Oakdale East

Draft Heritage Constraints Assessment

Report to Goodman

Fairfield Local Government Area

September 2018

Page i

Document history and status

Review Revision Revision Date issued Reviewed by Approved by Date approved type type 1 13 September 2018 V. Edmonds V. Edmonds 14 September 2018 PD Review Draft1 2 14 September 2018 V. Edmonds V Edmonds 14 September 2018 PD Review Draft 2 3 20 September 2018 R. Snape R. Snape 20 September 2018 Client Draft 3 review Final 21 September

Printed: Last saved: 20 September 2018 Author: Jennifer Norfolk Project Director : Vanesa Edmonds Name of organisation: Artefact Heritage Services Pty Ltd Name of project: Oakdale East Document version: Final

This document is and shall remain the property of Artefact Heritage Services. This document may only be used for the purposes for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the Terms of the Engagement for the commission. Unauthorised use of this document in any form whatsoever is prohibited.

Disclaimer: Artefact Heritage Services has completed this document in accordance with the relevant federal, state and local legislation and current industry best practice. The company accepts no liability for any damages or loss incurred as a result of reliance placed upon the document content or for any purpose other than that for which it was intended.

Page ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Goodman Property Services (Australia) Pty Limited (Goodman) (the proponent) proposes to redevelop the Oakdale East Austral Quarry as part of the current redevelopment of the nearby Oakdale Estate. The Oakdale Estate is a progressive development designed to make Oakdale a regional distribution park of warehouses, distribution centres and freight logistics facilities.

Artefact Heritage Services Pty Ltd (Artefact Heritage) has been engaged by Goodman, to prepare a heritage constraints assessment. This assessment will be used to inform furthermore detailed studies to support the development of the Development Control Plan (DCP) for the Oakdale East redevelopment. The aim of this report is to identify any potential Aboriginal sensitive areas or potential non-Aboriginal archaeological site within the study area and recommend appropriate management and mitigation measures.

The Oakdale East study area comprises approximately 33 hectares within the suburb of Horsley Park. The study area is located within Lot 1 DP843901. Horsley Park is located within the Fairfield Local Government Area (LGA). The study area is bound by Old Wallgrove Road to the west, Burley Road to the south, Reedy Creek to the east and the remainder of Lot 1 DP 843901 to the north.

Overview of findings

The findings of this report are as follows:

• No previously recorded Aboriginal sites or registered Aboriginal places are located within the study area. • There are areas of Aboriginal archaeological sensitivity identified within the study area based on desktop research. o The eastern portion of the study area that appears undisturbed along Reedy Creek is considered to be of high archaeological sensitivity. o The sections of the quarry that appear to have little disturbance or have been used for stockpiling are considered to be of moderate archaeological sensitivity. o The remainder of the study area that has experienced high levels of disturbance are considered to have low archaeological sensitivity. • Historically, the study area is associated with large land grants issued to free settlers as early as 1815. The study area is currently used for an extractive industry for the purposes of brick manufacturing and associated quarrying activity. • There are no listed heritage items located within the study area. • Potential archaeological remains might be associated with an early 19th century rural land use and potential residential occupation from the mid to late-19th century up to the mid-20th century

Recommendations

• This report may be used to inform development planning for the study area.

Page iii

• Based on the findings it is recommended that further assessment will be required for both Aboriginal cultural heritage and non-Aboriginal heritage and would be required to support any future development application within the study area. • It is recommended that an Aboriginal archaeological survey in accordance with the Code of Practice for Archaeological Investigation of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales (Code of Practice) (Department of Environment, Climate Change & Water [DECCW] 2010a). Consultation with the local Aboriginal land council must be undertaken to establish whether Aboriginal archaeological sites, PADs or values are present within the study area. Further archaeological assessment such as test excavation may required. • It is recommended that further historical archaeological assessment be undertaken in accordance with the following guidelines: o The Burra Charter (Australia ICOMOS 2013) o Assessing heritage significance (NSW Heritage Office 2001) o Assessing significance for historical archaeological sites and ‘relics’ (Heritage Branch 2009). • Unexpected Aboriginal objects remain protected by the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 . If any such objects, or potential objects, are uncovered in the course of future activities, all work in the vicinity must cease immediately. A qualified archaeologist should be contacted to assess the find and the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) and Deerrubbin LALC must be notified. • If human remains, or suspected human remains, are found in the course of the activity, all work in the vicinity must cease, the site must be secured, and the NSW Police and OEH must be notified.

Page iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abbreviations ...... 9 1.0 Introduction ...... 10 1.1 Study area ...... 10 1.2 Report structure ...... 10 1.3 Limitations and constraints ...... 10 1.4 Report authorship ...... 11 2.0 Report methodology ...... 13 2.1 Aboriginal heritage assessment methodology ...... 13 2.2 Non Aboriginal heritage assessment methodology ...... 13 2.3 Assessment limitations ...... 13 3.0 Legislative context ...... 14 3.1 National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 ...... 14 3.2 Native Title Act 1994 ...... 14 3.3 Aboriginal Lands Right Act 1983 ...... 14 3.4 Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 ...... 14 3.4.1 State Environment Planning Policy (Western Sydney Employment Area) 2009 ...... 15 3.5 NSW Heritage Act 1977 ...... 15 3.5.1 Archaeology ...... 15 3.5.2 State Heritage Register ...... 16 3.5.3 Section 170 registers ...... 16 4.0 Environmental context ...... 17 5.0 Archaeological context ...... 18 5.1 Aboriginal context ...... 18 5.1.1 Previous archaeological studies ...... 18 5.1.2 Conclusions from previous reports ...... 20 5.2 Database searches ...... 20 5.2.1 Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System ...... 20 5.2.2 Australian Heritage Database ...... 22 5.2.3 State Heritage Inventory ...... 22 5.2.4 Summary of heritage listings ...... 22 6.0 Non-Indigenous historical context ...... 25 6.1 Early history of Horsley Park and surrounding area ...... 25 6.1.1 Early settlement ...... 25 6.1.2 The study area-Mount Philo ...... 25 6.2 Database searches ...... 26 6.2.1 Australian Heritage Database ...... 26

Page v

6.2.2 State Heritage Inventory ...... 26 6.2.3 Summary of heritage listings ...... 27 7.0 Identified heritage constraints ...... 28 7.1 Aboriginal cultural heritage - archaeological values ...... 28 7.1.1 Registered Aboriginal sites or listed heritage items ...... 28 7.1.2 Areas of Aboriginal sensitivity formally identified in heritage legislation ...... 28 7.1.3 Areas of potential non-Aboriginal heritage ...... 31 8.0 Conclusions and recommendations ...... 32 8.1 Conclusions ...... 32 8.2 Recommendations ...... 32 References ...... 34

Page vi

FIGURES

Figure 1.1: Location of the study area ...... 12 Figure 5.1: Distribution of AHIMS registered sites within extensive search area ...... 23 Figure 5.2: Distribution of AHIMS registered sites within extensive search area ...... 24 Figure 6.1: Undated parish map of Melville, study area outlined in red. John Thomas Campbell ‘Mount Philo’. Source - Six Maps Historical Viewer ...... 26 Figure 7.1: Aboriginal archaeological sensitivity within the study area ...... 30 Figure 7.2: Reconnaissance map of the neighbourhood Liverpool camp 1906 (Source - Trove) ...... 31

Page vii

TABLES

Table 5.1: Summary of archaeological reports in the study region ...... 19 Table 5.2: Frequency of site features from AHIMS database ...... 21

Page viii

ABBREVIATIONS

ACHAR Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

ACHO Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Officer

AFG Aboriginal Focus Group

AHD Australian Heritage Database

AHIP Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit

AHIMS Aboriginal Heritage Information Management Systems

Artefact Heritage Artefact Heritage Services Pty Ltd

DA Development Application

DCP Development Control Plan

DP&E Department of Planning and Environment

EP&A Act Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 km kilometres

LALC Local Aboriginal Land Council

LEP Local Environmental Plan

LGA Local Government Area m metres mm millimetres

NPW Act National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974

OEH Office of Environment and Heritage

PAD Potential Archaeological Deposit

RNE Register of the National Estate

SEARs Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements

SHI State heritage inventory

SHR State heritage register

SoHI Statement of Heritage Impact

Page 9

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Artefact Heritage Services Pty Ltd (Artefact Heritage) has been engaged by Goodman Property Services (Australia) Pty Limited (Goodman) (the proponent), to prepare a heritage constraints assessment to support the development of the Development Control Plan (DCP) or the Oakdale East redevelopment. The heritage assessment is required prior to a Development Application (DA) submission through City of Fairfield. It is understood the approval would address Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements (SEARs) and be approved by the Planning Panel.

The site is currently used for an extractive industry for the purposes of brick manufacturing and associated quarrying activity. Industrial subdivision is proposed for the study area which covers the southern half of the current quarry.

1.1 Study area

The Oakdale East study area is approximately 33 hectares, consisting of land contained within Lot 1 DP843901 within the Fairfield Local Government Area (LGA). The study area is located within the suburb of Horsley Park, in the Parish of Melville and County of Cumberland. The study area is bound by Old Wallgrove Road to the west, Burley Road to the south, Reedy Creek to the east and the remainder of Lot 1 DP 843901 to the north (Figure 1.1).

1.2 Report structure

The purpose of this report is to document the results of an assessment of potential Aboriginal and non – Aboriginal heritage constraints in the study area. These include:

• Section 1 – Introduction

• Section 2 – Report methodology – outlines the parameters of this assessment • Section 3 – Legislative context – outlines relevant legislation for this assessment

• Section 4 – Environmental context – provides a succinct overview of the environmental setting of the study area.

• Section 5 – Archaeological context – sets out, in brief, the understandings of landscape and likely associated Aboriginal cultural heritage sensitivities

• Section 6 – Non indigenous context – sets out the understanding of the history of the land use and likely non Aboriginal heritage potential

• Section 7 – Identified constraints – advises on the likely constraints as well as that these heritage items may exercise on any future development

• Section 8 – Conclusions and Recommendations – outlines the findings of the preliminary constraints assessment and the recommendations. 1.3 Limitations and constraints

This report outlines a constraints level assessment only and does not constitute detailed archaeological assessment.

The scope of this assessment is based on information supplied by the proponent and desktop assessment, no site visit was undertaken.

Page 10

1.4 Report authorship

This report has been prepared by Jennifer Norfolk (Heritage Consultant, Artefact Heritage) and was reviewed by Vanessa Edmonds (Principal Heritage Consultant, Artefact Heritage).

Page 11

Figure 1.1: Location of the study area

Page 12

2.0 REPORT METHODOLOGY

This report will be prepared to support a Development Application (DA) submission. It will identify heritage items, or areas of archaeological significance that may need to be accounted for in the Development Control Plan (DCP).

2.1 Aboriginal heritage assessment methodology

The Aboriginal heritage assessment includes an extensive Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System (AHIMS) search for the study area and surrounds in order to identify registered Aboriginal sites located within and adjacent to the study area. This assessment also includes a description of the Aboriginal archaeological and environmental context of the study area in chapter 4.0.

Identification of Aboriginal heritage constraints for this assessment includes review of the number of recorded Aboriginal sites located within the study area and a preliminary assessment of archaeological sensitivity based on background information and review of recent relevant technical reports.

2.2 Non Aboriginal heritage assessment methodology

The non-Aboriginal heritage assessment would require a preliminary search of the heritage databases to determine whether the study area contains heritage listed items. Australian Heritage Database and the State heritage Inventory were searched as well local government organisations for the Section s 170 heritage and conservation items.

A preliminary background research will be undertaken to assess the potential for unlisted heritage items or areas of archaeological potential.

2.3 Assessment limitations

This assessment was based on desktop analysis, no site inspection was undertaken.

This assessment has not involved Aboriginal stakeholder consultation or an assessment of cultural significance.

Page 13

3.0 LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT

3.1 National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974

The National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NPW Act), administered by the OEH provides statutory protection for all Aboriginal ‘objects’ (consisting of any material evidence of the Aboriginal occupation of NSW) and for ‘Aboriginal Places’ (areas of cultural significance to the Aboriginal community).

The protection provided to Aboriginal objects applies irrespective of the level of their significance or issues of land tenure. However, areas are only gazetted as Aboriginal Places if the Minister is satisfied that sufficient evidence exists to demonstrate that the location was and/or is, of special significance to Aboriginal culture.

The NPW Act was amended in 2010 and as a result the legislative structure for seeking permission to impact on heritage items has changed. A Section 90 permit is now the only AHIP available and is granted by the OEH. Various factors are considered by OEH in the AHIP application process, such as site significance, Aboriginal consultation requirements, ESD principles, project justification and consideration of alternatives. The penalties and fines for damaging or defacing an Aboriginal object have also increased.

There are no gazetted Aboriginal Places within the study area.

All Aboriginal objects, whether recorded or not are protected under the Act.

3.2 Native Title Act 1994

The NSW Native Title Act 1994 was introduced to work in conjunction with the Commonwealth Native Title Act 1993 . Native Title claims, registers and Indigenous Land Use Agreements are administered under the Act. A search of the National Native Tribunal applications register was carried out on 12 September 2018 for this assessment and no Native Title Claims over the study area were identified.

3.3 Aboriginal Lands Right Act 1983

The Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 (ALR Act) established Aboriginal Land Councils (at State and Local levels). These bodies have a statutory obligation under the ALR Act to:

(a) take action to protect the culture and heritage of Aboriginal persons in the council’s area, subject to any other law, and

(b) promote awareness in the community of the culture and heritage of Aboriginal persons in the council’s area.

The study area is within the boundary of the Deerubbin LALC.

3.4 Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979

The Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) provides planning controls and requirements for environmental assessment in the development approval process. The EP&A Act consists of three main parts of direct relevance to Aboriginal cultural heritage; Part 3 which governs the preparation of planning instruments, Part 4 which relates to development assessment processes

Page 14

for local government (consent) authorities, and Part 5 which relates to activity approvals by governing (determining) authorities.

Planning decisions within LGAs are guided by Local Environmental Plans (LEPs). Each LGA is required to develop and maintain and LEP that includes Aboriginal and historical heritage items which are protected under the EP&A Act and the Heritage Act 1977 . The study area is located in the Fairfield LGA and is subject to consents under the Fairfield LEP 2013.

3.4.1 State Environment Planning Policy (Western Sydney Employment Area) 2009

The State Environment Planning Policy (Western Sydney Employment Area) (SEPP [WSEA]) was established to protect and enhance the land for employment purposes. The particular aim of this policy. The land to which this policy applies is Part 1 section 4(g) Precinct 8 (South of Sydney Catchment Authority Warragamba Pipelines). The relevant requirements for Development control plans are outlined in Schedule 4 clause 8. A development control plan must make provision for or with respect to heritage conservation (both indigenous and non – indigenous). In making provision for or with respect to heritage conservation, a development control plan must address:

(a) The impact of proposed development on indigenous and non – indigenous heritage values, and (b) Opportunities to offset impacts to areas of heritage significance.

3.5 NSW Heritage Act 1977

The NSW Heritage Act 1977 (Heritage Act) provides protection for items of ‘environmental heritage’ in NSW. ‘Environmental heritage’ includes places, buildings, works, relics, movable objects or precincts considered significant based on historical, scientific, cultural, social, archaeological, architectural, natural or aesthetic values. Items considered to be significant to the State are listed on the State Heritage Register (SHR) and cannot be demolished, altered, moved or damaged, or their significance altered without approval from the Heritage Council of NSW.

3.5.1 Archaeology

Part 6 Division 9 of the Heritage Act 1977 protects archaeological 'relics' from being exposed, moved, damaged or destroyed. This protection extends to situations where a person has reasonable cause to suspect that archaeological remains may be affected by the disturbance or excavation of the land. It applies to all land in NSW that is not included in the SHR. Section 4(1) of the Heritage Act (as amended 2009) defines ‘relic’ as follows:

“relic means any deposit, artefact, object or material evidence that:

(a) relates to the settlement of the area that comprises New South Wales, not being Aboriginal settlement, and

(b) is of State or local heritage significance.”

Sections 139 -145 of the Heritage Act 1977 prevent the excavation or disturbance of land known or likely to contain relics, unless in accordance with an excavation permit. Excavation permits are issued under Section 140 of the Heritage Act, or Section 60 for sites listed on the SHR. Excavation Permit Applications must be supported by an Archaeological Research Design. Section 146 of the Heritage Act requires that any discovery or location of a ‘relic’ is reported to the Heritage Council. If the proposed work is minor and would have minimal impact on the heritage significance of the place

Page 15

or site, it may be granted an exception or exemption under Section 139 (4) or Section 57 (2) of the Heritage Act.

3.5.2 State Heritage Register

The SHR was established under section 22 of the Heritage Act 1977 and is a list of places and objects of particular importance to the people of NSW, including archaeological sites. The SHR is administered by the Heritage Division of the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) and includes a diverse range of over 1500 items, in both private and public ownership. To be listed, an item must be deemed to be of heritage significance for the whole of NSW.

3.5.3 Section 170 registers

Under the Heritage Act 1977 all government agencies are required to identify, conserve and manage heritage items in their ownership or control. Section 170 of the Heritage Act requires all government agencies to maintain a Heritage and Conservation Register that lists all heritage assets and an assessment of the significance of each asset. They must also ensure that all items inscribed on its list is maintained with due diligence in accordance with State Owned Heritage Management

Principles (contained within the State Agency Heritage Guide) approved by the Government on advice of the NSW Heritage Council. These principles serve to protect and conserve the heritage significance of items and are based on NSW heritage legislation and guidelines.

Page 16

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT

The geology of the study area is characterised by the Triassic Wianamatta group which consists of black to dark grey shale and laminate on top of medium to coarse-grained quartz sandstone, very minor shale and laminate. The landforms are a result of the weathering of local bedrock. The underlying geology is the Hawkesbury sandstone that was laid down as river sediments and is described as medium to course grained quartz sandstone, this is overlain by the finer sedimentary material caps of Ashfield Shale. Hawkesbury Sandstone weathers to form thin, sandy soils with low water-retaining qualities.

The western portion of the study area is comprised of the Blacktown Residual soil landscape which has shallow to moderately deep, hard setting mottled texture contrast soils, red and brown podzolic soils on crests grading to yellow podzolic soils on lower slopes and in drainage lines.

The eastern portion of the study area, which contains a relic creek channel and the current course of the creek line known as Reedy Creek, is the current active floodplain of many drainage networks of the Cumberland Plain. The Soil Landscape is known as South Creek, an alluvial environment characterised by floodplains, valley flats and drainage depressions. The soils are often very deep, layered sediments over bedrock or relic soils. Plastic clays or structured loams occur in and immediately adjacent to drainage lines. Red and yellow podzolic soils are most common on terraces with small areas of structured grey clays, leached clay and yellow solodic soils (Bannerman and Hazelton 1990). The South Creek soil landscape has the potential to retain stratified archaeological deposits.

Reedy creek, which forms the eastern boundary of the study area, I a tributary of Eastern Creek which is a major watercourse across the Cumberland plain that flows north into South Creek through prominent area such as Bungarribee, Nuringingy Reserve and past Plumpton Ridge.

A feature of the regional geological landscape includes a significant source of silcrete at Plumpton Ridge, approximately ten kilometres (km) northwest of the study area. Silcrete, a raw material used by Aboriginal people across the Sydney Basin, was extracted from the underlying Tertiary St Marys formation. The silcrete raw material source at Plumpton Ridge was an important and extensively used quarry where extraction and tool manufacture activities took place (McDonald 2006)

The study area would once have been covered by open Cumberland Plain Woodland, which is typical of the Wianamatta Group shale geology. Tree species would have included Forest Red Gum (Eucalyptus tereticornis ), and Grey Box ( E. moluccana ) (Benson and Howell 1990).

The entirety of the study area is located within John Thomas Campbell estate (also referred to as Mount Philo). Land uses within the study area would have been likely associated with timber getting, grazing and pastoralism from the early 19th century onwards. The John Thomas Campbell was known for his cattle and horse breeding. The current study area was acquired by Brickworks Limited around 1959 -1960. The current use of the study area is for Austral Plant no.3 which opened in 1972.

Page 17

5.0 ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT

5.1 Aboriginal context

Prior to the appropriation of their land by Europeans, Aboriginal people lived in small family or clan groups that were associated with particular territories or places. It seems that territorial boundaries were fairly fluid, although details are not known. The language group spoken on the Cumberland Plain is known as Darug (Dharruk – alternative spelling).

This term was used for the first time in 1900 (Matthews and Everitt) as before the late 1800s language groups or dialects were not discussed in the literature (Attenbrow 2010:31). The Darug language group is thought to have extended from Appin in the south to the Hawkesbury River, west of the Georges River, Parramatta, the Lane Cove River and to Berowra Creek (Attenbrow 2010:34). This area was home to a number of different clan groups throughout the Cumberland Plain.

British colonisation had a profound and devastating effect on the Aboriginal population of the Sydney region, including Darug speakers. In the early days of the colony Aboriginal people were disenfranchised from their land as the British claimed areas for settlement and agriculture. The colonists, often at the expense of the local Aboriginal groups, also claimed resources such as pasture, timber, fishing grounds and water sources. Overall the devastation of the Aboriginal culture did not come about through war with the British, but instead through disease and forced removal from traditional lands. It is thought that during the 1789 smallpox epidemic over half of the Aboriginal people of the Sydney region died. The disease spread west to the Darug of the Cumberland Plain and north to the Hawkesbury. It may have in fact have spread much further afield, over the Blue Mountains (Butlin 1983). This loss of life meant that some of the Aboriginal groups who lived away from the coastal settlement of Sydney may have disappeared entirely before Europeans could observe them or record their clan names (Karskens 2010: 425).

The British initially thought that Aboriginal people were confined to the coast taking advantage of the abundant marine resources available. The first major recorded expeditions into the interior did not witness any Aboriginal people, but evidence of their existence was noted. In April 1788, Governor Philip led an expedition west to Prospect Hill. It was noted,

…that these parts are frequented by the natives was undeniably proved by the temporary huts which were seen in several places. Near one of these huts, the bones of kangaroo were found, and several trees where seen on fire (Phillip 1789).

It wasn’t until rural settlement began in the western Cumberland Plain, during the 1790s, that Aboriginal groups in this region came into regular and permanent contact with British colonists. Relations quickly disintegrated, and tensions over land and resources spilled over. Governor King sanctioned the shooting of Aboriginal peoples in a General Order made in 1801 (Kohen 1986: 24). Intermittent killings on both sides continued for over 15 years, including the Appin massacre and attacks at South Creek in 1816 (Kohen 1986: 23; Karskens 2010: 225).

5.1.1 Previous archaeological studies

There have been several archaeological studies undertaken in close proximity to the study area. These studies comprise assessments of similar landforms to the study area and give an idea of the local Aboriginal context. A summary of the previous studies is provided in Table 5.1.

Page 18

Table 5.1: Summary of archaeological reports in the study region

Report Key outcomes

Appleton (2002) • The assessment area is adjacent of the current study area. The Archaeological • The results of the survey were the identification of an area of PAD Investigation of Lot 2, associated with an isolated mudstone flake along the banks of DP 120673, the site of a Ropes Creek, a second isolated mudstone flake was located along a proposed new clay and vehicle track. shale extraction area. • The PAD was identified based on the slight raised landform Old Wallgrove Road associated with Ropes Creek. Horsley Park • The raw material w as mudstone .

• Navin Officer conducted an Aboriginal cultural heritage assessment for Integral Energy for the proposed 132 kV transmission line extending from the Sydney West Substation 3.5 km west to Erskine Navin Officer (2003) Park. Proposed 132kV • Two Aboriginal sites (artefact scatters) were identified and an area Transmission Line of archaeological potential. Erskine Park, NSW, Cultural Heritage • The artefacts were located along eroding drainage lines. The PAD was identified based on the raised landform surrounding Ropes Assessment Creek. They concluded higher densities are likely to be locate near permanent water sources. • The raw materials were mudstone and silcrete.

• The assessment area is located immediately north east of the JMcD CHM 1 (2004) current study area. Archaeological • Test excavations were conducted at a registered site which was Investigations at the located at the base of a former slope along the margin of an alluvial Austral Site (#45-5- floodplain. 2986) ‘The Vineyard’, The excavation program recovered over 2000 lithic items. Wallgrove Road, • Horsley Park • The raw materials were silicified tuff, quartz, silcrete and silicified wood

• The assessment area was located approximately 2 km north west of JMcD CHM (2005) the current study area. Heritage Conservation • The assessment identified areas of high archaeological value on Strategy for Aboriginal shale hill slopes, first order tributary creek lines, shale ridges and sites in the lands owned low ridgetops. by Valad Funds Management Ltd and • Areas of moderate archaeological sensitivity were identified as areas surrounding high value landforms and exhibited low levels of Sargents P/L, in the disturbance. Eastern Creek Business Park (Stage 3) Precinct • Areas of low archaeological sensitivity were identified as those that Plan demonstrated high levels of disturbance. This included areas that had been quarried.

1 Jo MacDonald Cultural Heritage Management

Page 19

Report Key outcomes

• The subject area is to the west of the current study area. • A previous survey by GML identified an area of moderate archaeological potential along Eastern Creek GML (2013) • Subsurface testing was conducted in the moderate potential area Oakdale Central adjacent to the creek as well as in the area of low potential along the Aboriginal hill slopes. Archaeological Technical Report • Almost 300 lithic artefacts were recovered. The raw materials present were silcrete, mudstone, quartz and quartzite. • It was found that artefact densities was continuous along the creek lines whereas along the slopes they were sparse.

• The assessment area is located immediately southwest of the current study area. Artefact Heritage • The survey relocated a previously known site and recorded six new (2015) sites. Oakdale South Industrial • They were located in close proximity to a tributary of Ropes Creek Estate Archaeological and the predominant material was silcrete. Survey and Test • The testing program identified a concentration of indurated Excavation Report mudstone. • The test excavation interpreted the assemblage and distribution of artefacts as not showing intensive occupation.

5.1.2 Conclusions from previous reports The reports summarised in Table 5.1 found potential for Aboriginal archaeological sites to be located throughout the landscape. Certain landforms were considered to have higher archaeological potential. Creek lines and associated lower slopes and alluvial flats are considered to have high potential for Aboriginal archaeological sites. JMcD CHM (2005) also identified areas of high archaeological value on shale hill slopes, first order tributary creek lines, shale ridges and low ridgetops.

Artefact scatters and open camp sites are expected to be the dominant site type and density of artefacts within the surrounding landscape will be higher located near to permanent water sources. The expected raw material for stone artefacts will be silcrete, mudstone and quartz, silcrete is a locally available source.

5.2 Database searches

5.2.1 Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System

The location of Aboriginal sites is considered culturally sensitive information. It is advised that this information, including the AHIMS data appearing on the heritage map for the proposal be removed from this report if it is to enter the public domain.

An extensive search of the Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System (AHIMS) database was undertaken on the 30 August 2018 (AHIMS search ID 367274).

An area of approximately 5 km surrounding the study area was included in the search. The AHIMS search provides archaeological context for the area and identifies whether any previously recorded Aboriginal sites are located within or near the study area. The parameters of the search were as follows:

Page 20

GDA 1994 MGA 56 296413 – 302013 E 6252156 – 6257756 N Buffer 0 m Number of sites 108

AHIMS search ID 367274

A total of 108 sites were identified in the extensive AHIMS search area. The distribution of recorded sites within the AHIMS search area is shown in Figure 5.1. A registered Aboriginal site is made up of one or more features and these features should not be confused with registered sites. OEH lists 20 standard site features that can be used to describe a site registered with AHIMS.

The frequency of recorded site types (as opposed to the number of registered sites) is summarised in Table 5.2. For the 108 sites within the search area, four site features were recorded. Most recorded site features are Artefact scatters or Isolated finds (n=95), potential archaeological deposits (n=5) followed by Artefacts associated with PADs (n=5).

The nature and location of the registered sites reflects the past Aboriginal occupation from which they derive, but is also influenced by historical land-use, and the nature and extent of previous archaeological investigations. Although Aboriginal occupation covered the whole of the landscape, the availability of fresh water, and associated resources, was a significant factor in repeated and long-term occupation of specific areas within the landscape. Certain site types, such as culturally modified trees, are particularly vulnerable to destruction through historical occupation, while others, such as stone artefacts, are more resilient. Within the current search area, the majority of recorded sites area artefact scatters or isolated artefacts.

Table 5.2: Frequency of site features from AHIMS database

Site feature Frequency Percentage

Artefact 95 88

Art (Pigment or Engraved) 1 0.9

Potential Archaeological Deposit (PAD) 5 4.6

Modified Tree (Carved or Scarred) 1 0.9

Artefact, Modified Tree (Carved or Scarred) 1 0.9

Artefact, Potential Archaeological Deposit (PAD) 5 4.6

Total 108 100

There are no AHIMS sites located within the study area. There are 15 AHIMS registered sites located within one kilometre of the study area, three of the registered sites are within 400m of the study area, all are Artefact sites, one is associated with a potential archaeological deposit.

Many of the sites recorded are located on creeks and drainage lines. Ropes Creek is to the west of the study area and is a major tributary of South Creek. Reedy Creek forms the eastern border of the study area and is a major tributary of Eastern Creek. The sites within 400 m of the study area are located on a similar landform.

Page 21

Artefact sites are the most likely site type to occur within the study area. Artefacts will be most visible in exposed surfaces; Scarred trees can be located in areas of old tree growth or in areas that have not experienced complete clearance.

The nature and distribution of the recorded Aboriginal sites identified by the AHIMS search can provide some archaeological context for the study area. AHIMS site distribution reflects where surveys and previous assessments have been undertaken. Although the AHIMS search does provide some context for the Aboriginal use of an area, due to the limitations of the AHIMS database, other information sources are also required to provide a more accurate understanding of the study area’s Aboriginal archaeological potential.

5.2.2 Australian Heritage Database

Archaeological sites and heritage items in Australia may be registered as significant at the National or international level and appear in the National Heritage database, a searchable heritage list of all heritage items within Australia. The National Heritage List (and the Register of the National Estate (RNE) before it), is the statutory document for the protection of heritage places considered to be of national significance. Although the RNE no longer has statutory status, the Australian Minister of the Environment is still required to consider this Register when making decisions about significance, so it is prudent to conduct searches of this register.

Searches of the Australian Heritage Database with reference to the World Heritage List, National Heritage List, Commonwealth Heritage List and RNE archive were made on the 31 August 2018.

The searches confirmed that there are no Aboriginal heritage items on the WHL, NHL, CHL or RNE are located in the study area or within the vicinity (500 m).

5.2.3 State Heritage Inventory

The State Heritage Inventory (SHI) is the complete inventory of heritage items in NSW. It contains items of State heritage significance listed on the SHR, items of State heritage significance not listed on the SHR together with heritage places that may be of local heritage significance (NSW Heritage Office 2001). Local heritage items contained within the SHI may also be listed on and afforded statutory protection under the Fairfield LEP or the s170 Register.

A search of the SHI on 31 August 2018 revealed that the study area contains no registered Aboriginal Places, no SHR items, no heritage items with Aboriginal significance located within the study area subject to an Interim, or Authorised Interim Heritage Order.

5.2.4 Summary of heritage listings

There are no AHIMS registered sites, Aboriginal Places or heritage items with Aboriginal significance within the study area.

Page 22

Figure 5.1: Distribution of AHIMS registered sites within extensive search area

Page 23

Figure 5.2: Distribution of AHIMS registered sites within extensive search area

Page 24

6.0 NON-INDIGENOUS HISTORICAL CONTEXT

6.1 Early history of Horsley Park and surrounding area

6.1.1 Early settlement

The study area is located in the small suburb of Horsley Park, Fairfield, on land granted to John Thomas Campbell after 1811 (Figure 6.1). Campbell was secretary to Governor Lachlan Macquarie, he owned several properties in the Sydney region. Campbell was granted the 1,100 acre property near Rooty Hill, by Macquarie, which he named ‘Mount Philo’ (Holder 1966). Historically, Horsley Park was associated with a property, a larger settlement to the south owned by George Johnston Snr’s daughter Blanche Weston (Yarwood 1967). The property was called ‘Kings Gift’. An Indian colonial style bungalow was erected on the property by Blanche known as Horsley Park (complete with Indian servants, brought to Australia from her husband’s time spent as a judge in India.

The earliest European land use of the study area and the surrounding vicinity was likely to have been associated with timber getting, grazing and pastoralism from the early 19th century onwards (AMBS 2007). John Thomas Campbell was known as a most efficient farmer and breeder of cattle and horses.

Early residential settlement in the broader Fairfield/ Penrith area was driven by the availability of fertile soil and easily accessible water sources such as creeks and river beds. For example, the Nepean River (to the west of the study area) provided the most fertile soil in the region and occupation and farming took place along its banks and alluvial from 1789 onwards (Thorpe 1986). Over the following decade, frequent flooding forced settlement to spread inland, to the east of the river. At this time, Eastern Creek (east of the study area) became associated with smaller allotments, often given to emancipated convicts while land surrounding the study area-further inland and less fertile-was issued to free settlers in the form of large acreages (AMBS 2007).

A number of the larger grants that surrounded the study area became well known estates such as Bayly Park (Nicholas Bayly); King’s Gift or Horsley Park (George Johnston Snr); Lochwood (George Johnston Jnr); Exeter Farm (James Badgery); Mt. Vernon (Anthony Fenn Kemp); Erskine Park (James Erskine); Minchinbury (William Minchin) and Regentville (James Jamison). Many of these estates were occupied by grand manors such as Bayly’s single storey home in Bayly Park.

6.1.2 The study area-Mount Philo

The entirety of the study area is located within John Thomas Campbells Rooty Hill land grant known as ‘Mount Philo’. The property comprised 1,100 acres of land, granted to Campbell after 1811, in the Parish of Melville, County of Cumberland (Figure 6.1). The earliest evidence of possible structures on the grant was mapped during a reconnaissance of the area in 1906 (Figure 7.2).

Page 25

Figure 6.1: Undated parish map of Melville, study area outlined in red. John Thomas Campbell ‘Mount Philo’. Source - Six Maps Historical Viewer

6.2 Database searches

6.2.1 Australian Heritage Database

Searches of the Australian Heritage Database with reference to the World Heritage List, National Heritage List, Commonwealth Heritage List and RNE archive were made on the 31 August 2018.

The searches confirmed that there are no heritage items on the WHL, NHL, CHL or RNE are located in the study area or within the vicinity (500 m).

6.2.2 State Heritage Inventory

Page 26

A search of the SHI on 31 August 2018 revealed that the study area contains no SHR items, no heritage items located within the study area subject to an Interim, or Authorised Interim Heritage Order and no heritage items within the study area listed on the s170 Register or subject to an s136 ‘Stop Work’ Order .

6.2.3 Summary of heritage listings

There are no listed heritage items within the study area.

Page 27

7.0 IDENTIFIED HERITAGE CONSTRAINTS

7.1 Aboriginal cultural heritage - archaeological values

This assessment is a constraints report that is intended to identify potential Aboriginal heritage and non-Aboriginal heritage constraints within the study area. An overview of identified heritage constraints within the study area is outlined below.

7.1.1 Registered Aboriginal sites or listed heritage items

There are currently no registered Aboriginal sites or registered Aboriginal Places within study area.

7.1.2 Areas of Aboriginal sensitivity formally identified in heritage legislation

The Due Diligence Code of Practice for the Protection of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales (Due Diligence Code of Practise) (Department of Environment Climate Change and Water 2010) outlines a range of landscape features that have higher potential to contain Aboriginal objects. It is necessary to also consider whether there are landscape features of undisturbed land that may contain Aboriginal objects.

These landscape features include land that is:

• Within 200 m of water • Located within a sand dune system • Located on a ridge top, ridge line or headland • Located within 200 m below or above a cliff face • Within 20 m of a cave, rock shelter or cave mouth.

The background information collated above, and the results of the desktop research indicates that the study area has areas of high, moderate and low Aboriginal archaeological sensitivity and potential (Figure 7.1). This assessment is based upon the following factors:

• The study area is located across an undulating landform being dissected by Reedy Creek and its associated tributaries. • There have been historical land disturbances across the entire study area from the timber industry, pastoral and grazing practices. Most recently the site has been quarried for shale and clay. • From historical imagery showing the establishment of the quarry, there are areas that appear to have experienced minimal disturbance (high Aboriginal archaeological potential). • Some parts of the study area have been used for stockpiling, vehicle access, water management, and land clearing (moderate Aboriginal archaeological potential). • JMcD CHM (2005) conducted a heritage study of an area 2km northwest of the current study area, the assessment covered a similar landform and same creek system. In their assessment area that had experienced high disturbance still had the potential to contain Aboriginal archaeology (low Aboriginal archaeological potential). • The surrounding area has undergone extensive Aboriginal assessment that has resulted in the identification of sites in similar landforms to those in the current study area.

Page 28

• Many AHIMS registered sites in the region are located along the creek lines and hillslopes surrounding the study area

Page 29

Figure 7.1: Aboriginal archaeological sensitivity within the study area

Page 30

7.1.3 Areas of potential non-Aboriginal heritage

There are no listed heritage items within the study area, recent heritage assessments within the vicinity of the study area at the Oakdale South Estate uncovered archaeological remains of the property known as ‘Lockwood’ (Artefact Heritage 2015). The homestead was built by one of the earliest land grants owners’ brother after his death in 1820. A structure is marked on a 1906 map of the Parish of Melville showing the location of the archaeological site of the ‘Lockwood Estate’. Within the study area a structure is marked with the same symbol as the adjacent Lockwood homestead (Figure 7.2). This could indicate the potential for archaeological remains to be present within the study area. There is no record of a homestead being built in the Mount Philo land grant.

Figure 7.2: Reconnaissance map of the neighbourhood Liverpool camp 1906 (Source - Trove)

Page 31

8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This report has provided a preliminary and constraints level assessment. The study area has been assessed as having varying levels of archaeological potential dependent on the degree of disturbance (Figure 7.1). Parts of the study area have been assessed as having either high, moderate or low Aboriginal archaeological sensitivity, based on predictive modelling, previous disturbance, and desktop research. An area of potential non-Aboriginal archaeological potential may be present within the study area (Figure 7.2).

The following recommendations regarding Aboriginal heritage are based on consideration of:

• Statutory requirements under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 as amended • Due Diligence Code of Practice for the Protection of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales (Department of Environment Climate Change and Water 2010) • The results of background research, site inspection and assessment • The likely impacts of the proposed development.

8.1 Conclusions

It was found that:

8.2 Recommendations

• This report may be used to inform development planning for the study area. • Based on the findings it is recommended that further assessment will be required for both Aboriginal cultural heritage and non-Aboriginal heritage and would be required to support any future development application within the study area.

Page 32

• It is recommended that an Aboriginal archaeological survey in accordance with the Code of Practice for Archaeological Investigation of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales (Code of Practice) (Department of Environment, Climate Change & Water [DECCW] 2010a). Consultation with the local Aboriginal land council must be undertaken to establish whether Aboriginal archaeological sites, PADs or values are present within the study area. Further archaeological assessment such as test excavation may required.

• It is recommended that further historical archaeological assessment be undertaken in accordance with the following guidelines: o The Burra Charter (Australia ICOMOS 2013)

o Assessing heritage significance (NSW Heritage Office 2001) o Assessing significance for historical archaeological sites and ‘relics’ (Heritage Branch 2009).

• Unexpected Aboriginal objects remain protected by the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 . If any such objects, or potential objects, are uncovered in the course of future activities, all work in the vicinity must cease immediately. A qualified archaeologist should be contacted to assess the find and the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) and Deerrubbin LALC must be notified.

• If human remains, or suspected human remains, are found in the course of the activity, all work in the vicinity must cease, the site must be secured, and the NSW Police and OEH must be notified.

Page 33

REFERENCES

AMBS 2007. Historical Archaeological Assessment and Heritage Management Strategy; Oakdale Concept Plan, Kemps Creek, NSW. Report prepared for Goodman

Appleton Archaeological Surveys & Reports Pty Ltd 2002. The Archaeological Investigation of Lot 2, DP 120673, the site of a proposed new clay and shale extraction area-Old Wallgrove Road, Horsley Park, west of Sydney, NSW. Report prepared for Austral Brick Company Pty Ltd

Artefact Heritage 2015. Oakdale South Industrial Estate Aboriginal Archaeological Survey Report, Report to AT&L

Artefact Heritage 2015. Oakdale South Industrial Estate Archaeological Test Excavation Report, Report to Goodman International Ltd.

Attenbrow, V. 2010. Sydney’s Aboriginal Past: Investigating the Archaeological and Historical Records University of New South Wales Press Ltd, Sydney.

Benson, D, & Howell, J 1990. Taken for Granted: The bushland of Sydney and its suburbs Sydney, Kangaroo Press (in association) with the Royal Botanic Gardens

Department of Environment, Climate Change & Water 2010. Due Diligence Code of Practice for Archaeological Investigation of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales .

Department of Environment, Climate Change & Water 2010a. Code of Practice for Archaeological Investigation of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales .

Tindale, N.B. 1974. Aboriginal Tribes of Australia . ANU, Canberra Godden Mackay Logan Heritage Consultants 2007. Oakdale Concept Plan, Aboriginal Heritage Assessment and Impact Statement. Report for Goodman International Ltd

Godden Mackay Logan Heritage Consultants 2013. Oakdale Central, Aboriginal Archaeological Technical Report. Report prepared for Goodman Property Services (Aust) Ltd

Holder, R. F. 'Campbell, John Thomas (1770–1830)'. Australian Dictionary of Biography, National Centre of Biography, Australian National University, http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/campbell-john- thomas-1873/text2191, published first in hardcopy 1966, accessed online 5 September 2018

JMcDCHM (2004), Heritage Conservation Strategy for Aboriginal Sites in the Lands Owned by Austral Bricks P/L, Hartford Lane P/L, Jacfin P/L and Tesrol P/L i the Eastern Creek Business Park (Stage 3) Precinct Plan Blacktown, NSW. Report prepared for APP Corporation Pty Ltd,

JMcDCHM 2005. Archaeological Subsurface Investigations at Austral 4 (#45-5-3076), the M7 Hub, Old Wallgrove Road, Horsley Drive. Report to Macquarie Goodman

Karskens, G. 2010. The Colony: a history of early Sydney. Crow’s Nest, N.S.W., Allen & Unwin.

Kohen, J.L. 1986. An Archaeological Study of Aboriginal Sites Within the City of Blacktown, Blacktown City Council.

Matthews, R.H. and Everitt, M.M. 1900. "The organisation, language and initiation ceremonies of the Aborigines of the south-east coast of N.S. Wales." Journal and Proceedings of the Royal Society of NSW 34: 262-281.

Page 34

McDonald, J. 2007. Indigenous Heritage Impact Statement Western Sydney Parklands: Bungarribee Precinct Project. Jo McDonald Cultural Heritage Management, Report prepared for APP on behalf of Landcom and DoP.

Office of Environment and Heritage 2014. NSW Soil and Land Information. eSpade, from http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/eSpadeWebapp/.

Thorp, W. 1986. ‘Historical Archaeological Component’ in Fox and Associates. 1991. Heritage Study of the city of Penrith, Volume 2, Appendix D. Unpublished report to Penrith City Council.

Yarwood, A. T, 'Johnston, George (1764–1823)', Australian Dictionary of Biography, National Centre of Biography, Australian National University, http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/johnston-george- 2277/text2925, published first in hardcopy 1967, accessed online 13 September 2018.

Page 35