Temporary Works Site Blues Point Reserve, Blues Point Sydney Metro Project

Home , Billy Blue, Blues Point, Brothers (ferry), Dawes Point Battery, Economy of Sydney, McMahons Point

TEMPORARY WORKS SITE BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT SYDNEY METRO PROJECT

ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT

JUNE 2018

1871 tracing of ‘Lavender Bay’ showing development and reclamation in the study area.

REPORT TO AMBS ECOLOGY & HERITAGE

ON BEHALF OF JOHN HOLLAND CPB GHELLA JV SYDNEY METRO CITY & SOUTHWEST

CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 BACKGROUND ...... 1 1.2 BLUES POINT RESERVE TEMPORARY SITE ...... 3 1.3 SYDNEY METRO HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT & RESEARCH DESIGN REPORT ...... 7 1.4 REPORT METHODOLOGY...... 9 1.5 REPORT AUTHORSHIP ...... 11 1.6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... 11 1.7 ABBREVIATIONS ...... 11 2.0 CURRENT DESIGN ...... 12 2.1 UPDATED DETAIL DESIGN ...... 12 3.0 ADDITIONAL HISTORIC RESEARCH ...... 14 3.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 14 3.2 THE STUDY AREA ...... 14 3.3 THE NORTH SHORE OF SYDNEY ...... 14 3.4 WILLIAM ‘BILLY’ BLUE (c.1767-1834) & BLUES POINT ...... 14 3.5 JOHN STEVENS (1842-1896) - WEST PART OF LOT 10 SEC E ...... 20 3.6 JAMES GLOVER (1823-1874) - EAST PART OF LOT 10 SEC E ...... 22 3.7 LOT 10 SECTION E, BLUES POINT ESTATE ...... 22 3.8 LOT 10 SECTION E IN THE 1880s ...... 27 3.9 LOT 10 SECTION E FROM 1890 ...... 32 3.10 BLUES POINT WHARF AND THE VEHICULAR OR ‘HORSE FERRY’ ...... 35 3.11 NSW FRESH FOOD & ICE COMPANY AND HARBOUR LAND & TRANSPORT CO LTD - LOT 10 SEC E (WEST) ...... 38 3.12 ACQUISITION OF THE GLOVER ESTATE - LOT 10 SEC E (EAST) FROM 1910 ...... 40 3.13 OCCUPANTS OF THE STUDY AREA FROM 1914-30s, LOT 10, SEC E ...... 40 3.14 LOT 10 SECTION E AND ADJACENT LAND FROM THE 1930s ...... 42 4.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT ...... 46 4.1 COMPARATIVE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES ...... 46 4.2 BALMAIN EAST TRANSPORT INTERCHANGE UPGRADE, 2015 ...... 47 4.3 INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION CENTRE HOTEL, 2014 ...... 47 4.4 2-8 WESTON STREET, BALMAIN EAST, 2012 ...... 48 4.5 BARANGAROO SOUTH, 2012 ...... 50 4.6 BARANGAROO HEADLAND, 2012 ...... 52 4.7 DARLING QUARTER, 2008-2010 ...... 54 4.8 63-65 KIRRIBILLI AVENUE, KIRRIBILLI, 2000 ...... 55 4.9 ‘GREENCLIFFE’, 51-53 KIRRIBILLI AVENUE, SYDNEY, 1995 ...... 56 4.10 NEPTUNE ENGINEERING SLIPWAY, 1990 ...... 56 5.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL ...... 57 5.1 NATURE OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL ...... 57 5.2 PREVIOUS IMPACTS ...... 58

______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT ii

5.3 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING ...... 59 5.4 SITE VISIT ...... 62 5.5 MARITIME ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY ...... 64 5.6 POTENTIAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL REMAINS & PHASES ...... 65 5.7 SUMMARY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL ...... 72 5.8 MAPPING OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL ...... 75 6.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE ...... 77 6.1 BACKGROUND ...... 77 6.2 BASIS OF ASSESSMENT OF HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE ...... 77 6.3 DISCUSSION OF HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE...... 79 6.4 STATEMENT OF HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE ...... 82 7.0 IMPACT OF DETAIL DESIGN & MITIGATION ...... 84 7.1 SHAFT, CRANE & BARGE ACCESS ROAD ...... 84 7.2 RAMP & BARGE ...... 84 7.3 MITIGATION ...... 85 8.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXCAVATION ...... 92 8.1 EXCAVATION METHODOLOGY ...... 92 9.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHODOLOGY ...... 94 9.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 94 9.2 ARTEFACT HERITAGE’S RESEARCH QUESTIONS ...... 94 9.3 CASEY & LOWE’S RESEARCH QUESTIONS ...... 95 9.4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT ...... 100 9.5 UNEXPECTED HERITAGE FINDS ...... 101 9.6 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RELICS MANAGEMENT PLAN ...... 102 9.7 EXCAVATION METHODOLOGY ...... 102 10.0 REFERENCES ...... 107

APPENDICES APPENDIX 1: SANDS DIRECTORY APPENDIX 2: CITY OF SYDNEY COUNCIL ASSESSMENTS SCHEDULE APPENDIX 3: LAND TITLES SCHEDULE APPENDIX 4: MARITIME ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE INSPECTION

______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT iii

Date Client Purpose Author Authorised submitted Sandra Kuiters, Internal John Holland 9/2/2018 Internal review Caroline Plim, Tony Lowe Draft i CPB Ghella JV Maggie Butcher Sandra Kuiters, 8/3/2018 John Holland AMBS Ecology & Kylie Seretis Draft 1 Caroline Plim, 13/3/2018 CPB Ghella JV Heritage Dr Mary Casey Maggie Butcher Sandra Kuiters, Kylie Seretis John Holland AMBS Ecology & Draft 2 27/03/2018 Caroline Plim, Dr Mary Casey CPB Ghella JV Heritage Maggie Butcher Jennie Lindbergh Sandra Kuiters, Kylie Seretis John Holland Caroline Plim, Draft 3 07/05/2018 Client review Dr Mary Casey CPB Ghella JV Maggie Butcher Jennie Lindbergh Cos Coroneos John Holland Issue to Heritage Sandra Kuiters, Kylie Seretis Review 1 11/5/2018 CPB Ghella JV Division Cos Coroneos Dr Mary Casey Sandra Kuiters, Kylie Seretis John Holland Caroline Plim, Dr Mary Casey Draft 4 13/6/2018 Review by JV CPB Ghella JV Maggie Butcher, Jennie Lindbergh Cos Coroneos Tony Lowe Sandra Kuiters, Kylie Seretis John Holland Caroline Plim, Dr Mary Casey Final 21/6/2018 Issue to DPE CPB Ghella JV Maggie Butcher, Jennie Lindbergh Cos Coroneos Tony Lowe

______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT

TEMPORARY SHAFT & WORKS SITE BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT SYDNEY METRO PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 BACKGROUND The Sydney Metro & City Southwest project is a 30km-long new rail system from Chatswood to Sydenham and includes a new crossing beneath Sydney Harbour and new railway stations. The scope includes Tunnels and Station Excavation Works (TSE) - construction works associated with the following stations, dives and shafts (Figure 1.1): . Chatswood . Artarmon . Crows Nest . Victoria Cross (North Sydney) . Blues Point . Martin Place . Barangaroo . Pitt Street . Waterloo . Marrickville

The Project was approved by the Minster for Planning on 9 January 2017 subject to a number of Conditions set out in Critical State Significant Infrastructure Sydney Metro & Southwest Chatswood to Sydenham Infrastructure Approval (Application no. SSI 15_7400) (Project Planning Approval). Tunnelling works will remove any historical archaeological remains that may be present at each of the sites. Documentation for the project includes a Non-Aboriginal Impact Assessment (EIS Technical Paper 4) and Sydney Metro Historical Archaeological Assessment and Research Design Report (AARD), both prepared by Artefact Heritage. Minister’s Condition of Approval (CoA) E17 refers to the pre-excavation reporting requirements prior to construction: The Archaeological Assessment Research Design Report (AARD) in the PIR must be implemented. Final Archaeological Method Statements must be prepared in consultation with the Heritage Council of NSW (or its delegate) before commencement of archaeological excavation works. The final methodology must: (a) provide for the detailed analysis of any heritage items discovered during the investigations; (b) include detailed site specific archaeological management and artefact management strategies; (c) include cored soil samples for soil and pollen for the Pitt Street site within the Tank Stream Valley; and (d) provide for a sieving strategy.

In accordance with CoA E17, this Final Archaeological Method Statement provides an updated strategy to implement the earlier AARD for the Blues Point Reserve site. It also provides additional information missing from the AARD as identified in the Heritage Council submission on the PIR and the Department of Planning & Environment - Secretary Assessment Report 2016: 35-38. Notable among these is further historical research and more detailed analysis of archaeological potential which has been undertaken for this report.

John Holland CPB Ghella Joint Venture (JHCPBG) is undertaking the TSE works and has commissioned AMBS Ecology & Heritage (AMBS) to manage the heritage provisions for the project. This Archaeological Method Statement has been prepared in accordance with Condition E17 for the temporary site at Blues Point Reserve. ______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 2

Casey & Lowe has been engaged by AMBS Ecology & Heritage on behalf of JHCPBG to prepare an Archaeological Method Statement for the temporary site in Blues Point Reserve (Figure 1.2, Figure 1.3). The works at the Blues Point temporary site involve the excavation of a shaft to access the tunnels below to retrieve the tunnel-boring machines’ (TBM) cutter heads and shields from the Chatswood dive and Barangaroo Station sites. This assessment assumes that all archaeology will be removed or impacted across the footprint of the site. In addition, a temporary ramp will be built into the harbour at edge of the Blues Point foreshore to allow the use of a barge. Casey & Lowe commissioned Cosmos Archaeology, on behalf of AMBS and JHCPBG JV, to undertake a maritime archaeological survey of the underwater area, the results of which are referred to in text and provided in full in Appendix 4.

Figure 1.1: Project overview with Blues Point Temporary Site circled in red (Sydney Metro Transport for NSW).

______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 3

Figure 1.2: Plan of potential barge arrangement at Blues Point temporary site. PIR 2016:14.

1.2 BLUES POINT RESERVE TEMPORARY SITE1 The Blues Point temporary site is located in the North Sydney Local Government Area (LGA) at the end of Blues Point Road, within the Blues Point Reserve (Figure 1.2, Figure 1.3). It includes public open space and a public road. It is bound by Blues Point Road to the west, Henry Lawson Avenue to the north, and Blues Bay to the south. It has an area of 2,100 square metres and consists of the following parcels of land: . DP 902933, Lot 1 . DP 1159898, Lot 1 . DP 581992, Lot 1 . DP 230594, Lot 2 (western portion) . DP 1077149, Lot 7048 (northern portion)

1 Environmental Impact Statement, May 2016b: Section 7.10.5. ______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 4

Figure 1.3: Location plan showing the Blues Point subject site outlined in red with barge and ramp in yellow. SIX Maps 2017.

The site is included in the Blues Point Waterfront Group list on the North Sydney Local Environmental Plan as an item of local heritage significance (I0425; Figure 1.3, Figure 1.4).2 It is also listed for its local heritage significance as part of Blues Point Foreshore Shelf (I0425).3 It contains a bus shelter which is one of a group of bus shelters listed for local heritage significance (I0470),4 and is part of the McMahons Point South Conservation Area (CA14). The site is also within the Buffer Zone of the Sydney Opera House, which is on the World Heritage List.

Blues Point will be a temporary site used to retrieve the TBM cutter head and shields. These will be driven from the Chatswood dive site and the Barangaroo Station site and will involve the excavation of a shaft to the tunnels below to retrieve the cutter heads and shield of the tunnel-boring machines and will result in the removal of approximately 8,000 cubic metres of spoil. While the initial EIS/PIR design indicated an option for a barge, this was not included in the assessment. As such, this report addresses the full extent of impacts on archaeological relics (Figure 1.5). For the purposes of this report, the study area refers to the entire temporary site, including the ramp and barge.

The current design has removed impacts to Blues Point Road to the west, to the remnant wharfage at the end of Blues Point Road and no longer requires the demolition and reinstatement of the bus stop shelter. The bus stop shelter has now been removed from the study area.

2 Blues Point Waterfront Group, Listing No I0423, North Sydney LEP, Database No 2180677, State Heritage Inventory. 3 Blues Point Foreshore Shelf, Listing No I0425, North Sydney LEP, Database No 2180678, State Heritage Inventory. 4 North Sydney Bus Shelters, Listing No I0470, North Sydney LEP, Database No 2181325, State Heritage inventory. ______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 5

Figure 1.4: Plan showing the study area in relation to heritage-listed items. North Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2013, Heritage Map – Sheet HER_002.

______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 6

Figure 1.5: Location plan showing the final study area outlined in red. The yellow outline is the proposed ramp with the location of the barge. SIX Maps, 2018.

Figure 1.6: The study area, Blues Point Reserve, looking northeast towards the Harbour Bridge. Google Street View 2015.

______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 7

1.3 SYDNEY METRO HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT & RESEARCH DESIGN REPORT The Sydney Metro Historical Archaeological Assessment and Research Design Report (AARD PIR) was prepared by Artefact Heritage (Artefact). This report was based on limited historical research. The assessment of the significance of the archaeological potential addresses the Blues Point temporary site in its entirety as the assessment against each criteria (sic). An updated Statement of Significance is provided in Section 6.4. Artefact’s Statement of Archaeological Significance is:5

STATEMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE There are potential archaeological resources of local and state significance at the Blues Point (Table 1.1, Figure 1.7). The Phase 1 development of the site is associated with Billy Blue’s harbour ferry service. Billy Blue was a notable former convict in the early nineteenth century. Substantial intact archaeological evidence could be representative of the development of early boating services in the Sydney Harbour, could demonstrate technical significance and could provide information relating to early boating practices and colonial life on the North Shore. Archaeological evidence of this would have significance at a State level. The Phase 2 development of the site is associated with the development of the foreshore into an area known for its ferry services and boatbuilding/repairs. Substantial remains from this period could demonstrate representativeness of this development, and could provide information relating to the history of the occupation of the site and how the wharfage might have adapted to accommodate changing needs and technologies. This phase of development is also potentially associated with the beginnings of the North Sydney Ferry Company, the first commercial ferry service in Sydney Harbour and technological innovators. Substantial remains from this phase would likely have significance at a local level. Archaeological deposits from the late nineteenth century onwards are not rare and are unlikely to have any research potential. Structural remains of the wharfage from Phase 3 however may be representative of the continued development of the Blues Point foreshore during the early twentieth century and may have research potential relating to influences on the design of the wharfage. Archaeological evidence of this may have significance at a local level. With local community active and engaged with local heritage, the potential archaeological resource also has social significance at a local level.

5 Artefact, PIR AARD 2016a: 130-131. ______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 8

Table 1.1: Summary of areas with potential for significant archaeology at Blues Point, as assessed by Artefact Heritage. Artefact Heritage 2016b: 131, see Figure 1.5.

______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 9

Figure 1.7: Plan of archaeological potential showing the location of potential significant archaeology at the Blues Point site as assessed by Artefact Heritage, EIS/PIR.

1.4 REPORT METHODOLOGY This report is consistent with the principles and guidelines of the Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance 2013. It has been prepared in accordance with current best-practice guidelines as identified in the NSW Heritage Manual (1996), published by the Heritage Office and Department of Urban Affairs and Planning (now the Heritage Division, Office of Environment and Heritage), and associated supplementary publications in particular Assessing Significance for Historical Archaeological Sites and ‘Relics’ (2009).

This Archaeological Method Statement (AMS) has also been prepared to respond to comments by the Secretary and Heritage Council in submissions on the EIS requiring that a revised and more detailed research design is prepared. This AMS also provides methodologies to manage the historical archaeology to ensure compliance with relevant Heritage Council guidelines and responds to the Minister’s CoAs E18, E19 and E20: E18 Before excavation of archaeological management sites, the Proponent must nominate a suitably qualified Excavation Director who complies with the Heritage Council of NSW’s Criteria for Assessment of Excavation Directors (July 2011) to oversee and advise on matters associated with historic archaeology and advise the Department and OEH. ______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 10

Where archaeological excavation is required, the Excavation Director must be present to oversee excavation and advise on archaeological issues. The Excavation Director must be given the authority to advise on the duration and extent of oversight required as informed by the provisions of the approved AARD and Excavation Methodology. A final archaeological report must be submitted to the Heritage Council of NSW within two (2) years of the completion of archaeological excavation on the project. The report must include information on the entire historical archaeological program relating to the CSSI.

Dr Mary Casey is the Primary Excavation Director, Dr Amanda Dusting is the nominated Secondary Excavation Director for this project. It is likely that the eastern part of the site (Area C and eastern section of Area B) will be excavated when Dr Dusting is on leave in September/October 2018. Ms Rhian Jones will then be the Secondary Director, this will focus on archaeology in the later stages of the project and relate to (Area C and eastern strip of Area B) within the eastern half of the site. 6 There will be a handover period between Dr Dusting and Ms Jones to ensure there is a full understanding of the issues. Also programming of stages can change quite quickly. We all comply with the Heritage Council guidelines to act as Excavation Directors for local sites and all nominated directors were all listed in the CHMP as Primary and Secondary Directors. Mr Ronan McEleney and Ms Kylie Seretis will also be site directors on this project. As Kylie Seretis was not identified in the Construction Heritage Management Plan (CHMP), her CV is attached to this report. The purpose of including Ms Seretis is to ensure sufficient staffing is available during periods of overlap with Barangaroo Station site the start of which has been delayed and will overlap with archaeological works at Blues Pont Station. Paragraph 3 identifies the need for a final report which will be completed and submitted in accordance with this CoA two years after the completion of the archaeological project.

E19 An Unexpected Heritage Finds Procedure must be prepared: (a) to manage unexpected heritage finds in accordance with any guidelines and standards prepared by the Heritage Council of NSW or OEH; and (b) by a suitably qualified and experienced heritage specialist. The procedure must be included in the AARD and must be implemented for the life of the project.

This report includes an Unexpected Heritage Finds Procedure and a Sieving Strategy. E20 In the event that potential relic/s is/are discovered, relevant construction must cease in the affected area and the Excavation Director must be notified and assess the significance level of the find/s and provide mitigation advice according to the significance level and the impact proposed. The Excavation Director must attend the site in accordance with E18 to oversee the excavation where relics of State significance are found.

The Secretary must be notified at the same time as the Heritage Council of NSW (or its delegate) of any relic of State significance found.

An Archaeological Relic Management Plan (ARMP) specific to the relic of State significance must be prepared in consultation with the Heritage Council of NSW (or its delegate) to outline measures to be implemented to avoid and/or minimise harm to and/or salvage the relic of State significance. Construction in the vicinity of the discovery must not recommence until the requirements of the ARMP have been implemented, in consultation with the Excavation Director. The Proponent must notify the Secretary in writing of the outcome of consultation on the Archaeological Relic Management Plan with the Heritage Council of NSW.

6 Casey & Lowe will seek an amendment to the CHMP to include Rhian Jones as a 2ndy directory for local sites, particularly Blues Point. It is noted that Rhian Jones has had permits for local sites previously. ______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 11

This AMS identifies an appropriate strategy for managing any significant archaeological resource or relics at the Blues Point temporary site.

The AMS will apply to works at the Blues Point temporary site determined to be consistent with the Project Approval.

1.5 REPORT AUTHORSHIP This report was prepared by Sandra Kuiters, Archaeologist, Casey & Lowe, with assistance from Maggie Butcher, Archaeologist, Casey & Lowe. Maggie Butcher prepared the overlays and wrote Section 4.0 and Section 0. Section 3.0 was written by Caroline Plim, Historian, with additions from Sandra Kuiters. Maritime archaeologist Cos Coroneos undertook a dive and provided input and advice in relation to issues associated with the pier and barge ramp proposed in the PIR (Appendix 4). This report was reviewed and edited by Ms Kylie Seretis, Dr Mary Casey and Mr Tony Lowe, Directors, Casey & Lowe. Further reviewing was provided by Jennie Lindbergh, Director Historic Heritage, AMBS Ecology & Heritage and Cos Coroneos, Director, Cosmos Archaeology Pty Ltd.

1.6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Jennie Lindbergh, Director Historic Heritage, AMBS Ecology & Heritage Andreas Mindt, Project Manager, TBM Tunnelling and Blues Point Shaft, JHCPBGJV Robert Muir, Project Environment Manager, JHCPBGJV

1.7 ABBREVIATIONS AARD Archaeological Assessment & Research Design AMBS AMBS Ecology and Heritage AMS Archaeological Method Statement c. circa CoAs Conditions of Approval CCSA Council of the City of Sydney Archives CSSI Critical State Significant Infrastructure EIS Environmental Impact Statement FB Field Book JHCPBG John Holland CPB Ghella Joint Venture LGA Local Government Area Lot Allotment LPI Land and Property Information NSW ML Mitchell Library (in the State Library of NSW) nd not dated NLA National Library of Australia PIR Preferred Infrastructure Report PWD Public Works Department RL Reduced level (in metres according to Australian Height Datum) Sec Section SHR State Heritage Register SLNSW State Library of NSW SMH Sydney Morning Herald SANSW State Archives of NSW SSD State Significant Development SSI State Significant Infrastructure TBM Tunnel Boring Machine TfNSW Transport for NSW TSE Tunnels and Station Excavation Works

______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 12

2.0 CURRENT DESIGN7 2.1 UPDATED DETAIL DESIGN The Chatswood to Sydenham component of Sydney Metro City & Southwest comprises a new metro rail line, approximately 16 km long, between Chatswood and Sydenham. New metro stations will be located at Pitt Street, Barangaroo, Crows Nest, Victoria Cross, Martin Place and Waterloo, as well as new underground metro platforms provided at Central Station.

The subject site, the Blues Point temporary site, will be located within Blues Point Reserve. The design has been amended and no longer includes impacts in the carpark at the end of Blues Point Road, along the western part of the site, referred to in the EIS and PIR as the ‘extended study area’ or the ‘expanded site’ (Figure 1.5, Figure 2.1, Figure 2.2). The temporary site will be used to recover the cutter heads and shields of the TBMs which will tunnel from the Chatswood dive site and from the Barangaroo Station site. A shaft will be excavated to retrieve the machinery from the tunnels. The shaft will be more than 20m deep and will result in the removal of around 8,000 cubic metres of spoil. A temporary site compound and facilities will also be constructed to the west of the shaft, and street and park furniture will be temporarily removed. These will result in total ground disturbance across the site (Figure 1.5) and off the western part of the foreshore.

At the conclusion of the works, the shaft will be partially backfilled with concrete to connect the tunnels across the shaft, and then backfilled with tunnel material.

7 EIS, May 2016b: Section 7.10.5. ______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 13

Figure 2.1: Layout of the Blues Point Temporary site, EIS/SPIR, including the expanded site. SPIR Figure 2.2, p.14.

Figure 2.2: The updated study area and barge infrastructure (red and yellow) in relation to the former site outline (expanded site) which included Blues Point Road (blue). SIX Maps 2018.

______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 14

3.0 ADDITIONAL HISTORIC RESEARCH 3.1 INTRODUCTION Artefact Heritage has previously written a historic background for the study area but it did not include any land title research to understand the early development of the site.8 The following history is additional research on the specific lots within the study area undertaken by Caroline Plim, historian, with additions by Sandra Kuiters. The study area plan shown of the overlays is based on the PIR study area and only key historic plans have been updated to reflect the amended study area as shown in Figure 1.2, Figure 1.5.

3.2 THE STUDY AREA The study area is located at Blues Point in the North Sydney Local Government Area (LGA). It consists of all or part of the following allotments of land: . Lot 1 DP 902933 (38 perches or 961 m2 of former Lot 10 Sec E Blues Point Estate). . Lot 2 DP 230594 (the western part of 24 perches or 607 m2 of former Lot 10 Sec E Blues Point Estate). . Lot 1 DP 1159898 (19¾ perches or 499 m2 of reclaimed land granted to John Stevens). . Lot 1 DP 581992 (land bordering 19¾ perches or 499 m2 of reclaimed land granted to John Stevens and harbour). . Lot 7048 DP 1077149 - Crown Land (land incorporating entrance to former vehicular or horse ferry dock). . Lot 2 DP 581992 - Crown Land (land incorporating entrance to former vehicular or horse ferry dock, no longer within the impact area of the project).

The study area incorporates Henry Lawson Reserve (managed by North Sydney Council), and areas of Crown Land.

3.3 THE NORTH SHORE OF SYDNEY Lieutenant-Governor Francis Grose made the first land grants on the northern shore of Sydney Harbour in 1794 with the aim of establishing farms to provide food for the colonists. Eighteen land grants were located between what are now known as the suburbs of Kirribilli and Artarmon. One of the first grants was 30 acres (12 ha) opposite Sydney Cove granted to First Fleet convict Samuel Lightfoot in February 1794. Robert Ryan later purchased this land. The steep and rocky topography initially appeared unsuitable for agricultural although later ‘North Shore’ settlers such as William Blue and James Milson (sometimes recorded as Milsom) successfully developed areas for small-scale farming and fruit growing.9

3.4 WILLIAM ‘BILLY’ BLUE (C.1767-1834) & BLUES POINT On 24 January 1817 Governor Lachlan Macquarie granted 80 acres (32.4 ha) to William ‘Billy’ Blue (c.1767-1834), a convict, settler and ferryman. Named Northampton, the grant was conditional on cultivation of 18 acres (7.3 ha) with five years restriction on its sale. The location was known as Billy Blue’s Point from at least 1823 and also sometimes referred to as ‘Blue’s Bay’. Blue is thought to have been a ‘freed African-American slave’ born in Jamaica, New York City. By 1796 he was working in London and in October of that year was tried and convicted for stealing sugar in Maidstone, Kent. Sentenced to seven years transportation, Blue spent several years in hulks on the Thames before transportation to Sydney in 1801. He established himself as a ‘waterman’ or ferryman on Sydney Harbour,

8 See Artefact, October 2016a, Sydney Metro City & Southwest Chatswood to Sydenham, Historical Archaeological Assessment & Research Design, report to Jacobs / Arcadis / RPS, pp 109-123. 9 G. Blaxell, The River: Sydney Cove to Parramatta, Eastwood, NSW, 2004, 14; Grants Register Bk 1 No 78 & Bk 3 No 37, LPI. ______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 15 selling oysters to support his wife and family. Widely known as ‘The Commodore’, Blue’s engaging and eccentric personality contributed to his popularity amongst colonists and he gained the respect of many officials, in particular Governor Macquarie. In 1811 Macquarie appointed Blue as harbour watchman and constable, then in 1817 granted him land on the north shore of the harbour where he continued his ferry service and grew produce for the Sydney market (Figure 3.1).10 A plan dated to 1865 shows his house to be immediately north of the study area (Figure 3.2).

Figure 3.1: An 1831 plan in the Surveyor’s Sketch Book illustrating the location and extent of Blue’s 1817 grant on the northern side of Sydney Harbour opposite Dawes Point. Bk 1 Fol 22, 31 Mar 1831, State Archives.

St Leonards Road or Blues Point Road ran roughly north-south and was one of the earliest roads in the locality. It was gazetted in 1839 as the main thoroughfare linking the St Leonards township (North Sydney) to the ferry wharf and boat and ship building enterprises on the northern shore of Port Jackson.11 Billy Blue died in 1834 and a long obituary was published in the Sydney Gazette. The article mentions Macquarie’s grant, describing it as being situated ‘…on a point of ground on the northern shore of Port Jackson…’. From at least 1839 William Blue (junior) was advertising waterfront land and other Blues Point allotments for lease. The prime location opposite Dawes Point Battery was described as offering opportunities to the newly arrived capitalist, businessman or retiree, as well as being of ‘inestimable value’ to ‘boat builders, Shipwrights, Coopers, Timber merchants’. The location avoided the ‘enormous demand made for houses to rent in Sydney’ with the ‘advantages of sufficient firewood … pure water, pure air, and a situation for beauty of scenery’.12

A public wharf was dedicated at Blue’s Point in 1839 offering a reliable link to the city. Brothers Joseph and Thomas Gerrard promptly established a steamer ferry service between the Government Jetty at Macquarie Place and ‘Billy Blue’s Point’.13 Licenced waterman Charles Brown offered a similar ferry service from at least 1840.14 An etching of

10 M. Park ‘William ‘Billy’ Blue (1767-1834)’, ADB 2005; Sydney Gazette 6 Nov 1823, 2; Sydney Gazette, 2 Aug 1807, 2; See LPI Schedule; Surveyor’s Sketch Book No 1 Fol 22, State Archives; SMH 19 Mar 1932, 22. 11 M. Park ADB 2005; North Sydney DCP 2013: C9-21. 12 Sydney Monitor 13 Feb 1839, 4. 13 Commercial Journal 24 Apr 1839, 2. 14 Australasian Chronicle 19 May 1840, 1. ______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 16

Blues Point dated to c.1840s shows a stone seawall and jetty, accompanied by a number of small boats had been built in the bay by that time (Figure 3.3).

Figure 3.2: Buildings within the study area in 1865 (former expanded site outlined red). Billy Blue’s former residence to the north is labelled (arrowed in yellow). ‘Plan of Road from Blue’s Point towards St Leonards shewing Proposed Alignment, Ph Willoughby, Co Cumberland’, 1 Oct 1865, Crown Plan 6-1990, NSW LPI.

______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 17

Figure 3.3: Etching of Blues Point, tentatively dated to c.1840s showing a seawall and jetty in the study area. ‘Etching of Blues Point and view west towards Parramatta River’, c.1840s, Face of North Sydney, LH REF PF393. Available at http://www.photosau.com.au/StantonPictures/scripts/home.asp (accessed 29/1/18).

Much of the land on the north shore peninsula remained in the Blue family until the 1850s, after which it was progressively subdivided and sold. An 1857 Crown Plan which includes the northeast corner of DP 902933 Lot 1 (later part of Lot 10 Section E) indicates that a building was constructed on the east side of Blues Point Road (Figure 3.4). The date this building was constructed is unclear but it is possible that it predates the 1857 plan by some time. Lot 10 Section E, including parts of the study area, remained in the ownership of the Blue family and was either occupied by the family or leased. The plan shows a ‘public’ wharf or pier jutting into the harbour and the waterfrontage along the point shows evidence of a terraced embankment to aid the docking of vessels (Figure 3.4). The Fig Tree Cottage Inn, an early Blues Point hotel and landmark, was named in subdivision advertisements. The public house was a short distance north of the wharf and the study area, and at this time was operated by Thomas Redgrave, although it was later linked to the family of John Stevens, the later owner of part of the study area.15

15 Sands Schedule; Crown Plan 7-1990, 6 Feb 1857, LPI. ______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 18

Figure 3.4: An 1857 Crown Plan illustrating the extent of development at Blues Point in the vicinity of the study area at this time (former expanded site outlined). A building (yellow arrow) and a jetty or slip (blue arrow) is recorded in the study area. Crown Plan 7-1990 LPI.

Accomplished amateur photographer Robert Hunt’s c.1858-59 photograph of Blues Point provides evidence of the modifications to the shore and its use by this time. Hunt, the chief clerk at the Mint, explored the harbour in his skiff ‘Terror’ creating rare photographic records of the harbour landscape (Figure 3.5).16 The photograph shows the stone seawall and jetty evident in the c.1840s etching, as well as additional structures on the waterfront, as well as the location of dinghies on the sandy beach.

16 S. T. Gill, ‘City of Sydney from St. Leonards North Shore’, No 51 PX*D383 ML SLNSW, c.1861. ______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 19

Figure 3.5: An undated (c.1858-59) photograph of Blues Point by Robert Hunt providing evidence of the sandy shoreline of the study area on the right-hand side of the image. Note the large drainage pipes (arrowed) ready for installation. SPF/799 ML SLNSW.

The Sands Sydney and Suburban Directory (Sands Directory) lists ‘Blue’s Point’ and ‘Blue’s Bay’ at the North Shore in the 1858/59 issues. Due to the lack of detail in the listing it is not possible to make a link between residents or business owners and the study area. Providing an example of the types of Blues Point residents, the 1861 Sands Directory lists John Blue junior and James Russell as ballast masters at Blue’s Bay, with the occupations and trades of other residents at Blue’s Bay including a stonemason, engineer, master mariner, gardener and carpenter.17 The proximity to the harbour to the Sydney township made it a convenient location for residents, except in the roughest weather when the harbour was difficult to navigate. The rocky nature of the environment prevented anything more than small-scale agriculture and orchards but was a ready source of building materials for stonemasons.

In December 1863, 26 acres 2 roods 26 perches (10.8 ha) of what remained of Blue’s grant was converted to Torrens Title in preparation for subdivision and sale. In the ownership of William Blue junior Esquire of St Leonards, representatives Richardson & Wrench sold parts of the estate from 1863.18

Development on the estate by this date already included the Figtree Cottage Inn and a number of cottage residences.19 Of the eleven sections in the subdivision, Section E with waterfrontage to Lavender Bay (including the study area) was described as:

17 Sands Schedule. 18 LPI Schedule; SMH 20 Jun 1863, 13. 19 SMH 16 May 1863, 9. ______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 20

…9 lots, most of which front the main road adjoining the ferry house; on lots 1, 2, and 3 are the premises occupied by Messrs Crane, Taylor, and Anderson; and on lots 4 to 7 those occupied by Messrs Hunt and Andrews.20

Lot 10 Section E, in which part of the study area is located, was not mentioned but was sold in two parts in 1867 and 1868. An advertisement described the unsold land at ‘Blue’s Point Estate North Shore’ St Leonards being offered at a ‘clearing sale’ in 1867 as: … a highly favoured beautiful locality, [that] will now, with properly directed municipal action, and regular communication with the city, take its proper position as the most valuable suburb of the city, and properties generally in eligible situations, enjoy a considerably enhanced value.21

On 28 March 1867 ‘shipwright’ John Stevens of the City of Sydney purchased the western part of Lot 10 Section E of the Blue’s Estate and on 21 April 1868 mariner James Glover purchased the eastern part of Lot 10 Section E, part of which is included in the study area.22 The land’s proximity to the harbour opposite Dawes Point provided business opportunities and investment potential for the two Sydney men.

3.5 JOHN STEVENS (1842-1896) - WEST PART OF LOT 10 SEC E John Stevens (sometimes shown as Stephens) was born in 1842 to Thomas Stephens and Catherine Larkins of Windmill Inn. Stevens’ 1867 title to the 38 perches (961 m2) of Lot 10 Section E, at Blue’s Point land describes him as a shipwright of the City of Sydney; however, a period of his career was spent in the pearl shell industry and other occupations. Periods were spent as the licensee of the Hit or Miss Inn, Windmill Street, Millers Point (1866-1870s) and the Fig Tree Inn, Blues Point after his brother’s death. From the 1880s he was a timber and fuel merchant. It was claimed in a 1902 newspaper article, that Stevens earned ‘£1000 a year’ from the pearl shell and ‘invented the heavy leaden boots now used by divers’ although the second claim has not been verified.23 His pearl fishing career between c.1876- 80 took him to the Solomon Islands, Thursday Island, Albany Island and Wai Weer, among other Torres Strait islands north of Australia. Stevens traded with Captain Ferguson and Messrs Cowlishaw Brothers of Sydney. Stevens owned and skippered a number of boats including the ketch, the William and Mary, and the 44-ton schooner Susie. He is linked to a number of houses in North Sydney including ‘Wai Weer’. From c.1880 John Stevens lived in West Crescent Street and later in William Street. At the time he was operating the timber and fuel merchant business. He died at Ada Cottage, William Street, North Sydney in 1896.24

A plan showing Blues Point Estate subdivision and development from April 1864 provides evidence of a building on the west portion of Lot 10 purchased by John Stevens (Figure 3.6). William Waterhouse, a steamboat proprietor, occupied ‘Mr Blue’s’ building immediately to the north of Lot 10, and further north again Stevens’ brother, Archibald Patrick Stevens, owned and operated the Figtree Cottage Inn on the western side of Blues Point Road.25 A lane on the north side of Lot 10 provided access to James Glover’s portion of Lot 10 to the east. As far as can be determined John Stevens never lived in the house on the western part of Lot 10 and rates and directories indicate that, at least in the early years of ownership, he leased the boatsheds on the property. From c.1885, Stevens operated as a timber merchant from the site and is thought to have been transporting timber and fuel from the wharf to the southern side of the harbour.

20 SMH 16 May 1863, 9. 21 Empire 10 Jul 1867, 7. 22 LPI Schedule. 23 Truth 16 Nov 1902, 8. 24 John Stevens (1842-1896), Ancestry. ATCJ 22 Feb 1880, 23; Sands Schedule; Evening News 14 Jan 1891, 4; ATCJ 27 Jul 1878, 11; Weekly Times 19 Aug 1876, 11; Queenslander 26 Jul 1873, 4. 25 Vol 2 Fol 197 LPI; DP 8, 1864, LPI; CP 6-1990, 1865, LPI. ______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 21

At the time of Stevens’ death in 1896, his Blues Point ‘Wharf Property’ was commonly known as Stevens Wharf and included a jetty ‘cottages, buildings and erections’ extending over part of Lot 10 and the reclaimed allotments.26 Stevens died a wealthy man and, as well as other business, real estate and investments, he left shares in the Queensland Pearl Shell Company. The history of land in the study area by Stevens and others is continued and expanded on in Section 3.7.

Figure 3.6: Part of DP 8 showing Stevens’ portion of Lot 10 (green outline) and Glover’s portion (blue outline). A building and fenced enclosures are shown on Stevens’ land on the east side of St Leonards’ or Blues Point Road. 1 April 1864, DP 8 LPI.

26 Will No 12443, NSW Will Books. ______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 22

3.6 JAMES GLOVER (1823-1874) - EAST PART OF LOT 10 SEC E James Glover was born in 1823, the son of convict Thomas Glover and widow Mary Kearns.27 In 1868 Glover reported his occupation on the title deeds to 24 perches (607 m2) of Lot 10 Section E at Blues Point, as a mariner. As far as can be determined Glover was not a mariner and pursued a number of other occupations during his career. In 1840 he was apprenticed as ship’s carpenter to George Green, a North Shore boat builder. He abandoned the apprenticeship in April 1840 claiming that he was not being taught the trade nor provided the board and lodging to which he was entitled. His brother-in-law James Pashley then employed him. A court case resulted in an order cancelling the indentures, however, there were ongoing legal proceedings.28

The Sands Directory issued in 1858/59 and 1861 record James Glover as a builder of the Miller Street, North Shore (now North Sydney).29 After his marriage to Jane Fogg in 1860 he was granted a publican’s license to the Sailor’s Return (later the Rag and Famish) in Miller Street, under the same name as his father Thomas Glover’s hotel in The Rocks.30 From c.1866-70, and at the time of the purchase of part of Lot 10 Section E at Blues Point, Glover lived at Princes Street, Sydney and was working as a carpenter.31 A plan showing Blues Point Estate subdivision and development from April 1864 shows that the east portion Lot 10 was undeveloped (Figure 3.6).

James Glover, ‘shipwright of [85] Princes Street, Sydney’, died at his residence on 2 January 1874. At the time of his death he owned numerous properties including in Princes Street, Sydney, a waterside property at Blues Point, and properties at Miller Street, St Leonards (North Sydney). His wife, Jane Glover, inherited a life interest in James Glover’s estate and on her death son, James Thomas Glover, inherited a life interest (for occupation or lease) in the Blues Point property. As far as can be determined neither James Glover, nor his wife or son ever occupied the eastern portion of Lot 10.32

To avoid repetition, the history of the ownership of Lot 10 by both James Glover and John Stevens is expanded on in Section 3.7.

3.7 LOT 10 SECTION E, BLUES POINT ESTATE A plan prepared in 1869 for the dedication of additional land for a new public wharf at Blues Point provides evidence of the extent of development in the locality, and proposed developments to serve the growing North Shore community (Figure 3.7). From 1867 North Shore residents considered the wharf as ‘small and insufficient’ and began lobbying the Minister of Lands for better facilities at Blues Point.33 Residents feared that landowners along the shore were reclaiming large areas of the waterfrontage, leaving insufficient land for expansion of the ferry wharf. They asserted that: …considerable sums of public money, together with a large amount of prison labour, has been expended on the wharf at Blue's Point and the road leading from it; and also, that much money has been paid for land and for improvements on it in this neighbourhood by private persons, upon the faith of this being preserved as a public thoroughfare, all of which will be considerably depreciated if this wharf is so circumscribed as to be insufficient for commercial purposes.34

An undated photograph (thought to be between Feb and Oct 1869 or earlier) is evidence of the Blues Point waterfront and the upper part of Stevens’ cottage, the gable end of which appears to be built of stone (Figure 3.8). A ‘Ferry Box’ and tiered stonework at the water’s edge is located to the south of Stevens’ house.

27 Reg No 661/1823 V1823661 8 NSW BDM. 28 Sydney Herald 14 Oct 1840, 2; SMH 15 Feb 1845, 29 Sands Directory 1858/59, 155. 30 Lic No 0339 NRS 14403 [7/1512], SRNSW; Australian 11 Mar 1836, 2. 31 Sands Directory 1867-70. 32 Will No 476, NSW Will Books; Sands Schedule. 33 Sydney Mail 12 Jan 1867, 9. 34 Sydney Mail 12 Jan 1867, 9. ______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 23

Figure 3.7: Crown Plan dated 20 Oct 1869 showing the extension of Stevens’ cottage on the western part of Lot 10 overlooking ‘Hulk Bay’. CP 11-1990, 20 Oct 1869, LPI. Annotations by C&L.

In April 1869, John Stevens advertised for a mason to put in a foundation at ‘Blue’s Point, North Shore’.35 Although Stevens developed other sites in the locality, given the date it is thought that it relates to alterations to the house on Lot 10 as by late 1869 surveys show that the cottage on Lot 10 near Blues Point Road had been extended to the east. A further advertisement placed in May 1869 called for tenders for a mason to construct ‘two cottages’ at Blue’s Point. Contractors were invited to obtain particulars of the project from Figtree Cottage, linked to Stevens’ brother, Archibald Stevens.36

The elongated, multi-occupancy dwelling built by Stevens is shown in an October 1869 Crown Plan and appears to be divided into two or possibly three residences, with a long verandah facing south. The angled alignment of the house, differing from the original cottage, is likely to have been to accommodate the line of the natural stone of the waterfront. The house overlooked the stretch of water shown on some plans as Hulk Bay after the hulks or permanently moored, disused ships (often used for prison accommodation or storage) that were once anchored there. Stevens’ house lay to the

35 SMH 14 Apr 1869, 8. 36 SMH 12 May 1869, 8. ______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 24 north of the ‘Ferry Box’ (or ticket box), wharf and coal yard, as well as an area of land proposed for reclamation. The location of the Ferry Box and part of the wharf correspond with Blues Point Road in the western extension of the study area. The low-water mark was a considerable distance from Stevens’ allotment providing incentive for reclamation along the Lot 10 waterfront boundary. The location of the southern boundary on this plan suggests Stevens might have already reclaimed some of the harbour frontage (Figure 3.7).37

Figure 3.8: Undated c.1869 (or earlier) photograph of Blues Point showing a paddle steamer moored at the wharf, stone-tiered embankment, the Ferry Ticket Box, and the roof of Stevens’ cottage on Lot 10. SPF/932, ML. SLNSW.

The development of waterfront allotments around Blues Point, Berrys Bay and Lavender Bay was stimulated by the expansion of ferry transport for passengers and goods, and maritime-related industries on both sides of Sydney Harbour. The proximity of Blues Point to Sydney Cove made it a prime location for both residential and commercial use. A survey prepared in 1871 (showing annotations up to the 1890s) provides evidence of the expansion and growth of the location (Figure 3.9). James Glover’s part of Lot 10 purchased in June 1868 remained undeveloped, although by 1871 a boat builder’s shed, leased by George Barnett, was constructed on Stevens part of Lot 10. Stevens’ reclamation of 19¾ perches (499 m2) of land between the high and low water marks was not finalised until 1885 and will be discussed later in the report.38

37 CP 11-1990, 20 Oct 1869, LPI. 38 CP 130-574, 25 Sep 1885, LPI. ______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 25

Figure 3.9: Tracing of ‘Lavender Bay’ showing George Barnett’s boat-building workshop (arrowed) on part of Lot 10 leased from John Stevens. CP 130-574, 25 Sep 1871, LPI. Annotations by C&L.

3.7.1 GEORGE BARNETT, BOATBUILDER OF BLUES POINT The Sands Directory lists George Barnett as a boat-builder at Blues Point and from 1868 he leased the boat shed and possibly also part of the house on the Stevens’ waterfront site. The brief listings in the directory do not provide further details about the address until the 1871 edition of the directory where it lists Barnett on Blue’s Point Road. He is listed at this address until c.1888. An article on Port Jackson yacht and boat builders published in September 1880 describes Barnett as an ‘excellent workman’ specialising in ‘watermen's skiffs, or boats of that class’ with a high turnover of that type of craft. Originally apprenticed by Charles Barnett of Windmill Street, a relative, he later established his own business on the ‘Lavender Bay side of Blue’s Point, where he had a suitable building-house, with a nice sandy shore for beaching boats attached to it’. Barnett was an accomplished boatbuilder and is linked to the construction of a variety of vessels including, …fishing boats, notably the Sea Breeze, for Mr Oliver, which was pitted against one of the cracks of the day, the Kingfisher, in an ocean race to Broken Bay and back. The Tim Whiffler and some other substantial fishing boats are from Mr Barnet's [sic] establishment. There is now being finished a very nice 21-feet skiff, with rather more sheer than usual, as it is to be employed in the rough water at the Heads, in connection with Sir Clayton's butchering business. Barnet has just completed a well-finished waterman's boat for Mr Alstead, of North Shore. Among the numerous skiffs he has built may be mentioned the Sydney Morning Herald prize boat given by Messrs John Fairfax and Sons for the watermen's race at the New South Wales National Regatta. Richards, the younger, was the winner; and though the boat has been subjected to constant work, it has stood it well, and otherwise given the most unqualified satisfaction to its owner,

______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 26

the subject of our notice has been favoured by Mr French, of George-street, with an order for a centre-board pleasure craft, which is now in course of construction at Mr Barnet's building-house. The boat will be 25 feet overall, 22 feet on the keel, 8 feet 6 inches beam, 3 feet deep, and half decked. It is to be carvel-built and double planked, so that no caulking will be necessary. A fishing boat similarly constructed, Mr Barnett informs us, he has put together for Stannard, of Double Bay, and he found the principle give satisfaction. The centre-board will be launched in about two months' time, and will no doubt give her owner the same degree of satisfaction that Barnet's skiffs give the watermen of Port Jackson.39

Although George Barnett only leased the boatshed on the western part of Lot 10, insolvency records for his business in 1870 might provide further information on the equipment used on the site, details of the premises, and boats stored there.40

As evidence of the growth of the locality, in 1871 the Borough of Victoria including Blue’s Point was recognised as a ‘distinct municipality’ separate from St Leonards. John Stevens of Windmill Street, Sydney, was one of the many petitioners supporting the change.41 Land was dedicated to the public for a public wharf in in July 1871 and the development of the wharf at Blue’s Point and the extension of Stevens’ house on Lot 10 are recorded in a photographic view looking south towards the city c.1873 (Figure 3.10).42

Figure 3.10: Undated view from Blues Point towards Millers Point attributed to John Paine and dated to 1873. The roof of Stevens’ house on Lot 10 is visible in the lower part of the image. SPF/934 ML SLNSW.

39 Sydney Mail 11 Sep 1880, 508. 40 George Barnett, boatbuilder, North Shore, 25 Oct 1870, File No 10429, SRNSW. 41 NSW Government Gazette 29 Jul 1870, 1593; SMH 24 Jan 1871, 8. 42 SPF/934 ML SLNSW; NSW Government Gazette 28 Jul 1871, 1645. ______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 27

3.8 LOT 10 SECTION E IN THE 1880S Land titles show that James Glover, the owner of the eastern portion of Lot 10 Section E, bequeathed a Life Estate over the 24 perches (607 m2) allotment to Jane Glover, his wife. The two leases are also recorded on the Certificate of Title and dated May 1885 and June 1891. The first was to Michael McMahon, a landowner to the east of the study area and after whom McMahons Point is named. The Victoria Council alderman was active in lobbying the Government for improved ferry services as well as local fresh water supplies. George Robert Whiting held the lease over Glover’s land from June 1891 to January 1894.43

The Blues Point public wharf south of the study area was expanded by July 1874 and a public meeting was held to discuss the formal dedication of the wharf.44 An undated photograph of the 1870s illustrates the expansion of the wharf, however, Stevens’ land retained the area of sand on which boats could be pulled ashore (Figure 3.11).45 As already stated, in the 1870s Stevens’ primary business interest was in the operation of a pearl- shelling station on Albany Island in the Torres Strait rather than in Sydney or Blues Point.46

Figure 3.11: Undated photograph of Blue’s Point public wharf and dated from 1874. Stevens’ Lot 10 retained a sandy beach on the southern boundary of the property on which to pull skiffs and other small craft ashore. SPF/800 ML SLNSW.

By 1880, shipowner and businessman John Stevens and his wife Mary Ann Alicia Madden had moved to Blues Point and were living in a house in West Crescent Street to the north of the study area.47 Blues Point continued to develop as a transport link to the city, and as one of several hubs for boatbuilding on Sydney harbour, including Berry’s Bay to the west. Barnett’s boat building enterprise on the western part of Lot 10 appears to have been on a

43 SMH 3 Jan 1874, 1, 12; LPI Schedule; M. Park, Dictionary of Sydney, 2008. 44 SMH 10 Jul 1874, 7. 45 SPF/800 ML SLNSW. 46 Queenslander 22 Jul 1876, 14; ATCJ 26 Jul 1879, 24; ATCJ 28 Feb 1880, 23. 47 Sands Schedule; Marriage Reg No 145/1866 NSW BDM. ______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 28 relatively small scale compared to others around the harbour. Crown Plan 356-2030 dated 1881 (including annotations to 1884) is linked to Stevens’ application to purchase ‘reclaimed land’ at the waterfront, maximising access to the waterfront with the potential for expansion of the current use (Figure 3.12).48 Crown Plan 540-2030 dated 1884 also documents the reclamation and cites references for files related to the application (Figure 3.13).

Figure 3.12: Crown Plan dated from 10 August 1881 showing land reclamation adjacent to Stevens’ part of Lot 10 and to which a title was issued in February 1885. It also shows the extent of development on Stevens’ and Glover’s Lot 10 between 1881 and 1884 at the time of Stevens’ application for land reclamation. CP 356-2030 LPI.

48 CP 356-2030 LPI; CP 540-2030 LPI. ______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 29

Figure 3.13: Plan showing Stevens’ reclamation. ‘Additional Reclamation: Plan of Lavender Bay North Shore in the Parish of Willoughby… applied for to reclaim and purchase… by John Stevens’, Steven Perdriau, Govt Surveyor, 25 Apr 1884, Crown Plan 540-2030, NSW Land and Property Information.

Land reclamation was occurring at Blues Point from at least 1866, well before Stevens’ applications from c.1880 to purchase reclaimed land adjacent to Lot 10. Residents and the boating public generally opposed applications as it increasingly restricted access to the water and from freely drawing up their craft on ‘beaches … occupied by private individuals.’ In addition, it restricted the future extension of the public wharf built at significant Government expense. Contributing to increased resentment among residents, the Minister approved Stevens’ application prior to its advertisement in the Government Gazette. The annotations on the plan record reclamations of land by Stevens, the first dated 20 April 1882 and the latter in 1884 between the southern boundary of Lot 10 and the harbour. Annotations on the plan showing the ‘assumed high water mark’ suggests the reclamation predated Stevens’ application and that informal reclamation is likely to have occurred on the southern boundary of Glover’s Lot 10. After payment of £25 the title to 19 ¾ perches (areas of 10 perches and 9 ¾ perches (totalling 500 m2) was issued to John Stevens in February 1885.49

Crown Plan 356-2030, dated 1881, also provides evidence of the residential and commercial development of Stevens’ land and the steep topography between the land and the harbour. The survey confirms Stevens’ house as largely built of stone and with wings of brick construction perpendicular to the main range of the house. Division of the north-western corner of Stevens’ land and the provision of three outhouses confirms that the building incorporated three residences in 1881. The boat shed near the eastern boundary was extended towards the harbour, and another smaller boat shed encroaching on the boundary of Glover’s allotment. The plan also shows a timber boat shed on Glover’s part

49 CP 356-2030 LPI; NSW Gov Gaz 30 Nov 1866, 2921; Evening News 3 Mar 1880, 3; Evening News 27 Feb 1880, 2; SMH 16 Jul 1881, 3; LPI Schedule. ______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 30 of Lot 10 positioned between the high and low water marks and in close proximity to sheds on Stevens’ land (Figure 3.12).

Although streets and roads were shown on maps and plans at the time of subdivision it was not uncommon for those such as Cliff Lane to the north of Lot 10 to be formed or completed at a later date due to the expense of construction on the rocky terrain. On 21 May 1881 the Borough of Victoria called for tenders for the formation of the lane on the north side of Stevens’ and Glover’s properties including the construction ‘of a retaining wall and excavation of a large quantity of rock’. Given the extent of the work, the project estimated at £400 was not approved until 1882 and on the condition that £300 ‘…be voluntarily subscribed’ before any agreement was entered into.50 A road survey commissioned by the council in 1883 provides evidence of the extent of the new lane as well as the buildings on Glover’s and Stevens’ portions of Lot 10. Illustrating the steepness of the topography, the lane remained incomplete and would require the removal of a further ‘wedge of rock’ comprising a perpendicular rock face about 30 feet high (c9 m). Pencil notes on the plan confirm that the completion of lane construction post-dated the original survey. Small outbuildings were built on both Stevens’ and Glover’s land (Figure 3.14).

Figure 3.14: Crown Plan dated 24 Feb 1883 recording the extent of Cliff Lane hewn through the sandstone north of Lot 10, as well as Stevens’ stone and brick house, and outbuildings on Stevens’ and Glover’s portions of Lot 10. CP 4-2202, LPI.

50 SMH 13 Apr 1882, 6. ______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 31

An undated (1884 or 1887) photograph of Blues Point looking south over Stevens Lot 10 provides a glimpse of the roof of the house, part of the reclaimed area of beach, and boats moored adjacent to the shore. Due to the steep topography the boatshed and slip are not visible (Figure 3.15).

Figure 3.15: An 1884 or 1887 photograph of Blues Point by photographer F A Coxhead showing a glimpse of the beach adjacent to Stevens’ reclaimed land on the harbourside of Lot 10. An arrow indicates the roof of Stevens’ house. SPF/935 ML SLNSW.

In May 1885 John Stevens’ application to the Government to construct a jetty on piles in front of his property at ‘Lavender Bay’ was accepted and the structure was in evidence in 1890 (Figure 3.16). By this time Stevens operated a number of businesses and was linked to the development of several Blues Point and North Sydney sites. As evidence of work he was undertaking and potentially links to the study area, Stevens placed a number of advertisements in the newspapers of the day. They related to the employment of four men for trenching and other work at Blues Point, two shipwrights required at Blues Point and a coasting master for Port Stephens trade. In May 1887 Stevens took out a mortgage on the western part of Lot 10 and the reclaimed land. Due to financial difficulties he was unable to meet the rent for the pile jetty and it was advertised as forfeited in May 1888. Stevens reapplied in 1890. His 44-ton wooden schooner Susie was also offered for sale in December 1888, however, it did not sell. In 1891 Stevens’ ‘well-known’ coasting vessel Susie, carrying a cargo of coal, ‘sprang a leak’ and ‘foundered’ near Port Stephens. Fortunately, all hands were saved.51

51 SMH 9 May 1885, 4; NSW Gov Gaz 1 Dec 1885, p7710; SMH 2 Oct 1885, 16; NSW Gov Gaz 28 Aug 1888, p6057; SMH 22 Dec 1888, 22; NSW Gov Gaz 14 Oct 1890, p7946; Evening News 14 Jan 1891, 4; NSW Gov Gaz 22 Jan 1892, 518; LPI Schedule. ______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 32

3.9 LOT 10 SECTION E FROM 1890 Surveys were made for the North Sydney Sewerage System in 1890 and construction took place in the period up to 1898. The sewerline was transferred to the Metropolitan Board of Water Supply and Sewerage in 1899.52 Prior to this time, sewage, surface drainage and other ‘liquid refuse’ ran into the harbour.53 The first survey and revisions made in 1892 and 1930 provide detailed information about Lot 10 and its buildings (Figure 3.16). The first survey plan records a water tank or cistern located to the south of Stevens’ house and on the west side of Lot 10 into what would have been the natural rock.54 A newspaper report in 1884 indicates that the North Shore did not have a permanent water supply at that time. Residents and businesses relied on rainwater collected in tanks, with some properties having wells. In very dry seasons water supplies failed and residents relied on the purchase of carted water.55

A Public Works Department survey shows that by 1891 alterations and changes had been made to the boatshed, and to the other galvanised iron, and timber and iron buildings or sheds (some open) on Stevens’ and Glover’s parts of Lot 10 (Figure 3.16). A pile jetty and a timber wharf extended from the shoreline into the harbour. A weighbridge was positioned outside the western boundary of the site adjacent to Blue’s Point Road. Fencing, separating the commercial and residential parts of the site, enclosed the house and the water closets. The surveyor’s field books linked to the final plan notes that a timber yard was operated near the pile jetty and open shed. The triangular section of wharf near the pile jetty was noted as unfinished (Figure 3.16).56 Not all details of the surveys are plotted on the final drawing and the surveyor’s field books provide detailed information about the site at the time of survey.57

52 W. V. Airds, The Water Supply, Sewerage and Drainage of Sydney, MWS&DB, Sydney 1961, 154-8. 53 SMH 21 Feb 1888, 11. 54 PWDS 1544-S901 Sydney Water. 55 Evening News 6 Oct 1884, 5. 56 PWDS 1544-S901, from 1891, Sydney Water. 57 Field Book No 1770, 31 Jul 1890, Sheet 16 North Sydney, Sydney Water; Field Book No 2669, 19 Feb 1930, Sheet 16 North Sydney, Sydney Water. ______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 33

Figure 3.16: North Sydney sewer survey dated 1891 showing Stevens’ house, sheds, pier and weighbridge on Lot 10. The plan includes information from revision surveys in 1892 and 1930 and the study area is outlined. PWDS 1544-S901 Sydney Water.

In 1892, James Thomas Glover, a son of James Glover, applied to lease 18½ perches (468 m2) of the harbour frontage on which to construct a wharf. A published record of the outcome of the application has not been located.58 A list of shipping facilities in Port Jackson in 1894 described Stevens’ Wharf at Blues Point as comprising: 1 jetty - 1 berth - 25/0 length of berth - 25/0 width of jetty or wharf - 7/6 draught of vessel taken - 4/0 depth of water at low tide.59

On October 1896 well-known resident of North Sydney John Stevens died from ‘the effects of paralysis’ at his residence, ‘William-street, Blue's Point’. He was considered to be ‘one of the pioneers of the pearl-shell industry in Torres Straits’ having ‘a number of small craft employed in fishing in the locality of Thursday Island’. He had a ‘genial and kindly disposition’ and ‘made hosts of friends everywhere, even amongst the aborigines [sic] about Torres Strait and Thursday Island’. He was one of the founders of the St. Leonards Bowling Club and left a family of two sons and five daughters.60

The Special Lease for Stevens’ jetty was forfeited due to unpaid rent for the second time in December 1897.61 In 1900 some of the North Sydney assets of Stevens’ Estate were put up for sale. An advertisement placed by Richardson and Wrench described the waterside property:

58 NSW Gov Gaz 9 Sep 1892, p7358. 59 Sydney Mail 24 Oct 1896, 3. 60 Daily Telegraph 17 Oct 1896, 10; Freemans Journal 24 Oct 1896, 14. 61 NSW Gov Gaz 15 Dec 1897, p9263. ______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 34

SYDNEY HARBOR [sic], at BLUE'S POINT. 105 FEET frontage to deep waters of Harbor [sic], 113 feet to Blue's Point-road, rear line to lane is 128 feet. It has a solid stone sea wall, JETTY with overhead tramway, three stone cottages, two large stores of iron, etc., office, weighbridge. A VALUABLE WATER FRONTAGE for Coal, Timber Merchants, or Shipping Companies.62

A photograph (from c.1914) of the construction of the Blues Point vehicular ferry dock shows what appears to be the southern end of Stevens’ Wharf visible on the left-hand side of the image (Figure 3.17). The history of the Blues Point vehicular ferry dock is expanded on in Section 3.10.

Figure 3.17: An undated photograph of Blues Point (from c.1914) showing the construction of the Blues Point vehicular ferry dock. Part of Stevens’ Wharf is to the left. LH Ref PF567 Stanton Library.

The Stevens’ Estate ‘wharf property’ was passed in at £2,000. In September 1900 plant, machinery, fittings and materials from a ‘White Lead Works’ at Stevens’ Wharf, Blues Point was offered for sale by Hugh Duff & Co on the premises, however, a link to Stevens’ business interests, or one of his tenants, has not been confirmed. In 1902 an Order for Foreclosure was made on the mortgage over the 38 perches (960 m2) of Lot 10, as well as the adjacent reclaimed land (19 ¾ p or 500 m2) owned by the Stevens Estate.63 Stevens’ Wharf was again advertised for Public Auction in February 1902 as comprising ‘3 Cottages and Stores’. The outstanding amount owing to the Commercial Banking Company of Sydney (Limited), including the principal and interest up to 8 April 1902, was advertised as £2360/18/9.64

62 Daily Telegraph 5 May 1900, 3; Evening News 16 May 1900, 5. 63 Evening News 16 May 1900, 5; SMH 14 Sep 1900, 8; LPI Schedule. 64 Australian Star 31 May 1902, 12; SMH 13 Feb 1902, 8. ______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 35

3.10 BLUES POINT WHARF AND THE VEHICULAR OR ‘HORSE FERRY’ Ferry services have been synonymous with Blues Point since William ‘Billy’ Blue established a ferry service there in the early 19th century. As the North Shore population grew, increasing demand led to the extension of passenger services and provision of vehicular ferries to cater to the needs of residents and businesses demanding regular access to the city and other harbour locations.

Blues Point Wharf and its approaches (partially located within the southwest of the study area) were expanded in the early 1870s at a ‘considerable cost to Government’, also drawing on Municipal funds. A meeting of residents in 1875 revealed the limitations of the new wharf despite the investment of several thousand pounds. It was considered that if restricted to passenger traffic far less money could have been spent. A stage was built on the wharf for a horse and cart ferry but inexplicably the wooden landing was removed and the entrance closed. Criticism was made of the materials used and ‘that [the] uncoppered wooden piles in the harbour would be perforated through by the Cobra in about twenty years’. It was hoped that the wooden structure would not rot before it was used.65

It was reported in 1897 that the Minister for Public Works approved £7,000 for the construction of a vehicular or ‘horse ferry’ service, including a ‘dock and landing’ for ferries between Dawes and Blues Points.66 The construction of a suitable vehicular ferry dock at Blues Point did not proceed and in August 1901 a deputation of North Shore representatives again lobbied the Minister for Works and to establish a Government ‘horse ferry’ service. Sydney Ferries Ltd refused to commence a service claiming adequate provision had not been made ‘on land’. The construction of a horse ferry dock and landing began on the western side of Dawes Point in 1898 but work on the Blue’s Point Dock was delayed. As plans in progress for the construction of a harbour bridge required an enormous outlay in funds, the Government’s investment in improving ferry services to Blues Point was of low priority.67

The Public Works Department finally constructed a cable hut at Blues Point in 1901 in anticipation, it is assumed, for the construction of a vehicular ferry wharf.68 The North Shore Ferry Service including a vehicular ferry was in service by February 1902 and, although the timetable was considered ‘not the most convenient’, it was anticipated that increasing traffic would make it the principal vehicle ferry between Sydney and North Sydney, replacing the route between Milsons Point and Macquarie Point (Increasing patronage, however, required the Council to better maintain Blues Point Road where loose gravel and the steep incline were a problem for heavily-laden vehicles.69

In 1905 a comparison of the two North Shore ferry services showed that 2,793 vehicles were conveyed from Blue’s Point Dock, compared to 4,823 from the more frequent but congested Milson’s Point service.70 The McMahon’s Point Tram Service opened in 1909 providing a service along Blues Point Road turning into Cliff Lane (or Cliff Avenue) and terminating at McMahons Point Ferry wharf, connecting with ferry services to the city.71 In 1914 the vehicle dock at Blues Point was replaced with the aim of lessening the ‘steep grade’ and improving vehicle entry and exit points from the ferry.72 A photograph thought to be of the 1914 vehicular ferry dock facing due east towards Milsons Point is shown in Figure 3.17 and Figure 3.18.

65 SMH 30 Sep 1875, 3. 66 Evening News 20 Jan 1897, 3. 67 SMH 23 Aug 1901, 4; NSW Public Works Department Report 1900-01, 63. 68 NSW Public Works Department Report 1901-02, 33. 69 Daily Telegraph 15 Feb 1902, 12. 70 Daily Telegraph 16 Mar 1905, 3. 71 McCarthy, K. ‘Reaching the North Shore’, Trolley Wire: Journal of Australian Tramway Museums, No 199, Apr 1982, 20. 72 Evening News 2 Apr 1914, 9. ______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 36

Figure 3.18: Photograph showing activity at a vehicle horse ferry in Sydney, possibly Blues Point. Harold Cazneaux, c.1908, ‘Ticket collector, horse punt’, Australian National Maritime Museum.

In 1923 Sydney Harbour Trust commenced plans to improve the docking facilities of the Blue’s Point Punt Service. Following representations of the North Sydney Council the Harbour Trust Commissioners agreed to: … remove the metal hoppers to a more suitable position on the existing wharf, to remove the building occupied by Mr Wakefield to a position clear of the proposed new roadway and to build the necessary seawall.73

The commissioners were not prepared to take over the existing pontoon or contribute to road maintenance, but as a concession they agreed to renew portions of the Council's lease of the existing wharf at a reduced rental of £20 a year.74

A January 1926 survey of the vehicular ferry dock illustrating the location of the vehicular ferry dock to the southwest of Lot 10 and to the north of the public wharf, partially within the south of the study area. The survey records a concrete roadway leading to the dock, to the east of which was a shed. The vehicular ferry dock comprised two, ramped landing stages flanked on the north side by a wharf on piles and landing steps. The wharf and steps are outside of the study area. A shed was located on the central arm of the dock and the entire dock area including outlying structures totalled 19 perches (480 m2). A ‘dolphin’ shown to the northeast of the dock was either used for mooring or for navigation aids and is likely to have been secured by piles driven into the harbour floor (Figure 3.19).

The completed Blues Point vehicular ferry dock is shown in Figure 3.20.

73 Sun 28 Nov 1923, 9. 74 Sun 28 Nov 1923, 9. ______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 37

Figure 3.19: Part of a 1926 survey of the vehicular ferry dock recording the Blues Point vehicular ferry dock to the south of Lot 10. McMahons Point Subdivision Plans M2/17 ML SLNSW.

Figure 3.20: Undated view of the North Shore Ferry Company’s PS Warrane docking at the Blues Point Vehicular Ferry Dock. GPO 1 - 19851 ML SLNSW.

______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 38

After the construction of the Sydney Harbour Bridge in 1932, demand for a vehicular ferry declined. In March of that year the Harbour Trust served a notice to Sydney Ferries Limited to terminate Blues Point passenger and vehicular services while the McMahons Point run was to be retained ‘until further notice’.75 The Blues Point vehicular ferry dock is listed in the North Sydney Heritage inventory as of local significance (Figure 3.21).76

Figure 3.21: Undated photograph of the remnants of the Blues Point vehicular ferry dock after the demolition of the superstructure. Database No 2180681, State Heritage Inventory.

3.11 NSW FRESH FOOD & ICE COMPANY AND HARBOUR LAND & TRANSPORT CO LTD - LOT 10 SEC E (WEST) In November 1902 the New South Wales Fresh Food and Ice Company Limited announced the proposed establishment of a North Shore distribution branch on the waterfrontage known as Stevens Wharf, the western part of Lot 10 Section E. The conveyance dated 2 February 1906, post-dating the company’s announcement in the Daily Telegraph of the purchase, suggests the company had an option to buy the property.77 The company is significant in Australian history for its links to advances in methods of refrigeration contributing to safe transport of food. From 1861, engineer Eugène Dominique Nicolle carried out experimentation into the refrigeration of meat and other goods for export in collaboration with businessman Thomas Sutcliffe Mort. T. S. Mort established the New South Wales Fresh Food and Ice Company in 1875.78

In 1902 the head office and refrigerating works were at Harbour Street, Sydney with branches and agencies throughout Australia. The company proposed to construct ‘a depot, with ice-house and other cool storage premises’ at the Blues Point site at the estimated cost of about £3000. The facilities would provide for the supply of fresh fruit to

75 Labour Daily 15 Mar 1932, 6. 76 Listing No I0451, North Sydney LEP, Database No 2180681, State Heritage Inventory. 77 Daily Telegraph 10 Nov 1902, 9; LPI Schedule. 78 SMH 23 Dec 1902, 7; Sydney Mail 4 Apr 1906, 866, 882 & 883; Barnard, A. ‘E. D. Nicolle (1823-1909)’, ADB, http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/nicolle-eugene-dominique-4304/text6973 (26/3/2018) ______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 39 the northern suburbs and more efficiently delivering milk in a steamer from Darling Harbour to the Blues Point depot, rather than the Macquarie Point to Milson’s Point horse ferry service.79

In November 1902 architect T. W. Hodgson invited tenders for additions, alterations and general repairs to the company’s Blues Point property. Further tenders were advertised for excavation at the depot, details of which were available from the on-site depot manager.80 Further information about the work is not known. Sometimes recorded as No 1 Blues Point Road, the Sands Directory lists the NSW Fresh Food and Ice Company and the manager W. W. Hilton on the east side of the road and at times in Cliff Lane or Cliff Avenue from 1903. Subsequent issues of the Sands record changes in the company’s depot site managers who might also have lived in one of the semi-detached residences or ‘cottages’ built by Stevens. A photographic view of Blues Point from Dawes Point provides a record of the study area and the development of Lot 10 in 1910 (Figure 3.22).

Figure 3.22: View of Blues Point and the study area in 1910 showing a considerable amount of development on the western end of Lot 10 owned by the NSW Fresh Food and Ice Company. Image No 498 1 Jan 1910 State Archives & Records.

In November 1926 the Harbour Land and Transport Company Limited, a subsidiary of the Sydney Ferries Ltd associated with their properties, purchased the western portion of Lot 10 Section E (38 perches or 960 m2) and the adjacent reclaimed land (19 ¾ perches or 500 m2).81 By 1934 the waterfront extending from Blues Point to McMahon’s Point ferry jetty had for some years been utilised by Sydney Ferries Ltd ‘as a depot for the company’s idle ferries’. At the time the company was considering schemes for the use of the ‘unproductive’

79 Daily Telegraph 10 Nov 1902, 9; LPI Schedule. 80 SMH 12 Nov 1902, 5; Daily Telegraph 1 Apr 1903, 3 81 LPI Schedule; Daily Commercial News & Shipping List 12 Mar 1919, 4. ______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 40 land they owned (including part of the study area and ‘Gibraltar’ to the southwest) there and were considering schemes including the construction of ‘swimming baths, the erection of a clubhouse’ with the building of blocks of flats, with swimming pools, tennis courts, detached garages, and gardens being favoured.82

3.12 ACQUISITION OF THE GLOVER ESTATE - LOT 10 SEC E (EAST) FROM 1910 Following widow Jane Glover’s death in 1891 the eastern part of Lot 10 was transferred to accountant Ernest Thomas Joseph Glover, one of James Glover’s sons, and to architect Thomas Wilson Hodgson. Hodgson is linked to the preparation of plans for the New South Wales Fresh Food and Ice Company Limited on the western part of Lot 10. The reason for Hodgson’s inclusion on the title, whether due to business interests or as a trustee of the Glover Estate, is not known. In July 1911 the Minister for Public Works resumed land on the Cliff Lane boundary for tramway construction. The Sydney Harbour Trust Commissioners purchased the residue in January 1912 for wharfage improvements.83

3.13 OCCUPANTS OF THE STUDY AREA FROM 1914-30S, LOT 10, SEC E Due to the arrangement of the listings in the Sands Directory it is difficult to accurately identify tenants in the residence on the corner of Blues Point Road and Cliff Lane (or Avenue). Due to the corner location some are listed in either or both Cliff Lane and Blues Point Road. With the exception of the company and on-site manager, a list of the tenants thought to be linked to the study area (east and west parts of Lot 10 Section E) during this period of ownership is shown below:

82 SMH 17 Jan 1934, 14. 83 LPI Schedule; NSW Gov Gaz 26 Mar 1913, 1819. ______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 41

Table 3.1: Occupants of the residence on the corner of Blues Point Road and Cliff Lane, 1914- 1930s. Year of Street Name Location No. Tenants Publication 1915 Blues Point Road Between No 1 (NSW Fresh Food and Ice Langham’s boat Company. Tel 22 N.S. Charles M. Quinlan, shed manager) and Ferry Wharves 1916 Blues Point Road Between ‘Blues Point’ and Ferry Wharves Donald McInnes 1916 Cliff Lane Off Blue’s Point Road to McMahon’s Point Donald McInnes Ferry Thomas Marsh Charles W. Wrigley, launch proprietor Langford’s Boat Shed 1917, 1918, Blues Point Road Between Cliff Lane and Blues Point Ferry Donald McInnes 1919 Wharves 1917, 1918 Cliff Lane Off Blue’s Point Road to McMahon’s Point Donald McInnes Ferry Mrs Sarah Richards Charles W. Wrigley, launch proprietor Langford’s Boat Shed 1919 Cliff Lane Off Blue’s Point Road to McMahon’s Point Mrs Sarah Richards Ferry Langford’s Boat Shed 1920, 1922 Blues Point Road Between Cliff Lane and Blues Point Ferry Alfred S. Wakefield, Wharves engineer 1920, 1922 Cliff Lane Off Blue’s Point Road to McMahon’s Point Mrs Sarah Richards Ferry Luen’s Boat Shed 1925 Blues Point Road Between Cliff Avenue and Blues Point Ferry Alfred S. Wakefield, Wharves blacksmith N. W. Abraham marine engineer 1925 Cliff Lane Off Blue’s Point Road to McMahon’s Point Mrs Emma Lynch Ferry Mrs Sarah Richards Wrigley’s Boatshed Charles W. Wrigley 1926 Blues Point Road Between Cliff Avenue and Blues Point Ferry No 1 Mrs Emma Lynch Wharves - A. S. Wakefield, blacksmith - N. W. Abraham marine engineer 1926 Cliff Lane Off Blue’s Point Road to McMahon’s Point Mrs Emma Lynch Ferry John W. Harris Wrigley’s Boatshed Charles W. Wrigley 1927 Blues Point Road Between Cliff Avenue and Blues Point Ferry Mrs Harding Wharves A. S. Wakefield, blacksmith N. W. Abraham marine engineer 1927, 1928, Cliff Lane Off Blue’s Point Road to McMahon’s Point John W. Harris 1929, 1930, Ferry Wrigley’s Boatshed 1931 Charles W. Wrigley 1928 Blues Point Road Between Cliff Avenue and Blues Point Ferry C. Wrigley Wharves Mrs Harding N. W. Abraham marine engineer 1929, 1930, Blues Point Road Between Cliff Avenue and Blues Point Ferry Thomas Morris 1931, 1932/33 Wharves

1932/33 Cliff Lane Off Blue’s Point Road to McMahon’s Point Thomas Morris Ferry Wrigley’s Boatshed Charles W. Wrigley

______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 42

3.14 LOT 10 SECTION E AND ADJACENT LAND FROM THE 1930S An undated c.1937 aerial photograph of Blues Point provides evidence of the study area and the extent of development at this time. The vehicular ferry dock was still extant and a vessel is shown docked there. Harbour Land and Transport Company Limited linked to Sydney Ferries owned the western part of Lot 10, docking their ferries on jetties between the vehicular dock and McMahons Point. The house originally owned by Stevens was also extant and, although the image is indistinct, a large shed-like structure is evident on the western part of the allotment. Sydney Harbour Trust Commissioners owned the eastern portion of Lot 10 at this time and a smaller shed is visible on the western boundary (Figure 3.23).84

Figure 3.23: Aerial photograph of Blues Point taken by Milton C. Kent in 1937 providing evidence of the study area including Lot 10 Section E and the vehicular ferry dock at this time. Kent et al. LH Ref PF2624, Stanton Library.

An undated North Sydney Block Plan No 48 (catalogued as c.1930s-40s) provides evidence of the study area during this period (Figure 3.24). The plan incorporates annotations dated to the 1950s and 1960s. The house built by John Stevens on the western part of Lot 10 is not shown, however, residences are not shown on many of the other Blues Point allotments. Other structures on Stevens’ former allotment include a galvanised iron shed (open on one side) near the eastern boundary and a pile jetty extending into the harbour. The eastern part of Lot 10 formerly owned by James Glover shows an enclosed galvanised-iron shed and a jetty or slipway extending from it into the harbour. The Blues Point vehicular ferry dock remained in situ and the North Sydney Municipal Council workshops were located immediately to its north. Cliff Avenue (or Lane) is shown as widened to accommodate the tramline between Blues Point Road and the McMahons Point Ferry Wharf. The notation

84 M. C. Kent et al. Sydney From the Air, [1937?], LH Ref PF2624, Stanton Library. ______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 43

‘No 5’ shown circled on Lot 10 refers to the c.1963 acquisition of the property by the State Planning Authority (Figure 3.24).85

Figure 3.24: North Sydney Block 48 showing the study area between the mid c.1930s and the 1960s. North Sydney Block 48, n.d, H. E. C. Robinson, Stanton Library.

Examination of North Sydney Rates and Valuation Books indicate that the house or ‘cottage’ at No 1 Blues Point Road was demolished in 1942, or soon after, with only a stone wall remaining. The adjacent site shown in rate records as ‘off Blues Point’ is thought to relate to Stevens’ area of reclaimed land and listed as comprising a sea wall and mooring dolphins. The adjacent rated site showing a workshop (demolished 1942-43) is thought to relate to the structure on the north eastern corner of Stevens’ western part of lot 10. Glover’s former grant has not been able to be identified in 1942 rates records.86 An aerial photograph taken in 1943 confirms the demolition of Stevens’ house and the workshop in the north-eastern corner of the site by this date. Sheds on the reclaimed part of the allotment are still extant but are not the same sheds as those depicted on the 1891 plan (Figure 3.25).87

85 North Sydney Block 48, n.d, H. E. C. Robinson, Stanton Library. 86 North Sydney Council Rates Schedule. 87 1973 Aerial SIXMaps, LPI. ______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 44

Figure 3.25: Aerial photograph showing the study area in Blues Point in 1943. The image confirms the 1942-43 demolition of house and workshop linked to Stevens’ part of Lot 10. The sheds shown on plan in 1891 have been replaced. Stevens’ Wharf is still extant on the reclaimed land near the shoreline. Sydney 1943 Imagery, SIXMaps LPI.

In comparison to the photograph above, a 1949 aerial photograph of the study area provides evidence that Stevens’ Wharf remained extant and that a wharf was built or land reclaimed at the shoreline of the eastern part of Lot 10. The use of the study area is not known but might be linked to building work or to a building material storage depot or salvage yard. Owners at this time include the Harbour Land and Transport Company Limited (western part of Lot 10 Sec E and reclaimed Portion Nos 1009 & 1010) and the Sydney Harbour Trust Commissioners (residue of eastern part of Lot 10 Sec E). The vehicular ferry dock was demolished by this date (Figure 3.26).

______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 45

Figure 3.26: Aerial photograph showing the study area in Blues Point in 1949. The owners or lessees of the land might have used the study area as a material storage depot or salvage yard. Stevens’ Wharf is still extant and a wharf or pier-type structure lies adjacent to the eastern part of Lot 10. Image No 1132-001, Historical Atlas of Sydney, CCSA.

With extensive co-ordination responsibilities for town planning in the County of Cumberland between 1945 and 1963, the Cumberland County Council acquired the western portion of Lot 10 Section E and the reclaimed Portion Nos 1009 and 1010 in June 1960.88 In 1971 the State Planning Authority placed Lot 2 DP 230594 (a subdivision of the eastern part of Glover’s Lot 10) under the control of North Sydney Council for use as a public park, reserve or recreation space. Council carried out site modifications and maintenance from this date. Other allotments in the reserve include Lot 1 DP 902933 and Lot 1 DP 1159898 (linked to Stevens’ part of Lot 10 and reclaimed land), and areas of Crown Land. Between 1976 and 1977 Cliff Lane or Avenue was renamed Henry Lawson Avenue.89 A bus shelter was built fronting the former Cliff Lane in 1984.90 The study area is included in the Blues Point Waterfront Group list on the North Sydney Local Environmental Plan as an item of local heritage significance.91

88 LPI Schedule. 89 NSW Government Gazette 23 Jul 1971, p2727; Sht 15, North Sydney Block Plans 1977, Stanton Library. 90 Artefact, PIR AARD 2016: 122. 91 Blues Point Waterfront Group, Listing No I0423, North Sydney LEP, Database No 2180677, State Heritage Inventory. ______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 46

4.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT 4.1 COMPARATIVE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES Archaeological investigations of various sites with a similar history or located in the vicinity of Blues Point have been undertaken previously. Research and results from these programs can often help inform our understanding of the types of remains and level of preservation that can be expected at the subject site, as well as locating the site within a broader contextual landscape of significance and associations. The following archaeological sites are discussed in this section (Figure 4.1): 1. Balmain East Transport Interchange Upgrade, Artefact Heritage, 2015. 2. International Conference Centre Hotel, Casey & Lowe, 2014. 3. 2-8 Weston Street, Balmain East, Casey & Lowe, 2012. 4. Barangaroo South, Casey & Lowe, 2012. 5. Barangaroo Headland Park, Austral Archaeology, 2012. 6. Darling Quarter, Casey & Lowe, 2008. 7. 63-65 Kirribilli Avenue, Casey & Lowe, 2000. 8. 51-53 Kirribilli Avenue. Casey & Lowe, 1995. 9. Neptune Engineering and Slipway Company Site, Godden Mackay, 1990.

Please note this is not an exhaustive list of sites.

Figure 4.1: Location of sites discussed in archaeological context. Blues Point Temporary site highlighted in red and arrowed. Six Maps.

______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 47

4.2 BALMAIN EAST TRANSPORT INTERCHANGE UPGRADE, 201592 Artefact Heritage undertook a test excavation at the foot of Darling Street, Balmain, to determine the potential for archaeological remains within part of the lot previously owned by John Bell and John Fenwick (also see Section 4.4). Test trenches were located in positions most likely to contain structures. Various levelling fills were uncovered as well as 19th-century reclamation fills which contained dressed sandstone blocks (Figure 4.2), and fragments of glass and ceramics. The overlay of former buildings within the Bell and Fenwick boat yards indicated that the corner of two buildings could be located below the current retaining wall structure, however, structural remains and occupation deposits were not identified in either test trench.

Figure 4.2: Section with dressed sandstone in the reclamation fill.

4.3 INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION CENTRE HOTEL, 201493 The International Convention Centre Hotel (ICC Hotel) was excavated as part of the State Significant Darling Harbour Live Project by Casey & Lowe in 2014. The archaeological excavation at the ICC Hotel site, Darling Harbour, Sydney, produced evidence for the Darling Harbour Goods Yard which operated on the site during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The archaeological remains included structural evidence for infrastructure including drainage and reclamation. The following is a summary of the main findings: . No natural land forms such as a rocky foreshore were encountered during the excavation program and bedrock was not reached. There was some evidence for intertidal water-borne sands but these were demonstrated to have been deposited following the initial reclamation and subsequent construction phase.

92 Artefact Heritage, Balmain East Transport Interchange Upgrade (Stage 1) Historical Archaeological Assessment, report to Transport for NSW, October 2015. 93 Casey & Lowe, 2015, ICC Hotel Darling Harbour Live, Darling Harbour Archaeological Investigation Report to Lend Lease, April 2015. ______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 48

. The modification of the foreshore with multiple large-scale bulk reclamation fills and square timber structures (Figure 4.3). . Accumulation of harbour sands with evidence of tidal action surrounding the northern timber structure. . Underlying levelling fills associated with the modification of the foreshore to accommodate the expansion of the railway lines and the Goods Yard eastwards into Darling Harbour. . A substantial machine-pressed brick arch-roofed drain associated with the further expansion of the Darling Harbour Goods Yard in the 1880s. . Infilling and levelling around the drain. . A compact black sooty sand working surface with bluestone gravel associated with the Darling Harbour Goods Yard. . Evidence for the flooring of the Outward Goods Shed of the Darling Harbour Goods Yard, built in 1902. . Evidence for 1980s services and structures.

Figure 4.3: Interior of timber reclamation structure. Scale 1m.

4.4 2-8 WESTON STREET, BALMAIN EAST, 201294 This site was excavated by Casey & Lowe in 2012 for Leichhardt Municipal Council prior to redevelopment as a public recreational area. Evidence was found of the maritime industry which operated from this site from the 19th century. The site was split into phases, each with its own archaeological evidence.

94 Casey & Lowe, 2012a, Results of Archaeological Investigation, 2-8 Weston Street, Balmain East report to Leichhardt Municipal Council, November 2012. ______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 49

Phase 1 (1788-1840) revealed limited information regarding the natural landscape or its use prior the 1840’s subdivision. However, some topographical features provided a glimpse of what the natural environment of the site was. In general, the site sloped from the west to the harbour in the east. Thick deposits of homogenous artefact-rich 19th-century topsoils were common but thinned out closer to the harbour front. Such soils can be the result of cultural activity such as tilling and fertilising for kitchen gardens, and build-up due to disposal of household and industrial waste.

Phase 2 (1840s-1880s) represented the subdivision of the land and the economically successful time period of Hayes’ Boatyard and John Bell’s shipyard. Post holes, sandstone blocks, linear impressions of a floor structure and irregular-shaped stones used as pads were all that remained of two sheds or workshops, one timber and the other timber and stone. A retaining wall was also uncovered from this period (Figure 4.4). Copper alloy boat nails and other vessel-related artefacts were found in association with both structures. Reclamation of the waterfront was undertaken on both properties sometime prior to 1875.

Figure 4.4: View of retaining wall from the south showing the contemporary ground level (foreground), the construction cut and the Fenwick boat store (right), Weston Street Balmain. Casey & Lowe.

Phase 3 includes the end of the shipyard’s life, other various occupants and the purchase of some of the land by Fenwick’s Tug and Water Boat business, until the 1960s. Artefacts associated with the houses fronting Weston Street became more frequent in the assemblage in the late 19th and early 20th century when Hayes’ boatyard and Bell’s shipyard had ceased operating. Evidence for landscaping and filling events in the later 19th century and early to mid-20th century was also found. These layers contained maritime- related artefacts as well as domestic-related ones and were formed after the boat and ship building activities on site had ceased. The mixed nature of the fills demonstrates that late 19th and early to mid 20th-century development had an impact on the intactness of the earlier ship and boat building archaeological remains.

______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 50

4.5 BARANGAROO SOUTH, 201295 Barangaroo South was excavated by Casey & Lowe Pty Ltd in 2011-12 for Lend Lease. Most of this site represented an area that was below the high-water mark at the time of British settlement. Originally split into five land grants along the shore, by the 1840s the land had been amalgamated into three properties. Reclamation and development work in the 1830s- 40s extended the properties into the harbour to create wharves, jetties and flat spaces for warehouses and stores.

Across this site multiple reclamation events, resulting in reclamation fills and associated structures, were uncovered. These fills largely consisted of bulk sandstone rubble, clay rich fills and industrial waste to raise the new ground above the high-water mark. Seawalls were often used to retain the reclamation. In other areas there was significant slumping and sloping of the fills into the harbour.

Various other archaeology was uncovered across the site, the majority on top of the reclamation fills. These included: . Working and yard surfaces. . Artefact-rich deposits. . Various wharfs, jetties and slipways (Figure 4.5). . Sandstone retaining walls, sandstone seawalls, other sandstone walls. . Sandstone set yard surface. . Stormwater drains, with reused sandstock bricks and timber base. . Sandstock brick drain. . Levelling fills. . Dead-man anchors. . Boat ramp or skid with accompanying timber superstructure component, suitable only for small boats. . An 1830s building, with remains consisting of sandstone footings and several courses of sandstone on top, sandstone base pads for timber posts. . An 1840s-50s building complex, with remains consisting of timber posts forming the external frame and internal support system, sandstone footings. . 1850s shed or warehouse. Remains consisted of post holes, wall trenches, sandstone surface, gutter, floor elements, occupation deposits. . An 1850s smithy’s workshop, with remains consisting of sandstone footings with a recess filled with solidified metal waste. . An 1850s store shed with remains consisting of lines of sandstone pads to support a timber superstructure, sandstone wall (Figure 4.5). . An 1850-60s receiving shed. Remains consisted of post holes, timber base plates, sandstone pier basses, underfloor deposits. . 1850s-60s shed and store building. Remains consisted of sandstone and brick footings, timber flooring, brick drain with sandstone base associated with it. . An 1860s timber framed structure (smithy’s workshop?) aligned to early property boundary. Remains consisted of footing trenches containing horizontal timber logs and several post holes, thick deposits of slag throughout the interior. . An 1860s-70s building, with remains consisting of timber flooring and underfloor deposit. . An 1870s building with remains consisting of sandstone pads and horizontal timbers. . An 1880s Flemish-style brick building. Remains consisted of cyclopean concrete footings and service pipes. . Two 1880s weighbridges. Each would have contained an in-ground set of weights and scales to weigh goods

95 Casey & Lowe, 2012b, Barangaroo South, Archaeological Excavation Preliminary Results, report to Lend Lease (Millers Point), October 2012; http://www.caseyandlowe.com.au/sitebarangaroosouth.htm ______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 51

- One was contained within a large warehouse, it was later remodelled and extended. A partial brick and concrete structure was found beside the weighbridge which may represent a second weighbridge or possible crane base. To the south a second crane base was found, the base lined with reused blue stone pavers. - The only remains of the other consisted of purple shale bricks, hard lime mortar/cement (Figure 4.6). . An 1890s large shed-like building. Remains consisted of large timber piles, brick and concrete surfaces, crane base and pavers.

Figure 4.5: Sandstone footings (red arrow) of a store building and timber piles associated with a jetty.

______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 52

Figure 4.6: 1880s weighbridge structure. The goods would have been suspended in the rectangular central space, while the weights would have been attached to a counter- balance arm in the smaller channel in the bottom left corner.

4.6 BARANGAROO HEADLAND, 201296 Barangaroo Headland was excavated by Austral Archaeology in 2012. Due to its large size, the site was split into two parts, the northern area and southern area. The northern part was designated ‘The Wharves Site’ and the southern part ‘The Shipyards Site’.

4.6.1 WHARVES SITE Although archaeological features and deposits were present in Wharves Site, they were heavily disturbed by the extensive service trenches from the late 19th century onwards. Moore's Wharf and associated excavation areas represented a sequence of wharves, land reclamation deposits and some remnant materials associated with 19th-century commercial structures.

The stratigraphy of the area of Moore’s Wharf was uniform and shallow with a series of substantial fill deposits as well as evidence of systematic and concentrated demolition and removal events (1850s). There were also a number of earlier features associated with Moore’s Wharf’s operation (1837-c.1880s), such as a sandstone surface, the fill deposits below it and two iterations of wharf structures. These wharf structures included damaged wooden sheet pilings and supporting piles as well as tie irons extending beyond the limits of excavation.

The area next to Moore’s Wharf contained the majority of archaeological finding for this part of the site. The features that comprise this complex were principally concentrated around a network of tie irons (Figure 4.7) (c.1910) which included a series of wooden wharf piles, a sandstone surface and a series of early cuts and fill deposits. In addition to these items there were also the remnants of a finger wharf. The lowest features of this complex were inundated by water at high tide and continued below the low tide mark.

96 Austral Archaeology, 2016, Barangaroo Headland Park, Historical Archaeological Excavation, Sydney, December 2016. ______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 53

Figure 4.7: Coupled tie iron and adjacent remnant timber piles.

Other areas were mostly disturbed by services. However, in situ remains included a cobbled surface, remnant sandstone wall footings, crushed sandstone surfaces and remnants of a wooden structure adhering to the surface of the bedrock.

4.6.2 SHIPYARDS SITE Compared to the Wharves Site, the archaeological material from this excavation was extensive and complex. These features and deposits were largely related to two shipyards, one built atop the other. Other phases of wharfage, seawall construction and general occupation were also revealed during excavation.

While the excavation areas contained bedrock, they were largely composed of fill deposits that were the results of land reclamation. The Shipyards Site consisted of large structures, arranged either to intersect with, or parallel to the shoreline. Slipways, working surfaces, buildings, services, wharves and land reclamation were all in at least in some manner orientated to the original shore. The Shipyard Site was so large and contained so many archaeological features and objects that only the largest and most significant finds have been summarised below: . Concrete seawall and associated fills. . Wharf remnants and associated deposits, formed of wooden wharf piles, supporting structures and fill deposits. . Sandstone seawall and supporting features and deposits. . Sand, sandstone and wooden shavings slipway, bounded by the sandstone sea wall and associated deposits and a second slipway. . Working surface of Cuthbert’s shipyard. . Wrecked tanks below the second shipyard. . Cesspit.

______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 54

. Sandstone slipway and platform. . Basal deposits. . 20th-century warehouse footings, basement floor and demolition fill.

4.7 DARLING QUARTER, 2008-201097 Darling Quarter was excavated by Casey & Lowe in 2008-2010. The wharf facilities of Darling Harbour were crucial to the economic development and growth of Sydney in the 19th century. The site was once almost entirely below the high tide mark and consisted of a large expanse of intertidal sand flat abutting a rocky shoreline. Through a number of phases of reclamation undertaken by private land speculators and entrepreneurs, mostly in the first half of the 19th century, the site was transformed into large waterfront properties complete with wharf facilities.

Different phases of the site resulted in various archaeological remains. The early foreshore remains included: . Crushed shell to make lime, overlying the rocky shore above the high tide mark. . Timber boat ramp from the shore into the intertidal zone made using timber logs, sealed by reclamation. . Remains of a post and rail fence marking the limit of low tide.

Early land grant holders along the Darling Harbour waterfront developed the land and operated businesses and industries associated with, or reliant on maritime trade. In the early decades of the 19th century the eastern foreshore was home to shipbuilders, merchants, various manufacturers and milliners. Part of the site was also residential at one stage. Remains of this phase included: . Industrial waste deposits. . Household waste deposits. . Yard surfaces from various owners/occupations. . Timber fence lines, consisting of post holes. . Jetty for a mill complex with remains consisting of reclaimed foreshore retained by a sandstone wall, timber remains. . Multiple reclamation deposits. Remains mostly consisted of excavated or dredged harbour and foreshore sands, course yellow sand, crushed and rubble sandstone, natural clay deposits, harbour detritus, and rare redeposited household rubbish. . Later levelling fills, mostly consisting of industrial waste material but with spreads of demolition and household rubbish-rich materials. . An 1820s mill pond, with remains consisting of long timbers and clays. . An 1820s slipway from the shore into the harbour. Remains consisted of roughly worked logs. . 1830s stone wall. . Pre-1840s two-storey houses, remains of seven houses consisted of yard surfaces, cesspits, underfloor deposits, sandstone foundations. . 1840s overflow drain. . 1840s brick drain-like structure running down to the harbour. . 1840s residential building, remains consisted of sandstone and timber footings, underfloor deposits, timber verandah, cesspit. . 1840s wharf, remains consisted of deteriorated timbers, timber decking. . 1850s wharf, remains consisted of timber piles and headstock. . 1860s foundry workshop, remains consisted of large sandstone footings.

97 Casey & Lowe, 2013, Darling Quarter (formerly Darling Walk), Darling Harbour, Sydney, report to Lend Lease Development, December 2013. ______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 55

. 1860s weighbridge, remains consisted of a rectangular pit made from neatly cut sandstone blocks bonded with shell and sand mortar creating uneven coursing. This led to a subsurface corridor lined with bricks, and a narrow-gauge rail system with turntables leading from the wharf frontage to the weighbridge. . 1860s boiler house and timber storage yard, remains consisted of a partial brick structure. . 1860s crane, remains consisted of sandstone base. . 1860s shed, stables and cart house, remains consisted of sandstone footings, timber remains, artefact scatters. . 1870s wharf, remains consisted of timber headstocks and associated fills. . 1880s structure for sawmill steam engine, remains consisted of base constructed from shale bricks, foundation pads, pit constructed from sheet metal, machine- made brick footings (Figure 4.8). . 1880s stables and office building.

Figure 4.8: The remains of a sawmill including the steam engine base, fly wheel housing, boiler bases and postholes of the building containing these structures.

4.8 63-65 KIRRIBILLI AVENUE, KIRRIBILLI, 200098 Two houses occupied this site, having been built into the steep slope that ran down to the harbour foreshore at Kirribilli. The land was originally used for agricultural purposes including orchards and vegetable gardens. It was subdivided in 1858 for housing with houses built on most of the allotments by 1868.

No. 63 Kirribilli Avenue, ‘Deepdene’, was occupied by a single-storey, four-room weatherboard house until at least 1910 when this was demolished and replaced with a house built in 1919. The later house partially overlaid the northern half of the earlier weatherboard

98 Casey & Lowe, 2000, The Archaeological Investigation of 63-65 Kirribilli Avenue, Kirribilli, report to Bruce Swalwell Architects, February 2000. ______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 56 cottage. Due to likely impacts from the 1920s house and terracing of land below at 63 Kirribilli Avenue, archaeological investigation was not undertaken there.

65 Kirribilli Avenue is described as a single-storey, nine-room sandstone house, first listed in the Sands Directory in 1869. A two-storey addition was built in the 1920s. Archaeological excavation at 65 Kirribilli Avenue both inside and in the yard revealed a near absence of archaeological deposits and artefacts in the underfloor areas of the house, despite little evidence of later disturbance. In this instance the archaeological investigations were not able to provide substantial information about earlier phases of site use.

4.9 ‘GREENCLIFFE’, 51-53 KIRRIBILLI AVENUE, SYDNEY, 199599 Casey & Lowe excavated this site before the demolition of the building in 1995. The land was originally used for agricultural purposes by James Milson until Greencliffe was built in the 1860s. A substantial one and two-storey sandstone cottage, the house was one of the first in the local area. The archaeological investigation focused on two areas: under the floor level of the existing building when the floorboards were removed, and in a corner of the property where an 1860s timber building had stood. Due to the numerous alterations made to the house throughout its lifetime, the archaeological work also attempted to record the remains of what was left of the original house and as much of what had been assessed as the 1880s extension as possible.

It was discovered that the underfloor had been cleared out previously and only a few deposits could be dated to the 19th century. Near the northwest corner of the property, the site of a small weatherboard cottage was excavated. It had been hoped that the artefactual remains found here could be compared to the artefacts expected to be found inside the main house. The remains in this area, however, were poorly preserved and it was not possible to distinguish either the exact position of the cottage or deposits relating to its occupation.

4.10 NEPTUNE ENGINEERING SLIPWAY, 1990100 Godden Mackay monitored the excavation for a sewer deviation near the Neptune Engineering and Slipway Company site in 1990. Neptune Engineering was established in 1909 as a general boatbuilding and repair works, located at the north-western extremity of Lavender Bay. It was the last example of the boat-building industries that were formerly dominant features in the bay.

The slipway was still standing in 1990 along with other related structures - these were documented during the excavation. The existing wall consisted of sandstone masonry, bonded with various mortars and cement. The wall showed extensive signs of modification and repair work and was in part extensively paint stained. The slipway pavement was a single level of reinforced concrete arranged in four sections, filling spaces between the slipway rails and the outer walls. This included simple semi-circular dish gutters along the eastern and western sides. The slipway rails consisted of four separate rails on which the cradle operated. These rested on large recycled wharf headstocks acting as bearers. The slipway cradle was made of two timber frames, connected by either a steel rod or timber beam, resting on cast-iron wheels, axles and bearing blocks. This remained in situ and was essentially unaffected by the trench excavation works.

During excavation a section of former seawall was uncovered. This consisted of regular courses of sparrow-pecked square sandstone masonry. Damaged in the upper sections, the top of the wall showed evidence of a former tar or bitumen coating. Apart from this seawall, no other significant features or deposits were uncovered.

99 Casey & Lowe, 1995, The Archaeological Investigation of ‘Greencliffe’, 51-53 Kirribilli Avenue, Kirribilli, Sydney report to Bruce Swalwell Architects on behalf of Greencliffe Developments Pty Ltd, March 1995. 100 Godden Mackay Pty Ltd, 1990, Neptune Engineering and Slipway Company Site, report on Archaeological Monitoring, prepared for Gabo Investments Ltd and the Heritage Council of NSW, December 1990. ______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 57

5.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL 5.1 NATURE OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL Archaeological potential is the degree to which archaeological remains are considered likely to survive within the study area in light of modern impacts and historic activities. Typical archaeological remains found in Sydney take a number of forms: . Structural remains associated with buildings shown on plan are likely to survive but will be impacted by later phases of building: - building footings - underfloor deposits associated with the occupation of the house - other types of deposits . Certain types of remains are typically not shown on plan although some may be on later plans: - wells - cesspits - site drainage - rubbish pits - evidence for gardens, layout and use of the yard areas - pet burials - fence lines, assisting with clarification of lot boundaries and internal use of lots - pollen and soil evidence - land clearing and modification of the landform, including major filling events, i.e., backfilling of ponds or the creek line and more ephemeral evidence of land use including plough, hoe and drainage channels - rubbish dumps - other types of archaeological deposits . Later building phases will impact on the remains of early phases. . The greater the number of phases, the more complicated the nature of the archaeological the remains.

There are also several other common processes which determine the archaeological resource: . Disused underground features such as wells, cisterns, reservoirs and cesspits tend to be backfilled with rubbish when they cease being used. . Underfloor deposits typically form where the original flooring was butt-boarded timber floorboards (this extends to deposits that form in timber jetty or wharf aprons). - These can survive in both demolished and standing structures, although the installation of later services and the replacement of flooring can impact on the integrity of underfloor deposits. - Underfloor deposits can include both small items which fell between floorboards, and also material which must have been deliberately deposited beneath loose floorboards. - Floor coverings such as oil-cloths and carpets can minimise the accumulation of items underneath a butt-boarded timber floor. Floor coverings like these would be more common in wealthier households. . Later building phases will impact on the remains of early phases. . The greater the number of phases the more complicated the nature of the archaeological the remains. . Generally, the topography of an area will become flatter as it is modified by human action. - Natural depressions, especially surrounding water courses, often tend to be filled in. ______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 58

- Natural rises and rocky outcrops are not infrequently cut down. . Even where a building has substantial footings, the bottom of wells can still remain underneath the level of the basement. Some wells have been found cut into the natural bedrock. Wells can be quite deep, since they were required to reach the level of the local water table. However, it is still fairly rare to find wells under basements.

Other issues arise from the nature of impacts from later 20th-century activities such as demolition, clearing and construction. Generally, the following principles apply: . The later the date a building was demolished, then the greater the impact on the archaeological resource from larger modern machinery. . Footing systems of single-storey buildings have less impact on the archaeology of earlier phases than those of multi-storey buildings. . Demolishers and builders typically do as little as they have to because of the need to control costs. . Higher areas get cut down and levelled and lower damp areas get filled. . Roadways usually have impacts from modern services.

5.2 PREVIOUS IMPACTS The study area has undergone little development since the demolition of buildings and infrastructure in the 1940s. The storage yard (or similar) evident in the 1949 aerial photograph is unlikely to have had any significant impact, and the site’s use as a public reserve since the mid-20th century is similarly unlikely to have impacted remains. Structures associated with the reserve, such as the 1984 bus stop and existing park benches, are unlikely to have impacted much below the level of modern sod and topsoil. As discussed in Section 5.4, services to the park are minimal and appear to be confined to the perimeter.

The impact of later phases of construction on earlier phases of archaeological remains cannot be discounted, although these are also likely to have been minimal. The houses in the northwest of the site have been added to over time rather than demolished and replaced. This will have preserved much of the archaeological material. Based on historic records, the various phases of sheds and similar structures were fairly insubstantial in nature. This means the later phase structures are unlikely to have removed all evidence of the earlier structures but also that the archaeological remains themselves are likely to be ephemeral and difficult to recognise. Various reclamation, wharf and jetty phases are similarly unlikely to have significantly impacted earlier phases due to the tendency to infill rather than remove maritime infrastructure. There is no information on the dredging history in this area and the plans suggest that the area silted up in the late 19th century.

______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 59

5.3 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING Geotechnical testing was undertaken at the Blues Point site by Douglas Partners and Golder Associates in 2016.101 The surface level of BH033 and BH033A were RL 7.3m and RL 6.5m respectively. In both of these holes there was 2.1m of material sitting above the sandstone bedrock, indicating archaeology may be present in these areas. The testing showed the level of the natural sandstone in these areas are: . BH033 = RL 5.03m . BH033A = RL 4.40m

The material sitting above the bedrock in both areas consists of topsoil, sandy fill with inclusions of sandstone, concrete, gravel and cobbles, and sandy clay. The inclusion of cobbles and concrete imply the presence of archaeological remains. The borehole results pertaining to these layers are shown in Figure 5.2 and Figure 5.3.

Figure 5.1: Borehole Locations. SIX Maps.

101 Douglas Partners, Golder Associates 2016. ______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 60

Figure 5.2: Results for the upper 10m of borehole SRT BH033. Douglas Partners, Golder Associates 2016.

______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 61

Figure 5.3: Results for the upper 10m of borehole SRT BH033A. Douglas Partners, Golder Associates 2016.

______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 62

5.4 SITE VISIT On 1 February 2018, Sandra Kuiters, Casey & Lowe, visited Blues Point Reserve. The site consists of a large grassy area with a steep slope downward toward sandstone seawall running along the water (Figure 5.4). In the area of the western extension of the site the surface consisted of concrete and bitumen road and footpath surfaces, as well as the concrete remains of the vehicular ferry wharf.

Sandstone was visible in bare patches in the grass, suggesting that the top of the archaeology is very close to modern surface levels (Figure 5.5). Additionally, the grass was noticeably browner in the location of the demolished houses in the northwest corner of the study area, and in the eastern portion of the site (Figure 5.6). Archaeological remains close to the surface often present as patterns of stunted vegetation and it is likely that this is the case in Blues Point Reserve. Similarly, areas of lush vegetation were observed, particularly curving behind the pair of park benches in the west of the park, and in a gully to the west of the bus shelter. The curve behind the benches corresponds to the southern fence line of the demolished houses. The slope of the ground was also undulating and uneven, possibly as a result of buried archaeological material.

A line of stone blocks, possibly granite, run parallel, on an east–west alignment, about 1m behind the seawall (Figure 5.7). They were spaced about 1.5m apart and were exposed due to harbour water damage to the turf along the water’s edge. The blocks are likely to be archaeological features, possibly associated with an earlier seawall. The seawall itself was made of sandstone blocks with intermittent weep holes and a large set of stairs leading down to the beach. The beach was not visible during the site visit as it was high tide.

Very few modern impacts to the potential archaeological remains were visible. The bus shelter, a bollard, lamp post and four park benches may have caused minor, localised impacts to the top of the archaeology, but these impacts are likely to be insignificant (Figure 5.8). Additionally, services including water, stormwater and telecommunications were observed in the study area, however, these were located around the edges of the park along Henry Lawson Avenue and below the footpath along Blues Point Road. These are likely to have had only minor, localised impacts on archaeological remains.

Figure 5.4: Blues Point Reserve from the remains of the vehicular car ferry wharf. View to the north.

______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 63

Figure 5.5: Sandstone visible in bare patches in the ground. View to the west.

Figure 5.6: Brown grass in the northwest corner of the park (background), a ridge with lush green grass running behind the benches, and sandstone exposed in the foreground. View to the north.

Figure 5.7: Stone blocks spaced behind the seawall (red arrows). View to the west.

______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 64

Figure 5.8: Modern impacts in the north of the study area, including a bus shelter, tap, lamp post and an access hole leading to stormwater or similar. View to the east.

5.5 MARITIME ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY The maritime archaeology dive inspection took place on 1st May 2018 and was supervised by Cosmos Coroneos, maritime archaeologist.

There were two transects laid out and surveyed (Figure 5.9). Transect 1 laid along the alignment of the proposed fender piles (hatched green box) for the ramp facility including the proposed pile locations on the southern side of the ramp. Transect 2 examined the northern edge of the ramp facility where there is a possibility of seabed scour arising from the tug manoeuvring the barges in and out of the facility. The transect also covered the proposed pile locations on the northern side of the ramp

Transect 1 There was a very low density of artefacts visible on the predominantly sandy seabed within this transect including a heavily corroded 400mm diameter cast-iron pipe (discarded), collapsed timber pile, disused concrete mooring, discarded ‘I” beam, occasional tyres, (used as boat/pile fenders). The collapsed timber pile may have been associated with the vehicular ferry landing. Close to the current seawall are sandstone blocks, some of which seem to form a line suggesting a former wall alignment but most are likely collapsed sections of the current seawall alignment.

Transect 2 There was a very low density of artefacts on the sandy seabed commencing at the south eastern end increasing in density until there was 90 per cent coverage on the seabed of bottles (recent), plastics, metals and other synthetic material in a band 25m from the seawall. This area seems to be a flotsam trap for material discarded from shore and vessels moored nearby.

______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 65

Figure 5.9: Location of Maritime Transects 1 and 2 with associated finds.

5.6 POTENTIAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL REMAINS & PHASES The history and phasing of Blues Point can be interpreted in terms of three different areas across the site. The following discussion of archaeological phases divides the study area into Area A, Area B and Area C (Figure 5.10). The land parcels corresponding to each of these areas are as follows: . Area A: - DP 1077149, Lot 7048. - DP 581992, Lot 2, which no longer forms part of the current works. - Blues Point Road, which no longer forms part of the current works except for an approximately 1m wide narrow strip along the western site boundary, adjacent to the footpath, and is therefore negligible. . Area B: - DP 902933, Lot 1. - DP 1159898, Lot 1. - DP 581992, Lot 1. . Area C: - DP 230594, Lot 2.

______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 66

Figure 5.10: Satellite view of the study area showing land parcels in relation to site Areas A, B and C. SIX Viewer 2018.

Blues Point temporary site has the potential to contain archaeological remains from a number of phases. Archaeological phases and potential for each area are outlined in Table 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4 below. . Phase 1: Natural Landscape - Steep, rocky foreshore with sandy beaches. - Natural bedrock and naturally deposited harbour sands. . Phase 2: Aboriginal Occupation - Evidence of artefact scatters and hearths. . Phase 3: Early European Occupation, Wharf Construction, 1717 to 1850s - Early land clearance and modification, small-scale farming. - Earliest phase of wharves, jetties and seawalls. - First phase of cottage and associated fences in northwest of Area B. . Phase 4: Wharfage, Maritime Industries & Residential Occupation, 1860s to 1890s - Subdivision of Blue’s estate. - Extension of original cottage, additional outbuildings. - Reclamation and further development of wharves, jetties and seawalls. - Public and private infrastructure. - Establishment of maritime industries and associated infrastructure, including boatsheds, other sheds, a slipway and a weighbridge. ______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 67

. Phase 5: Further Developments, Early 20th Century to 1930s - Vehicular ferry established at the public wharf, and subsequently upgraded. - Large-scale businesses take control of the private land. - Changes to buildings and infrastructure, apparently minor. . Phase 6: Demolition, Storage Yard, 1940s to 1960s - Vehicular ferry wharf demolished. - Cottages and sheds demolished. - Land used as a building materials storage depot, salvage yard or similar. - Small-scale structures built. . Phase 7: Public Park, 1960s to Present - Land reserved by Council for public recreational use.

Table 5.1 Summary of possible archaeological remains across the site. ARCHAEOLOGICAL LIKELY KINDS OF REMAINS POTENTIAL Remains are too recent to be considered to be of archaeological NIL significance. LOW Evidence of land clearance and cultivation such as tree boles, tool marks and infilling of swampy land, unrecorded early European occupation including postholes, base plates, hearths, cesspits, wells and artefact scatters. Impacts from later phases. Evidence of the natural landscape including bedrock and harbour deposits, fossilised pollens or other environmental material. Early phase reclamation efforts, and maritime infrastructure such as wharves, jetties and seawalls, and possibly machinery related to commercial or industrial MODERATE undertakings. Early to mid-19th-century house footings, postholes, occupation and yard deposits, seabed deposits, rubbish dumps, surfaces, cesspits and wells. Mid to late 19th-century shed remains, Area C. Some impacts from later buildings. Well-preserved later phase remains dating from the late 19th to early 20th century. Evidence of footings/structural remains of the houses and outbuildings including postholes, occupation and yard deposits, seabed deposits, rubbish dumps, surfaces, cesspits and wells. The ferry box, later HIGH phase reclamation efforts, and maritime infrastructure such including public and private wharves, jetties, seawalls and slipways. Sheds and possibly machinery related to late 19th and early 20th-commercial or industrial undertakings, including shipbuilding, and the vehicular car ferry.

______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 68

Table 5.2: Archaeological phases and potential within Area A (Figure 5.12, Figure 5.13). PHASE BUILT HISTORY POTENTIAL . Steep, rocky foreshore with sandy beaches. . Natural bedrock and naturally deposited harbour sands. 1 Moderate . Evidence of the natural topography, soil conditions and pollen are anticipated to be found. . See AMBS Ecology & Heritage Sydney Metro City & Southwest 2 NA Aboriginal Archaeological Method Statement for Blues Point. . Land granted to Billy Blue, 1817. Used for ferry service and small-scale farming and fruit growing. Blue’s ferry wharf is not shown on plan was in the vicinity. . St Leonards Road or Blues Point was one of the earliest roads in the locality and was gazetted in 1839. It is visible in the c.1840s etching (Figure 3.3) and is located to the immediate west of Area A, outside 3 Moderate of the area of works. . A public wharf was also dedicated in 1839. . Ferry services offered by Joseph and Thomas Gerrard, and Charles Brown in this vicinity. . Stone seawall & jetty evident in c.1840 etching and shown on 1857 plan and c.1858-59 photograph (Figure 3.3 & Figure 3.5). . The 1864 subdivision plan shows a small structure (ferry box) within the road to the immediate west of Area A (Figure 3.6). Another structure within the road at the north of the wharf is shown on plan in 1864 and 1865 but is not recorded after this date.102 This is likely to be to the immediate west of the area of works. . The 1864 subdivision plan also shows a jetty or breakwater extending into the water from the north of the wharf (Figure 3.6). . A c.1869 (or earlier) photograph shows Blues Point Road leading down to the wharf and a small timber ferry box on the water’s edge (Figure 3.8). Tiered stonework leads down to the water. The ferry box is likely to be to the immediate west of Area A, whereas the stonework is located within Area A. . An 1871 survey shows this land had begun to be reclaimed by this 4 High time, however, this was not finalised until 1885. . Land was dedicated to the public for a public wharf in in July 1871 and it had expanded by 1874. A stage was built on the wharf for a horse and cart ferry but the wooden landing was removed and the entrance closed. The use of uncoppered wooden piles was criticised because it was not seen as durable. The stage was located south of the area of works. . A c.1873 photograph shows that the seawall had been extended to reclaim the steps in front of the ferry (Figure 3.10). This photograph is the last time the ferry box is depicted, suggesting it was demolished within a few years. . An 1884 newspaper report indicates the North Shore did not have a permanent water supply at the time. . A vehicular ferry was in service by 1902, located to the south of the area of works. Loose gravel and the steep incline were reportedly a problem. . Also in 1902, the NSW Fresh Food and Ice Company Limited announced their intention to expand to Stevens’ Wharf. The company proposed to build a depot, ice house and other cool-storage facilities. A tender advertised for excavation at the depot, however, details are 5 not known. This may have occurred in the area of a workshop shown High on a 1930s-40s plan (Figure 3.24). . The vehicle ferry dock was replaced in 1914 in an attempt to lessen the steep incline. A c.1914 photograph shows the vehicular ferry under construction (Figure 3.17). This was located to the south of the area of works. . In 1923 the Sydney Harbour Trust and North Sydney Council agreed to move the metal hoppers, build a seawall and remove a building.

102 CP 6-1990, 1865, LPI. ______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 69

PHASE BUILT HISTORY POTENTIAL . A survey dating to 1926 shows a concrete roadway leading to the vehicular ferry dock, with a shed in the east. The shed is in Area A, within the area of works (Figure 3.19). . The 1932 photograph also shows the large shed first depicted in 1926 near the ferry wharf, east of Blues Point Road (Figure 3.23). This is also shown on the c.1930s-40s plan, where it is labelled North Sydney Municipal Council Workshops (Figure 3.24). . In 1932 the passenger and vehicular ferry service to Blues Point was terminated. The superstructure, to the south of the area of works, was visible in a 1937 photograph and demolished sometime after (Figure 3.23). . The 1949 aerial photograph shows the land being used as a building 6 materials storage depot, salvage yard or similar (Figure 3.26). The Nil vehicular ferry superstructure had been demolished by this date. . In 1960, Council reserved the land for use as a public park or similar. 7 Nil This use continues to the present.

Table 5.3: Archaeological phases and potential within Area B (Figure 5.12, Figure 5.13). PHASE BUILT HISTORY POTENTIAL . Steep, rocky foreshore with sandy beaches. . Natural bedrock and naturally deposited harbour sands. 1 Moderate . Evidence of the natural topography, soil conditions and pollen are anticipated to be found. . See AMBS Ecology & Heritage Sydney Metro City & Southwest 2 NA Aboriginal Archaeological Method Statement for Blues Point . Land granted to Billy Blue, 1817. Used for ferry service and small-scale farming and fruit growing. Blue’s ferry wharf is not shown on plan was in the vicinity. . Blue’s house was directly north of the study area. . Billy Blue died in 1839. . An 1857 plan shows a building constructed to the east of the road with 3 Moderate fences along the road and shoreline (Figure 3.4). It was owned by the Blue family and was either leased or occupied by them. The house may have been built some time before 1857. . A stone structure, possibly a breakwater, was visible on the sandy shore in a c.1858-59 photograph, as well as a jetty with timber piles (Figure 3.5). . In 1863 the remainder of Blue’s estate was subdivided in preparation for sale. The 1864 subdivision plan shows southern extension or verandah on the building evident on the 1857 plan, as well as angled features which probably represent fences. . DP902933 Lot 1 corresponds to the eastern portion of Section E, Lot 10. This was purchased by shipwright John Stevens in 1867. There is no evidence that Stevens ever lived at this property. . Stevens leased a boatshed on the property to boat builder George Barnett from 1868. The boatshed was first shown on plan in 1871 and was located on the eastern side of Stevens’ property (Figure 3.9). Barnett was listed at this property until 1888. . The southern boundary on the 1869 plan suggests Stevens had begun 4 High reclaiming land by this time, extending into what is now DP 1159898 (Figure 3.7). A c.1870s photograph shows a sandy shore along Stevens’ land (Figure 3.11). The 1871 survey shows this land had begun to be reclaimed by this time, however, this was not finalised until 1885. Stevens applied to purchase reclaimed land constituting DP1159898 Lot 1 in two stages, 1881 and 1884 (Figure 3.12, Figure 3.13). . A c.1869 (or earlier) photograph shows the building in the northwest of Stevens’ land to be a stone cottage with a single chimney, verandah to the east, and north-facing dormer window (Figure 3.5, Figure 3.8). . Extensions to Stevens’ house are shown on plan in 1869 (Figure 3.7). The original building with southern verandah remain, and another, larger building has been added to its eastern side, creating two

______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 70

PHASE BUILT HISTORY POTENTIAL additional residences. The new building was T-shaped and also had a southern verandah. . The extension is shown in a c.1873 photograph (Figure 3.10). It shows the roof of the new building with a single chimney and two chimney pots, as well as the chimney from the original building. The dormer window has been removed and another chimney, possibly from a kitchen, is located to the north of the earlier structure. . The 1881 application to purchase reclaimed land shows two outbuildings to the north of Stevens’ houses. They are likely to be cesspits, one single and a double (Figure 3.12). The plan also confirms that the houses are stone, with brick extensions. . The plans also show that the original boatshed had been extended to the south and had an attached slipway (Figure 3.12). A smaller boat shed was also built to the east. The sheds were labelled as wood. . An 1884 newspaper report indicates the North Shore did not have a permanent water supply at the time. . In 1885 Stevens applied to construct a jetty on piles, jutting into the water beyond DP581992 Lot 1 (Figure 3.16). The jetty itself is outside of the study area. . From c.1885, Stevens operated as a timber merchant from the site, and is thought to have been transporting timber and fuel from the wharf there. . An 1891 survey shows a pile jetty and adjacent angled wharf (unfinished) extending from the shoreline, outside of this allotment (Figure 3.16). The shape of the shoreline indicates a seawall ran along the waterfront. . An 1892 survey records a water tank or cistern immediately south of the westernmost of Stevens’ house in what would have been natural rock.103 . The survey also shows that further extensions of wood and brick had been made to the north of Stevens’ houses, and the boat shed had been replaced by a larger, open shed of galvanised iron (Figure 3.16). A weighbridge was located in the west of his land. A large iron shed and a smaller timber shed extended partially onto the reclaimed land (DP1159898). . At the time of Stevens’ death in 1896 his property was commonly known as Stevens Wharf and included a jetty, cottages, buildings and other structures extending over part of Lot 10 and the reclaimed allotments. . In 1900 an advertisement described Stevens’ property as containing a stone seawall, jetty with an overhead tramway, three stone cottages, two large stores made of iron, an office and a weighbridge. . In 1902 the NSW Fresh Food and Ice Company Limited announced their intention to expand to Stevens’ Wharf. The company proposed to build a depot, ice house and other cool-storage facilities. A tender advertised for excavation at the depot, however, details are not known. . The site managers may have lived in the cottages in the northwest of the property. . A number of occupants are listed for Lot 10 (east and west side) from 1914-1930s. 5 High . In 1926 the Harbour Land and Transport Company Limited, a subsidiary of Sydney Ferries Ltd, purchased the property. . By 1934 the land had been used by Sydney Ferries Ltd as a depot for unused ferries. . The 1937 photograph shows the jetty still standing (Figure 3.23). . The 1937 photograph also shows the houses and large shed in the west still standing (Figure 3.23). . The shed is also shown on the c.1930s-40s plan (Figure 3.24). . The houses and north-eastern shed were demolished c.1942, with a stone wall remaining. 6 Nil . The sheds depicted on the 1891 plan were also demolished c.1942. Two smaller sheds are evident on the 1943 aerial photograph (Figure 3.25).

103 PWDS 1544-S901 Sydney Water. ______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 71

PHASE BUILT HISTORY POTENTIAL . The 1949 aerial photograph shows the land being used as a building materials storage depot, salvage yard or similar (Figure 3.26). The land was owned by the Harbour Land and Transport Company Limited. . The jetty is still evident in the 1943 and 1949 aerial photographs (Figure 3.25, Figure 3.26). . In 1960 and the 1970s, Council reserved the land for use as a public 7 park or similar. This use continues to the present. Nil . A bus shelter was constructed in the north of the area in 1984.

Table 5.4: Archaeological phases and potential within Area C (Figure 5.12, Figure 5.13). PHASE BUILT HISTORY POTENTIAL . Steep, rocky foreshore with sandy beaches. . Natural bedrock and naturally deposited harbour sands. 1 Moderate . Evidence of the natural topography, soil conditions and pollen are anticipated to be found. . See AMBS Ecology & Heritage Sydney metro City & Southwest 2 NA Aboriginal Archaeological Method Statement for Blues Point. . Land granted to Billy Blue, 1817. Used for ferry service and small-scale farming and fruit growing. Blue’s ferry wharf is not shown on plan 3 was in the vicinity. Low . No structures known at this time. . Probably used for small-scale farming. . In 1863 the remainder of Blue’s estate was subdivided in preparation for sale. . James Glover purchased the western portion of Section E, allotment 10. This corresponds to the northern portion of DP230594 Lot 2. The southern portion was still in the harbour at this time (Figure 3.6). The 1864 plan does not show any buildings in this allotment. . The 1871 plan still shows the land as undeveloped (Figure 3.7). . Glover pursued a number of different occupations, generally related to maritime industries and building. He died in 1874 at his Princes Street residence. His Blues Point property was inherited by his wife, and then his son. There is no evidence that any of them ever 4 occupied the property. Moderate . Stevens’ application to purchase reclaimed land to the west in 1881 (Figure 3.12) shows Glover’s land with a wooden boat shed on land formerly within the harbour. This suggests informal reclamation began prior to these dates. . An 1884 newspaper report indicates the North Shore did not have a permanent water supply at the time. . The 1883 road survey shows an outbuilding in the northwest corner of Glover’s land (Figure 3.14). . The 1891 survey shows a galvanised-iron shed and fence on the west of the property (Figure 3.16). This seems to have replaced the earlier boat shed. . After the death of Jane Glover in 1891, the property was transferred to Thomas Hodgson, who is linked to the preparation of plans for the NSW Fresh Food and Ice Company Limited in the western part of Lot 10. . In 1911, part of the land bordering Cliff Lane was resumed for tramway construction. The remainder was purchased by the Sydney Harbour 5 Moderate Trust Commissioners for wharfage improvements. . A number of occupants are listed for Lot 10 (east and west side) from 1914-1930s. A 1937 photograph shows the shed still standing (Figure 3.23). . The c.1891 shed is also shown on the c.1930s-40s plan, where it is accompanied by a slipway or jetty (Figure 3.24). . The galvanised-iron shed is no longer visible in 1943 (Figure 3.25). . The 1949 aerial photograph shows the land being used as a building 6 materials storage depot, salvage yard or similar (Figure 3.26). Nil Timbers extending beyond the shoreline suggest an additional jetty, or perhaps floating pontoon had been constructed in this part of the

______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 72

PHASE BUILT HISTORY POTENTIAL site. Additional land reclamation is possible but unlikely since no evidence of this survives today. . The land was owned by the Sydney Harbour Trust Commissioners. . In 1971, Council reserved the land for use as a public park or similar. 7 Nil This use continues to the present.

5.7 SUMMARY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL On the available evidence, Blues Point temporary site can be divided into areas of high, moderate, low and no archaeological potential (Table 5.1). Although the different archaeological phases have a range of archaeological potential, the general potential for archaeological remains across entire site can be classified as having either moderate or high potential (Figure 5.13).

High potential relates to the western and central areas of the site (Areas A & B). Area A has a high potential to contain remains of Phase 4 (1860s-1890s) remains of the public wharf, and a moderate to low potential to contain earlier remains of the wharf, maritime infrastructure and pre-European landscape. Area B has high potential to contain remains of the early 20th-century occupation of the site, particularly connected with the NSW Fresh Food and Ice Company’s use of the wharf, as well as Stevens’ ownership of the land, including his reclamation efforts, maritime infrastructure, and boatbuilding business. There is also a high potential for the remains of the c.1869 extensions to the c.1857 cottage on the site, and its outbuildings. It has a moderate potential to contain evidence of the c.1857 cottage and Phase 3 (1817-1850s) maritime infrastructure and pre-European landscape.

Area C has been assessed as having moderate potential to contain evidence of 20th- century upgrades to the maritime infrastructure. There is also a moderate potential for various late 19th-century sheds and reclamation fills, as well as evidence of the pre- European landscape. The potential for archaeological evidence related to Aboriginal occupation of the site has not been assessed in this report.

Maritime potential: The survey area appears to be accreting sediments rather than eroding. The seagrass in the area facilitates this build-up of sand. It can be expected that there are extensive archaeological deposits formed in the area between the seawall and around 25m from shore, the deposits closer to shore being overlain by a 1m or 2m high sand build-up against the wall. These deposits would have formed since the early 1800s with a far higher proportion of cultural material being deposited after the construction of the current seawall. The artefacts within these archaeological deposits would be associated with recreational and industrial activities that have taken place along the seawall with the possibility that stratification formed by chronological deposition should remain largely intact due to the protected location – that is, that the artefacts have not been re-sorted according to surface area and density because of wave action.

Archaeological potential, as in artefact density, is expected to decrease markedly 25m beyond the shoreline. Beyond 2m from shore the most prevalent expected type of artefacts would be abandoned moorings. Around these moorings discarded artefacts should be expected. The apparent accretion in this area may explain why no remnant in situ pile stumps associated with the vehicular ferry were observed. Such features may have become buried and therefore obscured over time.

______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 73

Figure 5.11: Archaeological potential across the whole Blues Point temporary site. SIX Maps 2018 with annotations by C&L.

5.7.1 NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL The assessment of no archaeological potential relates to modern phases (post-1930s) across all areas of the site. This includes modern services and structures such as the 1984 bus shelter, as well as remains of the 1940s building materials depot. Physical evidence related to these later phases are considered to have little or no archaeological research potential.

5.7.2 LOW ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL There is low potential for remains of unrecorded Phase 3 (1817-1850s) European structures, particularly in Area C where there has generally been less development in later phases. There is also low potential for evidence of land clearance and cultivation, and for structures in the water (piles and moorings) dating to Billy Blue’s occupation of the site (Phase 3). Again, this is more likely to survive in Area C and is likely to be impacted by later phases of development. The exact location of Billy Blue’s ferry wharf is unknown but evidence of it could survive below reclamation fills within the study area.

5.7.3 MODERATE ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL Across all areas of the site the potential for evidence of the pre-European landscape (Phase 1) has been assessed as moderate. It is likely to be impacted by later development but should have survived in places. This evidence is likely to consist of the rocky foreshore and bedrock, natural harbour sands, and remnant deposits of subsoil. Remnants of the pre- European topsoil are possible but unlikely. It should be feasible to obtain Phase 1 pollen and soil samples for analysis of the pre-European environment.

There is a moderate potential for archaeological remains of Phase 3 (1817-1850s) in Areas A and B, including:

______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 74

. Remains of the early ferry service run by Billy Blue from 1817. The exact location of Billy Blue’s ferry wharf is unknown and could survive below reclamation fills within the study area. . The original stone house dating from 1857 or earlier, owned and possibly occupied by the Blue family. Possible associated fences and outbuildings. Demolished c.1942. . The earliest phase of public wharf, dedicated 1839. . A stone seawall and jetty dating to at least 1857, or possibly c.1840. . A stone structure (possibly a breakwater), pre-1859. . A timber jetty, pre-1859. . Remains of early ferry services offered by the Gerrard brothers and Charles Brown from 1839.

In Area C there is moderate potential for Phase 4 (1860s-1890s), including: . Reclamation fills pre-dating 1881. . A wooden boatshed pre-dating 1881 and likely demolished by 1891. . A small outbuilding in the northwest corner of Area C, c.1883, and not recorded on plan after this date. . A large galvanised iron shed shown on plan from 1891 until the 1930s and demolished by 1943.

There is also moderate potential for Phase 5 (1900-1930s) remains in Area C: . Wharfage improvements by the Sydney Harbour Trust Commissioners, c.1911. . The c.1891 shed shown accompanied by a slipway or jetty, c.1930-40. All demolished by 1943.

5.7.4 HIGH ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL There is high archaeological potential for archaeological remains dating to Phase 4 (1860s- 1890) and Phase 5 (1900-1930s) in Areas A and B. The Phase 4 remains are likely to consist of the following: . Southern extension or verandah addition to the original cottage in Area B shown on plan in 1864. The cottage was stone with a single chimney, verandah on the eastern side, and north-facing dormer window. . By 1869 two more adjoining houses were added to the east of the original cottage. These were also stone and had south-facing verandahs and brick rooms projecting from the north, presumably kitchens. All were demolished c.1942. . By 1873 the original cottage also had a brick kitchen built to the north. . A cesspit is shown to the north of each of the three houses by 1881 and a cistern or water tank is recorded to the immediate south of the western cottage in 1891. Additional extensions and outbuildings are also shown on plan in 1891. . A boatshed was constructed by 1868, first appearing on plan in 1871. It was extended to the south and had a slipway attached by 1881. A smaller boatshed was also built to the east. Both were made of wood. These were replaced by a larger, open shed of galvanised iron by 1891 which was in turn demolished c.1942. . Reclamation of land in Area B had begun by 1869 but was not finalised until 1885. . A small ferry box, first shown on plan in 1864. It was demolished within a few years of c.1873. Historic overlays indicated that this is likely to be to the immediate west of the area of works, however, part of the structure may extend into Area A. . A jetty or breakwater extending from the north of the wharf, c.1864. . Stepped stonework in the seawall, c.1869. Reclaimed by c.1873. . Former moorings (ranging from lumps of concrete, heavy discarded machinery such as flywheels and anchors). . Archaeological deposits, formed around the aforementioned structures whether by accidental or deliberate discard. . Further reclamation, begun by 1871 or earlier and finalised in 1885. ______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 75

. Expansion of the public wharf, including horse and cart ferry stage, 1874, but inexplicably removed soon after. Most of this evidence is likely to be to the south of the area of works, however some remains may extend into Area A. . A piled jetty and angled wharf were constructed by 1891. These extended from Area B but are outside of the study area and were not demolished until after 1949. . A weighbridge was recorded in the west of Area B in 1891. . Another large iron shed was also located in the west of Area B. Demolished c.1942.

The Phase 5 remains are likely to consist of the following: . In 1902 a tender advertised for excavation at the NSW Fresh Food and Ice Company Limited depot, however, details are not known. Possibly in the location of the large shed in the south of Area A. This shed first appeared on plan in 1926 and was demolished by 1943. . By 1934 Area B was being used as a depot by Sydney Ferries Ltd for unused ferries. . The vehicular ferry wharf (c.1902) is south of the works area and remains are unlikely to be encountered, although associated infrastructure may extend into Area A.

5.8 MAPPING OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL Two overlay images illustrate the archaeological potential and location of structures during Phases 3, 4, 5 and 6 (Figure 5.12, Figure 5.13). Figure 5.12 identifies the location of buildings shown on selected historic plans within the study area as coloured layers in relation to a recent aerial image. Figure 5.13 presents the same information in addition to the archaeological potential. It should be noted that there is a degree of inaccuracy in the aerial photographs and historic plans which is attributed to the steep slope of the site.

Figure 5.12: Overlay showing the outlines of selected historic plans in relation to the present study area. The red arrow points to a cistern or water tank. SIX Maps 2018 with annotations by C&L.

______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 76

Figure 5.13: Overlay showing the outlines of selected historic plans in relation to the present study area and archaeological potential. SIX Maps 2018 with annotations by C&L.

______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 77

6.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE 6.1 BACKGROUND Heritage significance is distinct from archaeological potential. Assessment of archaeological potential considers the probability of physical evidence from previous human activity to still exist on a site. Assessment of heritage significance for archaeological features considers the cultural values associated with those remains.104

This assessment of archaeological heritage significance has been written to be in accordance with the Heritage Branch 2009 guidelines: Assessing Significance for Historical Archaeological Sites and ‘Relics’.

These guidelines provide the following discussion of heritage significance: Apart from NSW State guidelines, the nationally recognised Australia ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of Places of Significance (The Burra Charter) also defines ‘cultural significance’ as meaning: ‘aesthetic, historic, scientific and social value for past, present and future generations.’ Significance is therefore an expression of the cultural value afforded a place, site or item. Understanding what is meant by value in a heritage sense is fundamental, since any society will only make an effort to conserve things it values. In terms of built heritage, what we have inherited from the past is usually places that have been continuously cared for. Conversely, many archaeological sites will comprise places which, for whatever reason, have not been cared for until the relatively recent period. Our society considers that many places and items we have inherited from the past have heritage significance because they embody, demonstrate, represent or are tangible expressions of values society recognises and supports. Our future heritage will be what we keep from our inheritance to pass on to the following generations.105

6.2 BASIS OF ASSESSMENT OF HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE To identify the heritage significance of an archaeological site it is necessary to discuss and assess the significance of the study area. This process will allow for the analysis of the site’s varied values. These criteria are part of the system of assessment which is centred on the Burra Charter of Australia ICOMOS. The Burra Charter principles are important to the assessment, conservation and management of sites and relics. The assessment of heritage significance is enshrined through legislation in the NSW Heritage Act 1977 and implemented through the NSW Heritage Manual and the Archaeological Assessment Guidelines.106

The various nature of heritage values and the degree of this value will be appraised according to the following criteria:107 Criterion (a): Historic Significance – (evolution) an item is important in the course, or pattern, of NSW’s cultural or natural history (or the cultural or natural history of the local area);

Criterion (b): Associative Significance – (association) an item has strong or special association with the life or works of a person, or group of persons, or importance in NSW’s cultural or natural history (or the cultural or natural history of the local area);

104 This distinction has long been recognised by historical archaeologists working in heritage management but was restated in Practice Note – The Burra Charter and Archaeological Practice (Australia ICOMOS 2013:7). 105 NSW Heritage Branch 2009:1-2. Note that this passage quotes the 1988 version of the Burra Charter. The 1999 and 2013 revisions also include ‘spiritual value’ in their definition of cultural significance. 106 NSW Heritage Branch 1996:25-27. 107 NSW Heritage Branch 2001. ______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 78

Criterion (c): Aesthetic Significance – (scenic qualities / creative accomplishments) an item is important in demonstrating aesthetic characteristics and/or a high degree of creative or technical achievement in NSW (or the cultural or natural history of the local area);

Criterion (d): Social Significance – (contemporary community esteem) an item has a strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group in NSW for social, cultural or spiritual reasons (or the cultural or natural history of the local area);

Criterion (e): Technical/Research Significance – (archaeological, educational, research potential and scientific values) an item has potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of NSW’s cultural or natural history (or the cultural or natural history of the local area);

Criterion (f): Rarity an item possesses uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of NSW’s cultural or natural history (or the cultural or natural history of the local area);

If an item is to be considered to be of State significance it should meet more than one criterion, namely in the case of relics, its research potential.108 Archaeological Significance: may be linked to other significance categories especially where sites were created as a result of a specific historic event or decision, or when sites have been the actual location of particular incidents, events or occupancies. Other relevant factors may be comparative values related to the intactness and rarity of individual items. The rarity of individual site types is an important factor, which should inform management decisions.

Relics must also be ranked according to their heritage significance as having: . Local Significance . State Significance

If a potential relic is not considered to reach the local or State significance threshold, then it is not a relic under the NSW Heritage Act 1977.

‘State heritage significance’, in relation to a place, building, work, relic, moveable object or precinct, means significance to the State in relation to the historical, scientific, cultural, social, archaeological, architectural, natural or aesthetic value of the item.

‘Local heritage significance’, in relation to a place, building, work, relic, moveable object or precinct, means significance to an area in relation to the historical, scientific, cultural, social, archaeological, architectural, natural or aesthetic value of the item.109

RESEARCH POTENTIAL Research potential is the most relevant criterion for assessing archaeological sites. However, assessing research potential for archaeological sites can be difficult as the nature or extent of features is sometimes unknown, therefore judgements must be formed on the basis of expected or potential attributes. One benefit of a detailed archaeological

108 Heritage Branch 2009: 9. 109 Heritage Branch 2009: 6. ______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 79 assessment is that the element of judgement can be made more rigorous by historical or other research.110

ASSESSMENT OF RESEARCH POTENTIAL Once the archaeological potential of a site has been determined, research themes and likely research questions identified, as addressed through archaeological investigation and analysis, the following inclusion guidelines should be applied:

Does the site: (a) contribute knowledge which no other resource can? (b) contribute knowledge which no other site can? (c) is the knowledge relevant to general questions about human history or other substantive problems relating to Australian History, or does it contribute to other major research questions?111

If the answer to these questions is yes then the site will have archaeological research potential. The new significance guidelines have taken a broader approach. Also, these questions were more relevant during the early days of the development of the discipline and are less relevant 44 years later when there considerable more historical archaeological work has been undertaken and there is a much greater understanding the potential and significance of a site.

6.3 DISCUSSION OF HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE Criterion (a): Historic Significance - (evolution): an item is important in the course, or pattern, of NSW’s cultural or natural history (or the cultural or natural history of the local area). The potential archaeological remains within the Blues Point study area reflect an aspect of the role of the harbour in the evolving relationship between the North Shore and Sydney. The earliest British remains may reflect the remote nature of the area through evidence of land clearance and cultivation, as well as the remains of the earliest phase of wharfage, representing one of the few transport modes across the harbour at the time. The later remains of the public wharf and subsequent upgrades would reflect the population growth of the local area and the importance of water transport to its development. The construction of the Sydney Harbour Bridge in 1932 made the wharf redundant to vehicular ferry transportation. Additionally, remains of mid to late 19th-century boatbuilding facilities would reflect the importance of the role of the Harbour to the economy of 19th-century Sydney and the North Shore. If present with good integrity, the archaeology would be of State significance.

Criterion (b): Associative Significance – (association): an item has strong or special association with the life or works of a person, or group of persons, or importance in NSW’s cultural or natural history (or the cultural or natural history of the local area). The historical research indicates that Billy Blue’s house was to the north of the study area. Blue was a prominent and much-loved character in the history of early Sydney. There is a moderate to low expectation that remains relating to Blue’s occupation of the site would be identified. These may include evidence of his ferry wharf and related infrastructure, and evidence of his possible occupation of another cottage within the site. While he owned the study area Billy Blue’s occupation of the cottage has not been confirmed in historic records but may be substantiated or disproven if the age of the cottage can be determined through archaeological analysis. Any archaeological remains found to be associated with Billy Blue would be of high importance in providing for an understanding of the life and activities of Billy Blue.

110 NSW Heritage Office 1996:26. 111 Bickford, A. & S. Sullivan 1984:23. ______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 80

The potential archaeology of later phase buildings, features, deposits and artefacts within the study area have been associated with various individuals and interests throughout the 19th and 20th century, however, none of these businesses are considered to be particularly important to the cultural history of NSW. Significant at a local level.

Criterion (c): Aesthetic Significance - (scenic qualities / creative accomplishments): an item is important in demonstrating aesthetic characteristics and/or a high degree of creative or technical achievement in NSW (or the cultural or natural history of the local area). Any archaeological remains within the site have little potential for aesthetic significance. While archaeological remains may have aesthetic value, mostly through their novelty and age, they are not ‘important in demonstrating aesthetic characteristics and/or a high degree of creative or technical achievement in NSW’. Their aesthetic value is more by accident than design. The reclamation and maritime infrastructure is generally not expected to display unusual or significant technical achievement. Unlikely to be significant at a local or State level.

Criterion (d): Social Significance - (contemporary community esteem): an item has a strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group in NSW for social, cultural or spiritual reasons (or the cultural or natural history of the local area). While no public consultation has been undertaken, archaeological remains within the study area are likely to have an association with local community groups who have an interest in the history and archaeology of municipality of North Sydney. These interested groups would extend beyond the boundaries of North Sydney and include people who live in the suburbs of greater Sydney, as well as some in other parts of Australia who have had a connection (personal or family) to Sydney in the past.

Archaeological open days at CBD sites in 2013 and 2014 received a healthy amount of public attention, even when the advertising has been relatively limited. These open days include 478 George Street and 209 Castlereagh Street.112 This reflects the level of interest in archaeology amongst the local community. Likely to be significant at a local level.

Criterion (e): Technical/Research Significance - (archaeological, educational, research potential and scientific values) an item has potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of NSW’s cultural or natural history (or the cultural or natural history of the local area). The Blues Point temporary works site has the potential to contain archaeological evidence of a mix of maritime, residential and industrial sites within a modified maritime and increasingly urban landscape. The site was consistently used from 1817 until the opening of the Sydney Harbour Bridge in in 1932, after which time the importance of the site rapidly declined.

The nature of the post-1817s archaeological resource will include a range of modifications from manipulation of the landform in the process of reclamation by construction of phases of seawalls, infilling of land and construction of yard areas for stores, boatyards and slips. This type of technological and chronological layering is typically found on maritime sites around Port Jackson. There are several other sites along the harbour foreshore where the process of reclamation has built up the landform, as evidenced at Darling Quarter, Darling Square, Barangaroo South, Barangaroo Headland, Darling Street in Balmain, and Weston Street, Balmain. Many of these are larger and commercial activities and have more land modification that that of Blues Point. The Barangaroo sites had extensive wharfage, stores and boatbuilding yards which have not been found at most of these other sites, but they had much less other industrial archaeology than found at Darling Quarter and Darling

112 Donegan 2014; Kelly 2013. ______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 81

Square. These included parts of Barker’s Mill, small foundries, the boiler room of the PN Russell carriage works, elements of the PN Russell foundry as well as associated workers’ housing. Darling Quarter also had Barker’s early (1830s) extensive jetty. Blues Point may contain earlier remains, consisting of evidence of Billy Blue’s ferry service (c.1817) as well as the c.1839 public wharf. Like Darling Quarter, Blues Point may also contain remains of residential housing, although this housing is more likely to be middle class than working class.

Casey & Lowe has undertaken a number of excavations around Sydney Harbour. Most notably, these have included the sites of Darling Quarter, Barangaroo South and Darling Square and Weston Street Balmain.113 Based on the research and results of these previous sites the following additional research themes and questions are proposed. Additional research questions outlined by Artefact Heritage will also be addressed if archaeological remains are found that provide answers to them. Casey & Lowe has posed research questions related to the following themes: . Residential housing and material culture . Landscape archaeology . Shipbuilding . Maritime infrastructure . Industrial archaeology

A discussion of these themes and specific research questions are outlined in Section 9.3. Likely to be significant at a local level.

If substantial archaeology of Billy Blue is present with good integrity, the archaeology would be of State significance.

Criterion (f): Rarity an item possesses uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of NSW’s cultural or natural history (or the cultural or natural history of the local area). The maritime infrastructure, jetties, boatbuilding yards, houses and evidence of reclamation are generally considered to be rare. Any archaeological evidence of land cultivation, maritime infrastructure or housing associated with Billy Blue’s occupation of the site would be considered to be rare due to their early date and location across the harbour from the main settlement of Sydney.

Later 19th-century wharfage was replicated around the foreshores of Sydney, including Darling Harbour, Walsh Bay, Pyrmont and Darling Island. There are extant 20th-century wharves in a number of these areas which have been retained and modernised and are now intensively used as part of the life of Sydney. The archaeological remains of late 19th- century wharves/jetties can be found buried beneath reclamation fills, in the vicinity of and within the footprint of surviving early 20th-century wharves in Darling Harbour and Walsh Bay. The archaeological evidence associated with the later 19th century would be replicated within these areas. However, this is a diminishing resource and there is likely to be a large difference in quality of construction between these late 19th and early 20th- century structures. The mid 19th-century privately-owned jetties and wharves were more individual and ad hoc.

Early – pre-19th century maritime infrastructure is likely to be present under reclamation and is considered, comparatively, to be rarer than the late 19th-century maritime infrastructure.

Pre-1850s reclamation has been found at Darling Walk, some of which survives within the precinct, KENS Site and Paddy’s Market Site and possibly at Barangaroo Central. It is also likely that other areas of substantial reclamation may survive beneath the 1980s Darling

113 See Casey & Lowe 2012a, 2012b, 2013 & 2015. ______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 82

Harbour redevelopment. The proximity of the public and private wharves and maritime infrastructure provides a rare opportunity to compare reclamation and construction methods used by contemporary adjacent sites. Significant at a local level.

Criterion (g): Representativeness an item is important in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a class of NSW’s cultural or natural places of cultural or natural environments (or the cultural or natural history of the local area). The reclamation and maritime infrastructure remains at Blues Point are representative of the crucial role played by the maritime industry and transport in the 19th and 20th century in Sydney. The various incarnations of the Blues Point ferry services are representative of the limitations in mobility presented by the harbour prior to the construction of the Sydney Harbour Bridge, and the importance of the few available transport modes. The earlier phase remains, such as the original Blue’s family house and any remains of Billy Blue’s ferry service, would be particularly representative of the inaccessibility of the North Shore in the early 19th century and may offer us opportunities which are unlikely to be repeated on other sites. Remains of the boatbuilding facilities are similarly representative of the role of maritime industry to the economy of Sydney. The physical evidence of these remains can further our knowledge of these types of sites and the differences between them. Significant at a local level.

INTEGRITY The integrity of the archaeological remains at the Blues Point temporary site is anticipated to be high. No significant impacts are known to have occurred at the site since large-scale demolition in the 1940s. The proximity to the shoreline means remains are likely to have been generally pushed in and infilled, rather than removed, although given the rocky nature of the area it is possible that some areas were scraped down to bedrock. Late 19th and early 20th-century remains are expected to have a high level of integrity, whereas remains dating to the early to mid-19th century is expected to have been generally more impacted, although intact areas should survive.

6.4 STATEMENT OF HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE114 The Blues Point temporary site has the potential to contain a number of phases of archaeological remains relating to the development of the area and dating from Billy Blue’s ownership (1817-1839) to the early 20th century. Physical remains relating to Billy Blue’s occupation might include a seawall, jetty, slipway, evidence of land clearance and cultivation, and structural remains of a cottage which may date back to Blue’s lifetime. Later phases would include archaeological remains associated with structures relating to the vehicular horse ferry wharf and other wharves, jetties, seawalls, slipways and other boat-building operations. These remains would have potential to address a range of research questions relating to: . Residential housing and material culture . Landscape archaeology . Shipbuilding . Maritime infrastructure . Industrial archaeology

Response to these research questions would allow for comparative analysis with Darling Quarter, Darling Harbour Live, Barangaroo South, Barangaroo Headland, boat-building sites in Balmain, and other North Sydney archaeological sites. The remains are typically representative of smaller-scale maritime sites around Sydney Harbour but they are also quickly disappearing due to the massive redevelopment of the Sydney foreshore.

114 See Section 1.3 for the Statement of Significance previously compiled by Artefact Heritage. ______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 83

Substantial remains associated with Billy Blue’s occupation would be of State significance, whereas other remains dating from the 19th and early 20th centuries would be of local significance. Evidence for the natural foreshore and maritime remains are also likely to be present and would be of local significance.

______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 84

7.0 IMPACT OF DETAIL DESIGN & MITIGATION 7.1 SHAFT, CRANE & BARGE ACCESS ROAD The final design for this project involves the removal of all archaeology within the study area. In the EIS/PIR the extent of impacts within the park was acknowledged to be larger than the shaft but their extent was not certain at the time. The current design requires excavation of a shaft, establishment of a crane and a vehicle transport to the jetty (Figure 7.1). The site compound and sheds, shaft, crane and barge access road will remove all archaeology within the footprint of the study area and disturb the western half of the foreshore (Figure 7.2, Figure 7.3).

The current design, which is inside the park and at the boundary of the footpaths, ensures continued use of the footpath and related street furniture, and there is no longer any need to remove and reinstate the bus stop. The bus stop will be located outside of the hoarding and can continue to be used for the duration of the project.

7.2 RAMP & BARGE The EIS/PIR identifies a barge as an option. The current design proposes that a barge is to be used to transport plant and equipment including the TBM, as well as spoil from the worksite. It should be noted, however, that the barge is still in the preliminary design stage, therefore the specifics of its construction and location may be subject to change. The barge will be moored against two concrete piles bored into the water.

The design of the ramp requires fill to be introduced to the south of the seawall, the construction of a concrete footing built at a suitable distance behind the seawall, so as to facilitate the use of a ramp that does not impact the wall. Six piles will be driven into the harbour to support the ramp. A road will lead from the excavated shaft down to the barge (Figure 7.1, Figure 7.4, Figure 7.5). The design purposely avoids the locally significant Vehicular Ferry Dock and eliminates the need to disturb this area.

TERRESTRIAL IMPACTS The construction of the concrete footing will have an impact on potential buried remains in this location, including reclamation fills and possible buried maritime infrastructure such as seawalls and jetties. This impact will be minor in relation to the overall size of these structures and is therefore considered to be acceptable.

WATER IMPACTS The ramp to the barge is not located in the area of any jetties shown on historic plans (Figure 7.4). The piles of the ramp therefore have little likelihood of impacting on the underwater remains of earlier jetties. The barge is located partially within the footprint of the vehicular wharf ferry. It is not known if underwater remains of the superstructure survive below the water, however, there is sufficient depth at the site to avoid the need for dredging. The barge will float approximately 1m above the harbour floor at low tide and should therefore clear any potential archaeological remains (Figure 7.5).

Casey & Lowe has undertaken historic research into the proposed location of the concrete footing and barge and have identified the potential for maritime relics but the design of the barge ramp with its six in the water piles would have a low impact.

The maritime component of the project has been undertaken and reviewed by Cos Coroneos (Appendix 4) and he has provided the advice below.

Based on the findings of the dive inspection and an understanding of the historical activities that took place in the area as described in the Archaeological Method Statement, the potential impacts to the identified underwater archaeological resource are as follows: • Piling for the ramp will impact areas assessed to be of high archaeological potential. The scale and consequence of this activity – the installation of six piles - will have a ______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 85

negligible impact on the archaeological resource and its cultural heritage significance. • Piling for the two fenders will take place in an area assessed to be of low archaeological potential. The impact of this activity on the archaeological resource and its cultural heritage significance will be negligible. • Should any scouring occur it will take place in areas assessed to be of low archaeological potential. Scouring could occur over a relatively wide area and has potential to have a minor impact on the archaeological resource and its cultural heritage significance.

7.3 MITIGATION 7.3.1 MAIN STUDY AREA The main area of impact will be subject to an archaeological program in line with Condition E18 for the project. This will involve the open area stratigraphic excavation of the grey area in Figure 7.1. The methodology for this is outlined in Section 8.0.

7.3.2 BARGE & RAMP

TERRESTRIAL . It will be necessary to protect the existing seawall below the ramp and nearby steps from potential damage, such as heavy vehicles and loads falling from trucks and fill deposits (Figure 7.6, Figure 7.7). A buffer area of approximately 10m either side of the ramp should be established along the seawall and steps. An appropriate form of protection would include the laying of geofabric, covering with sandbags and capping with metal plates. Action needs to be undertaken to ensure the load of trucks on the road and ramp does not impact on the seawall or stairs. . The Design of the wall footing for the northern end of the ramp must be appropriately engineered so as to avoid any impact on the seawall.

MARITIME The mitigation measure presented below is based on the history of the area detailed above and the results of the maritime archaeological survey undertaken.

The construction of the ramp (piling for two fenders and six piles) to facilitate the barge is considered to be of negligible impact and to have an acceptable level of impact on the potential archaeological remains of local significance. No mitigation is proposed.

To mitigate the impact of archaeological remains becoming exposed due to scouring it is recommended that: . Between two to four months after the barge facility has been in operation a maritime archaeological dive inspection is to be carried out to examine whether scouring has exposed any archaeological remains. Locally significant relics o In the event that relics of local heritage significance are exposed the Secretary and the Heritage Council will be informed, in accordance with MCoA E20, and with Section 146 of the Heritage Act 1977. The Excavation Director will provide written confirmation of the relics of local significance and proposed management of these relics. It is proposed that locally significant heritage will be recorded and left in situ. State significant relics o In the event that relics of State heritage significance are exposed the Secretary and the Heritage Council will be informed, in accordance with MCoA E20, and in accordance with Section 146 of the Heritage Act 1977. The Excavation Director will provide written confirmation of the relics’ State significance and management. Management of State significant relics will

______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 86

be undertaken in accordance with an Archaeological Relics Management Plan (see Section 9.6 below) and may include: a) recording in situ before being covered in scour protection matting; b) recording in situ before being re-buried at a location away from the impact area.

In the context of this site, State significant archaeological remains would be substantial remains associated with Billy Blue’s occupation as well as substantial remains associated with early (pre-1850s) Australian ship and boat building. Boat-building remains could be the basal remnants (keel and floors) and hull (planking and frames) of a timber watercraft.

______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 87

Figure 7.1: Concept drawing of the proposed barge with ramp – showing details of current proposal showing the wall footing placed in fill, with the ramp leading out the barge. The construction of the ramp involves a retaining wall placed in fill and behind the line of the seawall. There are four concrete piles in the water. To the south into the harbour are two large concrete piles for mooring the barge. Sydney Metro City & Southwest, Blues Point Site, Site Layout Overall Plan, 20/11/2017, Sheet 08, 16-001, R07.

______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 88

Figure 7.2: Overall plan of the Blues Point temporary site showing the proposed excavation area. SIX Maps, 2018.

Figure 7.3: Footprint of impacts (orange shading) overlaid onto the study area with outlines of potential archaeology within the study area.

______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 89

Figure 7.4: Outlines of historic structures in relation to the proposed barge and ramp. Sydney Metro City & Southwest, Blues Point Site, Site Layout Overall Plan, 20/11/2017, Sheet 08, 16-001, R07, annotations by C&L.

______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 90

Figure 7.5: Drawing of the proposed barge with ramp. Sydney Metro City & Southwest, Blues Point Site, RORO ramp layout drawing, no.: DRW-AA0984-PO1-501, Sheet 07, 1/6/2018.

______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 91

Figure 7.6: Photograph of the seawall showing the approximate location of the proposed ramp. The steps are in the background. Supplied by Andreas Mindt, Project Manager, JHCPBG, taken 20/12/2017.

Figure 7.7: Photograph of the seawall showing the approximate location of the proposed ramp to the immediate left of the steps. Supplied by Andreas Mindt, Project Manager, JHCPBG, taken 20/12/2017.

______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 92

8.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXCAVATION 8.1 EXCAVATION METHODOLOGY The entire footprint of the western half of the site will be bulk excavated to below archaeological levels, removing all traces of archaeological remains and eastern half will be impacted either through compression or excavation for the site compound or sheds, facilities and construction infrastructure (Figure 7.1, Figure 7.2, Figure 7.3, Figure 8.1).

The focus of the archaeological excavations will be in Areas A, B and C (Figure 7.3). The removal of the archaeology of the whole site was identified in the AARD. The EIS discussed the possibility of using a barge at the wharf at the end of Blues Point Road (i.e. the remains of the vehicular ferry wharf) to remove the TBMs.115

Additional archaeological investigation may be required as the project progresses. In particular, if below-ground impacts occur in parts of the site outside of the proposed excavation area, these may require a level of archaeological involvement, such as monitoring (see Section 9.7.4). Other unforeseen additions or changes to the construction works and/ or methodology may also require archaeological investigation. These will be addressed as required. If such works are required then they would be undertaken using the methodology outlined below.

All archaeological work will involve: . TESTING to determine if archaeology survives. - If archaeology is found then move to a mixture of sampling/salvage depending upon the nature of the archaeology in an area. - If no remains are found then testing will be shifted approximately 10m away to determine the survival of archaeology within a new area. . OPEN AREA EXCAVATION - SALVAGE This will focus on remains of buildings, structures, maritime infrastructure and reclamation fills, houses, cesspits, underfloor deposits and the like. Open Area Excavation is the standard approach to archaeological salvage of detailed and limited deposits. . OPEN AREA EXCAVATION – SAMPLING Some areas of the site may include repetitive archaeological deposits, such as reclamation fills. The excavation of these areas will include sampling of deposits through using of trenches. This would be to record repetitive deposits in sections and to understand the processes used to transform the site. . MONITORING This will occur as required, to be determined during the archaeological program. Typical situations in which monitoring is appropriate include the demolition or removal of structures, or excavation of services in areas considered to be archaeologically sensitive.

See Section 9.7 for detailed archaeological methodology.

115 EIS 2016: 220. ______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 93

Figure 8.1: Overall plan of the Blues Point temporary site showing the impact areas in relation to archaeological potential. The required compaction in this area will require testing beforehand and is likely to require removal of archaeology. SIX Maps, 2018.

______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 94

9.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHODOLOGY 9.1 INTRODUCTION Archaeological evidence can enhance the historical record and as such make a contribution to an understanding of the history and settlement of a local region. As identified in this report, the archaeological resource associated with the maritime, industrial and residential development within the excavation area of the Blues Point temporary site, if present with good integrity, has high to moderate research potential and is of local and State significance. In view of the substantial costs involved in archaeological excavation of a site, the research design should be problem-oriented, although allowance should always be made for new questions to respond to unexpected archaeological evidence. Archaeological research questions provide a framework for an archaeological investigation and for the analysis of the results of the excavation and artefacts recovered during excavations.

9.2 ARTEFACT HERITAGE’S RESEARCH QUESTIONS Artefact Heritage identified a number of Research Questions in their Historical Archaeological Assessment & Research Design (October 2016). These relevant to the Blues Point site consisted of the following: . Are there material remains associated with the former maritime industry related buildings and infrastructure present within the study area? . To what extent has the natural topography and foreshore of Blues Point been altered by land reclamation and seawalls over time? Can successive phases of land reclamation be identified? . What is the nature of the reclamation fill and how successful was the reclamation? . Are there structural remains of earlier wharves and jetties present within the study area? Can modifications and adaption to new technologies be identified? . Do structural and archaeological remains of seawalls at Blues Point show demonstrable differences in construction techniques over time? . Do the maritime engineering techniques at this site display unique qualities and adaption to the local environment? . Is there intact and recognisable structural and artefactual evidence of boat building and repair facilities in the Blues Point study area? How does the material evidence of boat repair and building change over time with technological and economic changes? . Can structural and artefactual remains identify the sandstone building in the northwest of the study area as a residential building? Given its location in the boat yard area, is there evidence of other mercantile or other activities within this building? . Is there any artefactual or structural evidence present that can be identified as relating to Billy Blue or his descendants? . Can the first ferry terminal be recognised in the archaeological record? How do the archaeological remains compare to other maritime industrial sites in the Sydney area, in particular recent archaeological results at Balmain East wharf and Darling Harbour/Barangaroo? . What is the significance and research potential of the archaeological resource considering the number of 19th-century foreshore sites which have been archaeologically salvaged in recent years?

These questions are based on limited historical research and analysis of the site, and as such do not adequately address the potential archaeology in the site.

______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 95

9.3 CASEY & LOWE’S RESEARCH QUESTIONS The following questions form the basis of overarching theorised Research Questions discussed below. These are based on 25 years of developing research frameworks for urban archaeological programs in Sydney CBD, Pyrmont, Surry Hills and Parramatta.

9.3.1 RESEARCH FRAMEWORK An archaeological research design is: A set of questions, which can be investigated using archaeological evidence and a methodology for addressing them. A research design is intended to ensure that archaeological investigations focus on genuine research needs. It is an important tool which ensures that when archaeological resources are destroyed by excavation, their information content can be preserved and can contribute to current and relevant knowledge.116

Casey & Lowe has compiled an appropriate set of research questions based on their own excavations, of similar sites, within the inner city of Sydney as well as elsewhere, such as Parramatta. The research design will provide solid strategies for comparative analysis and identification of key high-level research questions.

9.3.2 RESIDENTIAL HOUSING AND MATERIAL CULTURE These questions are developed from investigating the archaeological remains at the CSR site (1996), and were further developed for Union & Edward Street, Pyrmont (2004), 19-41 Reservoir Street, Surry Hills (2005) and Darling Quarter (Walk) 2008-2012. These have been found to provide a solid basis for exploring residential housing in a range of working- class and lower middle-class environments. This discussion starts with taphonomic questions and then builds on them with more theorised archaeological questions. . Is there evidence for the nature of 19th-century housing in this part of Blues Point? . What evidence is there for the standard of living enjoyed by the earliest residents? Is there artefactual evidence for different standards of living between the houses occupied on the early manufacturing sites and workers housing? . Is there evidence for cottage crafts or other unrecorded professions or works in the area? . Has evidence for mid 19th-century early industry survived along the foreshores?

The material culture associated with the 19th-century occupation of North Sydney has the ability to inform us about day-to-day issues associated with the lives of the local residents. The material culture can provide information on living standards, consumer choices, construction of gender identity and the nature of childhood.

An important aspect of the analysis of the archaeological remains from this study area is the opportunity it provides for a comparative examination of the sets of archaeological evidence from a few individual households and the houses as part of a larger neighbourhood. This will be a focus of the overall analysis. It requires a comparative analysis of the few houses within the site or specific context, such as cesspit deposits, to each other. This is facilitated by the archaeological methodologies established for comparative analysis by Casey & Lowe which includes such things as a ceramic pattern series, and the cataloguing process which is designed to facilitate a comparative analysis of sets of data through using criteria such as minimum vessel counts.117

Therefore, the material culture of the Blues Point site should add to our understanding about the cultural, social and economic influences on the residents of North Sydney, and how these influences affected their behaviour, as manifested through their choices about: . Where activities were undertaken within a house? . What type of activities were undertaken within a house:

116 Heritage Council 2009: 35. 117 Casey 2004. ______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 96

- what, how and where to eat, - what to wear, - what was acceptable recreation for adults and children within working-class homes? . What to buy to provide an appropriate expression of the lives of a resident on this area, both as expression of personal and class identity? . Other relevant questions will be addressed as they arise.

These questions mostly focused on urbanisation, material culture of consumerism and gender identities, childhood and women’s lives in the home. These are currently important questions feeding archaeological research designs.

It should be noted that the archaeological evidence may provide us with a range of information we are not expecting and the research questions are likely to evolve depending upon the type of evidence and artefacts found at the site.

9.3.3 SHIP AND BOAT BUILDING118 One of Governor Phillip’s instructions for the foundation of Sydney was that he should ‘...not on any account allow craft of any sort to be built for the use of private individuals...’.119 The primary reason for this was to ensure that Sydney did not become a centre of trade and threaten the monopoly of the East India Company. The first British vessel built in Sydney was The Rose Hill Packet in 1789 at Underwood’s boatyard on the Tank Stream at Circular Quay.120 This vessel, however, was a Government-owned craft and was the first Parramatta River ferry. It was commonly known as The Lump because ‘...as from the quantity of wood used in her construction she was a mere bed of timber’. This observation is less a criticism of the skills of the shipbuilders but on the overcompensation in the construction due to the as yet unknown physical properties of the local timbers.

With the establishment of satellite settlements on the Hawkesbury River and Norfolk Island, the Government found it necessary to establish a yard where ships could be built and repaired. This started on the western side of Sydney Cove (Circular Quay) in 1796. This was the first formal shipyard in Sydney. A second, private, shipyard named Underwood’s yard was built around four to five years later on the western shores of Sydney Cove.121 Another yard, owned by Campbell & Co., was operating around 1810.

Up until 1813, no vessel had been built in the colony of New South Wales without the permission of the Governor.122 After that date this restriction, and the restriction to trade beyond the limits of the colony, was removed which allowed for unhindered development of the Sydney shipbuilding industry. In 1833 the Government Dockyard, on the western side of Sydney Cove, was closed and as the upper part of the Cove silted up the focus for shipbuilding moved westwards to Darling Harbour (such as the Cuthbert, Barclay and Corcoran yards), Johnstons Bay and Pyrmont (such as the Thomas Chowne, J W Russell and Samuel Charles yards).123 The government continued its direct involvement in the industry with the repair of the HMS Blanche in 1839 at Cockatoo Island, which employed 80 to 100 shipwrights.124

In the 1830s, with the increasing frequency of settlements along the coast north of Sydney, there was an increased demand for coastal shipping. This in turn led to a need for smaller tonnage vessels. Shipyards were also constructed along the major rivers of the Central and North Coast where good quality timber (cedar) was easily accessible. Newly launched vessels for these yards were loaded up with this timber and shipped to the main shipyards

118 This section has been adapted from material written by Cos Coroneos for Casey & Lowe 2010. 119 Watson 1919: 97. 120 Watson 1919: 98. 121 Watson 1919: 100; 104. 122 Proudfoot 1983:76. 123 Watson 1919: 114. 124 The Australasian Shipping Record, April/June 1994:90. ______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 97 in Sydney. Australian-built vessels in the 1830s to 1840s were less expensive to build than British vessels, however, North American-built vessels were starting to appear on the market and these were considerably cheaper than the local product.125

Despite competition from American shipyards and no doubt stimulated by the Goldrush, by 1854 the colonial shipbuilding industry was at its peak. Associated with the yards were service industries as well as of course a substantial skilled and unskilled labour force. The most intensive land uses for shipbuilding occurred along the northern foreshores of Darling Harbour with boat and shipbuilders also being established in Pyrmont and Balmain. Most of the service industries, however, such as shipsmiths, anchorsmiths, block and mast makers, chandlers and sailmakers, were located on the eastern periphery of Darling Harbour.126

Shipbuilding was one of Sydney’s, if not Australia’s, earliest industries. Directly it employed a large workforce and ancillary industries. Its products, the ships, carried supplies and people to settlements that were being created along the coast. The availability of coastal shipping facilitated the increase in settlements. In turn the resulting increases in the volume of the goods and passenger trade required more shipping which lead to the expansion of the shipbuilding industry in the 1840s and 1850s. Watson was not exaggerating when he stated in 1919, ‘from the earliest days of settlement shipbuilding was commenced, and the development of the country was largely due to the locally built ships’.127

Corresponding with the increase in the number of vessels plying the southern and eastern coasts of Australia in the 1830s and 1840s was an unfortunate and disproportionate increase in the number of shipwrecks. The causes for this phenomenon have been sought in the dangers of a relatively unknown and unlit coastline, poor seamanship, building practices or the scarcity of quality materials (other than timber).128

With respect to the latter causes, the wrecks of early Australian-built vessels are rare, more often than not very poorly preserved, and as well as difficult to access for inspection.129 The other source of archaeological information - early Australian shipbuilding sites - could provide some insights into the manner in which the vessels were constructed and the quality of their craftsmanship. Few archaeological investigations into Sydney shipyards from the 1830s to 1850s have been published or are otherwise available. Exceptions include Bass’s shipyard in Barangaroo South (1830s-1853) and John Bell’s shipyard (1840s-1875) Balmain.130 On a national level the only early shipbuilding sites known to have been investigated in detail are the government yards in Port Arthur and Sarah Island. The earliest archaeological remains related to shipbuilding expected at the Blues Point temporary site are dated to the 1860s. There are therefore not among the earliest examples in Sydney but are still able to contribute to the understanding of this important industry in the later 19th century.

SPECIFIC RESEARCH QUESTIONS Archaeological remains of boatbuilder George Barnett’s premises, and possible boatbuilding premises of James Glover, should be examined to determine if they can reveal information about the variety and quality of boatbuilding that took place on the site over time. This in part can be answered by the examination of discarded fittings and tools on the site, as well as timber off-cuts. The arrangement of the work space such as the relationship of the slipway(s), sail loft, saw pits, forges and other features can say much about organisation and efficiency. It would be of interest to see if some features such as saw pits and forges were absent from the site as this would demonstrate the interconnectedness, or otherwise, of the boatyards with other local businesses. It is noted

125 Bach, J. 1976:76; Jeans 1974 60(3):158. 126 Proudfoot 1983:73. 127 Proudfoot 1983:96, quoting Watson. 128 Coroneos, C. 1991:2. 129 Bullers 2006. 130 Casey & Lowe 2012b & Casey & Lowe in prep. ______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 98 that often the archaeology of ship building is limited to ephemeral remains of the odd copper nail and part of a slip.

How did boat building change across the site and how did it relate to changing economic concerns of the colony with the development of the colonial economy with the shipping wool to Britain the Goldrush as well as the shipping to the northern coast of NSW?

9.3.4 MARITIME INFRASTRUCTURE131 Prior to Federation, much of Sydney’s maritime infrastructure was held in private hands. These properties were built to suit the individual requirements of the private firms that owned them. In Darling Harbour, this cacophony of odd shapes and sizes led to congestion and inefficiencies on the waterfront. Though some individual larger firms may have fared well in this system, the economic benefits of the seaborne trade to the wider society were not fully exploited. Such concerns were raised by the residence of North Sydney in 1867.132

With the rapidly increasing dimensions of vessels, capital was needed to construct larger jetties with deeper berths was beyond the means of most of the jetty owners. The required sizes of these new jetties were such that a number of earlier facilities would need to be demolished before being replaced by a single jetty and the necessary cooperation between jetty owners was not automatic. The inability to react quickly to changes in shipping technology would eventually see Sydney become a less competitive port of trade.

The opportunity for change and direct government takeover of much of Sydney’s waterfront came with the appearance of the bubonic plague in 1900. The resumption of the Sydney waterfront at this time was a momentous event, which defined the character of shipping, commerce, the lives of those who worked on the waterfront and of Sydney Harbour itself for the new century. The catalyst for this change was the poor condition of the waterfront and the health risk it posed for the city’s inhabitants. Interestingly, this does not seem to have immediately occurred at Blues Point. This is not surprising in the case of the public wharf but is notable with regards to its privately owned eastern neighbours. Area C was not resumed until 1911, and Area B was not resumed at all. Perhaps North Sydney was still too isolated and sparsely populated at the time to be considered a priority plague risk (or commercial interest), or perhaps the private wharfage in this area was considered to be more up to standard than those on the opposite side of the harbour.

The redundancy of this infrastructure with the construction of the Sydney Harbour Bridge in 1932 is also of interest. The site was transformed from an important transportation node to recreational space in a relatively short period of time as reliance on shipping and waterways was replaced by land transportation

SPECIFIC RESEARCH QUESTIONS The Blues Point site provides an opportunity to explore the transformation North Sydney’s waterfront from the early 19th century to the construction of the Sydney Harbour Bridge in 1932. The focus of this theme is on the evolving nature of the maritime infrastructure, and the differences between public and private facilities. Of interest would be the comparison between the quality of public versus private infrastructure, both in materials and construction. For example, was turpentine, an excellent hardwood resistant to marine borers, consistently used? If lesser quality timbers such as ironbark were used as piles, were they copper sheathed (a protection against marine borers)? . Documenting the quality of the jetties, seawalls and other maritime infrastructure constructed by private firms would provide insight into the attitudes of those firms. . Can we determine why the horse and cart ferry platform was closed and removed soon after its opening in 1874? Was it replaced by a more successful design? Is there evidence that the ‘uncoppered’ wooden piles were unsuitable?

131 This section has been partially adapted from material written by Cos Coroneos for Casey & Lowe 2010. 132 Sydney Mail 12 Jan 1867, 9. ______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 99

. What was the state of the public and private wharves at the time of bubonic plague and government resumptions at the beginning of the 20th century? Do the physical remains of the private wharves suggest why these facilities were not immediately resumed? . Did high quality structures indicate confidence and a willingness to invest for the long term? . Did poor quality and poorly maintained structures reflect a struggling owner or one that did not see it economically beneficial to build durable infrastructure on their property or lease? Did the maintenance and condition of the waterfront infrastructure drop off towards the start of the 20th century? . If so, how much was this due to the 1890s depression and/or to owners suspecting that the government was considering resumptions? . Is there any evidence of the pre-1850s maritime structures and how were they built? . Other relevant questions will be addressed as they arise.

9.3.5 INDUSTRIAL ARCHAEOLOGY Blues Point has the potential to contain archaeological remains associated with industrial uses of the site, such as its use as a boatbuilding facility from c.1868 (discussed elsewhere), Stevens’ operation as a timber merchant from the site from c.1885, its occupation by the NSW Fresh Food and Ice Company from c.1902, and other unrecorded industrial activities typical of a waterfront site. The questions relating to the industrial uses of the study area relate to both the technological nature of the site, the evidence for work place practices, and as issues of urbanisation and the spatial arrangement of work and living areas. A set of questions was developed by Casey & Lowe in 1995 for an iron foundry site in Pyrmont and also for a brickmaking area in Surry Hills on three different archaeological projects during the 1990s and in 2005.133 These questions relate to the exploration of the layout of the industrial set up, and how work moved through the site. These have been explored successfully at the Darling Quarter and Barangaroo South archaeology projects and subsequent reporting. The type of research questions which would be used to address the potential industrial sites within the Blues Point temporary site are:

SPECIFIC RESEARCH QUESTIONS . What can be determined of the spatial use of the workspace and identification of activity areas? . Levels of technology evident in the various processes of the industrial activities undertaken? . Evidence for the type of items produced by the individual company? . Evidence for the working conditions of the staff? . Were these exclusively male workplaces, if so do they help us understand the construction of male gender roles and relationships? . How the landscape or landform was transformed to allow for the operations of the factory or workshop, i.e. the casting of moulds in the ground, the creation of a mill pond or the construction of a building? . Relationship between the workshop/foundry/factory and any associated residential accommodation: - How was the life in the residences affected by being in such close proximity to an industrial complex? - Is this relationship exemplified by the presence or evidence of pollution within close proximity to the house? In the case of the Bulwarra Road house the whole backyard was overlain with metal dross, suggesting that it was used as an extension of the adjacent industrial premises. The proximity of the foundry meant that there were no windows in the northern side of the house, the sunny side, so as to stop any smoke and soot on furnace firing days from entering into

133 Casey & Lowe 1995: 4-5. ______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 100

the house through the windows. Also, no washing could have been done on furnace firing days. . Other relevant questions will be addressed as they arise.

9.3.6 LANDSCAPE ARCHAEOLOGY The exploration of how the landform of Blues Point was altered between the 1830s and the early 20th century is interesting as it testifies to the need for more land in specific locations and to provide adequate drafts for shipping. The methods and means by which the landform was altered can tell us much about attitudes to waste and rubbish disposal, particularly the deposition of waste from other construction projects and harbour dredged sands.

SPECIFIC RESEARCH QUESTIONS . What was the nature of the original landform? . Evidence for shells, such as cockles and oysters, and what plant species were found in this area? . How has this part of North Sydney evolved over time? . How many times was the landform remade within the study area? . What different materials and means were used, and what was the depth of the reclamation at each stage? How different was this to the practices at other sites such as Darling Quarter, Barangaroo South, Darling Harbour Live and the KENS sites? . Were the phases of reclamation successful or not? . Were the different properties reclaimed at different times? . Where did the reclamation fill come from? . How was the new landform used? . What was the relationship between the reclaimed land and the wharfage? . Other relevant questions will be addressed as they arise.

9.4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT The day-to-day management of the archaeological excavations will be undertaken by Secondary Excavation Director, Dr Amanda Dusting (Area A and most of Area B – western half of the site, area of State significance) and Ms Rhian Jones (Area C and eastern strip of Area B, area of local significance).134 Primary Excavation Director, Dr Mary Casey, will attend the site on a regular basis to consult with the Secondary Excavation Director, and to provide advice regarding the strategy for the archaeological resource. She will also ensure the presence of sufficient resources to enable the archaeological program outlined in the AMS to be met. It is noted that this site may be considered to be of State significance if substantial archaeology associated with Billy Blue’s occupation is found but this report has confirmed that Billy Blue’s house is outside the study area. It is noted that archaeological findings in the eastern area are less substantial, later in date and are likely to be of local significance.

9.4.1 EXCAVATION ISSUES There are several issues with the potential to affect implementation of best practice archaeological standards. Those considered relevant to the site of Blues Point include: . Safety concerns due to the presence of expected and unexpected contaminants such as asbestos, or chemicals from former industrial activities. . Logistical and access difficulties due to staging within the work area. . Water inundation due to excavation levels extending below the water level of the harbour. Tidal fluctuations will also need to be managed.

134 Casey & Lowe will seek an amendment to the CHMP to include Rhian Jones as a 2ndy directory for local sites, particularly Blues Point. It is noted that Rhian Jones has had permits for local sites previously. ______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 101

. The weather is likely to impact on any archaeological excavation to some degree. Rain, extreme heat and extreme wind may bring work to a stop until conditions are safe to proceed.

9.4.2 HERITAGE INDUCTION Casey & Lowe will prepare a document that addresses the project scope, identifying the sensitivities of the site and the relevant heritage requirements of the project and will be presented to all on-site personnel. The induction will be approved by the Primary Excavation Director (ED) and presented by the Secondary Excavation Director (ED). The induction/toolbox will include an illustrated easy to understand hard copy, which will include: . Understanding the heritage significance of the anticipated archaeological resource. . Repercussions of any breaches to the approved archaeological strategy. . Understanding the unexpected finds procedures. . The nature of the archaeological resource. . Maps showing location of anticipated archaeological features. . Photographs of the types of anticipated archaeological features.

Additional toolbox meetings will be given each day, as required, to provide an overview and management of the anticipated archaeological resource for that day and in the event of unanticipated relics or features being exposed.

9.5 UNEXPECTED HERITAGE FINDS As identified in this report there are houses and associated outbuildings, yards, and cesspits that may have survived with good integrity within the study area. These will be managed in accordance with the methodologies detailed above.

Although it is anticipated that all archaeological relics will have been exposed, recorded and removed during the archaeological excavations, there is potential that physical evidence associated with the early occupation of the local area may remain in situ, including unexpected heritage finds. The unexpected heritage find may include, but not be limited to: . Artefacts derived from housing, boatbuilding and industrial occupation. . Rubbish pits containing waste and discarded artefacts disposed away from housing. . Remnants of former maritime infrastructure, land reclamation and seawalls, and boat building. . Other unexpected heritage finds.

Work will cease within the immediate environment of the find and one of the EDs, Dr Mary Casey or Dr Amanda Dusting, will attend the site to determine its integrity and significance and to determine the appropriate management for the find. If of State heritage significance, the Secretary and the Heritage Council will be informed, in accordance with CoA E20 and Section 146 of the Heritage Act 1977. The Excavation Director will provide written confirmation of the relic’s local significance and management, and work will proceed. In the case of Maritime archaeology, the requirements are outlined in Section 7.3.2.

Following completion of the appropriate management of the unexpected heritage find, the Primary ED will provide written advice that all archaeological investigations within an area have been completed and issue a Clearance Certificate to allow works to commence or resume.

______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 102

9.6 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RELICS MANAGEMENT PLAN As identified in this report, there is potential for State significant relics to be present within some parts of the Blues Point site. It is therefore unlikely that an Unexpected Heritage Find that is assessed as having State significance will be present. However, if an unexpected heritage find is exposed after archaeological investigations have been completed and is assessed by the Primary ED, Dr Mary Casey, to have State significance, an Archaeological Relics Management Plan will be prepared, in consultation with the Heritage Council, in accordance with Condition E20.

State significant archaeological relics and features will generally, though not always, provide evidence of the beginnings of European settlement in a particular area. The earliest colonial settlements were established on the Cumberland Plain at Sydney, Parramatta and Windsor (Green Hills), with early grants also at Prospect Hill and along the Hawkesbury River near South Creek.135 Evidence of early colonial land management and occupation contribute to and enhance an understanding of the development and growth of the colony. The evidence may include, but not be limited to: . Evidence of the pre-settlement environment. . Evidence of early land management practices. . Evidence of early landscape modifications including land clearance practices. . Agricultural practices and plantings. . Evidence of early housing and associated cesspits/wells/cisterns/rubbish pits/ outbuildings. . Information regarding construction techniques of the settlement/farm/house. . Artefact assemblages that provide an insight into daily life, conditions, tools of trade and mechanisms of exchange. . Early burials.

Should unexpected State-significant archaeological relics or features be identified, work would cease in the vicinity and the Heritage Council of NSW and the Secretary would be informed in writing concerning the find. The Primary ED would consult with the Heritage Council to determine the appropriate management for the find. This would include manual excavation to determine the full extent of the find and recorded in accordance with the methodology identified in Section 9.7. The Primary ED will provide the Heritage Council and the Secretary with a brief summary of the investigations on completion and application of the relic/feature to the relevant research themes and questions.

In the event that an early burial(s) is/are unexpectedly exposed, this/these will be managed in accordance with the Sydney Metro Exhumation Management Plan (2017) and the NSW Heritage Office Skeletal Remains; Guidelines for Management of Human Skeletal Remains (1998). The Primary ED will inform the Secretary and the Heritage Council of the discovery in the first instance.

Following completion of the appropriate management of the State-significant archaeological relic, the Primary ED will provide written advice that all archaeological investigations within an area have been completed and issue a clearance certificate to allow works to commence or resume.

9.7 EXCAVATION METHODOLOGY The focus of the excavation program will be on any intact remains found to survive within the impact area in the west of the site; Areas A and B (Figure 5.13). There is also archaeological potential across the rest of the site, however, the current design of the works will not impact these areas.

135 Heritage Branch 2009: 19. ______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 103

Our approach to the site will use a machine to open up areas to determine where potential remains are likely to be found. When intact remains are found we will undertake detailed archaeological open area stratigraphic salvage excavation with detailed recording including: scale drawing of remains and sections, photographing, videoing and contextual recording of the remains in line with current best practice and Casey & Lowe practices (see below).

Archaeological methodology in this area will require the use of machinery to remove the extensive overburden. The removal of fill will be monitored. Once appropriate levels are reached the archaeological remains will be hand cleaned using shovels, hoes, mattocks etc to expose the remains so they can be recorded in detail. Recording will include detailed GIS surveying of each area so detailed information can be mapped and recorded. Detailed plans will be drawn of structures and archaeological deposits and features.

9.7.1 OPEN AREA STRATIGRAPHIC EXCAVATION METHODOLOGY - SALVAGE The basic principles of open area stratigraphic excavation to be employed on this site are: . Use of machinery to open up areas, remove fill and to undertake testing to determine survival of archaeology. . Where remains are found undertake open area stratigraphic excavation and recording as part of an overall sampling strategy. This involves a judicious mixture of machine and manual excavation to uncover the significant archaeology of the site. . Use of context recording forms and context numbers to record all archaeological information. . Use of Harris matrix as part of the recording program. . Underfloor deposits will be recorded within a 50cm grid, 5cm spits (where applicable) and 100% sieved. . Well and cesspits will be excavated in 20cm spits or tip lines (if identifiable), with changes of context numbers where relevant. These deposits will be sieved. . All structural remains, post holes, and features will be planned. . Detailed survey and mapping of the archaeology. . Detailed photography, video recording, and photogrammetry. . Generally, all artefacts will be collected except from non-significant unstratified fills; samples of bricks and mortar will be collected from significant structures. . Taking of soil and pollen samples for scientific analysis. . Collection, labelling, safe storage, washing, sorting, labelling, bagging and boxing of artefacts.

9.7.2 OPEN AREA STRATIGRAPHIC EXCAVATION METHODOLOGY – SAMPLING Sampling of extensive deposits, such as reclamation fills, provides an opportunity to understand the site as a landscape. Instead of completely removing the reclamation deposits we would dig trenches through the reclamation fills to ‘sample’ the material. This allows for understanding the nature of the stratigraphy and its potential for artefacts. Often this material is relatively sterile and it is rather how it was deposited as an event is the type of questions we would be asking. This is the methodology we successfully adopted for Darling Quarter and Barangaroo South and it allows us to gather a detailed understanding of the site’s archaeology and to adequately record it.

Each trench excavated through the reclamation fills would be recorded in plan and section to understand how the reclamation deposits were laid down and other relevant information, such as tip lines, and changes in material deposited at depth. RLs would be recorded, photogrammetry undertaken and sections drawn. This allows for use of RLs and recorded survey data to reconstruct the landscape. If we find a lot of artefacts in these deposits we would take a large sample of the deposits to understand the nature of this fill.

______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 104

9.7.3 TESTING METHODOLOGY A separate testing program will generally not be undertaken. Instead, individual areas will be opened up by machine in order to test for the presence of archaeological material. If, however, the timing and availability of specific areas is such that it enables testing to be undertaken in advance of the commencement of the main stage of works, a preliminary testing program may be appropriate. In this case, test holes would be used to determine the nature and depth of fills down to the main historic-period remains and future actions that may be required, including open area salvage excavation or monitoring.

Testing would focus on those areas considered likely to contain remains. Ideally, testing areas across the site would be undertaken so as to understand the fills and further inform the predictive model of archaeological potential.

9.7.4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITORING METHODOLOGY Archaeological monitoring is a methodology we would use outside of open area excavation where there is a low expectation that archaeological remains might be present. For example, for small impacts prior to the main stage of excavation, such as potholing for services. Monitoring would be appropriate where there is still some possibility that isolated features such as structures, features or deposits of significance would survive as this is the most feasible way to record them. Monitoring involves an archaeologist or archaeologists being present during excavation of the upper layers (those which may have potential to contain remains) of the site. If substantive remains are found then the work will need to stop in that area so that the archaeologists can determine what has been found. Some use of machinery may be required to assist in this process. Excavation of this isolated area can only recommence once the archaeologists are satisfied that they have completed excavation and recording of the remains.

9.7.5 SIEVING STRATEGY As required under CoA E17(c). Evidence of past activities is provided by artefacts recovered during archaeological excavation, in particular from occupation deposits. Occupation deposits with potential to allow for conclusions to be drawn as to standards of living and access to goods occur beneath floors, within cesspits, rubbish pits, wells or cisterns, and yard deposits. Occupation deposits would be wet or dry sieved, in accordance with the density of the soil matrix and the likely improved retrieval of significant artefacts.

Where relevant, sample sieving of deposits will be done to determine whether a deposit warrants sieving and if so, this should be wet or dry sieving. Two recycling wet sieving systems are being constructed by the TSE team to facilitate that wet sieving is environmentally compliant.

Each room of each building (house or workshop) under investigation that is found to contain has underfloor deposit will be gridded into 1m squares. The deposit within each square will be excavated and sieved to ensure that all evidence of material culture is retrieved for analysis. The purpose of this process is to spatially map areas of activity as demonstrated in the material assemblage. Often the artefacts from these deposits are too small to be found other than by wet sieving. Similarly, dense deposits from other structures or features such as cesspits and wells or cisterns will also be sieved, if this is deemed to be the best strategy for retrieving all possible artefacts. Some deposits will involve sample sieving to determine if they require full scale sieving.

9.7.6 ABORIGINAL ARCHAEOLOGY Testing for Aboriginal archaeology will be undertaken following completion of the historic- period archaeological program. The archaeological work for Aboriginal archaeology will be directed by Chris Langeluddecke, AMBS Director Aboriginal Heritage.

______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 105

9.7.7 PERSONNEL Appropriately qualified personnel to be involved in the excavation stage of the project include: . Excavation Directors: Dr Mary Casey (primary), Dr Amanda Dusting (secondary – Areas A and most of Area B) and Ms Rhian Jones (secondary – Area C and eastern strip of Area B). . Main site team: Ronan Mc Eleney (Site Manager), Kylie Seretis (Site Manager) Jill Miskella (Supervisor), Brian Shanahan (Supervisor), Sandra Kuiters (Supervisor/Planner), Maggie Butcher (Planner), Jane Rooke, Francesca McMasters, Rebekah Hawkins and others. . Artefact specialists: Robyn Stocks, Jeanne Harris, Sandra Kuiters, Jane Rooke, Maggie Butcher and others.

Other archaeologists will be employed but this is largely dependent on scheduling and the availability of people when the work commences.

9.7.8 ARTEFACT CATALOGUING METHODOLOGY The artefacts from the site will be the subject of a detailed cataloguing and analysis program in line with Casey & Lowe’s current practices. All artefacts will be catalogued by specialist cataloguers in the system designed by Casey & Lowe and used on all their excavation sites. An example of this was recently published and spreadsheet versions are available on our webpage.136 An important component of the cataloguing is the use of minimum item or minimum vessel counts. The faunal material will be entered into a database designed by Dr Sarah Colley for Casey & Lowe. Where relevant, specialists will produce reports on the artefacts outlining issues of importance. These typically are: ceramic, miscellaneous, building materials, glass and bone and shell.

In addition, important artefacts will be the subject of materials conservation. This would include gluing of important and/or early pottery and conservation of important metal artefacts and where there are significant leather materials.

9.7.9 CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE A Clearance Certificate will be issued by the Primary Historic Excavation Director for each site requiring archaeological testing or excavation and recording after investigations are completed at that particular location.

9.7.10 REPOSITORY Transport for NSW will need to provide a repository for storage of the artefacts from this site. A facility has been provided for the processing and cataloguing of the artefacts from all of the Sydney Metro projects.

9.7.11 EXCAVATION REPORT At completion of the archaeological investigation program a report will be prepared detailing the results of the fieldwork and post-excavation analysis of finds. This report is required under CoA E18. The report will be prepared in accordance with current heritage best practice.

Casey & Lowe is aware of the importance of producing excavation reports that respond to the conditions of the excavation permit and add to general knowledge. . Excavation reports have to conform to the conditions of consent attached to the Project Approval and this AMS. . The excavation report will consist of three main stages:

136 Casey 2004; http://www.caseyandlowe.com.au/sydney.htm - Click on specific projects as well as the Parramatta group. ______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 106

- Description of the archaeological remains including both structures and contexts and phases of occupation. This should include a stratigraphic matrix of the archaeological contexts. o These are typical presented in a series of trench reports which present the detailed information collected during excavation. o Overall synthesis of the results based on the information in the trench reports but presenting an overview of the results. - Analysis of the artefacts utilising a computer database for the catalogue. Analytical techniques used should reflect the research questions and be presented graphically. Analysis needs to respond to the archaeological contexts in a meaningful way. If the site includes residential occupation then the households must be analysed individually and then compared to each other. o Artefact specialist reports presenting a detailed overview of what has been found with analysis of this work. - Interpretation of the description and analysis should address the research questions and with a detailed response to the research design. Excavation reports are usually written by one of the principal consultants in association with the site supervisors and artefact specialists and reviewed by the other principal consultant. Where both principal consultants are responsible for writing a report, there is considerable discussion during the analysis and interpretation phases.

______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 107

10.0 REFERENCES MAPS AND PLANS ‘Sketch Shewing Milsom’s [sic] 50 Acres,’ 31 Mar 1831, Surveyor’s Sketch Book, No 1 Folio 22, State Archives, NRS13886[X751]_a110_000090, https://www.records.nsw.gov.au/image/NRS13886[X751]_a110_000090#.

‘Plan of Public Wharf at Blue’s Point, St Leonards,’ Surv. Edward Millington, 6 Feb 1857, NSW Surveyor General’s Office, Crown Plan 7-1990, NSW Land and Property Information.

Parish of Willoughby, County of Cumberland, W. Meadows Brownrigg, Sydney, 1846 [?], Mitchell Library, State Library of New South Wales, http://digital.sl.nsw.gov.au/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?embedded=true&toolbar=fa lse&dps_pid=IE3779909.

‘Blue’s Point Estate Parish of Willoughby,’ 1 Apr 1864, F. H. Reuss, Licensed Surveyor, Deposited Plan 8, NSW Land and Property Information.

‘Plan of Road from Blue’s Point towards St Leonards shewing Proposed Alignment, Ph Willoughby, Co Cumberland,’ 1 Oct 1865, Crown Plan 6-1990, NSW Land and Property Information.

‘Survey of a Portion of Land containing 3 Roods 25 Perches at Blue’s Point, in the Parish of Willoughby, Co Cumberland, Proposed to be dedicated to the purposes of a Public Wharf…,’ 20 Oct 1869, Crown Plan 11-1990, NSW Land and Property Information.

‘Tracing of the western side of Lavender Bay shewing the Limit of Reclamation, 1871, Parish of Willoughby County of Cumberland,’ J. W. Deering, Govt Surveyor, 25 Sep 1871, Crown Plan 130-574, NSW Land and Property Information.

‘Plan of Land at Blues Point, North Shore in the Parish of Willoughby… applied for to purchase and reclaim under the …Crown Lands Alienation Act of 1861… by John Stevens,’ C. C. Bullock, Govt Surveyor, 10 Aug 1881, Crown Plan 356-2030, NSW Land and Property Information. Note: Also see Crown Plan 540-2030, LPI.

‘Additional Reclamation: Plan of Lavender Bay North Shore in the Parish of Willoughby… applied for to reclaim and purchase… by John Stevens,’ Steven Perdriau, Govt Surveyor, 25 Apr 1884, Crown Plan 540-2030, NSW Land and Property Information.

‘Plan of Lane From Blues Point Road eastward to McMahon’s property in the Municipality of St Leonards Victoria,’ 24 Feb 1883, Crown Plan 4-2202, NSW Land and Property Information.

North Sydney Sheet No 16, F. F. King L. S., additional information 22 Nov 1892 and revised May 1930, PWDS 1544-S901, Sydney Water.

Field Book No 1770, Sheet 16, North Sydney, Alg. Peake, Surveyor, 31 July 1890, Detail Survey Branch, including revision survey 9 & 13 Jun 1892, Sydney Water.

Field Book No 2669, 19 Feb 1930, Sheet 16, North Sydney, M. E. Hudson, Surveyor, Sydney Water.

‘Plan of Blue’s Point Lavender Bay, Municipality of North Sydney…drawn to show only the area tinted thereon,’ survey completed 15 Sep 190[4?], survey of vehicular ferry dock completed by surveyor Geo Hart 15 Jan 1926, McMahons Point Subdivision Plans M2/17, Mitchell Library, State Library of New South Wales.

______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 108

North Sydney Block 48, nd, North Sydney Municipality Block Plans, c.1930s-1940s [including 1950s-60s annotations], H. E. C. Robinson Ltd, Sydney, Stanton Library Heritage Collection, North Sydney.

Sheet No 15, North Sydney Block Plans 1977, Stanton Library.

PHOTOGRAPHS AND ILLUSTRATIONS Photograph of Blue’s Point North Shore, R [Robert] Hunt, undated c.1858-59, SPF/799, Ref 420864, Mitchell Library, State Library of New South Wales.

Photograph of Blues Point and Millers Point, Sydney Harbour, not dated [up to mid 1869], SPF/932, Ref 421106, Mitchell Library, State Library of New South Wales, http://archival.sl.nsw.gov.au/Details/archive/110318253, accessed 14 Dec 2017. Also see SPF/933 http://archival.sl.nsw.gov.au/Details/archive/110318254.

Photograph of Blues Point and Millers Point, Sydney Harbour, not dated [1873], John Paine, SPF/934, Ref 421105, Mitchell Library, State Library of New South Wales, http://archival.sl.nsw.gov.au/Details/archive/110318252?_ga=2.187778988.586999929.1513 230879-385892754.1513230879, accessed 14 Dec 2017.

Photograph of Blue’s Point, North Shore, undated [c.1870s], SPF/800, Ref 420865, Mitchell Library, State Library of New South Wales, http://digital.sl.nsw.gov.au/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?embedded=true&toolbar=fa lse&dps_pid=IE1230771, accessed 14 Dec 2017.

Photograph of ‘Sydney Harbour, NSW,’ F.A.C. [Frank A. Coxhead], not dated [c.1884 or c.1887 during trips by Coxhead to Sydney], SPF/935, Ref 421103, Mitchell Library, State Library of New South Wales, http://archival.sl.nsw.gov.au/Details/archive/110318250, 14 Dec 2017.

Photograph of Blues Point vehicular ferry wharf, not dated (c.1901-2), LH Ref PF567 Stanton Library, North Sydney.

Photograph of ‘Ticket collector, horse punt’, c.1908, Harold Cazneaux, Australian National Maritime Museum.

Photograph of Blues Point and vehicular ferry P.S. ‘Warrane,’ not dated, GPO 1- 19851, File No FL1874394, Mitchell Library, State Library of New South Wales, http://digital.sl.nsw.gov.au/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=FL1874394&embe dded=true&toolbar=false, accessed Sep 2017.

Aerial Photograph of North Sydney including Blues Point, in Milton C. Kent & Captn Nigel B. Love, Sydney From the Air, NSW Bookstall Co Ltd, [1937?], LH Ref PF2624, Stanton Library, North Sydney, LH Ref PF2624.

Aerial Photograph of North Sydney including Blues Point, 1943, commissioned Department of Main Roads, Sydney 1943 Imagery, SKM Pty Ltd, SIXMaps, NSW Land and Property Information.

Aerial Photograph of North Sydney including Blues Point, 1949, Image No 1132-001, Historical Atlas of Sydney, Council of the City of Sydney Archives.

Photograph titled View across Port Jackson looking north toward Blues Point and McMahons Point, Sydney (NSW) , Image No 498, Id No 4481_a026_000457, State Archives & Records, https://www.records.nsw.gov.au/image/4481_a026_000457, viewed 25 Jan 2018.

2012 SIX Maps, NSW Spatial Services. Available at https://maps.six.nsw.gov.au/

______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 109

MANUSCRIPTS James Glover, shipwright, Sydney NSW, death dated 2 Jan 18741, Will No 476, NSW Will Books, viewed at Find My Past.com.au.

John Stevens, gentleman, North Sydney NSW, death dated 15 Oct 1896, Will No 12443, NSW Will Books, viewed at Find My Past.com.au.

James Glover, Sailor’s Return, North Shore, District of Sydney, 24 Apr 1860, Lic No 0339 NRS 14403 [7/1512], State Records of New South Wales.

George Barnett, boatbuilder, North Shore, 25 Oct 1870, Insolvency File No 10429, SRNSW (file not viewed).

Report of the Department of Public Works for the year ended 30 June 1902, Legislative Assembly, New South Wales, Government Printer, Sydney, 1902.

Report of the Department of Public Works for the year ended 30 June 1901, Legislative Assembly, New South Wales, Government Printer, Sydney, 1901.

NSW LAND AND PROPERTY INFORMATION Deeds and other land titles documents as cited in the LPI Schedule.

NEWSPAPERS AND JOURNALS As cited in footnotes.

MISCELLANEOUS SOURCES, INCLUDING DATABASES, REPORTS AND STATUTORY DOCUMENTS Artefact Heritage 2016a Sydney Metro City & Southwest Chatswood to Sydenham: Historical Archaeological Assessment & Research Design, report to Jacobs/Arcadis/RPS, Final 14102016, October 2016. 2016b, Chatswood to Sydenham Environmental Impact Statement, Technical Paper 4: Non-Aboriginal Heritage Impact Assessment, report to Jacobs/Arcadis/RPS, May 2016. 2015, Balmain East Transport Interchange Upgrade (Stage 1) Historical Archaeological Assessment, report to Transport for NSW, Artefact Heritage, October 2015. Austral Archaeology, 2016, Barangaroo Headland Park, Historical Archaeological Excavation, Sydney, December 2016. Bickford, A & S Sullivan, 1984, ‘Assessing the research significance of historical sites’, in Site Survey and Significance Assessment in Australian Archaeology, ed. S Sullivan and S Bowdler, pp. 19-26. Blues Point Vehicular Ferry Dock, Listing No I0451, Gazetted 2 Aug 2013, North Sydney Local Environmental Plan, Database No 2180681, State Heritage Inventory, http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/heritageapp/ViewHeritageItemDetails.aspx?I D=2180681, viewed 25 Jan 2018.

Blues Point Waterfront Group, Listing No I0423, North Sydney Local Environmental Plan, Database No 2180677, State Heritage Inventory, http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/heritageapp/ViewHeritageItemDetails.aspx?I D=2180677, viewed 25 Jan 2018.

______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 110

Casey & Lowe 2015, ICC Hotel Darling Harbour Live, Darling Harbour Archaeological Investigation Report to Lend Lease, Casey & Lowe Pty Ltd, April 2015. 2013, Darling Quarter (formerly Darling Walk), Darling Harbour, Sydney, Report to Lend Lease Development, December 2013. 2012a, Results of Archaeological Investigation, 2-8 Weston Street, Balmain East report to Leichhardt Municipal Council, Casey & Lowe Pty Ltd., November 2012. 2012b, Barangaroo South, Archaeological Excavation Preliminary Results, report to Lend Lease (Millers Point), Casey & Lowe Pty Ltd, October 2012. 2010, Non-Indigenous Archaeological Assessment, Barangaroo Stage 1, report to Lend Lease (Millers Point) Pty Ltd, May 2010. 2000, The Archaeological Investigation of 63-65 Kirribilli Avenue, Kirribilli, report to Bruce Swalwell Architects, February 2000. 1995, The Archaeological Investigation of ‘Greencliffe’, 51-53 Kirribilli Avenue, Kirribilli, Sydney report to Bruce Swalwell Architects on behalf of Greencliffe Developments Pty Ltd, March 1995.

Donegan, J, 2014, ‘Digging up the secrets of the first white settlements in Sydney’, 702 Sydney, ABC Local [website], 6 March 2014. Available at http://www.abc.net.au/local/photos/2014/03/06/3958591.htm (accessed 13/10/2017). Douglas Partners, Golder Associates, 2016, BOREHOLE: SRT BH033, Prepared for Transport for NSW, June 2016. Douglas Partners, Golder Associates, 2016, BOREHOLE: SRT BH033A, Prepared for Transport for NSW, August 2016. Godden Mackay Pty Ltd., 1990, Neptune Engineering and Slipway Company Site, Report on Archaeological Monitoring, Prepared for Gabo Investments Ltd and the Heritage Council of NSW, December 1990. John Stevens (1842-1896), Sharp Family Tree, Ancestry.com, accessed 4 Oct 2017 (key sources have been verified using primary sources). North Sydney Development Control Plan 2013: Lavender Bay Planning Area, Part C Section 9, (NSDCP 2013). NSW Government Department of Planning & Environment, 2017, Critical State Significant Infrastructure, Sydney Metro City & Southwest Chatswood to Sydenham Conditions of Approval, for Transport for NSW, 9 January 2017. NSW Government Transport for NSW, 2016, Sydney Metro City & Southwest, Chatswood to Sydenham Design Guidelines, September 2016. NSW Government Transport for NSW, 2016, Sydney Metro City & Southwest, Chatswood to Sydenham Environmental Impact Statements, May 2016. NSW Heritage Branch 2009 Assessing Significance for Historical Archaeological Sites and ‘Relics’, Heritage Branch, Department of Planning [Sydney]. Available at http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/heritagebranch/heritage/ArchSig nificance.pdf [accessed 22/03/2013]. NSW Heritage Council 2001 ‘New South Wales Historical Themes, Table showing correlation of national, state and local themes, with annotations and examples’, dated 4 October 2001. Available at http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/heritagebranch/heritage/themes2 006.pdf [accessed 19/02/2014]. NSW Heritage Office 1996 Archaeological Assessments, Archaeological Assessment Guidelines, Department of Urban Affairs and Planning. ______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 111

NSW Heritage Office 2001, Assessing Significance: a NSW Heritage Manual Update. Available at http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/heritagebranch/heritage/listings/ assessingheritagesignificance.pdf [accessed 22/03/2013]. NSW Heritage Search (including NSW State Heritage Register). Available at http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/heritageapp/heritagesearch.aspx. Registry of New South Wales Births Deaths and Marriages, references as cited in footnotes.

SECONDARY SOURCES - PRINTED BOOKS AND ARTICLES Aird, W. V. The Water Supply, Sewerage and Drainage of Sydney, M.W.S. & D.B., Sydney, 1961. The Australasian Shipping Record, April/June 1994. Bach, J., 1976, A Maritime History of Australia, Pan Books, Sydney, 1982 ed. Barnard, A. ‘Eugène Dominique Nicolle (1823–1909),’ Australian Dictionary of Biography, National Centre of Biography, Australian National University, http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/nicolle-eugene-dominique-4304/text6973, published first in hardcopy 1974, accessed online 3 January 2018. Blaxell, G. The River: Sydney Cove to Parramatta, Brush Farm Historical Society, Eastwood, NSW, 2004. Bullers, R., 2006, Quality Assured: Shipbuilding in Colonial South Australia and Tasmania, Flinders University Maritime Archaeology Monographs Series No. 8. Casey, M, 2004, ‘Falling through the cracks: method and practice at the CSR Site, Pyrmont’, Australasian Historical Archaeology, 22: 27-43. Coroneos, C., 1991, ‘One interpretation for the short working lives of early Australian wooden sailing vessels on Victorian waters’, AIMA Bulletin, Vol. 15. Heritage Council 2009 Guidelines for the Preparation of Archaeological Management Plans, Heritage Council. Kelly, M, 2013, ‘George Street, Sydney, Excavations’, Newsletter of the Australasian Society for Historical Archaeology Inc., March 2013, 43(1):28-29. Available at http://www.asha.org.au/uploads/37600/ufiles/newsletters/2013-1.pdf (accessed7/03/2014). McCarthy, K. ‘Reaching the North Shore,’ Trolley Wire: Journal of Australian Tramway Museums, Apr 1982. Park, M. ‘William (Billy) Blue, (1767–1834),’ Australian Dictionary of Biography, National Centre of Biography, Australian National University, http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/blue-william-billy-12804/text23109, published first in hardcopy 2005, accessed online 6 April 2016. Park, M. ‘McMahons Point,’ Dictionary of Sydney, 2008, http://dictionaryofsydney.org/entry/mcmahons_point, viewed 20 Dec 2017. Proudfoot, P.R, October 1983, ‘Wharves and Warehousing in Central Sydney 1790-1890’, Great Circles 5 (2). Watson, J.H., 1919, ‘Early Shipbuilding in Australia’, Journal of The Royal Australian Historical Society. - Sands’ Sydney & Suburban Directory, J. Sands, Sydney, (editions dated from 1858/59- 1932/33).

______CASEY & LOWE ARCHAEOLOGICAL METHOD STATEMENT TEMPORARY WORKS SITE, BLUES POINT RESERVE, BLUES POINT 1

APPENDIX 1: SANDS DIRECTORY

Occupants thought to be linked to Lot 10 Section of the study area through ownership or occupancy shown highlighted.

Blues Point Rd (East side) 1858-59 North Shore Several individuals at ‘Blue’s Point’ North Shore but occupants of study area not identifiable. 1861 North Shore John Blue jun. John Brown Charles Fowler Geo Hall Captn Lake George Lake Patrick John Note as above. ballastmaster stonemason Blue’s Bay engineer master Blue’s Bay Murphy Robinson Location in Blue’s Bay Blue’s Bay Blue’s Bay mariner Blue’s gardener carpenter, North Shore Bay Blue’s Bay Robert listing not James Russell Robinson, identifiable. ballastmaster William Blue’s Bay Blue’s Bay Robinson listings Blue’s Bay transcribed. Blue’s Point listings not transcribed as too numerous. 1865 North Shore Robert William P Cooney Geo Hall Alexander P Cooney F Robberds Edwin Note as above. Sparrow Sinclair master master steam-boat Norton clerk master Chuter Tyral Location in Blue’s Bay mariner Blue’s mariner Blue’s proprietor Blue’s Bay mariner Cottage Sayers North Shore Bay Bay Blue’s Bay Blue’s Bay Blue’s Bay clerk listing not G. T. B. Todd Blue’s Bay identifiable. Lakeville Charles H William Blue’s Bay Blue’s Bay Woolcott, Woods listings clerk, Blue’s wheelwright transcribed. Bay [Lot 3 Blue’s Bay Blue’s Point Sec E east listings not side of Blue’s transcribed as Point Road] too numerous. 1868 North Shore George Note as above. Barnett Location in boatbuilder, North Shore Blue’s Point listing not identifiable 1869 North Shore George ‘North Shore’ Barnett alphabetical boatbuilder, listing. Blue’s Point

Blues Point Rd (East side) 1870 North Shore George Note: Victoria Barnett not listed. boatbuilder Blue’s Point Blue’s Point listed under ‘Sydney alphabetical listing.’ 1871 Blue’s Point George Charles Munro John Kelf Mrs Day Note: John Road, North Barnett blacksmith Stevens not Shore boatbuilder listed Blue’s Point Blue’s Point to Miller’s Street 1873 Blue’s Point Ferry to Miller William Webb John Smith George Wm. Crescent Note: Listed Road, Street Barnett Waterhouse Street under Sydney Victoria boatbuilder steamboat Alphabetical proprietor

1875 [John Stevens not listed] 1876 [John Stevens Victoria not listed] [alphabetical listing] 1877 [John Stevens not listed] 1879 [John Stevens B. F. Barnett not listed] boatbuilder Blue’s Point Road. G Barnett boatbuilder Blue’s Point Road [exact location not shown]

1880 John Stevens Geo Barnett Victoria (Blue’s shipwright boatbuilder Point, North Crescent Blue’s Point Shore). Note; street Road [exact Alphabetical location not listing shown]

1882 John Stevens Thomas Geo Barnett Geo Barnett, Note; shipowner Stevens boatbuilder grocer Blue’s Alphabetical West marine Blue’s Point Point Road listing

Blues Point Rd (East side) Crescent engineer Road [exact [cnr Mount Street Mitchell Street location not St] shown] 1883 John Stevens Thomas shipowner Stevens West Mitchell Street Crescent Street 1884 Stevens not listed in Blue’s Point Road, or West Crescent Street 1885 George William P. Stephen George East Parker Mackaness Walsh Denton Barnett Crescent Street printer boatbuilder Street 1886 Blue’s Point John Stevens George George William P. Stephen Lane East to Blue’s timber Barnett Mackaness Walsh sailor Denton Crescent Street merchant boatbuilder lithographic master Street printer mariner 1887 1888 Blue’s Point John Stevens George George George William P. Charles Edge Lane- East to Blue’s timber Barnett and Langford Mackaness Walsh mariner Crescent Street merchant Benjamin lithographic Street Barnett printer boatbuilders 1890 Blue’s Point John Stevens George Mrs W. P. Joseph Mrs Hobbs George Mrs Ellen Parker Victoria to Blue’s timber and Langford Walsh Wainwright James Thomas Street incorporated Street fuel merchant accountant ‘Fairmount’ 1871. 841 ‘Toowong’ ratepayers. J. Blue is an alderman.

1892 East Crescent Thomas George J. Stevens fuel North Sydney Street Langford clerk Langford merchant sawyer

1895 Parker East Crescent Thomas Charles Webb George J. Stevens fuel North Sydney Street Street Langford clerk Langford merchant sawyer 1896 Parker East Crescent Thomas Charles Webb George J. Stevens fuel Street Street Langford clerk Langford merchant sawyer

Blues Point Rd (East side) 1897 Parker Warung Thomas Charles Webb George J. Stevens fuel John Evans Street Street Langford clerk Langford merchant sawyer 1898 Warung J. Stevens fuel Street merchant

1900 Warung J. Stevens fuel [sp?] St- merchant Blue’s Point Wharf 1901 Warung J. Stevens fuel [sp?] St- merchant Blue’s Point Wharf 1902 Warung Ferry and [sp?] St- Government Blue’s Point Wharves Wharf 1903 Warung Off - Mrs D. Off - Charles NSW Fresh Ferry [sp?] St- Gibbs Cook Food and Ice wharves Blue’s Point Company W. Wharf W. Hilton manager 1904 1905 Warung Off- W. W. Off - Charles NSW Fresh Ferry [sp?] St- Hilton Cook Food and Ice wharves Blue’s Point Company W. W. Hilton manager

1910 45 John Warung [sp?] off William L. William T. Charles M. 1 NSW Fresh Ferry Thomas St-Blue’s Point Gibb’s Lynch Quinlan Food and Ice wharves ‘Loch Brae’ Company. Tel 22 N.S. Charles M. Quinlan, manager

1915 45 Mrs Warrung St- Donald 3 William T. 1 NSW Fresh Langham’s Ferry Margaret Blue’s Point McInnes Lynch Food and Ice boat shed wharves Mathieson Company. Tel ‘Loch Brae’ 22 N.S. Charles M. Quinlan, manager

Blues Point Rd (East side) 1916 45 Mrs Warrung St Blues Point Donald Ferry Margaret McInnes Wharves Mathieson ‘Loch Brae’ 1917 45 Mrs Warrung St Cliff Lane Donald Alfred S. Blues Point Ferry Margaret McInnes Wakefield Wharves Mathieson engineer ‘Loch Brae’ 1918 45 Mrs Warrung St Cliff Lane Donald Alfred S. Blues Point Ferry Margaret McInnes Wakefield Wharves Mathieson engineer ‘Loch Brae’ 1919 45 Mrs Michael Warrung St Cliff Lane Donald Alfred S. Blues Point Ferry Margaret Considine McInnes Wakefield Wharves Mathieson 1920 45 Mrs Michael Warrung St Cliff Lane Alfred S. Blues Point Ferry Margaret Considine Wakefield Wharves Mathieson

1922 37 David J William P Warrung St Cliff Lane Alfred S. Blues Point Ferry McEwen McEwen Wakefield Wharves

1925 37 David J William P Warrung St Cliff Avenue A. S. N. W. Blues Point Ferry McEwen McEwen Wakefield Abraham Wharves blacksmith marine engineer 1926 37 David J William P Warrung St Cliff Avenue 1 Mrs Emma A. S. N. W. Blues Point Ferry McEwen McEwen Lynch Wakefield Abraham Wharves blacksmith marine engineer 1927 37 Mrs A. Warrung St Cliff Avenue Mrs Harding A. S. N. W. Blues Point Ferry McEwan Wakefield Abraham Wharves Miss E. blacksmith marine McEwan engineer 1928 37 Mrs A. Warrung St Cliff Avenue C. Wrigley Mrs - Harding N. W. Blues Point Ferry McEwan Abraham Wharves Miss E. marine McEwan engineer 1929 Warrung St Cliff Avenue Thomas Blues Point Ferry Morris Wharves 1930 33 James 31 Samuel T Warrung St Cliff Avenue Thomas Blues Point Ferry Leighton Anderson Morris Wharves 1931 33 James 31 Samuel T Warrung St Cliff Avenue Thomas Blues Point Ferry Leighton Anderson Morris Wharves

Blues Point Rd (East side) 1932/33 33 James 31 Samuel T Warrung St Cliff Avenue Blues Point Ferry Leighton Anderson Wharves

Cliff Lane/Avenue 1880 Victoria (Blue’s Point, North Shore) Lane formed from 1881 [SMH 1 Jun 1881, 2]

1886 [Cliff Lane/Avenue not listed]

1890 [Cliff Lane/Avenue not listed] 1892 [Cliff Lane/Avenue not listed] 1895 [Cliff Lane/Avenue not listed] 1896 [Cliff Lane/Avenue North not listed] Sydney 1897 [Cliff Lane/Avenue not listed] 1898 Cliff Lane off Blue’s Thomas Charles George John Evans * Side of Point Road Langford Webb Langford lane not sawyer shown

1900 Cliff Lane off Blue’s George William Charles Thos. * Point Road Langford Adams Webb Rogers 1901 Cliff Lane off Blue’s George William Charles Thos. * Point Road Langford Adams Webb Rogers 1902 Cliff Lane off Blue’s George William Thos. * Point Road Langford Adams Rogers 1903 Cliff Lane off Blue’s George Thos. * Point Road Langford Rogers

1905 Cliff Lane off Blue’s Fresh Food William Point Road and Ice Gibbs Company’s Office

Cliff Lane/Avenue 1910 Cliff Lane/Avenue not listed

1915 Cliff Lane/Avenue not listed 1916 Cliff Lane off Blue’s Donald Thomas NSW Fresh Charles W. Langford’s Point Road to McInnes Marsh Food and Wrigley Boat Shed McMahon’s Ice Co, launch Point Ferry proprietor 1917 Cliff Lane off Blue’s Donald Mrs Sarah NSW Fresh Charles W. Langford’s Point Road to McInnes A Richards Food and Wrigley Boat Shed McMahon’s Ice Co, launch Point Ferry depot proprietor 1918 Cliff Lane off Blue’s Donald Mrs Sarah NSW Fresh Charles W. Langford’s Point Road to McInnes A Richards Food and Wrigley Boat Shed McMahon’s Ice Co, launch Point Ferry depot proprietor 1919 Cliff Lane off Blue’s Mrs Sarah NSW Fresh Langford’s Point Road to A Richards Food and boat shed McMahon’s Ice Co, Point Ferry depot 1920 Cliff Lane off Blue’s Mrs Sarah NSW Fresh Luen’s Langford’s Point Road to A Richards Food and Boatshed boat shed McMahon’s Ice Co, Point Ferry depot

1922 Cliff Lane off Blue’s Mrs Sarah NSW Fresh Luen’s Point Road to A Richards Food and Boatshed McMahon’s Ice Co, Point Ferry depot

1925 Cliff Avenue off Blue’s Mrs Mrs Sarah NSW Fresh Wrigley’s Charles W Point Road to Emma A Richards Food and Boatshed Wrigley McMahon’s Lynch Ice Co, Point Ferry depot 1926 Cliff Avenue off Blue’s Mrs John W Wrigley’s Charles W Point Road to Emma Harris Boatshed Wrigley McMahon’s Lynch Point Ferry 1927 Cliff Avenue off Blue’s John W Wrigley’s Charles W Point Road to Harris Boatshed Wrigley McMahon’s Point Ferry 1928 off Blue’s John W Wrigley’s Charles W Point Road to Harris Boatshed Wrigley

Cliff Lane/Avenue McMahon’s Point Ferry 1929 off Blue’s John W Wrigley’s Charles W Point Road to Harris Boatshed Wrigley McMahon’s Point Ferry 1930 off Blue’s John W Wrigley’s Charles W Point Road to Harris Boatshed Wrigley McMahon’s Point Ferry 1931 off Blue’s John W Wrigley’s Charles W Point Road to Harris Boatshed Wrigley McMahon’s Point Ferry 1932/33 off Blue’s Thomas Wrigley’s Charles W Point Road to Morris Boatshed Wrigley McMahon’s Point Ferry

Blues Point Rd (West side) * background information 1868 Arch. P. ‘North Shore’ Stephens [sp] listed Fig Tree Inn, alphabetically Blue’s Point 1869 A. P. Stephens ‘North Shore’ [sp] Fig Tree listed Cottage Inn, alphabetically Blue’s Point Road 1870 Archibald P. Alphabetical Stephens [sp] listing Fig Tree Cottage Inn, Blue’s Point Road 1871 Here Blue’s Point William F. Norie William P. Archibald P. John Warren Henry William ‘North Shore’ Woolcott The Stevens Fig sen. waterman Beezer Webb Hermitage Tree Inn John Warren waterman waterman jun George Warren waterman 1872 1873 Ferry Wharf I. E. Ives W. P. Woolcott Archibald P. Vacant land estate agent Stevens Figtree Cottage

1875 Isaac Ellis Ives Moses Bell Blue’s A. P. Stevens Alphabetical Blue’s Point Point Fig Tree listing Cottage Inn Blue’s Point 1876 Isaac Ellis Ives Moses Bell Blue’s A. P. Stevens James Stevens Alphabetical Blue’s Point Point Fig Tree drayman listing Cottage Inn Blue’s Pint Blue’s Point Road 1877 Isaac E. Ives Blue’s Moses Bell Blue’s A. P. Stevens Alphabetical Point Point Figtree listing Cottage Hotel Blue’s Point 1879 Isaac Ives Blue’s Moses Bell Blue’s A. Stevens Alphabetical Point Point Road Figtree listing Cottage Hotel Blue’s Point 1880 Isaac Ellis Ives Moses Bell A. Stevens Alphabetical Blue’s Point ‘Bellevue house Figtree listing Blue’s Point Cottage Hotel Blue’s Point 1882 Isaac E. Ives J.P. Moses Bell miner Archibald Alphabetical bonded Blue’s Point Stevens listing storekeeper Blue’s Road Figtree Point Cottage Hotel Blue’s Point Road 1883 Isaac E. Ives J.P. Moses Bell Thomas T. A. P. Stevens Alphabetical Blue’s Point Road Bellevue House Curtis Blue’s Figtree Hotel listing Blue’s Point Point Road Blue’s Point Road Road 1884 Blue’s Point Edwin Anderson Isaac Ellis Ives Moses Bell Fig Tree Listing by Road to J.P. Cottage hotel - street. Side not Miller Street Archibald P. shown. Stevens 1885 Blue’s Point Fig Tree Cottage Thomas S. Curtis Moses Bell Isaac E. Ives Corporation Listing by Road to hotel - Archibald designer J.P. Wharf - street. Side not Miller Street P. Stevens Joseph shown. Warehouse coal merchant George Blunt contractor William Waterhouse coal merchant

1886 Blue’s Point Isaac E. Ives M.L.A. Moses Bell Thomas F. Fig Tree hotel - to Blue’s ‘Gibraltar’ bonded Curtis Patrick Street warehouseman ‘Bayview Stevens cottage’ Victoria 1890 Blue’s Point Isaac E. Ives M.L.A. Bellvue [sp] Note: Fig Tree to Blue’s ‘Gibraltar’ Terrace - [five Hotel - Street tenants not Archibald P. transcribed] Stephens [sp] 1892 Mrs Oswald J. E. Ives Blue’s Point P. J. Stevens ‘Gibraltar’ Fig Tree Hotel. North Sydney. 1895 Frederick Ives Blue’s Point Note: North ‘Gibraltar’ Sydney. Fig Tree Hotel, Robert Stevens - six doors up from ‘Gibraltar’ 1896 Frederick Ives Blue’s Point Fig Tree Hotel ‘Gibraltar’ Robert Stevens. North Sydney. 1897 Frederick Ives Blue’s Point Fig Tree Hotel ‘Gibraltar’ Robert Stevens 1898 Frederick Ives Blue’s Point ‘Gibraltar’

1900 14 H. K. Corporation Frederick I. Blue’s Point Harpur Wharf Ives ‘Gibraltar’ 1901 14 H. K. Corporation Frederick I. Blue’s Point Fig Tree Hotel - Harpur Wharf Ives ‘Gibraltar’ Duncan McPherson No 36-34 1902 14 H. K. Corporation Frederick I. Blue’s Point Harpur Wharf Ives ‘Gibraltar’ 1903 14 H. K. Corporation Frederick I. Blue’s Point Harpur Wharf Ives ‘Gibraltar’

1905 14 H. K. Corporation Blue’s Point Harpur Wharf

1910 14 Ernest A. Robert Humphrey William G. Todd Corporation North Sydney, Bell watchman manager Sydney Wharf Miller’s Point Ferries Ltd, and Balmain ‘Gibraltar’ Ferry

1915 Mrs Alice Lewis Corporation Blues Point boardinghouse Wharf ‘Gibraltar’ 1916 14 Ernest Bell Robert Humphrey Mrs Alice Lewis Corporation Blues Point watchman boardinghouse Wharf 1917 14 Ernest Bell Robert Humphrey Walter E. Bethel Corporation Blues Point watchman Wharf 1918 14 Ernest Bell Robert Humphrey Walter E. Bethel Corporation Blues Point watchman Wharf 1919 14 Ernest Bell Robert Humphrey Walter E. Bethel Corporation Blues Point Wharf 1920 Thomas Gibraltar Coaling Corporation Blues Point Lennox Depot - Sydney Wharf Ferries Ltd

1922 2 Thomas Gibraltar Coaling Corporation Blues Point Lennox Depot - Sydney Wharf Richard Ferries Ltd Kennar John Male

1925 2 Thomas Septimus Gibraltar Coaling Corporation Blues Point Lennox Underwood Depot - Sydney Wharf Ferries Ltd Wharves 1926 2 Thomas Septimus Gibraltar Coaling Corporation Blues Point Lennox Underwood Depot - Sydney Wharf Ferries Ltd Wharves 1927 2 Thomas Gibraltar Coaling Corporation Blues Point Lennox Depot - Sydney Wharf Ferries Ltd Wharves 1928 2 Thomas Gibraltar Coaling Corporation Blues Point Lennox Depot - Sydney Wharf Ferries Ltd Wharves 1929 2 Thomas Gibraltar Coaling Corporation Blues Point Lennox Depot - Sydney Wharf Ferries Ltd Wharves 1930 2 Thomas Gibraltar Coaling Sydney Ferries Corporation Blues Point Lennox Depot Ltd Wharves Wharf 1931 2 Thomas Gibraltar Coaling Sydney Ferries Corporation Blues Point Lennox Depot Ltd Wharves Wharf

1932/33 4 James H Gibraltar Coaling Sydney Ferries Corporation Blues Point Johnson Depot Ltd Wharves Wharf

APPENDIX 2: CITY OF SYDNEY COUNCIL ASSESSMENTS SCHEDULE

RATES SCHEDULE 1917-42 - BLUES POINT ROAD (EAST SIDE) BLUES POINT LOT 10 SEC E VICTORIA WARD

Year Assessmen No Owner Occupant Property Section/Lot/Estate UCV/ ICV/ Annual Remarks/Comments t No description value £ 1917- 1 Municipality Alfred Samuel Workshop Blues [Estate] 19 North Sydney Wakefield, engineer, Blues Point Rd 2 Fresh Food Wilfred Shed, wharf, Blues [Estate] and Ice Co Ferguson, station, office (NSW) manager Harbour St Ultimo 3 Fresh Food Donald House Blues [Estate] and Ice Co McInnes, (NSW) carter Harbour St Ultimo 4 Fresh Food Richards, House Blues [Estate] and Ice Co domestic (NSW) duties Harbour St Ultimo

1925- 240 Municipal 50’ x 70’ Wharf Blues [Estate] £300, £700, £35 27 Council of North Sydney 241 Municipal Alfred Samuel Workshop Workshop £600, £750, £38 Council of Wakefield North Sydney (blacksmith), 70’ x 50’ /40’ Blues Point Rd NS 242 Fresh Food Harbour Land Cottage etc Pt Blues [Estate] DP 8 £3500, £4200, and Ice Co and Transport 10 Sec E Vol 64 Fol 75 £234 (NSW) Co Ltd Circular Quay

Year Assessmen No Owner Occupant Property Section/Lot/Estate UCV/ ICV/ Annual Remarks/Comments t No description value £ 1930- 311/317 Harbour Land - Cottage/wharf Vol 729 Fol 231 £3200, £3750, £234 115’ x 128’ 31 and Transport Vol 44 Fol 75 [?] Co Ltd Circular 75 Quay DP8 Pt 10 Sec E 1930- 310/316 Municipality Sydney Workshop [Lot number not £700, £800, £47 70’ x 50’/40’ 31 North Sydney Ferries Ltd shown] Circular Quay 309/315 Municipality - Wharf [Lot number not £500, £900, £45 50’ x 70’ North Sydney shown]

1931 311 Harbour Land Vol 729 Fol Cottage Blues Estate Sec E Lot £4000, £4500, 115’ x 128’ and Transport 231 10 DP8 £270 Co Ltd Circular Vol 44 Fol 75 Quay 310 Municipality Sydney Workshop Blues Estate [Lot £700, £800, £47 70’ x 50’/40’ North Sydney Ferries Ltd number not shown] 309 Municipality Wharf Blues Estate [Lot £500, £900, £45 50’ x 70’ North Sydney number not shown]

1933 2355 ‘Off Commissioner Harbour Land Wharf Blues Estate [Lot £500, £800, £48 HTL 20 perches & 94 Blues Sydney and Transport number not shown] perches/5 Pt Rd’ Harbour Trust Co Ltd 317 ‘No 1’ Harbour Land Cottage Lot 10 Sec E ‘Blues’ Harbour Trust lease 115’ x 128’/5 and Transport 294 PS Co Ltd Circular Quay

Year Assessmen No Owner Occupant Property Section/Lot/Estate UCV/ ICV/ Annual Remarks/Comments t No description value £ 316 North Sydney Sydney Workshop - £700/£800/£47 70’ x 50’/40’ Municipal Ferries Ltd Council 315 North Sydney Wharf - £500/£500/£25 50’ x 70’ Municipal Council

1936 321 ‘HTL’ Commissioner Harbour Land Wharf - £300/£800/£48 9 ¾ p ‘off Sydney and Transport Blues Harbour Trust Co Ltd Point’ 320 ‘No 1’ Harbour Land Cottage Pt 10 £2300/£3200/£192 113’ x 128’ and Transport Co Ltd Circular Quay < Here Cliff Lane> 319 ‘No 1’ North Sydney Sydney Workshop 70’ x 50’/40’ Municipal Ferries Ltd Council

1939 318 Harbour Land Cottage Pt Lot 10 Sec E £2500/£3100/£188 115’ x 128’ and Transport Co Ltd Circular Quay < Here Cliff Lane> 317 ‘off Maritime Sydney Sea wall, Frontage Berry’s Bay [Rates not Blues Services Board Ferries Ltd dolphins etc and Lavender Bay, transcribed] Point’ Blues Point 316 North Sydney Sydney Workshop [Rates not 70’ x 50’/40’ Municipal Ferries Ltd transcribed] Council

1942, 321 ‘No 1’ Harbour Land Cottage Pt Lot 10 Sec E + [Rates not 1 r 17 ¾ p 8 Oct and Transport Stone wall reclamation 115’ x transcribed] Co Ltd Circular 59’10”/irreg. Quay

Year Assessmen No Owner Occupant Property Section/Lot/Estate UCV/ ICV/ Annual Remarks/Comments t No description value £ 320 ‘off Maritime Sydney Sea wall, Frontage Berry’s Bay & [Rates not Blues Services Board Ferries Ltd dolphins etc Lavender Bay, Blues transcribed] Point’ Point 319 North Sydney Sydney Workshop [Rates not 70’ x 50’/40’ Municipal Ferries Ltd Stone wall transcribed] Council UCV Unimproved Capital Value ICV Improved Capital Value NS North Sydney

APPENDIX 3: LAND TITLES SCHEDULE

TABLE 1 - WILLIAM BLUE DATE LOT & DP CT/V & F INSTRUMENT FROM TO DETAILS OF TRANSFER 1817, 24 80 acres District of Hunters Hill on Ser 6 p122 Crown Grant Gov Lachlan William Blue Conditional on Jan the north side of Port Jackson to Macquarie cultivation of 18 acres be called ‘Northhampton’ [Portion and not to sell for 5 336 Parish Willoughby] years. Quit rent 2 shillings. 1863, 24 Land on the North Shore, Psh Vol 2 Fol 197 CT William Blue [junior] Prior title not cited. Ref Dec Willoughby 26 acres 2 roods 26 of St Leonards to memorial. perches Esquire 1865, 11 Land on the North Shore, Psh Vol 2 Fol 197 Tfr No 548 Robert Pemberton Selected transfers Oct Willoughby. Allotments including Richardson & transcribed. Lot 3 and 10 Section E (3 r 18 ½ p) Edward Thomas Consideration £2,000. DP No 8 and other allotments Jones Wrench of Sydney, 1865, 24 Land on the North Shore, Psh Vol 13 Fol 232 CT William Blue William Day of Prior title Vol 2 Fol 197. Apr Willoughby Pyrmont, Esquire Ref to Tfr No 349. Land to west of study area. NA 1865, 4 Land on the North Shore, Psh Vol 20 Fol 145 CT Robert Pemberton Prior titles Vol 2 Fol 197 Nov Willoughby including Lot 3 and 10 Richardson & & Vol 13 Fol 232 (NA). Section E (3 r 18 ½ p) of Blues Edward Thomas Ref to Tfr Nos 549 & Point Estate Jones Wrench of 548. Sydney, auctioneers, joint tenants 1866, 5 Remainder of land on the North Vol 20 Fol 145 Tfr No 638 William Blue of Jan Shore, Psh Willoughby Sutton Forest, gentleman 1866, 10 Land on the North Shore, Psh Vol 23 Fol 188 CT William Blue of Ref to Tfr No ‘638’ from Jan Willoughby including Lot 3 and 10 Caoura, Marulan, Robert Pemberton Section E (3 r 18 ½ p) grazier Richardson & Edward Thomas Jones Wrench. 1867, 28 Part of Lot 10 Section E Vol 23 Fol 188 Tfr No 1458 Blue John Stevens, of the Next title Vol 44 Fol 75. Mar City of Sydney, Other transfers not shipwright transcribed (TABLES 2 A & 2 B)

TABLE 1 - WILLIAM BLUE DATE LOT & DP CT/V & F INSTRUMENT FROM TO DETAILS OF TRANSFER 1868, 21 Part of Lot 10 Section E Vol 23 Fol 188 Tfr No 2497 Blue James Glover Next title Vol 69 Fol 6 Apr (TABLE 3)

TABLE 2 A - JOHN STEVENS DATE LOT & DP CT/V & F INSTRUMENT FROM TO DETAILS OF TRANSFER 1867, 27 Part of original Lot 10 Section E Vol 44 Fol 75 CT William Blue of John Stevens, of the Prior title Vol 23 Fol Apr 38 perches North Shore, Psh Caoura, Marulan, City of Sydney, 188. Willoughby. ‘Plan No 8.’ of Blues grazier shipwright Lot commencing at Point Estate east side ‘St Leonards Rd’ [Blues Point Rd] intersection of Lot 10, by a Lane, and on E and SE by highwater mark. 1887, 19 Vol 44 Fol 75 Mortgage No John Stevens Commonwealth May 256315 Banking Company of Sydney 1902, 7 Jul Vol 44 Fol 75 Order for Commonwealth Foreclosure Banking Company No 345047 of Sydney 1906, 2 Vol 44 Fol 75 Tfr No 425342 The NSW Fresh Feb Food and Ice Company Limited 1926, 15 Vol 44 Fol 75 Tfr No B435534 Harbour Land and Nov Transport Company Limited 1954, 11 Vol 44 Fol 75 Tfr No G170100 Harbour Land and Harbour Lighterage Oct Transport Company & Showboat Limited Limited (in liquidation) 1960, 26 Vol 44 Fol 75 Tfr No H591266 The Cumberland Next title 1/902933 Jun County Council Lot 1 DP 902933 1/902933 Not searched.

TABLE 2 B - JOHN STEVENS DATE LOT & DP CT/V & F INSTRUMENT FROM TO DETAILS OF TRANSFER 1885, 6 19 ¾ perches Psh Willoughby at Vol 729 Fol 231 Grant upon John Stevens of No 85/19. Feb Blues Point, Lavender Bay purchase of Blues Point Consideration £25. [adjacent to J. Stevens land] reclaimed Crown Ref to C.540-2030 & Portions 1009 & 1010 Lands C.356-2030. 1887, 19 Vol 729 Fol 231 Mortgage No Commonwealth May 256315 Banking Company of Sydney 1902, 17 Vol 729 Fol 231 Order for Commonwealth Jul foreclosure No Banking Company 345047 of Sydney 1906, 2 Vol 729 Fol 231 Tfr No 425342 The NSW Fresh Feb Food and Ice Company Limited 1926, 15 Vol 729 Fol 231 Tfr No B435534 Harbour Land and Nov Transport Company Limited 1954, 11 Vol 729 Fol 231 Tfr No G170100 Harbour Land & Harbour Lighterage Oct Transport Company & Showboat Limited Limited (in liquidation) 1960, 26 Vol 729 Fol 231 Tfr No H591266 Cumberland County Next title 1/1159898. Jun Council Lot 1 DP1159898 1/1159898. Not searched.

TABLE 3 - JAMES GLOVER DATE LOT & DP CT/V & F INSTRUMENT FROM TO DETAILS OF TRANSFER 1868, 22 Part of Lot 10 Section E Vol 69 Fol 6 CT William Blue of James Glover of city Prior title Vol 23 Fol Jun 24 perches of Blues Point Estate Caoura, Marulan, of Sydney, mariner 188. grazier [?] 1910, 17 Vol 69 Fol 6 Transmission No ‘Registered ‘As regards Estate for Mar 2842 proprietor.‘ life.’ ‘Evidence of death of life tenant furnished to estate of registered proprietor.’ Next title Vol 756 Fol 3. n.d. Vol 69 Fol 6 Transmission No Ernest Thomas Next title Vol 2043 Fol 22804 Joseph Glover and 236.

TABLE 3 - JAMES GLOVER DATE LOT & DP CT/V & F INSTRUMENT FROM TO DETAILS OF TRANSFER Thomas Wilson Hodgson 1885, 5 Part of Lot 10 Section E Vol 756 Fol 3 Life estate Jane Glover of the Life estate. Ref to Will Sep 24 perches City of Sydney, of James Glover and widow conditions. Jane Glover is charged with the maintenance until 21 years of until marriage and education of all children of the marriage. Empowered to grant leases for any term not exceeding 5 years. Also to grant building leases of all or any vacant lands and using stone or brick…. 1885, 26 Vol 756 Fol 3 Lease No 97621 Michael McMahon of Surrendered 25 Jun May Sydney 1891. 1891, 25 Vol 756 Fol 3 Lease No 182058 George Robert Surrendered 15 Jan Jun Whiting of Sydney, 1894. Esquire 1910, 17 Vol 756 Fol 3 Notice of Death Death of Jane See reference to in Vol Mar No 557576 Glover and transfer 69 Fol 6. Next title not to life tenants stated. Ernest Thomas Joseph Glover and Thomas Wilson Hodgson 1910, 18 Part of Lot 10 Section E Vol 2043 Fol CT Ernest Thomas Prior titles App [?] No Mar 24 perches 236 Joseph Glover, 129 & Vol 69 No 6. accountant, and Thomas Wilson Hodgson, architect, both of Sydney 1911, 26 Jul Part Vol 2043 Fol Notice of Minister for Public Public Works Act 1900. 236 Resumption No Works Next title Vol 2193 Fol 616829 19.

TABLE 3 - JAMES GLOVER DATE LOT & DP CT/V & F INSTRUMENT FROM TO DETAILS OF TRANSFER 1911, 26 Jul Part Vol 2043 Fol Notice of Minister for Public Public Works Act 1900. 236 Resumption No Works Next title Vol 2198 Fol 616846 181. 1911, 14 Part Vol 2043 Fol Tfr No 641055 Joseph Glover and Minister for Public Next title Vol 2223 Fol Aug 236 Thomas Wilson Works 150. Hodgson 1912, 31 Residue of part of Lot 10 Section Vol 2043 Fol Tfr No 657651 Joseph Glover and Sydney Harbour Next title Vol 2257 Fol Jan E 236 Thomas Wilson Trust 81. Hodgson Commissioners 1911, 21 Oct 1 ¼ perches of part of Lot 10 Vol 2193 Fol 19 CT Minister for Public Prior title Vol 2043 Fol Section E [triangular portion of Works for NSW 236. land to the south east of Cliff Minor part of study Lane] area. 1945, 23 Vol 2193 Fol 19 Tfr No D436323 Commissioner for Nov Road Transport and Tramways 1953, 10 Vol 2193 Fol 19 Tfr No F808969 Commissioner for 8 Sep 1964 - Dealing No Jun Government J739583 - dedicated as Transport highway 1911, 10 ¾ perch of part of Lot 10 Section Vol 2198 Fol 181 CT Minister for Public Prior title Vol 2043 Fol Nov E [triangular portion of land to the Works for NSW 236. south east of Cliff Lane] Minor part of study area. 1946, 23 Vol 2198 Fol 181 Tfr No D436323 Commissioner for Nov Road Transport and Tramways 1953, 19 Vol 2198 Fol 181 Tfr No F808969 Commissioner for 8 Sep 1964 - Dealing No Feb Government J739583 - dedicated as Transport highway 1912, 29 Part of Lot 10 Section E 21 perches Vol 2257 Fol 81 CT Sydney Harbour Prior title Vol 2043 Fol May Trust 236. Commissioners 1967, 3 Part of Lot 10 Section E 21 perches Vol 2257 Fol 81 Tfr No K81055 Maritime Services Next title Vol 10118 Fol Sep Board of NSW 153 1912, 3 Feb 1 perch of part of Lot 10 Section E Vol 2223 Fol 150 CT Minister for Public Prior title Vol 2043 Fol [triangular portion of land to the Works for NSW 236. south east of Cliff Lane] Constructing Authority for construction of the

TABLE 3 - JAMES GLOVER DATE LOT & DP CT/V & F INSTRUMENT FROM TO DETAILS OF TRANSFER Millers Street to McMahon’s Point Tramway. 1945, 23 Vol 2223 Fol 150 Tfr No D436323 Commissioner for Nov Road Transport and Tramways 1953, 10 Vol 2223 Fol 150 Tfr No F808969 Commissioner for 8 Sep 1964 - Dealing No Jun Government J739583 - dedicated as Transport highway 1965, 22 Lot 1 DP 51648 Vol 10118 Fol 153 CT Maritime Services Prior title Vol 2257 Fol Sep 21 perches Board of NSW 81.

1968, 5 Lot 1 & Lot 2 DP230594 Vol 10118 Fol 153 [New CTs Next title Nov issued] Vol 10919 Fol 137. No dealings recorded.

1968, 5 Lot 2 DP 230594 Blues Point Vol 10919 Fol CT Maritime Services Prior title Vol 10118 Fol Nov 29¼ p [?] 137 Board of NSW 153. 1971, 15 Lot 2 DP 230594 Blues Point Vol 10919 Fol Tfr No M212985 State Planning Next title 2/230594. Mar 29¼ p [?] 137 Authority of NSW 1966, 19 Lot 2 DP 230594 2/230594 DP Register A I Davis solicitor, D Prior title Vol 10919 Fol Aug P Rich [surveyor?] 137. DP Register - Ref to Vol 5018 Fol 1 - MTSB title not online and likely to be an entire volume. Ref to 10118 Fol 153

TABLE 4 - CROWN LAND DATE LOT & DP CT/V & F INSTRUMENT FROM TO DETAILS OF TRANSFER 2004 Crown Land 7048/1077149 Crown Land DP1077149 viewed. [Land at shoreline. Area not Undescribed area of stated] reclaimed land in along shoreline west of Lavender Bay. Part in study area.

TABLE 5 - CROWN LAND DATE LOT & DP CT/V & F INSTRUMENT FROM TO DETAILS OF TRANSFER Crown Land Vol 13000 Fol 68 Not viewed. File not [Land at shoreline] able to be ordered. 1976, 20 Crown Land 1/581992 Maritime Services Prior title Vol 13000 Fol Jan [Land at shoreline] Board 68. DP Register - Ref to Vol 5018 Fol 1 - MSB title not available and likely to be a large volume of titles. See DP Register. DP 581992 - copy on file.

TABLE 6 - CROWN LAND DATE LOT & DP CT/V & F INSTRUMENT FROM TO DETAILS OF TRANSFER 1976, 20 Crown Land 2/581992 DP 581992 - copy on Jan [Land at shoreline] file.

APPENDIX 4: MARITIME ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE INSPECTION, COSMOS ARCHAEOLOGY PTY LTD, MAY 2018

Temporary Works Site; Blues Point Reserve; Sydney Metro Project

Proposed Barge Ramp Facility

Maritime Archaeological Site Inspection 1st May 2018

Letter Report Prepared for: Casey & Lowe Prepared by: Cosmos Coroneos, 2nd May 2018

Introduction As part of the Sydney Metro & City Southwest project, the construction and operation of a barge ramp facility is being proposed at Blues Point Reserve. Casey & Lowe is preparing an Archaeological Method Statement for the Temporary Site at Blues Point Reserve.

Cosmos Archaeology was commissioned by Casey & Lowe to undertake a maritime archaeological site inspection of the seabed where the proposed barge ramp facility is to be constructed. The findings of the inspection are to inform the Archaeological Method Statement in relation to the management of the underwater cultural heritage during the construction, operation and remediation of the barge ramp facility. Cosmos Archaeology has already provided maritime heritage input into the version three of the draft Archaeological Method Statement.

Inspection Area The maritime archaeology inspection area was defined as the construction and operations envelope of the proposed barge ramp facility (Figure 1). It extended 80 m from shore which represents the sternwards limit of the barges when berthed. The southern limit is defined by the line of the proposed fender piles which bracket the berth for the barges. The northern boundary is based on the understanding that the tugs propelling the dumb barges will be manoeuvring on the northern side of the berth.

Figure 1: The proposed barge ramp facility. The ramp will be supported by 4 piles and there will be 2 fender piles along the southern side of the berth.

Objective The objectives of the maritime archaeological dive inspection were to: - Inspect the seabed where potential impacts may occur from the construction and operation of the barge ramp facility – namely installation of 6 piles (4 for the ramp and 2 for the fenders along the southern side of the proposed berth) as well as the potential for scouring caused by propeller jet turbulence originating from the tugs that will be propelling the barges. - Assess the archaeological potential within the construction and operations envelope. - Based on the findings review previous advice on mitigation measures and refine if required.

Personnel and timings The maritime archaeology dive inspection took place on 1st May 2018 between 0815 and 1330. The dive team left the area at 1400.

The maritime archaeology dive inspection was supervised by Cosmos Coroneos, maritime archaeologist. The commercial dive team was supplied by McLennans Diving Service. Dive supervisor was David Allchen. The other divers were – Michael Takash, Luke Mackay, Louis Dupressois. Gweneal Cadiou (marine ecologist), was present as part of the team and undertook a marine ecology survey as part of this project.

Cosmos and Gweneal had undertaken the John Holland CPB Ghella JV project inductions in the weeks preceding this project. It is understood that all members of the McLennan dive team had been similarly inducted.

Diving All diving for the maritime archaeology inspection was carried out on SCUBA in accordance with diving standards AS2299. The dive team operated from the foreshore of the Blues Point Reserve with a dive support boat performing the role of transporting divers, laying out transects and acting as a safety vessel.

Conditions Wind on the site was from the north west < 5 kts in the morning, abating completely as the day progressed. The sky was clear all day.

The inspection commenced on the rising tide which peaked at around 0900. The ‘beach’ in front of the seawall was submerged at high tide. Whilst the tide was high refracted waves bounced off the seawall. This appears to be the ambient condition on site due to the wakes being generated by constant vessel traffic.

Water visibility was mostly 3 metres throughout the day though there were occasionally sudden drops of visibility on account of larger than normal wake generated wave surges which placed sediment into suspension.

Survey methods The primary survey technique was the recording of the seabed, and visible cultural features, along established transects. This was done by laying out 80 metres of orange polymer line. The line was crimped with lead weights every 2 m thereby allowing the line to remain in place during the dive and acting as datums from which measurements to be taken.

A diver commenced at the 80 m, or seaward, end of the transect and swam along the line searching on either side inspecting the seabed and any cultural features. As the water visibility was around 3 m it was possible to examine a minimum 6 m wide corridor along each transect. Each transect ended at the base of seawall.

There were two transects laid out and surveyed (Figure 2). Transect 1 laid along the alignment of the proposed fender piles (hatched green box) for the ramp facility. Transect 1 also covered the proposed pile locations on the southern side of the ramp. Transect 2 examined the northern edge of the ramp facility where there is a possibility of seabed scour arising from the tug manoeuvring the barges in and out of the facility. The transect also covered the proposed pile locations on the northern side of the ramp.

Figure 2: Location of Transects 1 and 2 with associated finds.

For Transect 1 a McLennan diver undertook the survey. The diver recorded the transect by a video which was connected to the surface allowing Cosmos, who was supervising, to see in real time what the diver was recording. Observations were recorded in a notebook. The diver was also connected by hard wire communications to the surface allowing Cosmos to direct the diver. Twenty-six minutes of video footage was obtained.

For Transect 2 Cosmos undertook the survey. In this instance the observations were recorded directly onto a dive slate. No video was carried out for Transect 2.

The reason why Cosmos Coroneos did not undertake both dives was that being the only maritime archaeologist present he did not want to exhaust his available bottom time early in the day in the event that a significant find later in the day may have required him to spend time underwater documenting it.

Findings Transect 1 There was a very low density of artefacts visible on the predominantly sandy seabed within this transect. There was a heavy corroded, 400 mm diameter, cast iron pipe (discarded), collapsed timber pile, disused concrete mooring, discarded ‘I” beam, occasional tyres (used as boat/pile fenders. The timber pile may have been associated with the vehicular ferry landing. Close to the current seawall are sandstone blocks. Some blocks seem to form a

5 line suggesting a former wall alignment but most likely are collapsed sections of the current seawall alignment.

Shoreward end Seaward end Easting Northing Easting Northing 333844 6253110 333870 6253084 Time, start 0950 Time, finish 1015 Max Depth (m) 8 Visibility 3 Diver Louis Recorder Cosmos Coroneos Dupressois Description of transect Seabed Object m Object Seabed Sand Current seawall 0 Current seawall Sand Array of sandstone blocks, some in line. Sand Collapsed section of 2 Sand seawall along current alignment. Sand with few Sand with few rocks and 6 rocks and seagrass seagrass Sand with Sand with patches of 10 patches of seagrass seagrass Sand with Sand with patches of 18 patches of seagrass seagrass Sand 26 Tyre Sand Sand 40 Sand Sand 90%, Tyre, 600 mm Sand 90%, 42 algae/weed10% diameter algae/weed10% Sand 90%, Brick, modern (2 m Sand 90%, 44 algae/weed10% from line) algae/weed10% Sand 48 Sand Ferrous “I” beam 300 mm across top Gravel 80%, Gravel 80%, flange/foot, 400 coarse sand 52 coarse sand mm high and 1.2 m 10%, Algae 10% 10%, Algae 10% long. (3 m from the line) Concrete block, 400 Gravel 80%, Gravel 80%, mm high, 1 m long coarse sand 64 coarse sand and 1 m wide. 10%, Algae 10% 10%, Algae 10% Former mooring. Timber pile, Sand 90%, collapsed. 300 mm Sand 90%, 70 algae/weed10% diameter, 2.2 m long algae/weed10% and parallel to line. Sand 80 Ferrous, cast, pipe. Sand Discarded. 400 mm

diameter and 1.2 m long.

Transect 2 There was a very low density of artefacts on the sandy seabed commencing at the south eastern end increasing in density until there was 90% coverage on the seabed of bottles (recent), plastics, metals and other synthetics material in a band 25 m from the seawall. This area seems to be a flotsam trap for material discarded from shore and vessels moored nearby.

Other notable artefacts observed in Transect 2 were two 1.3 m diameter concrete ‘discs’ which had been wrapped in chain. These seem to have been moorings and absence of a central hole indicates that they are not re-used mill stones.

Shoreward end Seaward end Easting Northing Easting Northing 333854 6253130 333914 6253070 Time, start 1200 Time, finish 1236 Max Depth (m) 8 Visibility 3 Diver Cosmos Recorder Cosmos Coroneos Coroneos Description of transect Seabed Object m Object Seabed Current seawall steps Current seawall Sand 0 Sand steps 2 large sandstone blocks. Likely Sand 5 Sand collapsed section of seawall. Artefact scatter including ceramic Sand 90%, fragments, stainless Sand 20%, 8 seagrass 10% steel rods, complete seagrass 80% bottles. All observed artefacts were modern. Artefact scatter including ceramic Sand 90%, fragments, bricks, Sand 20%, 14 seagrass 10% plastics. All seagrass 80% observed artefacts were modern. Sand 90%, Sand 20%, 16 seagrass 10% seagrass 80% Artefact scatter including chain, fabric, Sand 20%, Sand 20%, complete bottles. All 20 seagrass 80% seagrass 80% observed artefacts were modern. Artefact scatter Sand 20%, Sand 20%, 24 including carpet and seagrass 80% large glass bottle/jar. seagrass 80% All observed

artefacts were modern. Artefact scatter including bottles and Sand 50%, Sand 50%, iron bar 400 mm long. 26 seagrass 50% seagrass 50% All observed artefacts were modern. Sand 90%, Seabed gradient Seabed gradient 32 Sand ripples seagrass 10% increase increase Sand 90%, Dumped carpet, 2 m 36 Sand ripples seagrass 10% wide and 3 m across. Rectangular concreted ferrous Sandy silt 40 object, 400 mm Sandy silt wide, 500 mm long and 80 mm high Rectangular Compact concreted ferrous Compact gravels 80%, object, 200 mm gravels 80%, 48 coarse sand wide, 600 mm long coarse sand 20% and 10 mm high – 20% mostly buried. Compact Compact gravels 80%, gravels 80%, 56 coarse sand coarse sand 20% 20% Concrete or sandstone ‘disc’ 1.3 m diameter and 300 mm high. Compact Compact Poorly preserved and gravels 80%, gravels 80%, concreted chain 58 coarse sand coarse sand stretched along the top 20% 20% of the disc. Most likely former mooring (3 m from the line). Concrete or sandstone ‘disc’ 1.3 m diameter and 200 Compact mm high. Ferrous Compact gravels 80%, concretions on the gravels 80%, 60 coarse sand top – possibly coarse sand 20% remains of chain. 20% Most likely former mooring (3 m from the line). Sand 90%, Tyre, 600 mm Sand 90%, 70 algae 10% diameter algae 10% Concrete mooring block, 600 mm wide, 1 Sand 80 Sand m long and 500 mm high (4 m from line)

Archaeological potential The survey area appears to be accreting sediments rather than eroding. The seagrass in the area facilitates this build-up of sand. It can be expected that there are extensive archaeological deposits formed in the area between the seawall and around 25 m from shore, the deposits closer to shore being overlain by a 1or 2 m high sand build-up against the wall. These deposits would have formed since the early 1800s with a far higher proportion of cultural material being deposited after the construction of the current seawall.

The artefacts within these archaeological deposits would be associated with recreational and industrial activities that have taken place along the seawall with the possibility, due to the protected location, that stratification formed by chronological deposition should remain largely intact – that is, that the artefacts have not been re-sorted according to surface area and density because of wave action.

The apparent accretion in this area may explain why no remnant in situ pile stumps associated with the vehicular ferry were observed. Such features may have become buried over time.

Cultural Heritage Significance None of the cultural material observed, most of which were recently deposited, would reach the threshold of Local significance.

Proposed Impacts Based on the findings of the dive inspection and an understanding of the historical activities that took place in the area as described in the Archaeological Methods Statement, the potential impacts to the identified underwater archaeological resource are as follows: • Piling for the ramp will impact areas assessed to be of high archaeological potential. The scale and consequence of this activity – the installation of four piles - will have a negligible impact on the archaeological resource and its cultural heritage significance. • Piling for the two fenders will take place in an area assessed to be of low archaeological potential. The impact of this activity on the archaeological resource and its cultural heritage significance will be negligible.

• Should any scouring occur it will take place in areas assessed to be of low archaeological potential. Scouring could occur over a relatively wide area and has potential to have a minor impact on the archaeological resource and its cultural heritage significance.

Proposed mitigation To mitigate the impact of archaeological remains becoming exposed due to scouring it is recommended that: . Between two to four months after the barge facility has been in operation a maritime archaeological dive inspection is to be carried out to examine whether scouring has exposed any archaeological remains.

Locally significant relics

o In the event that relics of local heritage significance are exposed the Secretary and the Heritage Council will be informed, in accordance with MCoA E20, and with Section 146 of the Heritage Act 1977. The Excavation Director will provide written confirmation of the relics of local significance and proposed management of these relics. It is proposed that locally significant heritage will be recorded and left in situ. State significant relics o In the event that relics of State heritage significance are exposed the Secretary and the Heritage Council will be informed, in accordance with MCoA E20, and in accordance with Section 146 of the Heritage Act 1977. The Excavation Director will provide written confirmation of the relics’ State significance and management. Management of State significant relics will be undertaken in accordance with an Archaeological Relics Management Plan (see Section 9.6 below) and may include: c) recording in situ before being covered in scour protection matting; d) recording in situ before being re-buried at a location away from the impact area.