SALT PAN CREEK RESERVE, RIVERWOOD REVIEW 3.0 REVIEW
3.1 Heritage 3.1.1 Historical Background and Environmental Context The masterplan is informed by a Heritage Review undertaken by GML Heritage (Feb 2017) which identified a series of phases of heritage importance which can inform planning and design proposals and offer interpretation opportunities
0 20 40 M
0 50 100 M
0 100 200 M
N
Plan of the parish of St George in 1889, showing original grantees of the study area and Canturbury region. (Source: LPI NSW) Ellen and Hugh Anderson at their home on Salt Pan Creek, in c1925. (Source: State Library of NSW) Map of Salt Pan Creek and the surrounding areas in 1830, showing the natural topography and watercourses of the region. (Source: L Mitchell, engraved by John Carmichael, Map of the Nineteen Counties, State Library of NSW)
An 1943 aerial photograph showing the 118th General Hospital and surrounding residential development, with the study area marked in red. (Source: SIX Maps with GML overlay, 2016) The only known depiction of Pemulwuy, created a year after his death. (Source: The Levingston family home during its later use as a golf club house, c1930. State Library of New South Wales) (Source: EM Jones, Canterbury Commons)
Setllement & resistance Refugees and rights • 1798 first exploration in area • Bediagul maintained presence in the area through to 1930’s Pre Setllement • 1809 -areas adjoining Salt Pan Creek first subject to land grants • Salt Pan Creek camps continued in the area drawing • traditional lands of the Bediagul indigenous peoples from across Sydney • Moxon Murphy Batty and Pashley early grant holders • Pemulway most well known • Between 1926-35 Salt Pan creek became focal point for • name potentially comes from salt boiling industry to east indigenous rights • network of creeks and rivers important - economic and cultural exchange • land clearing in 1809 led to conflict with Bediagul • By end of depression pressure mounted for camps to be • Wakefield Outwood Farm owned by Robert Levingston - 1930’s cleared and many Aboriginal people were moved out of area • Herne Bay estate company 1930’s
Salt Pan Creek Reserve Concept Masterplan 28 GML Heritage
3.6 Public Lands
Besides the reclamation and landfill areas, other lands along the creek were reclaimed and converted to playing fields. The eastern playing field was likely created during the 1960s. The area of McLaughlin Oval was levelled and transferred by the State Planning Authority to the care, control and management of Canterbury Municipal Council in 1967.40 It is shown in use as part of the Garbage Depot in Figure 2.10, however, it is identified as McLaughlin Oval by 1984 in Figure 2.11. Regardless, the works to create the baseball fields were completed by 1991
(Figure 2.12). It was named in honour of Mr Vernon 0 20 40 M McLaughlin, in recognition of his role in establishing a 0 50 100 M 0 100 200 M baseball field at the site.
N The M5 motorway corridor which now divides the study area was reserved in the early 1980s, with planned areas of reclamation shown in Figure 2.11. Construction of a single lane for the road was The 118th General Hospital buildings, in use by the US Army in 1944. (Source: completed by 1992, before being upgraded in 2001.41 Lois Townsend, Canterbury Council Archives) The northwestern portion of the study area was also ParishFigure 2.11 mapParish map for for the study study area from area 1984, showing from the 1984,extent of reclamation showing and proposed the extentlocation for theof M5. reclamation (Source: LPI NSW) Aerial photograph fromlevelled 1965 in the showing mid-1980s, the with nowno formal demolished use for the hospital buildings, and proposed location for the M5. (Source: LPI NSW) and otherwise swampy,land identified mangrove-filled. Given its inaccessibility, shoreline it ofmay the have creek. (Source: LPI NSW)only been informally used by the Canterbury Bankstown Tennis and Bowls Club to the east.
Following its closure, the Garbage Depot was remediated and converted for public use, adding to the existing public lands along the foreshore, with the current leachate treatment plant and pumping stations constructed.
0 20 40 M
0 50 100 M
0 100 200 M 0 20 40 M
0 50 100 M
0 100 200 M N
N
Aerial photograph from 1986, during the operation of the Salt Pan Creek Aerial photograph from 1991, showing the largely remediated northern portion Figure 3.12 Aerial photograph from 1991, showing the largely remediated northern portion of the study area, with filling still taking place in the south. Garbage Depot. Much of the study area was by then reclaimed and filled. Only of(Source: the LPI study NSW) area, with filling still taking place in the south. An 1943 aerial photograph showing the 118th General Hospital and surrounding the southern sports field had been completed at this stage. (Source: LPI NSW) (Source: LPI NSW) residential development, with the study area marked in red. (Source: SIX Maps with GML overlay, 2016) PUBLIC LAND 10 Landfill Salt Pan Creek Reserve—Masterplan Advice—Draft Report, February 2017 WWII and Post war • Besides the reclamation and landfill areas, other land along the • By 60’s most of hospital building replaced by housing creek was claimed and converted to playing fields • Late 30’s Doctors Bush Camp -Levingston - brief use as golf course and grazing land • Early juxtasposition of new and old buildings • Eastern playing field was likely created during the 1960s • 1942 portion of Levingston land requisitioned for • Riverwood gazetted in 1958 • McLaughlin Oval was levelled and transferred to the care, control and management of Canterbury Municipal Council in 1967. largest miliatary hospital in Aust - to east of site • Infrastructure fell behind development and polution of creek system Baseball fields were completed by 1991 and named in honour of major issue • 1946 hospital adapted into emergency housing Mr Vernon McLaughlin • 1964 - proposal for landfill with end use playing fields • The northwestern area was also levelled in the mid - 1980s, with • tip operated from 1966 to 1992 no formal use for land identified • 1.3million m3 of domestic waste • The Garbage Depot was closed and remediated and coverted for public use, adding to the existing public lands along the foreshore
May 2018 ep environmental partnership 29 3.0 REVIEW GML Heritage
3.14.0 ArchaeologicalHeritage Potential and Heritage Significance 3.1.2 Aboriginal Archaeological Sensitivity GML Heritage TheThe GMH potential Heritage for archaeological report 2017 reviewed remains potential relating forto theArchaeological Aboriginal and remains non- Aboriginalrelating to occupationthe Aboriginal of theand site are non-Aboriginalassessed in Appendix occupation A (Aboriginal)of the area. andAboriginal Appendix Archeological C (non-Aboriginal). sensitivity isThe summarised location and below: type of remains are summarised here to guide future management of the archaeology at Salt Pan Creek Reserve, and to inform the master4.0 Archaeologicalplanning process, including Potential possible interpretive and Heritage works. Significance 4.1 Aboriginal Archaeological Potential The potential for archaeological remains relating to the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal occupation of the site are Theassessed areas inof AboriginalAppendix archaeologicalA (Aboriginal) sensitivityand Appendix within C the (non study-Aboriginal). have been The defined, location following and type the Dueof remains Diligence are 42 Codesummarised of Practice here for to theguide Protection future management of Aboriginal ofObjects the archaeology in NSW. at Salt Pan Creek Reserve, and to inform the masterLevel planningof Aboriginal process , includingDescription possible interpretive works. Archaeological Sensitivity 4.1 Aboriginal Archaeological Potential Areas of Nil Sensitivity This sensitivity category was based on the absence of landforms which the predictive The areas of Aboriginal archaeologicalmodel identified sensitivity as foci withinfor Aboriginal the study activity, have or erosion been or defined,ground disturbance following completely the Due Diligence Code of Practice for the Protectionremoving of Aboriginal the soil horizons Objects which inhave NSW the potential.42 to contain Aboriginal archaeology.
AreasLevel of LowAboriginal Aboriginal ThisDescription sensitivity category was based on historical aerial analysis and the site inspection Archaeological Sensitivity Sensitivity Buried identifying earthworks/landscaping cutting into the soil horizon thus removing or redepositing potential Aboriginal objects. The definition of buried is defined by the base of Areas of Nil Sensitivity This sensitivity category was based on the absence of landforms which the predictive the landfill overlying natural soil horizons. Thus, buried deposits are characterised by the model identified as foci for Aboriginal activity, or erosion or ground disturbance completely presence of both disturbed or intact soil horizons. removing the soil horizons which have the potential to contain Aboriginal archaeology. Areas of High Aboriginal This sensitivity category was based on the presence of alluvial Birrong soils which can be ArchaeologicalAreas of Low Aboriginal Sensitivity upThis to sensitivity250cm in depth. category These was zones based contain on historical the potential aerial analysisto yield stratifiedand the sitearchaeological inspection Archaeological Sensitivity Buried identifying earthworks/landscaping cutting into the soil horizon thus removing or deposits. Historical aerial analysis of this location has identified that the deposits have likelyredepositing been capped potential and Aboriginal remain intact. objects. The definition of buried is defined by the base of the landfill overlying natural soil horizons. Thus, buried deposits are characterised by the Areas of High Aboriginal Thispresence sensitivity of both cat egorydisturbed was or based intact on soil the horizons. presence of alluvial Birrong soils which can be Archaeological Sensitivity Buried up to 250cm in depth. These zones contain the potential to yield stratified archaeological Areas of High Aboriginal This sensitivity category was based on the presence of alluvial Birrong soils which can be deposits. It is also based on the potential location of shell middens, associated with the Archaeological Sensitivity estupuarine to 250cm context in depth. of Salt These Pan creek, zones applying contain the potentialPort Jackson to yield predictive stratified modelling archaeological of Attenbrowdeposits. Historical1994 within aerial 10m analysis of the 1965 of this shoreline location (historical has identified aerial that mapping the deposits accuracy have may varylikely and been should capped be consideredand remain in intact. any reassessment). The definition of buried is defined by the base of the landfill overlying natural soil horizons. Thus, buried deposits are Areas of High Aboriginal This sensitivity category was based on the presence of alluvial Birrong soils which can be characterised by the presence of both disturbed and intact soil horizons. Archaeological Sensitivity Buried up to 250cm in depth. These zones contain the potential to yield stratified archaeological Historical aerial analysis of this location has identified that the deposits have likely been deposits. It is also based on the potential location of shell middens, associated with the impactedestuarine through context clearing, of Salt Pan dumping creek, or applying landscaping, the Port however, Jackson due predictive to the depth modelling of the of alluvial profile and the potential for stratified deposits the location is classified as high Attenbrow 1994 within 10m of the 1965 shoreline (historical aerial mapping accuracy may archaeologicalvary and should sensitivity. be considered This is in because any reassessment). any potential Thestratified definition deposits of buried in intact is defined profiles Figure 4.1 Aboriginal Archaeological Sensitivity Zones. (Source: NSW LPI with GML additions, 2017) mayby the yield base scientifically of the landfill significant overlying evidence. natural soil horizons. Thus, buried deposits are characterised by the presence of both disturbed and intact soil horizons.
Historical aerial analysis of this location has identified that the deposits have likely been impacted through clearing, dumping or landscaping, however, due to the depth of the alluvial profile and the potential for stratified deposits the location is classified as high
archaeological sensitivity. This is because any potential stratified deposits in intact profiles
may yield scientifically significant evidence. Figure 4.1 Aboriginal Archaeological SensitivityFigure Zones 3.1 Aboriginal. (Source: NSWArchaeological LPI with GML Sensitive additions Zones., 2017) (Source: NSW LPI with GML additions, 2017 Salt Pan Creek Reserve Concept Masterplan 30
Salt Pan Creek Reserve—Masterplan Advice—Draft Report, February 2017 11
Salt Pan Creek Reserve—Masterplan Advice—Draft Report, February 2017 11 3.1.3 Historical Archaeology
TheGML GMH Heritage Heritage report 2017 reviewed potential for Archaeological remains relating to the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal occupation of the area. Historical Archeological sensitivity is summarised below:
GML Heritage4.2 Historical Archaeology
Phase Site Feature Location Types of Archaeological Evidence Likelihood Significance of Survival 4.2 Historical Archaeology Phase 1— Doctors Bush Northern Structural remains of buildings, post holes or footings Low State Phase 1798–1939Site FeatureCamp Locationplayground/M5 TypesRubbish of pitsArchaeological Evidence Likelihood Significance boundary Evidence of fires and cooking of Survival
Phase 1— Doctors Bush Northern StructuralArtefact scatters remains of oftraditional buildings, and post introduced holes materialor footings Low State 1798–1939 Camp Levingston playground/M5Carpark Rubbish Evidence pits of land clearing and cultivation Low Local Estate and boundary Evidence of landscaping for golf course Golf Course Evidence of fires and cooking Artefact scatters of traditional and introduced material Phase 2— Military Northern Structural remains including post holes for footings, Moderate Local 1942–1946Levingston hospital Carparkplayground Evidenceand demolition of land rubble clearing and cultivation Low Local Underfloor deposits from wards Estate and Evidence of landscaping for golf course Golf Course Northern and Isolated artefacts southern Phase 2— Military Northernplayground Structural remains including post holes for footings, Moderate Local
1942–1946Phase 3—hospitalHousing playgroundNorthern andEvidence demolition for modifications rubble to buildings Low Local
1946–1960s estate playground UnderfloorDomestic rubbishdeposits pits from wards Northern and Remnant Northern IsolatedRemains artefacts of unidentified structure Moderate Local southern farmlands playground playground Post holes of fencing Moderate Evidence of clearing or cultivation, possibly Low Phase 3— Housing Northern Evidenceassociated for with modifications Phase 1 to buildings Low Local 1946–1960s estate playground Phase 4— Garbage Central mound DomesticLocal domestic rubbish refuse pits High None 1960s–1992 depot Remnant NorthernNorthern RemainsIntroduced of fillsunidentified for reclamation structure and level ling Moderate Local playground farmlands playground Post holes of fencing Moderate Northern mound Evidence of clearing or cultivation, possibly Low associated with Phase 1 Playgrounds Northern Services including water, sewer, stormwater High, extant None Phase 4— Garbageand sporting Centralplayground mound LocalFootings domestic for equipment, refuse infrastructure and structures High None facilities 1960s–1992 depot NorthernSouthern Introduced fills for reclamation and levelling playground playground Figure 4.2 Aboriginal Archaeological Sensitivity Zones. (Source: NSW LPI with GML additions, 2017) McLaughlin Northern Oval mound Phase 5— Salt Pan Whole study Capping fills High, extant None 1992– PlaygroundsCreek reserve Northern area ServicesLandscaping, including garden water, beds sewer, stormwater High, extant None Present and sporting playground Footings for equipment, infrastructure and structures facilities Southern Figure 3.2 Aboriginal Archaeological Sensitive Zones. (Source: NSW LPI with GML additions, 2017 playground May 2018 ep Figure 4.2 environmental Aboriginal Archaeological partnership Sensitivity Zones. (Source: NSW LPI with GML additions, 2017) 31 McLaughlin Oval
Phase 5— Salt Pan Whole study Capping fills High, extant None 1992– Creek reserve area Landscaping, garden beds Present 12 Salt Pan Creek Reserve—Masterplan Advice—Draft Report, February 2017
12 Salt Pan Creek Reserve—Masterplan Advice—Draft Report, February 2017 3.0 REVIEW
3.1 Heritage 3.1.4 Heritage Significance
The GMH Heritage report 2017 summarised a series of zones and recommendations for the site. In general terms the report identified : • The site is significant at a local level due to: -Continuing Aboriginal occupation -Military Hospital • The Doctors Bush Camp (which was a camp / shelter site to the south of the subject site was significant as place of Aboriginal occupation into 20th Century • The area’s role as an ongoing place of Aboriginal presence makes it important as a place of refuge and resilience • Ongoing consultation required with Aboriginal community to further develop the background to these themes and the narrative arising • WWII hospital is a symbol of war conditions and of international cooperation, and is worth of interpretation
Recommendations for areas requiring Heritage Management The diagram this page indicates the areas that are of Archaeological potential and require 1 consideration in ongoing planning and design. These are both located to the eastern edge of the site. Where masterplanning proposals are not proposing excavations into these areas potential impact is likely to be low. Built structures over these areas will require assessment but are also likely to be of minimal impact. Excavation works would require assessment through the sequence identified in the Heritage report 2017
Figure 3.3 Area of archaeological potential and heritage significance within the Salt Pan Creek Reserve study area. (Source: NSW LPI with GML additions, 2017) Salt Pan Creek Reserve Concept Masterplan 32 3.1.5 Interpretation
Given the local significance and the individual and distinctive combination of heritage narratives in the area of the site, there is great potential for interpretation to be embedded in ongoing park design as a key design influence. Some recommended themes are outlined below and keyed on the plan this page
1. Interpret Original Creek shoreline -interpretive trail -markers in the landscape / discovery -integration with boardwalk access
2. Interpret refuge and resilience (Aboriginal presence in area) -Consultation -Hilltop artwork -Back to country spaces and activities 2 -Integrated interpretation through track network 3 -Playground - potential indigenous theming 3 -Aboriginal naming of park areas / elements
3. Interpret healing and compassion WWII Hospital 1 -Northern Playground -Architectural character of amenities and shelters Note: Hospital site was futher to east of Salt Pan Creek site - so physical “markers” 3 interpreting presence are not appropriate
3 1
Figure 3.4: Original Creek Shoreline (Source: EP) May 2018 ep environmental partnership 33 3.0 REVIEW
3.2 Ecology & Habitat 3.2.1 Habitat
Ecological Australia undertook and Ecological assessment in 2017 to review and summarise ecological values for the site (refer Attachment C) A review of the vegetation mapping (OEH 2013) identified ten vegetation communities within the subject site, including: • Castlereagh Ironbark Forest • Estuarine Mangrove Forest • Estuarine Reedland • Estuarine Saltmarsh • Estuarine Swamp Oak Forest • Plantations • Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest • Urban native and exotic cover • Weeds and exotics • Cleared land.
Threatened ecological communities Of these the following are listed as threatened ecological communities: • Estuarine Saltmarsh • Swamp Oak Forest
Fauna Habitat No threatened fauna species were recorded during the site assessment, though habitat exists for a number of highly mobile species including Anthochaera phrygia (Regent Honeyeater), Haliaeetus leucogaster (Whitebellied Sea-eagle), Limosa lapponica (Bar-tailed Godwit), Gallinago hardwickii (Latham Snipe), Haematopus longirostris (Pied Oystercatcher), Ninox strenua (Powerful Owl), Pteropus poliocephalus (Grey-headed Flyingfox), Malurus Cyaneus (Superb Fairywren) and several microbats species. The subject site also has the potential to provide habitat for the Litoria aurea (Green and Golden Bell Frog) within the Estuarine Saltmarsh, however targeted surveys would be required to confirm their presence.
Figure 3.5 Vegetation mapping of the study area (Source: ELA) Salt Pan Creek Reserve Concept Masterplan Figure 2: Vegetation mapping of the study area 34
Page 4
3.2 Ecology & Habitat 3.2.2 Habitat values and opportunities
Important environmental values The following important environmental values were identified within the subject site and are recommended for retention and enhancement: • Cooks River/Castlereagh Ironbark Forest in the Sydney Basin Bioregion, listed as an Endangered Ecological Community (EEC) under the Threatened Species Conservation (TSC) Act and a Critically Endangered Ecological Community (CEEC) under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act. • Swamp Oak Floodplain Forest of the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner bioregions, listed as an EEC under the TSC Act. • Coastal saltmarsh in the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner bioregions, listed as an EEC under the TSC Act and Subtropical and Temperate Coastal Saltmarsh listed as vulnerable under the EPBC Act. • Acacia pubescens, listed as vulnerable under the TSC Act and EPBC Act • Potential habitat for approximately nine threatened fauna species • Wildlife corridors (connected habitat) to the east and west, and north and south-west These values have been identified in the figure this page.
Environmental management and enhancement Revegetation and regeneration It is recommended that selected parts of the subject site are revegetated or regenerated to: • enhance existing ecological communities • improve wildlife corridors and connectivity • allow for potential sea level rise • utilise ecological values to contribute to improved amenity e.g. more shade trees around the edge of ovals. Recommended areas for revegetation and regeneration are provided in the figure this page. To re-establish the three Threatened Ecological Communities (TECs) within the study area, timing and spacing for planting is recommended as follows: • Castlereagh Ironbark Forest community planting should take place over one year in order to ensure proper establishment and achieve a final density of one plant per m2 for trees / shrubs and three plants per m2 for sedges/ rushes and grasses. • Swamp Oak Floodplain Forest community planting should take place over one year in order to ensure proper establishment and achieve a final density of one plant per m2 for trees / shrubs and three plants per m2 for sedges/ rushes and grasses. • Coastal Saltmarsh planting should take place over three years in order to ensure proper establishment and achieve a final density of 4 plants per m2 for rushes, herbs and grasses. Offset Opportunities There may be options to explore establishment of a Biobanking Agreement site within the north-western of the site on Whitmarsh Reserve. This area is approximately 10 ha in size, which is a viable size for a Biobank site, however the site is largely dominated by exotic vegetation and costs to establish and manage the site may become prohibitive and therefore not economically viable for the landholder. It is estimated that the proposed biobank site would establish approximately 90 credits. CRCIF credits currently trade for between $12,000 - $17,000 / credit. A Biobank feasibility study would provide a more certain outcome for this opportunity. Figure 3.6 Important environmental values within the study area (Source: ELA) May 2018 ep environmentalFigure 3 partnership: Important environmental values within the study area 35
Page 13
3.0 REVIEW
3.2 Ecology & Habitat
Castlereagh Ironbark Forest recorded Estuarine Mangrove Forest within the study area Estuarine Saltmarsh recorded within the study area Estuarine Swamp Oak Forest within the study area recorded within the study area
Planted native vegetation recorded within the study area Weeds and exotics within the study area Maintained grass / cleared land recorded within the study area Acacia pubescens recorded within the study area
(Source: ELA)
Salt Pan Creek Reserve Concept Masterplan 36 3.3 Access The site has potential to integrate with access networks at a number of levels
3.3.1 District Access 3.3.2 Local Access • strong east west link along Riverwood Parkland corridor • access to McLaughlin oval from adjoining streets • potential linkages to south in adjoining LGA and the existing bridge across Salt Pan Creek via • limited access across / under M5 corridor Riverwood Park • need for east west connections through new communities to east - ideally this edge would be as • potential additional linkage to west linking to Salt Pan Creek walkway system permeable as possible to enhance security and usability
PUNCHBOWL
Whitmarsh
Mclaughlin WHITMARSH PARK 1km MCLAUGHLIN OVAL M5 Motorway M5 MOTORWAY
10.00
10.00
10.00
10
.00
10.00
5.00 10.00 SALT PAN 10.00
5 .00
CREEK SITE 10.00
5.00
5 .00
10.00
400m 300m 5.00
5.00
5.00
SALT PAN CREEK 10.00
10 .00 Riverwood
5.00 5.00 KENTUCKY RESERVE 5.00 SALT PAN CREEK
5 5.00 .00
10.00 10.00 300m
5.00 400m 5.00 5.00
5.00 5.00
5.00
Salt Pan 5.00 1km
10.00
LEGEND: 5.00 LEGEND: RIVERWOOD Kentucky
Vehicular Access 5.00 Reserve Vehicular Entry Walkability
5.00
Radius 10.00
Pedestrian Access 10.00 Formal Pedestrian Entry Parking Local Bicycle Network Pedestrian/Cycle PADSTOW Paths 5.00 Entry Site Boundary Local Bicycle Network 5.00 Bridges/Boardwalks Bridges/Boardwalks 5.00 5.00 Site Boundary District access
Figure 3.7 Neighbourhood access map DATE CLIENT TITLE Figure 3.8 SCALELocal access map DRAWING October 2016 3460.MP01 Salt Pan Creek N 0m 20m 50m DATE CLIENT TITLE SCALE DRAWING Lanfill Drainage ISSUE October 2016 - May 2018 Salt Pan Creek N 0m 100m 200mep 3460 .MP01 environmental partnership 37 Access 2 ISSUE Local Access - 3.0 REVIEW
3.4 Recreation
Development of the masterplan has straddled the merger of Canterbury and Bankstown Councils. The project was originally commissioned by Canterbury Council, but with the merger into one LGA, the site is now pivotally located at the centre of Canterbury Bankstown. The review of the project at the time of the merger addressed the question of the future role of a parkland on the post landfill site and considered the potential role the site could play for the community of the expanded LGA. It was resolved for the purposes of the masterplan that the park had potential to provide a regional role for informal recreation and a district role for organised sports. Definitions of these categorisations follow: • Regional: ‘High value’ open space that has the capacity to draw from or benefit people across and beyond the City due to its size, facilities, features, innovation, location. • District: Good quality open space that has the capacity to draw from or benefit people across or beyond a district within the City (west, central, east) due to its size, facilities, features As Council’s merger process progressed conceptualisation of the consolidated recreational resource and the related shortfalls and opportunities were able to be identified. As a result a refined perspective of the role of the park was defined. This has guided the masterplan’s development, with the covenant that where possible development of the park build in the maximum potential for future flexibility and adaptability. Key points of the refined recreational profile for the park are listed following: • The context of the Riverwood LUIIP development to the immediate east of the site is significant and is discussed in further detail in section 3.5 opposite page) • Council resolved to consider options for relocation of Sydney Olympic Football Club to a location at Salt Pan Creek. This will free 3 leased football fields at Tasker Park (Canterbury Town Centre) which form part of the critical open space for the Urban Renewal Corridor Relocating Sydney Olympic Football Club also frees Peter Moore field adjacent to Belmore Oval (Canterbury Bulldogs precinct) • A new football facility would be a regional level and be provided with NPL-1 level amenities including a synthetic field, covered seating / grandstand, ticket office and perimeter fencing, parking and other associated change rooms, office and gym facilities. Council considered 1 x synthetic and 1 x grass full field would address the Sydney Olympic role. Figure 3.9 Existing open space / recreational context • Baseball, AFL / Cricket / Athletics, Football/ soccer and passive recreation facilities including significant water treatment and water course are to be provided within the masterplan area • Council identified that two multi-purpose “pads” catering for different modes of use: -2 x football fields or -1 x cricket wicket or -1x AFL field be provided within the park south of the M5 Morris Iemma Indoor Centre Stuart Street Reserve Apex Park
Salt Pan Creek Reserve Concept Masterplan 38 Illustrative master planp Draft - not for distribution 3.5 Adjoining Development
The Riverwood precinct to the immediate east of the site is the subject of a significant redevelopment project which will result in increased residential 6 6 densities adjoining the site and built form up to six storeys at the park edge. 6 6 The Riverwood Land Use Infrastructure Implementation Plan (LUIIP) was declared 6 a NSW Government Priority Precinct and development of the Salt Pan Creek 5 5 Parklands masterplan has involved liaison with the Riverwood project team. 5 7 7 6 7 The project will markedly change the character of the neighbourhood adjoining the 7 5 parklands, and provide a more active and safe “edge” to the park than the existing 7 1 5 5 closed residential rear yards and fenclines. 5 5 7 7 7 6 The uplift in population will create a local user catchment that will help activate 5 6 path and trail systems and facilities such as fitness nodes 7 5 7 7 6 Some key opportunities as indicated on Figure 3.11 include: 5 6 6 5 8 11. review road access integrated with adjoining development to optimise 15 integration with adjoining community and spread traffic load for access to the 3 8 6 parklands 6 6 2 2. promote “green” corridors to open space / streets leading to the parklands 2 6 6 3. pursue active frontages adjoining the new community and promote walk in 15 6 8 15 3 access to the parklands through an attractive and usable park edge 6 8 15 6 8 15 4. explore potential WSUD opportunities and water in the landscape 8 8 4 8 8 6 8 6 6 8 20 6 3 6 8 6 20 8 8 20 4 3 2 2 8 3 8 3 8 8 3 15 8 15 8 8 8 6 8 20
8 6 6 6 6 6
Riverwood master plan | Site and context analysis | Architectus 78
0 50 100m
Figure 3.10 Adjoining Riverwood development site (Source: Draft Riverwood Masterplan) Figure 3.11 Adjoining Development (Source: Draft Riverwood Masterplan)
May 2018 ep environmental partnership 39 3.0 REVIEW
3.6 Landfill, Landform and Drainage 3.6.1 Landfill background
As a post landfill site the effective capping of the landfill profile, and the ongoing management of leachate and gas from the subsurface Rainfall Infiltration Differential Settlement zones are key influences on park planning. Addressing these & Ponding 11 BH-7 BH-12 requirements must be at the forefront of an integrated site planning 10
Access Road 9 Seeps (LSeep, approach. At the same time this masterplan seeks to ensure that GW4 See) Pumping 8 Station-3 GW-5 the landfill legacy does not unduly limit the potential of the site to 7 GW-5A A=800mg/L A=25 mg/L
6 provide an interesting and stimulating landscape environment. LEGEND 5 Salt Pan Creek ? Existing Capping (variable)
4 Buried Waste (Inferred)
Weathered Sandstone Canterbury Councils Tip Closure Plan in 2015 identified 3 Tidal ? Alluvial (Silty Clays) Inferred Elevaton (RL) 2 ? Clay Bunding and Liner ? (schematic only & original recommendations for end use planning: surface) 1 ? Perched Water (Leachate) • Promote positive falls. Runoff away from site with a minimum of 0 Regional Groundwater Well Screen (jnferred) Slope 2% - minimum soil disturbance -1 Approx Ammonia Concentrations & support end use (playing fields) A23 (20014, mg/L) 2% slope for playing fields -2 ? ? -3 ? • Reduce infiltration into soil Figure 2.12: Preliminary Conceptual Site Model Preliminary Conceptual Site Model (V2, Jan 2015)
Date: 22 January(Source: 2015 City of Canterbury Council Closure/RehabitationSALT PAN of CREEK Salt LANDFILL- Pan Concept Plan • Promote evapo-transpiration (water exchange from soil and Reference: E2W_204_02.cdr Creek Landfill The Concept Plan (EPL 10636) July 2015)Figure 6 plants to atmoshpere) • Prevent leachate (water that has moves through soil and leached embedded minerals or chemicals) entering groundwater /surface water Min 2% grade Grass cover (playing fields) • Treat leachate to remove solids, sulfides
Evapo-transpiration layer (ET-L) • Preferred landfill geometry involves minimum 2% slopes to Combined drainage/infiltration layer ~0.3m Landfill Gas & Re-vegetation Area thick placed without compaction 0.3m -Shallow Water Table & Thinner ET-L (~0.15m) possible if existing
facilitate construction of sporting fields and playing areas clay barrier is >0.8m thick Water Collection/Drainage- 0.25m management gas trench- Gravel • Prevent exposure of buried waste.
• The site is preferred to be partially or fully re-vegetated and 0.5m Clay barrier (Permeability E- 08 m/sec) 0.25m integrated with a wetland water body for water quality treatment 2 compacted lifts ~0.25m thick
Performance Based and (soft spots removed & stabilised) Sound foundation- granular materials with minimal waste Seal bearing layer (stable/compacted & minimal waste) • Possible leachate pump installation. NOTES Final layer comprising mostly soil with Buried Waste minor waste (<20%) • Preferred landfill gas management involves the construction Hold points for construction QA Clay capping; inspection & testing
of passive structures such as gravel trenches and or bio-pads Figure 2.13: ProposedProposed Landfill Landfill Capping Capping PlanPlan Date: 22 January 2015(Source: City of Canterbury Council Closure/RehabitationSALT PAN CREEK of LANDFILL- Salt concept Pan plan due to elevated landfill gas concentrations on the mound Reference: E2W_204_07.cdr Creek Landfill The Concept Plan (EPL 10636) July Figure2015) 5A (mulch piles integrated with treatment/landscaped areas without flaring equipment). Gravel trenches are proposed near the more sensitive residential and school areas. Slope 2% - minimum soil disturbance & support end use (playing fields) Sea/bearing surface - sound foundation (no heaving) LEGEND
Top of crown/mound - minimum 2% slopes for playing fields LEGEND 0.3m Evapotranspiration layer
Denotes survey control points and profiles Clay cap - recycled cover material (0.5m) Proposed Biofilter pad (mulched & landscaped) Existing batter slopes (re-shaping as required to enhance run-off) Sand layer Buried Waste
Landfill closure design 3H IV batter slopes (maximum) Clay Clay liner (schematic /inferred only) Slotted 100mm diam pipe placed in waste layer/seal bearing layer Grass cover Denotes compacted waste - soil layers Alluvial (silty clay) 10m Denotes area of stabilised fill
Buried waste Denotes area of cut Batter slopes- no change Proposed gravel trench & biofilter materials Leachate collection Perched water system 1 Layer RL
Capping 0.5m
Groundwater 0m
Landfill footprint Clay liner (inferred) and access track
In-situ sediment and bedrock (sandstone) Legend: Mound reshaping from <1% to 2% slope Bund wall (adjustment in m) Preliminary Concept Cut & Fill Plan (January 2015)
Source: Neil Charters Pty Ltd Schematic Concept Plan - Reshaping of Mound & Filling Plan Date: 6 February 2015 Figure 3.14: Schematic Concept Plan - Reshaping of Mound & Filling Figure 3.15 Preliminary Landfill GasPreliminary Management Landfill Gas Management at Salt Pan at Salt Creek Pan Creek Landfill Landfill Figure 3.16: PreliminarySALT PAN CREEK Concept LANDFILL- Cut & concept Fill Plan plan Date: 22 January 2015 SALT PAN CREEK LANDFILL Date: 22 January 2015 Reference: E2W_204_06.cdr SALT PAN CREEK LANDFILL- Concept Plan PlanFigure 5C (Source:Reference: E2W_204_08.cdr City of Canterbury Council Closure/Rehabitation of Salt Pan Creek Reference: E2W_204_13.cdr (Source: City of Canterbury Council Closure/Rehabitation of Salt Pan Creek (Source: City of Canterbury Council Closure/Rehabitation of Salt Pan Landfill The Concept Plan (EPL 10636) July 2015)Figure 5D Landfill The Concept Plan (EPL 10636) JulyFigure 2015) 7 Creek Landfill The Concept Plan (EPL 10636) July 2015) Salt Pan Creek Reserve Concept Masterplan 40 3.6.2 Landfill Investigations 2017
Council commissioned Coffey to undertake further testing on the site and to assist The diagrams below reflect those investigations. Existing capping depth is with the masterplan process in addressing remediation and capping requirements. varied but averages somewhere between 09-1.5 metres Coffey developed an updated set of contours of the landfill and existing surface Figure 3.19 composites the two profiles and highlights the high points of the landform. existing landfill profile. Any earthworks must avoid disturbance of the existing landfill profile.
M5 WESTERN MOTORWAY
CBH232
CBH231
CBH003 CBH004 CBH005 CBH006 CBH002 CBH007 CBH008 CBH009 12 CBH001 CBH010 CBH011 9 CBH012 .0 CBH233 8.5 9.5 CBH016 CBH017 CBH018 9 CBH019 CBH020 8 CBH014 CBH015 CBH021 9 10 CBH022 CBH023 .5 10 CBH013 9.5 CBH024 10 8 10 9 9.5 CBH029 .5 CBH028 CBH030 10 10 .5 10.5 10 10CBH027 10.5 CBH031 9 CBH234 CBH026 CBH032 .5 CBH033 10 CBH025 CBH034 .5 10.5 CBH035 10 CBH036 CBH037 9 .5 10.5 12 CBH038 CBH039 CBH040 CBH041 9 CBH235 CBH042 CBH043 CBH044 CBH045 CBH046 CBH047 CBH049 CBH048 11 8 11 .5 .5 CBH050 CBH051 CBH053 10 8 CBH052 10 CBH054 10.5CBH055 .5 CBH056 CBH057 11 11 CBH058 9.5 7 CBH059 CBH060 .5 9 9 .5 12 CBH236 8.5 9.5 10 CBH061 8 9 .5 7.5 CBH062 CBH063 CBH230 7 CBH064 CBH065 8.5 CBH066 CBH070 8 .5 CBH067 CBH068 CBH069 10 7 .5 7 10 CBH074 8 CBH072 CBH073 CBH075 CBH076 10 CBH237 8 CBH071 7 CBH077 CBH078 CBH079 CBH080 6 .5 10 6 .5 10.5 .5 10 9
6 CBH083 CBH084 CBH085 CBH087 CBH088 CBH089 CBH081 CBH082 CBH086 CBH090 CBH229 7.5 CBH238 5 11
6 .5 11
10
.5 5 11 5
CBH095 CBH096 10 CBH093 CBH094 CBH097 11 CBH092 CBH098 10 CBH099 7 CBH091 CBH100 +11.0 9 .5 .5 CBH239 10 5
CBH228 9 9 CBH105 10.5 .5 10 10 .5 CBH106 8 5.5 CBH103 CBH104 11 CBH102 CBH107 CBH108 CBH109 CBH110 .5 CBH10110 9 .5 10 10 8 .5 CBH115 CBH116 CBH240 CBH111 CBH112 CBH113 CBH114 CBH117 CBH118 CBH119 9.5 CBH120 8 12 9 10 7 10 .5 8.5 SALT PAN CREEK 9.5
7 6.5 CBH121 CBH122 CBH123 CBH124 11.5 CBH241 CBH125 CBH126 8.5 7.5 CBH127 7 9 CBH128 CBH129 .5 11 5.5 10 Northing 8 CBH130 9 7 6 6 .5 8 8 .5
9 CBH131 CBH132 CBH133 7 CBH134 CBH135 CBH136 CBH137 CBH140 8 7 CBH138 CBH139 8 .5 8 CBH242 7 8 6 .5 10.5 .5 8 9 .5 4 7 10 9.5 9 9 .5 CBH141 CBH142 CBH143 5 CBH144 CBH145 CBH146 6 .5 CBH147 CBH148 .5 10 10 9 CBH149 CBH150 .5 .5
.5 CBH243 9 CBH151 9.5 11 CBH152 CBH153 CBH154 CBH155 CBH156 CBH157 CBH158 CBH159 CBH160 9
4.5 5 10 8 11 10 .5 9.5
CBH161 CBH162 CBH163 CBH164 CBH165 CBH166 CBH167 CBH168 CBH170 8 10.5 CBH169 10 10 7 11 3 .5 .5 CBH244 11 CBH172 CBH173 10.5 CBH174 CBH175 CBH176 CBH177 CBH178 CBH180 3.5 CBH171 CBH179 11.5 4 7 12
4 7.5 11 6.5 8.5 CBH18311.5CBH184 CBH227 6
6 10.5 7 CBH182 5.5 12CBH185 CBH188 12 .5 8 CBH181 CBH186 CBH187 CBH189 9.5 10
5 4.5 9 11.5 CBH198 Top of Waste Level (mAHD) .5 CBH245 12 5 5.5 CBH197 12 11 CBH191 CBH196 .5 CBH190 CBH192 12 5.5 CBH193 CBH194 CBH195 12 CBH206 11.5 CBH226 +12.0 6 CBH199 CBH205 CBH246 CBH200 CBH204 CBH201 5 5.5 11.5 CBH202 CBH213 6.5 CBH203 12
CBH212 7 CBH207 .5 CBH208 .5 12 11 CBH209 CBH210 CBH211 7.5 CBH219 13 12 CBH247 +12.0 12 CBH218 11 12 5.5 CBH214 CBH225 .5 8 CBH217 .5 CBH215 CBH216 10 9 11 10.5 9.5 8.5 6.5 8.5 9.5 5.5 7.5 10 CBH224 8.5 11 CBH2486 7 8 11 12 9 CBH220 11.5 .5 9 CBH223 12.5 11 .5 CBH221 CBH222 11 10 .5 11 13 11 9.5 10 .5 10 11 .5 9 10 .5 10 10 9 .5.5 CBH249 10 10 98 CBH250 .5 10.5 109.5 9 9 9.5 8.5 11 98.5 7.5 8 8 8 8 .5 7.5 11.5 7.5 7 7 12 12.5 13
318900 318950 319000 319050 319100 319150 319200 319250 319300 319350 319400 319450 319500 6241850 6241900 6241950 6242000 6242050 6242100 6242150 6242200 6242250 6242300 6242350 6242400 6242450 6242500 6242550 6242600 6242650 Easting
client: drawn OP Canterbury-Bankstown Council approved BF/AP project: Salt Pan Creek Landfill Closure 0 50 100 150 200 date 23/11/2016 Metres title: scale AS SHOWN Top of Waste Contour original project no: figure no: rev: size A3 754-SYDEN195724 4 A Figure 3.17 Existing Landform (Source: Coffey 2017 Figure 3.18 Landfill profile beneath existing capping (Source: Coffey 2017) Figure 3.19 Composite of landform and capping highlighting high points in landfill profile which cannot be disturbed (EP)
May 2018 ep environmental partnership 41 3.0 REVIEW
3.6 Landfill, Landform and Drainage 3.6.3 Landform 3.6.4 Drainage - Surface Drainage
The landform of the landfill zone is largely a flat and open platform with embankments down to adjoining Drainage is dictated by the landfill profile with the landfill forming a barrier to natural drainage from adjoining areas areas. Some key characteristics are noted: to the east, and directing drainage along the east edge of the landfill to a trapped lowpoint mid way along the east boundary. Some other key characteristics are noted • RL 12.5 - 13.5 high points • limited falls to landfill top surface • edge batters generally 1:5-6 • implications of rl 8.0 water table contour for regrading at edges need to be considered • potential integration with drainage from new development for WSUD and water harvesting
Whitmarsh Whitmarsh
Mclaughlin Mclaughlin
M5 Motorway M5 Motorway
10.00 10.00 Fall 10.00 Fall 10.00 Fall
10.00 10.00 + RL 8.0
10.00
10.00
5.00
5.00
10.00
10.00 Riverwood
Riverwood 5.00
5.00 Fall SALT PAN CREEK Fall SALT PAN CREEK
5 .00
5 + RL 12.5 .00 Fall
5.00 5.00 Fall Fall
5.00
5.00 Fall
5.00 Salt Pan 5.00 Salt Pan Fall Fall 10.00
10.00
5.00 LEGEND: 5.00 Fall LEGEND: Kentucky+ RL 6.5 Kentucky
5.00 5.00 Sub-surface Fall Existing gradient Reserve Creek Flood Depths Reserve Site Boundary 2.0m Inferred 5.00 5.00
10.00 Fall 10.00
10.00 Fall 10.00 + RL 13.5 Surface Drainage Groundwater Concrete Dish Drain Elevation
5.00 5.00 Monitoring Well 8.0m Inferred
Fall 5.00 5.00 (EPL, Existing) Groundwater Ele-
5.00 5.00 5.00 Monitoring Well (E2W vation (regional) 5.00 Dec 2014)
Figure 3.20: LandformDATE (Source: EP) CLIENT TITLE SCALE DRAWING DATE CLIENT TITLE SCALE DRAWING October 2016 3460.MP01 October 2016 Figure 3.21: Surface Drainage (Source: EP)3460.MP01 Salt Pan Creek N 0m 20m 50m Salt Pan Creek N 0m 20m 50m Lanfill Drainage ISSUE Lanfill Drainage ISSUE - -
View south across Salt Pan Creek Parklands site south of M5
Salt Pan Creek Reserve Concept Masterplan 42