The Central Sydney Archaeological Zoning Plan Table of Contents

The Central Sydney Archaeological Zoning Plan Table of Contents Page No 1 Introduction 2 1.1 General 2 1.2 Study area 2 1.3 Aims and scope of the study 2 1.4 Study team 4 1.5 Timing of the study 4 1.6 Structure of the Archaeological Zoning Plan 4 2 Survey Methodology and Assessment Criteria 5 2.1 General 5 2.2 Field survey assessment categories 6 3 Results of the Field Survey 9 3.1 Character of the surviving resource 9 3.2 The archaeological assessment of roads, lanes, parks, plazas and other open spaces 10 3.3 Areas of identified archaeological potential subject to existing controls 10 3.4 List of areas of archaeological potential 10 4 Schedule of Sites 11 5 Implementation and Recommendations 36 5.1 General discussion - existing legislative framework and conservation philosophy 36 5.2 Planning legislation 36 5.3 Heritage legislation 37 5.4 Other agencies 38 5.5 Discussion 39 5.6 Implementation of the Zoning Plan 39 5.7 Other issues 40 5.8 Recommendations 41 6 Bibliography 43 Although every effort has been made to ensure information in the Archeological Zoning Plan 1992 is correct, no responsibility can be accepted by the City of Sydney for the accuracy of the information. This zoning plan was printed by the City of Sydney in 1992 Reprinted October 1997 © City of Sydney. All rights reserved. No part of this work will be reproduced, translated, modified, transmitted or stored in any form or by any means without the prior permission of the City of Sydney. Enquiries regarding this document should be made in the first instance to: The One Stop Shop GPO Box 1591 Town Hall House Sydney NSW 2000 456 Kent Street Tel: 02 9265 9255 Sydney Fax: 02 9265 9415 E-mail: [email protected] Internet: www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au 1 1 Introduction 1 General 1.1 This report documents the survey and assessment of the archaeological potential of the city of Sydney. The report describes the basis (methodology and criteria) from which the archaeological assessments were made, and lists all identified areas of archaeological potential. It also suggests measures for the protection and further analysis or investigation of the archaeological resource in the future. The work completed was carried out having regard to the principles of the Australia ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance ( the Burra Charter) and to the New South Wales Heritage Act 1977 (as amended). Study area 1.2 The study area for the project comprised the central Sydney area (including sections of Potts Point, Surry Hills, East Sydney and Chippendale), being under the jurisdiction of the City of Sydney (see map opposite). Millers Point, the Rocks and the Pyrmont / Ultimo peninsula were excluded as they had been subject to previous archaeological assessments (1). Aims and scope of the study 1.3 The primary aim of the Archaeological Zoning Plan for Central Sydney was to identify and document the remaining below ground archaeological resource within the study area to a basic but consistent level, enabling an overview of the survival and general nature of the resource in the Central Sydney Business District. The Plan provides the City of Sydney with an interim framework for the assessment and conservation of the identified archaeological resource in the study area, and presents guidelines for its management on an overall and case by case basis given the current understanding of the resource. The Plan identifies areas within Central Sydney which contain archaeological potential, and assesses this according to criteria based on their perceived physical potential (dependant on the level of ground disturbance), resulting from site inspections. The document also provides a schedule of these areas / sites for Council planning purposes. Conversely it isolates areas of little or no archaeological potential, indicating where no further archaeological assessment / research will be required. (1) See Anglin Associates, Pyrmont and Ultimo Heritage Study 1990, and Higginbotham E, Kass T, & Walker M, The Rocks and Millers Point Archaeological Management Plan, 2 November 1991. 1 The Plan does not assess in any detail above ground archaeological remains and sites beneath roadways. It does however make general recommendations relating to the archaeological potential of these areas / items. In addition, the assessment of individual site significance and investigation of the history of each allotment was not undertaken, being outside the scope of the brief. The assessment and inspection of building interiors, assessment of building fabric or the presence of relics within buildings was beyond the scope of this study. However where significant features were identified during the field survey, such as hydraulic hoists, remnant structures, building shadows, historic signage, and road surfaces etc, they were photographed and included in the Archaeological Zoning Plan. The identification of the archaeological resource even at a basic level enables its effective management, as it identifies areas within the Central Sydney area where further site specific, detailed research / assessment will be required, either as the result of research driven investigations, or due to new development proposals which may threaten the survival of the resource. The study has undertaken to identify the total resource not only in spatial but in temporal terms, rejecting any notion or form of arbitrary chronological divisions or “cut off” dates. The only “cut off” date used in the Plan is that stipulated in the New South Wales Heritage Act 1977 (as amended), which provides blanket protection of all relics more than 50 years old. Thus by default, the nominal ”cut off” date used in the study was 1942. In addition the identification of areas of archaeological potential at an initial or interim stage is also consistent with the protection of relics as specified by the Heritage Act, where the (potential) presence or absence of relics is the only necessary requirement of any initial assessment. Thus all areas of archaeological potential are awarded the same degree of legislative protection irrespective of their individual significance, which at this stage is still unknown. 3 1 Study team 1.4 The site survey and report were undertaken by Ms Siobhan Lavelle and Ms Dana Mider, consultant historical archaeologists. Timing of the study 1.5 The site survey was carried out in August 1992, and the report completed in February 1993. Structure of the Archaeological Zoning Plan for Central Sydney 1.6 The completion of the Archaeological Zoning Plan for Central Sydney has resulted in the creation of two component documents: > Document 1 - report and schedule of areas / sites of archaeological potential. > Document 2 - field survey plan of Central Sydney indicating areas of archaeological potential. Document 1 is organised in the following sections: > Section1 presents the context of the Archaeological Zoning Plan - study area, aims, structure and personnel. > Section 2 describes and discusses the survey methodology and assessment criteria. > Section 3 provides a brief description and discussion of the project and its results. > Section 4 contains a schedule of all areas of archaeological potential identified during the course of the study. > Section 5 presents and discusses the legislative framework relevant to the archaeological resource identified in this report. It examines various options and provides recommendations for the implementation of the Plan and the future management of the archaeological resource located within the study area. The definitions of the survey methodology and assessment criteria are located in Section 2 of the Zoning Plan and should be used concurrently with the field survey plan. 4 Survey Methodology and Assessment Criteria 2 General 2.1 The study area is comprised of the Central Sydney area, sections of Potts Point, Chippendale, East Sydney and Surry Hills (see map page 1). The survey methodology was based on the assessment criteria as developed by the authors of The Archaeological Management Plan for the Melbourne Central Activities District (2), and were comparable to the categories used in the archaeological component of the Pyrmont / Ultimo Heritage Study (3). The first stage involved a site inspection of each allotment, in order to determine if previous development had removed the archaeological resource. This visual assessment was augmented by information obtained from geological maps, surveys, archaeological reports and various historical sources, documenting the pre-European topography and subsequent alterations to the landscape. In particular, areas of large scale levelling, filling, drainage and land reclamation were noted as these activities would affect the survival of archaeological remains. For example, buildings containing a single storey basement would not have totally destroyed the archaeological resource, particularly if they were located on a slope or in an area that had been subject to filling, such as former watercourses (ie. the Tank Stream), land reclamation (Sydney Cove, Darling Harbour and Farm Cove), or in an area containing many rocky outcrops and depressions (eg. the Rocks). Reports documenting the results of archaeological excavations and / or monitoring programs, provided in some cases useful information relating to the alteration of the original topography and the location, nature and depth of subsequent fills. As the primary focus of the study was to identify and assess the below ground archaeological resource, the archaeological potential of above ground features such as archaeological deposits within buildings, significant building fabric, movable relics etc, were not assessed as such. However where above ground items of significance were identified during the course of the field survey, they were photographed, noted and included as part of the Archaeological Zoning Plan. All areas of archaeological potential are recorded on the Archaeological Zoning Plan for Central Sydney 1992 included at the rear of this report. (2) The Archaeological Management Plan for the Melbourne Central Activities District 1992. Fel, Lavelle and Midler for the Victoria Archaeological Society.

Load more