified by OI 21.7 but are typically less sensitive than night time periods as there is still a reasonable level of traffic on main roads (such as Park Terrace) and the majority of people are less likely to be sleeping than later at night or earlier in the morning.

Community engagement and noise mitigation procedures for works during shoulder periods are important where construction noise levels are high.

The intention of including shoulder periods in this Framework is to encourage works that must occur outside of standard hours to take place in less sensitive time periods, where practical. Night time

Night time works are those that occur before 6 am Monday to Saturday, 8 am on Sundays and Public Holidays, or after 10 pm on any day.

Night time hours are typically the most noise sensitive for residents as the potential for construction works to disturb sleep is higher. Therefore, community engagement and mitigation procedures are critical where noisier night time works are occurring.

A Night Works Management Plan (NWMP) shall be prepared in accordance with OI 21.7 and this Framework for any night time works.

Torrens Rail Junction Construction Noise and Vibration Management Framework A15419RP1 Revision A

6.2 Noise targets

Construction noise targets have been developed for each of the construction time periods. Works are classified as: Low Impact: no specific community engagement or mitigation requirements required. Moderate Impact: Level 1 Engagement and implementation of reasonable and practicable noise mitigation measures. High Impact (night only): Level 2 Engagement and implementation of all reasonable and practicable noise mitigation measures. Above Targets (night only): Level 2 Engagement and implementation of all reasonable and practicable noise mitigation measures. Strong justification would normally be required as part of a Night Works Management Plan (NWMP) for night time works above the noise targets.

The construction noise targets have been developed in accordance with OI 21.7 and the existing noise environment. Separate noise targets have been set for residences in Bowden/Hindmarsh and in North Adelaide to reflect the different ambient noise environments within these areas. Bowden and Hindmarsh

Table 3 presents the construction noise targets for residences in Bowden and Hindmarsh for the different construction time periods. The targets apply at the nearest window of the noise sensitive location. The engagement and mitigation requirements for Low, Moderate and High impact works are also shown.

Table 3 Construction noise targets for sensitive land uses in Bowden and Hindmarsh

Impact Day Shoulder Night

d dB(A) L dB(A) L

Noise Noise Noise Noise Noise

Engagement Engagement Engagement Engagement

B(A) L

mandatory mandatory mandatory dB(A) L

Mitigation Mitigation Mitigation Mitigation

level level level

target, target, target, target,

eq,15min eq,15min eq,15min

max

Low 70 L1 65 L1 45 75 L1

Moderate > 70 L1 > 65 L1 55 85 L1

High – – – – – – 65 95 L1

Above – – – – – – > 65 > 95 L2 Targets

Torrens Rail Junction Construction Noise and Vibration Management Framework A15419RP1 Revision A

North Adelaide

Table 4 presents the construction noise targets for residences in North Adelaide for the different construction time periods. The targets apply at the nearest window of the noise sensitive location. The engagement and mitigation requirements for Low, Moderate and High impact works are also shown.

Table 4 Construction noise targets for sensitive land uses in North Adelaide

Impact Day Shoulder Night

dB(A) L dB(A) L dB(A) L

Noise Noise Noise Noise Noise

Engagement Engagement Engagement Engagement

mandatory mandatory mandatory dB(A) L

Mitigation Mitigation Mitigation Mitigation

level level level

target, target, target, target,

eq,15min eq,15min eq,15min

max

Low 65 L1 60 L1 45 75 L1

Moderate > 65 L1 > 60 L1 55 85 L1

High – – – – – – 65 95 L1

Above – – – – – – > 65 > 95 L2 Targets

Torrens Rail Junction Construction Noise and Vibration Management Framework A15419RP1 Revision A

7 Construction vibration targets and limits

Ground vibrations can have a range of effects on buildings and building occupants, generally classified as: human disturbance – disturbance to building occupants: vibration which inconveniences or interferes with the activities of the occupants or users of the building effects on building contents – vibration which may affect items within a building such as crockery, pictures on walls etc effects on building structures – vibration which may compromise the condition of the building structure itself.

In general, vibration criteria for human disturbance are more stringent than vibration criteria for effects on building contents and building structural damage. Building occupants will normally feel vibration readily at levels well below those which may cause a risk of cosmetic or structural damage to a structure. However, OI 21.7 recognises that achieving compliance with criteria for human exposure can be impractical during construction works and may not be necessary due to the relatively short duration of construction vibration events. Furthermore, unnecessary restriction of construction activities can prolong construction works longer than necessary, potentially resulting in other undesirable effects for the local community.

Therefore, this Framework identifies vibration limits based on cosmetic and structural damage criteria, with the human disturbance vibration criteria adopted as vibration targets whereby community engagement and mitigation may need to be considered. 7.1 Vibration targets

Australian Standard AS 2670.21 represents the relevant standard for nuisance vibration levels. It provides a collection of curves that specify acceptable vibration levels, at each frequency, for different circumstances.

AS 2670.2 has been used to derive the vibration targets presented in Table 5 based on the curves and weighting factors specified in Annex A of the Standard for continuous and intermittent vibration. To simplify the vibration targets, a conservative assumption regarding the relationship between root-mean-square vibration (as specified by the Standard) and peak vibration levels (as specified in Table 5).

Table 5 Construction vibration targets to minimise human disturbance

Receiver type PPV vibration target, mm/s

Residential – Day & Shoulder 0.3 – 0.6

Residential – Night 0.2

Office 0.6

Workshop 1.2

1 Australian Standard AS 2670.2-1990, Evaluation of human exposure to whole-body vibration, Part 2: Continuous and shock induced vibration in buildings 15

Torrens Rail Junction Construction Noise and Vibration Management Framework A15419RP1 Revision A

It should be noted that where the measured PPV vibration level exceeds the targets in Table 5, the AS 2670.2 criteria may not have been exceeded due to the frequency characteristics of the vibration. In this case, reference may be made to the Standard to assess compliance against the vibration targets.

Where works are predicted or measured to cause vibration in excess of the relevant targets, Level 1 Community Engagement shall apply and all reasonable and practicable mitigation measures shall be implemented by the Contractor. 7.2 Vibration limits Structures

The construction vibration limits in this Framework have been based on the cosmetic and structural damage limits prescribed by German Standard DIN 4150-3, 2 which is referenced by OI 21.7, and existing measurements of rail vibration conducted on bridge structures. Table 6 presents the construction vibration limits for different structure types. The limits are specified as PPV levels measured in any direction at or adjacent to the building foundation.

Table 6 Construction vibration limits for structures

Structure type PPV vibration limit, mm/s

Commercial and industrial structures 20

Residential structures 5

Heritage-listed structures:

Brompton Gas Works 3 Bowden Railway Station North Adelaide houses (Mills Terrace and Strangways Terrace).

Heritage-listed railway bridges1: 3 or no greater than existing, Torrens River Bridge whichever is the greater Chief Street railway underpass.

(1) Current short-term vibration monitoring results on the Chief Street underpass indicate that existing vibration exposure does not exceed 3 mm/s. The Contractor will be required to undertake continuous baseline monitoring on this structure and, if existing vibration levels are higher than 3 mm/s, the existing vibration level becomes the effective construction vibration limit.

If construction works are not able to be practically carried out without exceeding the vibration limits in Table 6, then consideration may be given to the frequency characteristics of the vibration and the allowable increase in vibration limit that occurs with frequency as defined by DIN 4150-3.

DIN 4150-3 recommends these values as maximum levels of short-term construction vibration, at which experience has shown that damage that reduces the serviceability of structures will not occur due to vibration effects. A reduction in serviceability of the structure is deemed to have occurred if, due to construction activities: cracks form in plastered surfaces of walls

2 German Standard DIN 4150-3, 1999, Structural Vibration – Part 3: Effects of vibration on structures. 16

Torrens Rail Junction Construction Noise and Vibration Management Framework A15419RP1 Revision A

existing cracks in the building are enlarged partitions become detached from loadbearing walls or floors.

It is important to note that an exceedance of the DIN 4150-3 limits does not mean that cosmetic or structural damage will have occurred. Exceedance of the limits means that the probability for structural damage, to occur, increases. Vibration velocity in itself cannot create damaging forces. Such forces are generated by: differential displacements, which may cause distortion of the structure as it follows movement of the ground; and change in ground particle velocity vector (magnitude or direction) which produces inertial forces upon the structure.

When distortion and inertial mechanisms are superimposed upon pre-existing stresses and strains from other causes, damage occurs when the combined stress exceeds a limiting (trigger) level, or there may be fatigue failure.

For context, Table 7 compares the vibration level (as a velocity) to the corresponding physical displacement that occurs in a structure as a result for the typical lower and upper vibration frequencies encountered during construction (i.e. 10 Hz and 80 Hz). Note that higher frequencies will result in a lower displacement. It is clear that compliance with the DIN 4150-3 limits, even at 20 mm/s, results in a very low level of physical displacement (hence stress/strain) in a structure.

Table 7 Typical vibration limits versus displacement

Vibration level Typical lower frequency Typical upper frequency

Frequency, Hz Displacement,1 mm Frequency, Hz Displacement,1 mm

3 mm/s 10 0.05 80 0.006

5 mm/s 10 0.08 80 0.01

20 mm/s 10 0.3 80 0.04

(1) Approximate displacement under the assumption that the vibration is sinusoidal. Underground pipework

At times during construction, it is likely that vibration intensive works will need to be carried out in close proximity to underground pipework. The vibration limits specified by OI 21.7 for underground pipework, based on DIN 4150-3, are summarised in Table 8.

Table 8 Construction vibration limits for underground pipework

Pipe material PPV vibration limit, mm/s

Steel (including welded pipes) 100

Clay, concrete, reinforced concrete, pre-stressed concrete, metal (with 80 or without flange)

Masonry, plastic 50

Torrens Rail Junction Construction Noise and Vibration Management Framework A15419RP1 Revision A

The following should be noted with regards to the limits in Table 8: The limits apply on the pipe surface and measurements should ideally be performed on the pipes, exposed only at the point of measurement, including the removal of any insulation or wrapping. However, in most cases this will not be practical and measurements can often be conducted on the ground in the immediate vicinity of the below ground pipe as a conservative approach. The limits are based on the pipework being manufactured and installed using current technology, methods and standards. If pipework has not been built to modern standards and/or has a history of failure, reduced vibration limits should be investigated. The limits do not apply where there are mechanical processes within the ground or where the pipework junctions with other structures and specific targets should be developed for these circumstances. DIN 4150-3 recommends that the values specified in Table 6 be applied to gas and water pipework within 2 m of a building and to drain pipes generally.

During works near critical pipework, the pipework owner shall be contacted to determine whether any specific vibration constraints apply to that pipework.

Torrens Rail Junction Construction Noise and Vibration Management Framework A15419RP1 Revision A

8 Predicted noise and vibration levels

8.1 CNVMP requirements

The CNVMP shall include predictions of noise and vibration levels generated from expected construction activities at distances representative of sensitive receiver locations. The predictions shall be used to assess the likely noise and vibration impact at sensitive receivers based on the noise and vibration targets and limits defined in this Framework.

Noise and vibration predictions shall be undertaken by an acoustic engineer, defined for the purposes of this Framework as a person eligible for membership of both the Institution of Engineers Australia and the Australian Acoustical Society.

This section outlines typical noise and vibration levels for key construction activities and other generic road construction activities. The predictions are based on measurements conducted by Resonate Acoustics at recent infrastructure projects in the metropolitan Adelaide area as well as data available in OI 21.7. 8.2 Typical construction noise levels

As a minimum, noise levels from the proposed construction activities shall be predicted at a range of distances from the construction works that represent the typical distances to sensitive receivers. Where noise from construction activities is expected to contain any of the characteristics of tonal, impulsive, low frequency or modulating noise, a penalty shall be applied to the predicted Leq,15min noise level. As per OI 21.7 and the Noise EPP, penalties shall be applied in the following manner: if the source noise contains one characteristic, a 5 dB(A) penalty shall apply if the source noise contains two characteristics, an 8 dB(A) penalty shall apply if the source noise contains three or more characteristics, a 10 dB(A) penalty shall apply.

Note that the existing environment may be taken into account in the application of penalties, such that vehicle noise associated with construction would not be subject to a penalty where it is similar in character to existing ambient noise.

Table 9 presents typical Leq and Lmax noise levels generated at a range of distances from construction activities that would be expected as part of the project, separated into various phases. Penalties have been applied to the predicted Leq noise levels where relevant.

The Contractor shall include noise levels for plant and equipment not specified in Table 9 as part of the CNVMP.

Torrens Rail Junction Construction Noise and Vibration Management Framework A15419RP1 Revision A

Table 9 Typical Leq and Lmax noise levels generated by construction activities

Plant Leq Penalty Predicted Leq at specified distance, dB(A) Predicted Lmax at specified distance

dB(A) 10 m 20 m 50 m 100 m 200 m 10 m 20 m 50 m 100 m 200 m

Site stripping, bulk excavation & drainage

Large excavator – 80 74 66 60 54 87 81 73 67 61

Grader 5 82 76 68 62 56 87 81 73 67 61

Mobile crane – 85 79 71 65 59 87 81 73 67 61

Vibratory roller 5 86 80 72 66 60 82 76 68 62 56

Vibratory rammer – 80 74 66 60 54 81 75 67 61 55

Dump truck – 80 74 66 60 54 87 81 73 67 61

Truck – 80 74 66 60 54 85 79 71 65 59

Water cart – 79 73 65 59 53 80 74 66 60 54

Generator – 72 66 58 52 46 74 68 60 54 48

Light tower – 63 57 49 43 37 64 58 50 44 38

Bridgeworks & piling works

CFA piling rig – 84 78 70 64 58 91 85 77 71 65

Bored piling rig – 86 80 72 66 60 89 83 75 69 63

Dynamic pile testing 5 92 86 78 72 66 99 93 85 79 73

Mobile crane – 85 79 71 65 59 87 81 73 67 61

Torrens Rail Junction Construction Noise and Vibration Management Framework A15419RP1 Revision A

Plant Leq Penalty Predicted Leq at specified distance, dB(A) Predicted Lmax at specified distance

dB(A) 10 m 20 m 50 m 100 m 200 m 10 m 20 m 50 m 100 m 200 m

Concrete pump – 77 71 63 57 51 81 75 67 61 55

Welding equipment – 77 71 63 57 51 82 76 68 62 56

Hydraulic splitting – 81 75 67 61 55 86 80 72 66 60

Concrete drill 5 90 84 76 70 64 90 84 76 70 64

Jackhammer 5 90 84 76 70 64 87 81 73 67 61

Scabbler – 77 71 63 57 51 82 76 68 62 56

Truck – 80 74 66 60 54 87 81 73 67 61

Concrete truck – 81 75 67 61 55 87 81 73 67 61

Water cart – 79 73 65 59 53 80 74 66 60 54

Generator – 75 69 61 55 49 77 71 63 57 51

Light tower – 63 57 49 43 37 64 58 50 44 38

Rail construction (including temporary rail construction)

Compound saw 5 90 84 76 70 64 87 81 73 67 61

Grinder 5 85 79 71 65 59 84 78 70 64 58

Oxy-cutter – 65 59 51 45 39 79 73 65 59 53

Regulator – 87 81 73 67 61 90 84 76 70 64

Ballast tamper 5 88 82 74 68 62 86 80 72 66 60

Torrens Rail Junction Construction Noise and Vibration Management Framework A15419RP1 Revision A

Plant Leq Penalty Predicted Leq at specified distance, dB(A) Predicted Lmax at specified distance

dB(A) 10 m 20 m 50 m 100 m 200 m 10 m 20 m 50 m 100 m 200 m

Ballast wagon – 80 74 66 60 54 85 79 71 65 59

Front end loader – 81 75 67 61 55 87 81 73 67 61

Truck – 80 74 66 60 54 87 81 73 67 61

Water cart – 79 73 65 59 53 80 74 66 60 54

Light tower – 63 57 49 43 37 64 58 50 44 38

Generator – 75 69 61 55 49 77 71 63 57 51

Construction compound

Backhoe – 77 74 66 60 54 87 81 73 67 61

Excavator – 80 76 68 62 56 87 81 73 67 61

Truck – 80 79 71 65 59 87 81 73 67 61

Crane – 85 80 72 66 60 87 81 73 67 61

Light tower – 63 74 66 60 54 64 58 50 44 38

Generator – 75 74 66 60 54 77 71 63 57 51

Torrens Rail Junction Construction Noise and Vibration Management Framework A15419RP1 Revision A

It should be noted that the predictions in Table 9 are conservative in as far as they assume the plant is operating continuous (e.g. no idling or shutdown periods) and that there is no shielding from intervening structures and topography. Note that the predictions in Table 9 are for the nominated plant and equipment operating individually and consideration should be given to situations where items may be operating simultaneously.

To provide more context to the expected construction noise levels, typical noise contour maps are included in Appendix A for the various work phases of: Figure A1 – Temporary rail line construction Figure A2 – Site stripping, bulk excavation & drainage Figure A3 – Bridgeworks & piling works Figure A4 – Rail construction

The noise contour maps are intended as illustrative only and are based on works occurring in the relevant topography including shielding from intervening structures. The source levels are based upon the loudest noise source for each phase operating in the worst case location for each receiver, such that they are representative of the typical highest construction noise levels receivers would typically experience.

The predictions in Table 9 and the noise contour maps in Appendix A indicate that the daytime target levels of 65 – 70 dB(A) Leq,15min are likely to be exceeded when works are occurring near sensitive receivers in the Bowden and Hindmarsh areas. The noise target levels for shoulder periods may also be exceeded at distances of up to 100 m from works within this area.

In North Adelaide, the large distance to receivers means that the daytime and shoulder period noise level targets are generally unlikely to be exceeded. During high noise activities, such as dynamic pile testing, drilling and jack-hammering, it is possible that the targets will be marginally exceeded but the application of reasonable and practicable noise mitigation measures should assist in reducing the likelihood of this occurring.

Generally, all reasonable and practicable noise mitigation measures should be adopted during noisy daytime and shoulder period construction works, and Level 1 Community Engagement procedures should be implemented, near sensitive receivers within the Bowden and Hindmarsh area, and for noisy works within the North Adelaide region. The Contractor shall include mitigation and management plans specific to the construction methodology in the CNVMP.

The predictions also indicate that the noise levels from works at night are likely to be Above Targets when works are occurring within 50 m of noise sensitive receivers, and as a minimum would be classified as Moderate to High Impact for most construction activities when works are occurring near residential locations within the Bowden and Hindmarsh area.

For night time works near North Adelaide receivers, it is unlikely that works would be classified as Above Targets, although noisy works are predicted to exceed the Moderate Impact targets when they occur within 200 m of residential areas.

The Contractor shall adopt all reasonable and practicable noise mitigation measures for any works at night time, and appropriate community engagement procedures shall be implemented in accordance with this Framework. A NWMP shall be prepared for any night time works in accordance with the requirements of OI 21.7 and this Framework. 23

Torrens Rail Junction Construction Noise and Vibration Management Framework A15419RP1 Revision A

8.3 Typical vibration levels

Table 10 presents typical vibration levels for key construction activities expected as part of the project. The predictions are based on Resonate Acoustics measurement data and on typical propagation loss with distance determined within the project area.

Table 10 Typical vibration levels from key construction activities

Source Typical distance to Typical PPV at stated distance, mm/s achieve level

10 m 20 m 50 m 100 m 200 m 5 mm/s 3 mm/s

Dynamic pile testing – 1200 mm 31 11 2.6 1.1 0.3 32 m 45 m 9T hammer drop

Dynamic pile testing – 650 mm 29 9.5 2.2 0.8 0.3 29 m 41 m 9T hammer drop

CFA piling rig 1.2 0.4 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 n/a 5 m

Bored piling rig 0.9 0.3 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 n/a n/a

Vibratory roller, 7T 5 1.7 0.4 <0.2 <0.2 10 m 14 m

Vibratory roller, 13T 6.5 2.2 0.5 <0.2 <0.2 12 m 17 m

Static rolling, 13T 1.1 0.3 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 n/a 3 m

Ballast tamper 2.1 0.7 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 6 m 8 m

18T excavator digging 1.2 0.4 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 n/a 5 m

18T excavator with hydraulic 3.5 1.2 0.3 <0.2 <0.2 8 m 11 m hammer

Jackhammer 0.5 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 n/a n/a

Haul truck, smooth road 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 n/a n/a

Haul truck, rough surface 0.6 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 n/a n/a

Figures B1 to B3 in Appendix B present typical vibration contours for dynamic pile testing (with a 1200 mm 9T hammer drop), use of a 13T vibratory roller and ballast tamper respectively, which are considered the most significant vibration-generating construction activities that may occur regularly on site.

Note that the contours are expected to be conservative as they are based on propagation across flat ground, whereas the excavation works as part of the Torrens Junction project may provide some attenuation of ground-borne vibration. Additionally, the dynamic pile testing has been assumed to occur along the whole extent of the underpass whereas in reality there will be areas of revetment wall and testing may only be required at a limited number of piles.

Torrens Rail Junction Construction Noise and Vibration Management Framework A15419RP1 Revision A

Cosmetic and structural damage

The predictions in Table 10 and in Appendix B indicate that there is a risk of exceedance of the relevant 3 mm/s vibration limit for heritage-listed structures at up to 45 m from dynamic pile testing and up to 17 m from large vibratory rollers.

There is also a risk of exceedance of the 5 mm/s vibration limit for residential structures at up to 32 m from dynamic pile testing and up to 12 m from large vibratory rollers.

It is unlikely that the 20 mm/s vibration limit for commercial and industrial structures will be exceeded, as long as dynamic pile testing is not conducted within 15 m of commercial and industrial structures.

It should be noted that these distances are based on the largest typical hammer drop (1200 mm) for dynamic pile testing and the most stringent limits prescribed by DIN 4150-3 which are prescribed for vibration frequencies lower than 10 Hz. The dynamic pile testing was found to have a dominant vibration frequency of approximately 18 Hz, while vibratory rollers typically have dominant frequencies in the range of 20 – 40 Hz. Based on a dominant frequency of 18 Hz, the relevant DIN 4150-3 limits would become: 24 mm/s for commercial and industrial structures 7 mm/s for residences 4 mm/s for heritage-listed structures.

This, combined with a reduction in the drop height for the hammer during dynamic pile testing, may allow a reduction in the distances from structures in which dynamic pile testing can be safely conducted.

To mitigate the risk of any exceedances of the vibration limits at residential and heritage-listed structures, the Contractor shall undertake vibration monitoring as described in Section 9.2 and shall implement reasonable and practicable vibration mitigation measures as detailed in Section 10.5. Exclusion and static rolling zones

Due to the potential for the vibration limits to be exceeded at heritage-listed and residential structures immediately adjacent to the rail corridor, exclusion zones and static rolling zones have been established for dynamic pile testing and vibratory rollers respectively.

The exclusion zones for dynamic pile testing are shown on Figure B1 in Appendix B and apply around the Brompton Gas Works, Bowden Station and the residences in Bowden. No dynamic pile testing shall occur within these zones unless it can be demonstrated through monitoring that the relevant vibration limits are not exceeded. The Contractor should consider these zones in determining the location of piles to be tested and the extent of revetment wall.

Static rolling zones are shown on Figure B2 in Appendix B and apply around the Brompton Gas Works, Bowden Station, North Adelaide Station and Torrens Rail Bridge. No vibratory compaction shall occur within these zones unless it can be demonstrated through monitoring that the relevant vibration limits are not exceeded.

Torrens Rail Junction Construction Noise and Vibration Management Framework A15419RP1 Revision A

Building condition surveys

Figure C1 in Appendix C identifies properties where a building condition survey is recommended based on the likely vibration levels. To assist in addressing risks related to building damage, the Contractor shall undertake preliminary pre-construction building condition surveys at vibration-sensitive properties as identified in Appendix C. 8.4 Temporary rail line realignment

During the construction phase, the Outer Harbor and Gawler passenger rail lines and the Melbourne to Adelaide interstate line will be temporarily realigned to allow services to continue during construction. The proposed locations of the realigned rail lines are shown on Figure 1.

Based on the proposed alignment, noise and vibration from operation of the temporary rail line is not expected to be of concern as: The Outer Harbor passenger line will move marginally further away from the townhouses located on First Street in Bowden and the residence at 2 Gibson Street. The Gawler and Melbourne to Adelaide rail lines will move further away from the nearest residences in North Adelaide.

The Contractor shall consider noise and vibration from train movements during the construction phase in the CNVMP. Where temporary rail lines will undergo a horizontal or vertical alignment change that may increase rail noise and/or vibration levels at receivers, an assessment of the increase and investigation of reasonable and practicable mitigation measures shall be undertaken and documented within the CNVMP.

Torrens Rail Junction Construction Noise and Vibration Management Framework A15419RP1 Revision A

9 Monitoring 9.1 Noise monitoring requirements

Noise monitoring shall be undertaken by the Contractor in the following situations: Monitoring of significant noise generating plant and equipment at the commencement of operation. Monitoring of alternative equipment or processes proposed by the Contractor that are expected to be significantly louder than those assumed in the CNVMP. Where night time works classified as “Above Targets” are occurring adjacent to critical sensitive receivers. In response to a complaint, where this represents an appropriate response.

Noise monitoring shall be conducted by personnel suitably qualified and experienced in undertaking construction noise measurements. Plant and equipment noise

Where noise monitoring of significant plant and equipment noise is to be undertaken to assess compliance with expected noise emission levels, the testing shall be carried out in typical site conditions and in general accordance with the ‘stationary’ testing procedures defined in Australian Standard AS 2012.1.3 The measurement results shall be compared to standard noise levels for that item of equipment. If the equipment is significantly louder than the standard noise levels, the equipment shall be stood down and necessary action taken. Construction noise

Where noise monitoring is occurring due to works adjacent critical sensitive receiver locations or in response to a complaint, the monitoring shall be undertaken at the nearest relevant sensitive receiver. If monitoring is not able to be undertaken at the receiver, a suitable representative location shall be selected.

Monitoring shall be undertaken in general accordance with the procedures outlined in the Noise EPP. Penalties shall be applied to the noise level if it contains any of the characteristics of tonal, impulsive, low frequency or modulating noise. Procedures for determining whether an annoying characteristic is present are described in the EPA document Guidelines for the use of the Environment Protection (Noise) Policy 2007.

The monitoring results shall be analysed to determine if there is any adjustment required to the programming of the works and to the extent of noise mitigation. Reporting

The results of any noise monitoring shall be included in the weekly report and, if requested by DPTI, within 24 hours.

3 AS 2012.1, 1990, Acoustics – Measurement of airborne noise emitted by earth-moving machinery and agricultural tractors – Stationary test condition. 27

Torrens Rail Junction Construction Noise and Vibration Management Framework A15419RP1 Revision A

9.2 Vibration monitoring requirements

Vibration monitoring shall be undertaken by the Contractor in the following situation: Continuous vibration monitoring with automated exceedance notifications both prior to and during major construction works near the: - Brompton Gas Works site - Bowden Railway Station building - Chief Street railway underpass. Attended monitoring where vibratory compaction works are to occur within: - 20 m of heritage-listed structures (other than the Brompton Gas Works and Bowden Railway Station building) - 15 m of residential structures. Attended monitoring where dynamic pile testing is to occur within: - 50 m of heritage-listed structures (other than the Brompton Gas Works and Bowden Railway Station building) - 35 m of residential structures. In response to a complaint.

Vibration monitoring shall be conducted by personnel suitably qualified and experienced in undertaking construction vibration measurements. Attended vibration monitoring

Vibration monitoring at structures shall be conducted at the nearest location to the works that is adjacent to the foundations of the relevant sensitive structure. If monitoring cannot be conducted at that location (e.g. access could not be obtained), then a representative location at an equivalent location shall be selected.

Vibration monitoring may also be undertaken of significant plant to ascertain site-specific buffer distances from works to residential and heritage-listed structures. Any vibration monitoring conducted to determine buffer distances shall be undertaken on the project site and as near to the area in which the equipment is to be used as practical such that the measurements are representative of actual site conditions.

Vibration monitoring shall include tri-axial vibration sensors measuring over a frequency range from 1 to 315 Hz, and measurements should be conducted in general accordance with the requirements of DIN 4150-3. Continuous vibration monitoring

The Contractor shall undertake continuous vibration monitoring at the locations identified below both prior to (i.e. baseline) and during major construction works when within 100 m of: Chief Street railway underpass a location at the Brompton Gas Works site representative of the nearest heritage-listed items Bowden Railway Station building.

Baseline vibration monitoring, prior to major construction works, shall be undertaken for a minimum period of at least 48 hours at each location to ascertain the existing exposure to vibration from rail movements.

Torrens Rail Junction Construction Noise and Vibration Management Framework A15419RP1 Revision A

Under this Framework, ‘major construction works’ with regards to vibration monitoring refers to the commencement of bulk earthworks within 100 m of a sensitive structure. The completion of major construction works is when the last significant vibration-generating activity (e.g. ballast tamping) has ceased within 100 m of the structure.

The monitors installed shall: include tri-axial vibration sensors measuring over a frequency range from 1 to 315 Hz be fitted with audible/visible warning alarms, and be capable of sending immediate exceedance alerts to relevant site staff via email and/or SMS allow for regular reporting of all data as required by DPTI and/or in response to complaints be capable of having at least two alarm levels, e.g: - warning level: 2 mm/s for heritage-listed or 3 mm/s for residential - stop level: 3 mm/s for heritage-listed or 5 mm/s for residential operate continuously during construction works.

All vibration measurements should be conducted in general accordance with the requirements of DIN 4150-3. Reporting

The results of any vibration monitoring shall be included in the weekly report and, if requested by DPTI, within 24 hours.

Torrens Rail Junction Construction Noise and Vibration Management Framework A15419RP1 Revision A

10 Mitigation

During works where the noise and/or vibration targets are predicted or measured to be exceeded at sensitive receiver locations, the Contractor shall implement all reasonable and practicable mitigation measures in accordance with this Framework.

The assessment of reasonable and practicable mitigation shall be based upon the following factors: Reasonableness: - noise or vibration reduction achieved - number of people benefited - cost of the mitigation measure - delay to schedule and whether the measure will prolong the overall exposure of receivers to construction noise and/or vibration - community views - pre-construction noise and vibration levels at receivers. Practicability: - engineering consideration regarding the feasibility of implementing the mitigation measure (i.e. what is practical to build).

It should be noted that it is unlikely that the implementation of the mitigation measures listed in this Section will result in construction noise and vibration from the project meeting the noise targets and vibration targets at all times. This is due to the nature and scale of the project, the proximity to residential land uses, and the specific construction processes that will be required.

The intention of this Framework is that, through implementation of reasonable and practicable mitigation measures listed in this Section, noise and vibration from construction will be limited to acceptable levels that: minimise disturbance to neighbouring sensitive land uses as much as is practical do not result in cosmetic or structural damage to structures allow efficient and safe construction of the project.

It is expected that noise and vibration levels will rise and fall at residential locations as activities progress on site, and there are likely to be times where there are sustained periods of relative quiet from construction at residences. Concentrating noisy works that must occur into the daytime and shoulder periods wherever possible is expected to reduce the overall impact of the construction works on neighbouring receivers.

Torrens Rail Junction Construction Noise and Vibration Management Framework A15419RP1 Revision A

10.1 Work programming

The Contractor shall programme construction works to reduce the ongoing noise and vibration impact on sensitive receivers, and reduce noise and vibration impact during more sensitive times.

Programming of works shall aim to concentrate noisy and vibration intensive works during the day and shoulder periods wherever possible. Where extended noisy night time works are required, respite nights shall be considered for sensitive receivers. Note that the local community may prefer works to be carried out continuously to reduce the overall duration of works rather than interrupted night time works. Shift workers and other individual needs should also be considered where known and where reasonable and practicable.

Programming of works to reduce noise and vibration impacts shall also consider: economic, transport and worker safety impacts due to not carrying out works at night any delay to the overall construction schedule that may impact on the wider community any increase in the overall duration of construction works that may prolong noise and vibration disturbances for sensitive receivers. 10.2 Worksite training

The worksite induction training implemented on site shall include education for workers on noise and vibration issues related to the works. Workers shall be advised to avoid shouting or whistling on site near sensitive receivers.

‘Toolbox talks’ shall be held at regular intervals during construction so that all workers on the site are aware of current noise and vibration issues and the mitigation measures being implemented on site at the time. 10.3 Broadband reversing alarms

Traditional reversing alarms have the potential to increase annoyance for sensitive receivers due to the tonal noise emitted. Broadband reversing alarms are commercially available that reduce noise annoyance and conform to relevant safety standards.

All mobile plant that is to be used during day and night time for construction works shall be fitted with broadband reversing alarms.

The Contractor shall ensure that all alarms are installed and operated in accordance with all relevant Occupational, Health and Safety requirements.

Torrens Rail Junction Construction Noise and Vibration Management Framework A15419RP1 Revision A

10.4 Construction noise mitigation

Construction noise control strategies implemented on site may include the use of alternative construction processes, temporary barriers, equipment enclosures, and site and equipment management measures. The noise mitigation measures to be implemented at any time will depend on a range of factors, including the type of work and location at which it is occurring, the noise levels associated with it and the time at which it is taking place.

The EM and/or site supervisor shall identify all reasonable and practicable noise mitigation measures to be implemented on site on a daily basis for any works with Moderate or High impact. For night works classified as “Above Targets”, the implementation of mitigation shall be assessed more regularly. Truck movements and site access

Truck movements during long term construction projects have the potential to cause annoyance for sensitive receivers, even where trucks may be travelling on sealed roads.

The design and selection of site access routes shall consider the potential disturbance to residents. In particular: site access and delivery points shall be located as far away from residences as possible truck movements shall use arterial roads and be diverted away from residential streets where feasible deliveries to/from site shall not occur during the night time period where possible. Piling works

Piling will likely be undertaken using a bored or CFA piling system. This produces significantly lower noise and vibration levels than driven piling.

Breaking back of piles shall use hydraulic splitting methods or other methods that result in similar noise levels. Breaking back of piles shall not be undertaken using mechanical vibration methods such as jackhammering or rock breaking. Acoustic enclosures

Enclosures to reduce noise emissions shall be used for certain noisy stationary activities such as jackhammering or drilling, or fixed plant located in a certain position for a long period of time such as noisy compressors.

Acoustic enclosures shall be used for noisy sources, where reasonable and practicable, that are located near sensitive receivers for extended periods. Consideration shall be given to: the noise level at the sensitive receivers the duration of the activity at that location the potential for any enclosure to delay the works significantly worker safety.

The enclosure should be made of 6 mm plywood, loaded vinyl sheeting or an acoustic equivalent material, with no gaps at joints or corners. Where relevant, the inside of the enclosure should be lined with sound absorptive material (e.g. perforated foil faced insulation) to reduce reverberant noise within the enclosure.

Torrens Rail Junction Construction Noise and Vibration Management Framework A15419RP1 Revision A

Temporary screening

Temporary screening of construction activities shall be considered where noisy works are occurring for long periods of time near noise sensitive receivers. An example of a situation where screens may be considered reasonable and practicable is around a site compound (where the location of the noise source is known) positioned near to a noise sensitive receiver.

Any temporary screen should be constructed from a solid material with a surface mass density of at least 8 kg/m2 and to a height of at least 2.1 m. Care should be taken that a barrier does not create an additional issue by reflecting noise towards another sensitive location. Site management

Site management procedures shall include the following: processes that generate lower noise levels should be selected where feasible noisy plant shall be located as far away from residences as is practical to allow efficient and safe completion of the task the potential shielding provided by site topography and intervening buildings shall be taken into account in locating equipment site compounds shall be located as far away as possible from residences works shall be scheduled during the daytime period where possible works outside daytime hours shall be scheduled during shoulder periods where possible equipment that is used intermittently shall be shut down or throttled down to a minimum during periods where it is not in use equipment that emits noise predominantly in a particular direction shall be sited such that noise is directed away from residences where feasible materials shall not be dropped from a height causing a loud noise wherever possible where materials are to be dropped into an empty truck tray or disposal bin and may cause a loud noise, the tray/bin should be lined with soil or an equivalent material to reduce impact noise where feasible truck operators shall ensure tailgates are cleared and locked at the point of unloading works shall be planned to minimise the reduce the noise from reversing signals warning horns shall not be used as signalling devices two way radios shall be set to the minimum effective volume noise associated with packing up plant and equipment at the end of works shall be minimised. Equipment management

Equipment management shall include the following: selection of low-noise plant and equipment where possible equipment shall be well maintained equipment shall have quality mufflers and silencers installed where relevant equipment not in use on site shall be shut down tasks shall be completed using the minimum feasible power and equipment traffic practice controllers shall be used to prevent vehicles and equipment queuing, idling or reversing near residences.

Torrens Rail Junction Construction Noise and Vibration Management Framework A15419RP1 Revision A

10.5 Vibration mitigation

Vibration mitigation strategies implemented on site may include the use of alternative construction processes, site and equipment management measures, and proactive continuous monitoring for sensitive properties (refer Section 9.2). Piling works

Piling will likely be undertaken using a bored or CFA piling system. This produces significantly lower vibration levels than driven piling. Building condition inspections

The Contractor shall undertake pre-construction building condition inspections of the buildings shown in Figure C1 in Appendix B.

If the Contractor introduces work practices or change work locations such that additional residential buildings not highlighted in Appendix C are at risk of vibration levels exceeding 1 mm/s (for heritage-listed) or 3 mm/s (for residential), then the Contractor shall also undertake a building condition survey of those buildings prior to the relevant works commencing. The Contractor shall also undertake any post- construction building condition surveys of buildings where required either as an appropriate response to a complaint or due to a potential exceedance of the vibration limits.

The Contractor shall ensure that any such pre- and post-construction building condition surveys are undertaken by an appropriate entity included on or eligible for inclusion on DPTI’s Environmental Services Panel, to ascertain whether the structures have sustained any damage as a result of construction activities.

Each survey should involve, as a minimum, a visual inspection of all buildings and structures, more specifically of all internal and external building walls for their full height, of ground level floors and external pavements, of all connections of other structures above ground level and their connection at ground level and any exposed foundations. All cracks observed should be mapped to scale and representative measurements of crack width should be recorded. Representative colour photographs and/or high definition video should be taken. Exclusion and static rolling zones

Static rolling zones are shown on Figure B2 in Appendix B and apply around the Brompton Gas Works, Bowden Station, North Adelaide Station and Torrens Rail Bridge. No vibratory compaction shall occur

Torrens Rail Junction Construction Noise and Vibration Management Framework A15419RP1 Revision A

within these zones unless it can be demonstrated through monitoring that the relevant vibration limits are not exceeded. Vibratory rollers

Where vibratory compaction activities occur within the following distances: 20 m of heritage-listed structures (other than those where continuous monitoring is occurring) 15 m of residential structures vibration monitoring shall be conducted to ensure that compliance is achieved with the relevant vibration limits.

Where the monitoring indicates that compliance with the limits is not able to be achieved using vibratory compaction, the Contractor shall: use a smaller size vibratory roller for which compliance can be achieved OR use static rolling. Dynamic pile testing

Where dynamic pile testing is occurring within: 50 m of heritage-listed structures (other than those where continuous monitoring is occurring) 35 m of residential structures then the following activities shall be undertaken: vibration monitoring shall be conducted to ensure that compliance is achieved with the relevant vibration limits a “soft-start” procedure shall be implemented whereby the hammer drop height is gradually increased to ensure compliance with the vibration limits. Works near critical pipework and services

During vibration intensive works near critical pipework and services where there is a risk of damage and/or failure, a response team capable of addressing any failure shall be on standby to respond should an issue arise. Site and equipment management

The following site and equipment management processes shall be undertaken to mitigate vibration impacts: all plant shall be properly maintained alternative construction processes that produce less vibration shall be implemented where feasible (e.g. the use of CFA rather than impact piling) low vibration alternatives for plant shall be implemented where possible plant that has high and low vibration operating settings shall be run on the lowest effective vibration setting truck movements along uneven surfaces shall be restricted to minimum speed adjacent to vibration sensitive receivers.

Torrens Rail Junction Construction Noise and Vibration Management Framework A15419RP1 Revision A

Appendix A—Construction noise contours