ATTACHMENTS FOR: AGENDA NO. 15/13 Works and Community Committee

Meeting Date: Tuesday 15 October 2013 Location: Committee Room 1, Level 5, Civic Centre, 1 Devlin Street, Ryde Time: 5.00pm

ATTACHMENTS FOR WORKS AND COMMUNITY COMMITTEE

Item Page

2 ADOPTION OF THE BRUSH FARM AND LAMBERT PARK MASTERPLAN AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT PLAN Attachment 3 Council Report Attachment Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park Masterplan 25 September 2013 For Adoption ...... 1 Attachment 4 Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park Archaeological Management Plan - For Adoption...... 95

ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 1

Masterplan Report

Brush Farm and Lambert Park Masterplan Report

25 September 2013 For Adoption

F A C T O R Y 7 ARCHITECTS ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 2

our company

Empowered by NATURE, Controlled by DESIGN Sym. studio is an Australian owned company operating locally and internationally. Our business

culture and methodology utilises internationally recognised best practice standards and

processes. We off er a combination of landscape architecture, urban design and placemaking

services. Our high quality outputs refl ect a full exploration of the alternatives, giving us a deeper

understanding of the site context and allowing us to deliver functional and meaningful places for

people. We utilise the most appropriate expertise for each project and within the studio

environment we foster a spirit of excellence appropriate to the task at hand. The studio follows

ethical practice standards where a sense of stewardship and belonging permeates into our

operational methodology. ‘Internationally recognised, worlds best practice standards and processes’

The masterplan report was prepared by sym studio in conjunction with: Factory 7 Architects NFS Consulting Musecape Cumberland Ecology

This masterplan report document is a draft and is intended as a source of information. While every care has been taken in compiling the information contained herein neither the authors nor the publishers can be held responsible for any faults to the suggestions off ered. The reader is advised to consult with The City of Ryde. Copyright text © sym studio pty ltd. 2012 Copyright images © sym studio pty ltd. 2012 (unless otherwise credited)

Cover Images by sym studio ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 3

Contents

Executive Summary 5 Introduction 9 Methodology 10

Masterplan 15 01 Context/The Story 17 02 Analysis and Opportunities 19 03 Stakeholder Consultation 31 04 Guiding Principles 34 05 Landscape Masterplan 37 06 Masterplan Framework 43 07 Recommendations 63 08 Implementation 65 09 Resources 66

Appendices 67 Appendix A - Community Consultation

3 ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 4

This page has been intentionally left blank

SYM STUDIO AND FACTORY 7 FOR ADOPTION 4 ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 5

Executive Summary Vision Statement Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park has the potential to become a cultural centerpiece for protection, recreation and learning. Its dramatic topography provides an ideal natural setting for people of all ages and abilities to experience early Australian commercial farming practices within a highly sensitive natural environment - rarely seen elsewhere in Australia. Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park (The Park) disguise many hidden artifacts and features that are not fully appreciated due to vehicular congestion and uncertainty over the possible state road connection over Rutledge Reserve. Historically this distraction has diverted attention away from this valuable asset - both from a cultural heritage and environmental perspective. The Park contains critically endangered ecological communities, which support rare critically endangered plant species as well as very important reference to early Australian commercial farming practices, and many additional layers of cultural heritage. The Parks also contain important connections as vegetation corridors and as a physical connection to Brush Farm House. This Masterplan Report coupled in part with the Plan of Management, establishes a concise graphical language, designed to respect, protect, educate and celebrate this cultural and environmental sink located in a highly urbanised environment that is surrounded and well served by an engaged and caring community. The City of Ryde has an opportunity to lay the foundation for future generations.

Aerial Perspective

Spectator Seating

Illustrative Masterplan Lawson Street Stairs SYM STUDIO AND FACTORY 7 FOR ADOPTION 5 ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 6

The Masterplan Components The Masterplan Report establishes clear and concise guidelines to ensure The Park is able to reach its full potential. By following these recommendations in conjunction with the PoM, Council can manage and maintain the site with a clear understanding of the ultimate goal. The masterplan process categorises the many Park elements into six decipherable layers according to their overall contribution to the open space context. These components can be easily understood and supported by all levels of government and used as a tool for managers to prioritise capital works projects, maintenance projects and guide future development in both the medium and long term.

Components

Character Zones Natural Systems Circulation

Landscape Places and Facilities Storytelling

CITY OF RYDE BRUSH FARM AND LAMBERT PARK MASTERPLAN 6 ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 7

Part A - Introduction and Methodology ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 8

This page has been intentionally left blank

SYM STUDIO AND FACTORY 7 FOR ADOPTION 8 ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 9

Introduction

In 2009, Council adopted the Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park Plan of Management (PoM) and listed as a priority was the preparation of a masterplan (p.28). In April 2012 Council engaged sym. studio to prepare a masterplan for Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park (The Park). Councils intention for the masterplan was to build upon the PoM in conjunction with the archeological assessment documents prepared for The Park and provide greater detail and practicable management guidelines. The masterplan will act as a guide for future management whilst recognising The Park important role as a valued recreation and green space for the City of Ryde. Community consultation was an important component of the masterplan process in providing reliable and rigorous information. Feedback was collected from associated groups and local residents and used to inform the decision making process. Stakeholder groups include: Heritage Advisory Committee, Brush Farm Park Bushland Preservation Group, Ryde Hunters Hill Flora and Fauna Preservation Society, Brush Farm Historical Society and the Brush Farm Bushland Management Working Group. Tenant /user groups include: NSW Dept. of Corrective Services, Eastwood /Ryde Netball Association, Brush Farm Dog Training Club, Northern District Cricket Association, Brush Park Scouts and Eastwood Girl Guides. The physical extent of works for the masterplan is located along the dedicated property line. However, in order to fully appreciate the infl uences of the site a broader understanding outside of the property line was required. The area of infl uence extends as far as Macquarie Park to the The purpose of this east, Parramatta to the west, Parramatta River to the South and Terry Road to the north and includes the water catchment area. This broader context report: understanding results in a masterplan that fully responds to the PoM strategies and satisfi es Council objectives. • Illustrate Plan of Management • Accommodate Community Consultation • Provide a Hierarchy of Open Space • Provide Link to Estate Heritage Asset • Protect Bushland Setting • Guide Future Park Management • Integrate Archaeological Assessment

Masterplan Methodology Flow Chart CITY OF RYDE BRUSH FARM AND LAMBERT PARK MASTERPLAN 9 ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 10

Methodology

Project initiation (Phase 1) Base fi les and background material from Council was made available, which included hardcopy versions of superseded material, electronic survey fi le for Brush Farm, Aerial Photograph (1943) and relevant planning documents. Following identifi cation of research focus areas, alternative sources of information and base fi les were sourced from a variety of sources including desktop search, Google Earth Images, City of Ryde archives and various stakeholders. Draft Masterplan (Phase 2) consisted of extensive consultation with stakeholders, user groups, the general community and Council staff . During this phase a working draft plan evolved and itemised proposed elements in order to solicit specifi c responses from those involved in the process. There were between ten and twenty elements that were presented to the various interest groups. The formal draft masterplan was then presented to Council for approval prior to public exhibition. Final Masterplan (Phase 3) is compiled once the public exhibition process has been concluded. This process involved integrating comments and revising the draft masterplan accordingly. Regional Review The Parks are located at the western edge of the City of Ryde. As outlined in the 2009 Plan of Management (City of Ryde), Brush Farm Park is classifi ed as Crown Land and was dedicated for the purpose of Public Recreation. Lambert Park is owned by City of Ryde and is dedicated for the purpose Public Recreation Space. The Parks currently provide complimentary facilities to Meadowbank Park which caters to twenty-eight netball hard courts with associated lighting. Pedestrian and bicycle linkages and trails through The Park do not form part of any city wide links but rather a north- south trail connection from Brush Farm Park to the Ryde River Walk. Bicycle connections include a combination of road and shared footpath, running north south on the eastern edge of the park along Brush Road, which continues to connect with Terry Road running east west.

Planning Process CITY OF RYDE BRUSH FARM AND LAMBERT PARK MASTERPLAN 10 ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 11

Heritage Research The purpose of the Heritage research was to build upon the PoM, to consider previous recommendations and to propose ways to interpret the cultural signifi cance of The Parks. Within the current literature there was no specifi c reference to The Park’s Aboriginal signifi cance, however it is assumed that due to The Park’s elevated position along a natural ridgeline and the rainforest vegetation that it is likely Aboriginal people would have once travelled along these routes. Early European settlement has been well documented, particularly the estate known as Brush Farm House and its surrounding curtilage, which provides an important link to Australia’s national identity. There is a comprehensive body of specifi c information, which informed the masterplan process. Specifi c reports include; Brush Farm Estate Landscape and Archeology Assessment (Britton et al, 2004), Brush Farm House, Interpretive Plan (Musecape, 2007) and Archeology Assessment, Brush Farm Park (Steele, 2013) Additional information was provided by Councils Heritage and Urban Planning department, the Brush Farm Historical Society and the National Trust of Australia. As part of this masterplan Christopher Betteridge from Musecape reviewed the report material and provided guidance in reference to the relevant local and state policies and the implications on the heritage and cultural strategy employed for this masterplan.

Landscape Ryde 2030 &Archaeology Community Ryde Flora and Integrated Open Assessment Fauna Study Space Plan Refer to Strategic Plan Resource Page (2004) (2008) (2006) (2012)

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park Plan of Mangement (2009)

Stakeholder Consultation

Illustriative Masterplan Masterplan Report

Masterplan Context SYM STUDIO AND FACTORY 7 FOR ADOPTION 11 ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 12

Environment Research The environmental research aim was to build upon the PoM and other research material, to evaluate possible impacts of the proposed masterplan on the existing bushland areas and consider ways to improve environmental performance, by aligning outcomes with local, state and national policies. A number of factors were to be considered including critically endangered plant species, water quality, endangered ecological community, and bush fi re protection. Background information provided included; Flora and Fauna Study (Biosphere, 2006), Bushcare Management Strategy (City of Ryde, 2009) Engagement Brief for Bush Regeneration and Natural Areas Services, (City of Ryde, 2010) and a baseline fl ora and fauna study undertaken in the 1990’s. Additional information was provided by Councils Bushcare department, the Bushland Management Working Group and the Hunters Hill Flora and Fauna Preservation Society. As part of this masterplan Cumberland Ecology provided guidance in reference to the relevant local, state and federal policies and the potential implications on the environment that might be considered, as part of the masterplan process. Stakeholder Consultation Community. The overall community consultation approach was to gather information from stakeholders early in the process rather than presenting preconceived ideas to the community. It was designed to feed into the masterplan process for a duration of approximately six weeks June/July 2012. NFS Consulting facilitated a total of fi ve intimate focus groups with stakeholders and user groups as well as on site interviews with users. Discussion guides were prepared prior to the meetings and included topics such as current usage; how The Park is valued; things to be retained; things to be improved and themes for consideration in the masterplan. Capturing the key themes that were important the user groups and stakeholders was a high priority to empower the design team to make evidence based decisions when preparing the masterplan. Following on from the individual focus groups, a combined stakeholder meeting was to be held to present preliminary design ideas and allow stakeholders and user groups to comment on the individual components of the working draft masterplan. A combined information session, which included the general public was held on the 26th of July 2012. During the public exhibition period, the key stakeholders were off ered a consultation session with the consultant team to discuss the masterplan and any concerns they had. This off er was accepted by the Heritage Advisory Group. The consultant team presented and discussed the Masterplan with this Group on 17 April 2013. Council. A council working group was established early in the masterplan process. Two meetings were held in sequence with the community consultation program. Relevant council departments represented included: open space, heritage and strategic planning, bushcare, public works (landscape/design), sport and recreation, natural areas, environmental planning and traffi c. Within the facilitation of these workshops individual participants provided specifi c responses to each session in the form of worksheets and questionnaires. Capture of key themes was a high priority to empower the consultancy team to make evidence based decisions in preparing the masterplan.

CITY OF RYDE BRUSH FARM AND LAMBERT PARK MASTERPLAN 12 ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 13

Analysis and Opportunities Information gained through research, stakeholder engagement and site visits was compiled into design opportunities for The Park in the initial phase of the masterplan. Nine analysis plans were created that analyse existing site features. From here six opportunity plans were created that represented our Initial ideas for The Park. These six opportunities do not represent a fi nished product but rather potential for further design development throughout the masterplan process. Masterplan Response The masterplan comes as a direct response to the evidence gained through thorough analysis and research. This evidence directly determined the guiding principles of the masterplan. The guiding principles were then used to make evidence based design decisions and ensure that the masterplan meets community expectations and addresses the needs of the site.

Research Stakeholder Analysis & Response Consultation Opportunities PRINCIPLES

Masterplan Illustriative Report Masterplan

Masterplan Report Strucutre SYM STUDIO AND FACTORY 7 FOR ADOPTION 13 ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 14

This page has been intentionally left blank

SYM STUDIO AND FACTORY 7 FOR ADOPTION 14 ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 15

Part B - Masterplan Report ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 16

This page has been intentionally left blank

SYM STUDIO AND FACTORY 7 FOR ADOPTION 16 ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 17

01 Context / The Story

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park At the western edge of the City of Ryde, Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park (The Park) occupy a combined area of approximately 10 hectares within the suburb of Eastwood. The main entry point into The Park is off Lawson Street and are divided by the unmade portion of Rutledge Road. The creek system comprises the east and west tributaries to Archers Creek and enters a closed drainage system underneath Lambert Park. The Park is characterised by signifi cant areas of bushland, steep gullies, permanent creeks, expanses of grassed playing fi elds, sports courts, pathways, managed lawn, small playground and amenity buildings. The Park is a highly signifi cant cultural and natural landscape resource. In geological terms The Park has a transitional location, “between two major geological formations within the Sydney Bioregion, the Hornsby Plateau, on Wianamatta Shale and Cumberland Plain. The geology has created a habitat suitable for the survival of rare and endangered plant species associated with the Sydney Turpentine-Iron bark Forest within Brush Farm Park” (City of Ryde, 2009). The Park has a rich and well documented European cultural history. Whilst there is no physical evidence to suggest that Brush Farm Park was inhabited or used by Indigenous Australians prior to European settlement, the geography and the existence of a watercourse suggests that this may have been utilised as resource for food and water. This land formed part of the Wallumedegal territory (City of Ryde, 2009). European settlement of this area began in 1794 with Lands granted by the crown to soldiers and ex-convicts. William Cox farm was sold to Gregory Blaxland in 1807. In 1921 Blaxland had three and a half acres under vines and the wine he produced he carried to England where he was awarded a medal for ‘good marketable’ quality wine’. In 1828 Blaxland described his vineyard on the side of a very steep hill (Britton, 2004). Progressive subdivision and development alienated the majority of the former Brush Farm Estate from the more intensely cultivated part of the farm. In 1894 it was recorded that the orchard was between 30 and 40 acres (Britton, 2004). Additional uses of the Estate included a Home for Boys and a Home for Mentally Defi cient Children (girls) that are wards of the state (Britton, 2004). The Park is located in an urbanised environment enclosed and fragmented by state managed roads, providing a crucial linkage between Macquarie Park and Parramatta. The main vehicular route deviates around the immediate edge of Brush Farm Park; having a major impact on The Park in terms of vehicular and pedestrian access, parking, noise disturbance and stormwater runoff . Since before the 1970’s there has been a desire to utilise the current Rutledge Road Reserve to extend a direct link through and over the current habitat corridor which connects the two parks. In 1973 a group of concerned local residents formed to protest successfully against the continuation of Rutlidge Road. This group of dedicated residents continues to volunteer in the weed eradication, vegetation and natural areas restoration. Since early European settlement photographic evidence demonstrates that Brush Farm Park provided an important active recreational setting. The natural topography and largely cleared hillside would have been well suited to a gently sloping sports fi eld used for sports including cricket. Presently these characteristics make Brush Farm Park a unique and highly valued multi-use recreational setting, utilised by many diff erent user groups off ering important community services. Lambert Park makes up the southern half of The Park which was previously used as a quarry, accessed via Rutledge Street. This activity likely exacerbated the erosion problems, experienced before land rehabilitation and creek stabilisation works were completed in the early 1990’s and early 2000’s. The earliest aerial photograph (1943) demonstrates that a signifi cant portion of Brush Farm Park has since developed a closed canopy formation. After 1943, saw a change in use of the park from agriculture to community land. The cessation of agricultural practices may have allowed natural regeneration within the remnant vegetation. There is evidence to suggest that assisted natural regeneration has occurred on the perimeter of the vegetation remnant. Most recently the main sports fi eld has undergone some minor regrading and re-turfi ng which has concentrated the eff ects of stormwater runoff during signifi cant rainfall events.

SYM STUDIO AND FACTORY 7 FOR ADOPTION 17 ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 18 Part A Masterplan

Today The Park comprises various elements that are protected by various levels of local, state and federal legislation. Council as managers of The Park have identifi ed the need to protect and program the various elements and activities to ensure a sustainable approach is adopted in the future management of The Park.

Macquaire Park

Brush Farm Park

Parramatta Parramatta River

Sydney Context Regional Context

Farmland Heritage Site Community Engagement

Recognise The Park’s “modern function as a “Lifestyle and recreation and valued opportunity @ your green space for the City doorstep” of Ryde.”

Open Space Unique Natural Environs People of Ryde

CITY OF RYDE BRUSH FARM AND LAMBERT PARK MASTERPLAN 18 ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 19

02 Analysis and Opportunities

Ecological Document Review (Britton, 2004) Document Review. Key referenced information was sourced from but was not limited to the following documents; City of Ryde Plan of Management (1990), Britton Landscape and Archeology Assessment for the former Brush Farm Estate, (2004); Biosphere Ryde Flora and Fauna Study (2006); City of Ryde, Plan of Management (2009); Biosphere Ryde Flora and Fauna Study (2006); City of Ryde, Integrated Open Space Plan - draft (2012); City of Ryde Parks on Track for People 2025, (2009); Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology, Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park Archaeological Management Plan (2013). Regulation Review. Refer City of Ryde, Plan of Management (2009), 3.1-3.4.6; Britton Landscape and Archeology Assessment (2004) for the former Brush Farm Estate, 5.5 p.27

Shale-based rainforest. This represents a surviving fragment of the ‘Brush’ that Brush Farm was named after. Denotes sclerophylious vegetation with remnants of Blue Gum High Forest. Heritage - Terracing Heritage - View Corridors

(Britton, 2004) (Britton, 2004)

Heritage - View Corridors

Denotes areas within Brush Farm Park and northern Current views out from the lower level (verandah) Lambert Park where there is evidence of old hand- include views to Parramatta River and beyond. formed terracing. Simulated views from the upper level (balcony & windows) adds views to the east & west across Parramatta & Blue Mountains. SYM STUDIO AND FACTORY 7 FOR ADOPTION 19 ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 20

Site Visit Designers Perspective. The Parks when assessed from its main entry on Lawson Street is a nondescript suburban park typical of Sydney. Characterised by open lawn, scattered amenity buildings, dense native bushland. The Park gives few visual cues to its local context. Apart from the resurfacing of the open grass sports fi eld there is little evidence of any recent upgrades that would typically entice new visitors into The Park. Main access is via vehicle, since the busy roads on the perimeter preclude reasonable access on foot or bicycle. The close proximity of intensely used road with crumbling asphalt edges draining towards the park likely exasperate sediment and stormwater pollution issues further downstream. Once in The Park, and out of your vehicle there can be an appreciation Main Entry of the spaces. The visual connection to Brush Farm House from the open lawn sports fi eld represents the only cultural heritage interpretation currently present within The Park. Adjacent to the carpark also sits the dated amenity buildings including a combined toilet block and kiosk. In very close proximity is a more recent brick building, comparable in style to a large private residential home. Slightly obscured and further away is another smaller brick building - the meticulously maintained dog obedience clubhouse and associated facilities. Dominating the sloping and sprawling carpark are a handful of large native trees which appear visibly stressed due to the large expanse of asphalt over most of their critical root zone. Immediately adjoining the main entry car park to the west is a large expanse of hardcourt sports surface and solid concrete spectator viewing Hardcourt Sports Courts area. The relatively high galvanised metal mesh fencing at the perimeter of the courts obstructs the view of the closed canopy bushland beyond. To the east and partially obstructed by the toilet block and kiosk is the large open space lawn area that is the centrepiece of the structured sports amenity area. Due to the slope of the carpark and rough terrain of the area, elderly and disabled access provision is minimal. Inspecting the edges of the carpark and cleared areas there is existing no signage to indicate a connection to the bushland areas or a connection to Lambert Park. Reference to any specifi c signifi cant vegetation is non- existant. The only clue is the large tree canopies in the carpark which once would have formed a corridor - now severed by the scout building. Searching out the bushland connections on the edge of the predominantly Existing Kiosk and Toilets closed canopy, the steep narrow trails - often slippery, eventually lead down approximately 100m in to Lambert Park. There is a maze of interconnected paths which cross over the two steep interconnected streams that join near Rutlidge Road Reserve. The dense canopy cover, moist undergrowth and steep shale soils is largely a man modifi ed environment, highlighted by raised utility pipes and concrete inspection points. Large boulder weirs and armoured creek beds are further evidence of this and treated pine steps, footbridges, domestic pool fencing and random boundary treatments further highlight the incremental steps of protecting and rehabilitation this bushland. The trails give little indication of direction and

Scout Building

CITY OF RYDE BRUSH FARM AND LAMBERT PARK MASTERPLAN 20 ITEM 2 (continued) Analysis ATTACHMENT 3

Built Form Circulation - Pedestrian Circulation - Vehicular Services Page

Site Furniture and Interpretation Soil Disturbance Stormwater Maintenance Considerations 21

SYM STUDIO AND FACTORY 7 FOR ADOPTION 21 ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 22

due to the enclosed physical environment there are few reference points or visual markers to assist in orientation or interpretation of the critically endangered species contained within. When searching out the specimen remnant vegetation within the bushland area, it becomes evident that there are several stands of remnant vegetation as opposed to the extensive patches of well established, regrowth vegetation dominated by Eucalyptus saligna (Sydney Blue Gum). These remnant stands are predominantly Ironbarks and Syncarpia glomulifera (Turpentine). It is presumed that these impressive clusters are an unquestionable highlight together with the critically endangered specimens assumed to be concealed for their protection. The southern end of The Park, known as Lambert Park off ers opportunities Bushland Trails for passive recreation. Lambert Park is accessible by pedestrian and service vehicle only and is not defi ned by a main entry point. Access to Lambert park is via local roads with limited kerb side parking and minor pedestrian access points service local residence. Lambert Park is characterised by its modifi ed natural state including concrete low fl ow stormwater channels traversing the upper extents of the park with mainly scattered regrowth vegetation and revegetated open sandstone channels extending to the lower and southern extent of the park. A brick community building used by the Girl Guides Association addresses brush road - a sealed narrow road providing access to private lots as well as emergency and service vehicles accessing Lambert Park and lower reaches of Brush Farm Park. Remnant Vegetation

Analysis - Legend Built Form Circulation - P Circulation - V

Interpretation Services Site Furniture Modifi ed Creek

Soil Disturbance Stormwater Maintenance

Modifi ed Creek

SYM STUDIO AND FACTORY 7 FOR ADOPTION 23 ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 23

Key Challenges The representation and physical arrangement of the masterplan must maintain the integrity of The Park on three levels. Firstly carefully consider matters of cultural and heritage matters including ‘evidence of early intensive agriculture’ (2004 Britton,Lavelle, Morris) and ‘A highly signifi cant cultural and natural landscape resource exists beyond the building of Brush Farm House which includes rare remnant vineyard terracing of exceptional national heritage signifi cance (partly in coincidence with a largely intact early homestead)’ (NSW Heritage Offi ce) . Secondly while balancing the need to protect ‘unique and rare gully rainforest that is not found elsewhere in northern Sydney or the Cumberland plain’ (Benson and Howell, 1994; Oculus, 1999; Kubiak, 2005; Biosphere 2006). Thirdly the demands and expectations associated with an urban district park including sport and recreation, accessibility, ancillary amenities, security, and economic and environmental sustainability.

Brush Farm House Heritage View Corridor The reinstatement of the view corridor from Brush Farm House to the Parra River is a contentious issue amongst various stakeholder groups. The view from the balcony of the house is regarded by heritage groups is highly signifi cant. Some references suggest that it was this view that determined the location of Blaxlands Homestead, providing a visual connection to the river and the ability to view visitors as they approached the property. Conversely, the naming of Brush Farm Park suggests a linkage or signifi cance to the Brush or remnant vegetation that exists within Brush Farm Park. Further it is argued that prior to European settlement there was no view to the river and that the visual connection was only made possible once the land had been cleared for agricultural use. These confl icting values of the site have provided a challenge in the decision making process and hence a compromise between the two must be made. Prior to the instatement of the view corridor an ecological assessment will be required to ascertain the value of the vegetation that exists within the proposed view corridor in relation to the rest of the vegetation within The Park. This will be required to fulfi l the requirements under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and address the concerns relating to impacts on the Critically Endangered Ecological Community and any fauna species that may inhabit the vegetation planned for removal. Off set plantings for an alternate location will be incorporated into the planning of the view corridor instatement and the species composition for replacement plantings will be like for like. Key Points used to defi ne the View Corridor and its ongoing management • View point is taken from eye level (approximately a height of 1.5 metres) when standing at the centre of the second storey balcony of Brush Farm House. • Vegetation within the line of the view corridor, as shown on Page ### is to be managed to prevent growth above an RL of 99.5m. This allows vegeation of up to 5 meters in height to be planted at the Point A on Page ## of this masterplan. However, any vegetation that is planted in this area that grows beyond a height of 5 metres will be pruned / removed and replaced with suitable lower growing species.

CITY OF RYDE BRUSH FARM AND LAMBERT PARK MASTERPLAN 24 ITEM 2 (continued)

See Insert for Detail

View Point is taken from eye level (approximately a height of 1.5 metres) when standing at the centre of the second storey balcony of Brush ATTACHMENT Farm House.

Line of the View Corridor

Line of the View Corridor 3

POINT A Vegetation that is planted in this area must not exceed a height of 5 metres. Any vegetation that is planted in this area that grows beyond a height of 5 metres will be pruned / removed and replaced with lower growing species.

Line of the View Corridor

Line of the View Corridor Page

Heritage View Corridor - Broad View Heritage View Corridor - Park Focused View 24

SYM STUDIO AND FACTORY 7 FOR ADOPTION 25 ITEM 2 (continued)

Key Challenges:

• Minimise surface disturbance to preserve likely cultural artifacts • Maintain protection of critically ATTACHMENT endangered plant species • Improve access into and through The Park • Delineate culturally signifi cant view corridor • Enhance the visitor experience through connectivity and 3 interpretation to Brush Farm Estate • Maximise multi-use facilities and minimise disruption to existing sport and recreational programs • Value add solutions for Council that consider the possibility to extend Rutledge Road in the Page The yellow box illustrates Britton’s (2004) interpretation of historic view corridor as seen by Gregory Blaxland. The black box illustrates view corridor negotiated during the community consultation process

Heritage View Corridor 25

SYM STUDIO AND FACTORY 7 FOR ADOPTION 27 ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 26

Opportunities The key opportunities of the site are a refl ection of the unique character of The Park. As far back as records exist for this site, there has been intense use of The Park due to its natural attributes. For this reason it reamins a intensely popular site that has attracted great interest and stringent protection measures. It should also be recognised that due to its popularity it now refl ects many equally important values. The Council working group, as experts in programming urban open spaces, have collected evidence, evaluated values and have rationalised opportunities based on a combination of research, site analysis and experience . The opportunities for the future should seek to be sustainable by attracting state and federal funding, to protect and add value to the site for the next 10-20 years. Opportunities Legend Built Form Storytelling Circulation - p Parking View Corridor WSUD

Built Form Storytelling Circulation - Pedestrian

Parking View Corridor Water Sensitive Urban Design

SYM STUDIO AND FACTORY 7 FOR ADOPTION 29 ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 27

Key Opportunities:

• Defi ne and demarcate The Park edge • Utilise the naturally diverse terrain Provide signifi cant sense of arrival • Utilise good solar access • Utilise modifi ed and damaged land • Build on heritage carrige road alignment • Utilise steep escarpment to maintain a permanent middle distant view • Use photographic evidence to Improve access, linkages and circulation interprete cultural heritage • Protect existing remnant vegetation (Turpentine / Ironbark) and re-establish bushland corridors for creation of habitats • Improve environmental performance of built form • Improve quality of stormwater Improve environmental performance of built form runoff and capture rainfall for re-use • Provide a signifi cant sense of arrival at main entry and establish greater connectivity into The Park • Improve signage, education and interpretation • Improve access, linkage and circulation within The Park Utilise the naturally diverse terrain • Combine Ecological and Heritage awareness

Combine ecological and heritage awareness

CITY OF RYDE BRUSH FARM AND LAMBERT PARK MASTERPLAN 30 ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 28

03 Stakeholder Consultation

Stakeholder engagement comprised both community and Council input. ‘Community’ consultation included general public, interest groups, user groups and tenants of The Parks. Community There is a strong community connection with The Park and deep level of custodianship, which ensures that decisions concerning management are met with robust discussion. The Brush Farm Estate has a well recorded history of contribution to the prosperity of the local area and its cultural contribution to Australia as a nation. There exists a reciprocal relationship between the enjoyment of the community use areas and an attitude of good will and compromise to ensure The Park reach its full potential. Bushcare volunteers have been improving the bushland in Brush Farm Park for approximately 35 years. In 1981 the bushcare volunteers suggested recommendations which were adopted by Council as an interim management plan. This group of volunteers continues their long term commitment to the management of the Park and have infl uenced Council’s management of the bushland. Since the early 1990’s, these volunteers have managed to clear most of the noxious weeds in the park, allowing areas to regenerate, with plantings being done in the more degraded areas. Contract bush regeneration in the park is continuing to build on the work done by the members of the community. During the stakeholder consultation phase, where possible The Parks interest/user groups were grouped into three focus groups according to their broad areas of interest. 1. Bushland Focus Group: Brush Farm Park Bushland Preservation Group, Brush Farm Park, Brush Farm Park Bushland Management Working Group Scout Group 2. Sports Focus Group: Eastwood/Ryde Netball Association, Northern District Cricket Association and Brush Farm Dog Training Club. 3. Heritage Focus Group: Brush Farm Historical Society, Eastwood Girl Guides, Ryde Hunters Hill Flora and Fauna Preservation Society and the National Trust of Australia. Community Findings Natural Systems. They key features of the natural systems that are appreciated and valued by stakeholders are: rainforest species; critically endangered ecological communities; the gullies; and the creeks. The natural systems were valued so highly by the bush care groups that suggestions to introduce more opportunities for visitors to appreciate them were met with disdain. This included the idea of a canopy walk, and the associated concerns of

Landscape Bushland Sports Heritage

Bushland Heritage Sports

Focus Groups: Comfortable

Inexpensive • Bushland

Child-friendly • Sports

Social • Heritage Versatile Youthful

SYM STUDIO AND FACTORY 7 FOR ADOPTION 31 ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 29

the impact on the bushland, particularly during its construction. There was also serious concern about the impact on the bushland of increasing the numbers of walking tracks through the site. Identity and Character. Despite this common ground, each of the main stakeholder groups valued particular aspects of the identity and character of The Parks. The Bushland Management Group appreciated The Parks for its unique ecological environments and the peaceful ambiance. The historical and heritage groups appreciate the cultural heritage of the site, in particular the cultural heritage of Gregory Blaxland and Aboriginal site uses. As might be expected, the sports groups who use The Parks for social and physical activities value the area for the range of facilities and activities it supports. In particular sports training facilities good for young children newly introduced to netball and cricket and easy access from surrounding suburbs. Access and Connectivity. Issues relating to access and connectivity were of greater importance to stakeholder groups who undertook activities on site and needed ease of access to the site and within it - mainly the scouts and girl guides. All stakeholder groups felt that The Parks are uninviting and access into is diffi cult. All stakeholder groups also agreed that parking was a problem as well lack of disabled access and confusion of access within the site. There was a consensus view amongst all stakeholder groups that the existing walking tracks are centrally located and adequately cater for people to move about the site by foot. Restoration of view corridor. The issue of reinstating historic views from Brush Farm House was a vexed one and the argument is long-standing. The cultural heritage groups believed it was important to reinstate the view from Brush Farm House to the Parramatta River. However, the bushland management and preservation groups were strongly against removing any vegetation to do this, and preferred using photography or other interpretative tools to acknowledge views from the House. Apart from the cultural heritage, other stakeholders did not feel that the restoration of the view corridor was necessary. Maintenance. There was reportedly wear and tear of the grass on the netball courts and it was the belief of the Dog Training Club that the wrong type of turf was used for fi eld resurfacing. The amount of work undertaken by the Bushland Management Group to maintain and preserve the natural bushland was acknowledged and appreciated by all stakeholder groups. The volunteer work put into the bushland maintenance should be acknowledged and any necessary changes to areas they have planted or maintained will need to be carefully and sensitively explained. The toilets can get congested when being used at capacity during matches. The additional toilets around the side of the building are dark and secluded. It is important that the Masterplan includes the provision of new toilets that are well lit, well positioned, and have disabled access. Activities /Programming. Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park support a broad range of activities that all co-exist in a complementary way. The range of activities and their current programming in The Parks. Various programming includes Saturday morning netball (winter) approximately 2,000 people, approximately 44 players use the cricket pitch every Saturday, spread throughout the day (summer season). Girl guides Girl Guides meet at their dedicated

Bushland + Heritage Bushland + Sport Sports + Heritage All Three Groups

Bushland Sport+ Heritage +Heritage

Suitable for all ages

Family-friendly

NSF Consulting Page 17

CITY OF RYDE BRUSH FARM AND LAMBERT PARK MASTERPLAN 32 ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 30

meeting room in Lambert Park every Monday and Friday night throughout Key Themes the year. The Scouts use the scout hall fi ve nights a week from 6.30pm. • Graphically illustrate the view Dog training Dog training every Sunday afternoon. Bush regeneration corridor that was previously Volunteer groups work on bushland maintenance most Saturdays. The agreeed in 2003 and remove all majority of stakeholders in all of the stakeholder groups felt comfortable trees from this area with the level and range of activities and uses that currently exist in The Parks. • Family friendly that encourages people of all ages to visit Facilities, Amenities and Infrastructure. The facilities currently on site without compromising the comprise club houses, halls, toilets, storage spaces, kitchens and canteens. natural setting The existing buildings and their associated facilities were considered by • Value Aboriginal, and cultural all stakeholder groups to be suffi cient. Stakeholder groups were happy to heritgae of the site share facilities if necessary, including storage space, lockers, and playing • Appreciate work undertaken by fi elds. bushland management groups Some suggestions were made for the provision of spectator seating. • Car parking pressure at peak It is likely that spectator seating would be used and appreciated by all times usually Saturdays three groups. The Dog Training Club requested shade trees be planted to accompany spectator seating, particularly along Lawson Street. A dog- • Vehicular access is challenging, uninviting and diffi cult proof fence along the Lawson Street boundary was said to be a priority for the Dog Training Club, as they had reported a number of fatalities of dogs • Connections, linkages and who ran from their training area onto Lawson Street. elderly/disabled access not adequately The car park was said to be in a suitable location, but it needed to be expanded to accommodate the capacity identifi ed by each of the stakeholder groups. It is likely that relocating the car park would be accepted by all stakeholder groups, providing parking capacity is increased and congestion mitigated. Social Values/ Storytelling and Legacy. Stakeholders were asked to select a few key images that visually represent the social values that they would like the Masterplan to encapsulate; values that represent the ideal social fabric of The Parks. The key images have been grouped in this report to represent each of the following broad stakeholder group categories: The photo collages show a visual representation of the social values held by each of the key stakeholder group categories, as well as those that are common to combinations of the groups. Council/Working Group Findings Two working group meetings were held at Council. Relevant Council departments represented included: open space, heritage and strategic planning, bushcare, public works (landscape/design), sport and recreation, natural areas, environmental planning and traffi c. Within the facilitation of these workshops individual participants provided specifi c responses to each session in the form of worksheets and questionnaires. Key responses when questioned about the ideal outcome for The Park included: caters to a variety of ages and uses, vibrant space, provides opportunities for education and natural play, protects natural and heritage assets, encourage more people into the parks and improves access. Council regarded the following opportunities as having the greatest potential for positive impact on The Park: improving access, manage view corridor, heritage interpretation and linking brush farm house to The Park. When asked to nominate possible funding opportunities, Council representatives suggested: Caring for Community, Federal Government Grant Funding, Heritage Funding (State and Federal), Metro Greenspace, Natural Trust and others. To see full record of Council worksheet responses refer to Appendix C.

SYM STUDIO AND FACTORY 7 FOR ADOPTION 33 ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 31

04 Guiding Principles

Prescribed in the adopted 2009 PoM are performance indicators that rely Key Principles on the masterplan to graphically reinforce the objectives and principles supported by Council. The principles include value based initiatives to • Use research and evidence address based information to evaluate site character • bushland; • watercourses; • Program suitable park function • sports grounds and associated amenities; to maintain culturally signifi cant • park walking tracks; view • passive recreation; • Integrate wsud into road and • accessibility and signage; parking edges to improve • cultural signifi cance, environmental conditions • identifying main view corridor; • allow features and structures to relate to former uses and • Determine the health of existing • general community use in relation to the built form and their vegetation (specifi c specimens) relationships. and program spaces to positively contribute to their Additionally the individual response components need to marry together future health to form a cohesive and intuitive family of parts. These individual elements • Study existing topography with must provide an acceptable level of value - and therefore complement the the aim to improve accessibility existing design language of Ryde. The strategic response must also provide and connectivity though the a site specifi c language, that will appropriately inform and educate on a site. park of national signifi cance. • Determine suitability of the existing path trail network • Use historic photographic evidence to reinstate unique sports fi eld setting • Determine requirements of user groups and evaluate existing building performannce • Study existing utilities and assess potential for rationalisation and bundling • Embrace Lawson Street and promote storytelling

CITY OF RYDE BRUSH FARM AND LAMBERT PARK MASTERPLAN 34 ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 32 Part A Masterplan

Principles The Park is required to respond to many community expectations. With a well informed, clear set of consultation criteria guiding the design, the decision making becomes a process of assembling the diff erent elements together and testing their relationships with each other. Here there is a strong emphasis on the natural attributes of The Park and the past cultural heritage of the site. These characteristics are a unique combination that can be used to build a strong identity. The true value of these principles, will be realised when all of the components are brought together, rather than implemented in isolation. Once the principles have been implemented The Park will be more broadly recognised for its contribution to the greater community.

Protect and improve quality of sensitive environs, maintain existing condition and support habitat creation

Design built form to encourage passive solar and Ecologically Sustainable Habitat Design principles

Locate amenities and central meeting points to allow the re-establishment of the bush corridors and improve conditions for signifi cant specimen trees

Upgrade existing hard edges and surfaces to accommodate wsud wsud

Introduce a hierarchy of path circulation - prioritise accessibility

Rationalise and bundle existing services Accessibility

Design walking surfaces that are sensitive to the environment and encourage community interaction and education

Remove obstructions to maintain view focusing on the middle distant ridge Sensitive Design Sensitive

SYM STUDIO AND FACTORY 7 FOR ADOPTION 35 ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 33

Embrace Lawson Street and promote storytelling

Create unique sport and and recreational experience - The Farm Storytelling

Integrate Wallumedegal teritory legends into storytelling of The Park

Embrace combined environmental /cultural heritage education and

Interpretation interpretation

Prioritise cultural heritage and environmental signage at intuitive assembly points

Site character to interpret early Australian commercial agricultural practices, Site Character namely wine production and orchards

Utilise Australian materials and construction techniques typical of early settlement

A Bold Renewal Minmise surface disturbance to main integrity of likely cultural artifacts

CITY OF RYDE BRUSH FARM AND LAMBERT PARK MASTERPLAN 36 ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 34

05 Landscape Masterplan

Brush Farm Park will become a cultural centrepiece for recreation and learning. Its dramatic topography provides an ideal natural setting for people of all ages and abilities to experience sensitive environments rarely seen elsewhere in Australia. As a measure of success The Park must perform numerous functions and fulfi ll the communities expectations, particularly in relation to value. The Park is categorised into six layers which are used to describe the specifi c initiatives illustrated in this masterplan. Character Zones, describes the overall experience or journey through distinctly diff erent environments. Natural Systems refers to the layers of environmental processes that are infl uencing the site. Circulation includes vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian movement through the site. Landscape refers to the built landform, plant ecology and street/park furniture. Places and Facilities are individual or combined spaces which have been designated a suitable function. Complementary amenities have been provided to cater to the specifi c activities. Storytelling is used to inform and amplify the signifi cance the place.

Illustrative Masterplan Aerial Perspective

SYM STUDIO AND FACTORY 7 FOR ADOPTION 37 ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 35 Part A Masterplan

Legend 1. Protect Remnant Vegetation 2. Remnant Education Corridor 3. Dual Park Boardwalk Connection 4. Interpretative Signage Station 5. Connecting Boardwalk Platform 6. Multiuse Community Atrium Building 7. Internal Park Parking - 97 stalls 8. Scout Bus Parking 9. Pedestrian Drop Off Points 10. Park Estate Sense of Arrival 11. Cultural Heritage Connection 12. Vineyard/Orchard Terrace 13. Stormwater Bioretention 14. Recycled Irrigation 15. Formalised Parking/Footpaths 16. Consolidate Netball Experience 17. Spectator Seating/Transition Areas 18. Informal Picnic Terraces 19. Re-establish Heritage View Lawson Street In More Detail Corridor 20. Cultural Display Area 21. Sensitive Forest Gateway 22. Cultural Heritage Pedestrian Loop 23. Childrens Accessible Trike Loop 24. Playgrounfs Picnic/BBQ - Forest Edge 25. Deleted 26. Recreated Habitat - Heath & Grasslands 27. Outdoor Classroom Amphitheater 28. Enhanced Park Connectivity 29. Sensitive Existing Trails 30. Signage Directional Markers 31. Barrier Planting/Mesic Habitat 32. Service Emergency Access 33. Eco Toilet Facilities 34. Upgrade & Seal Existing Path 35. Supplemental Parking Lawson Street/Park Interface

CITY OF RYDE BRUSH FARM AND LAMBERT PARK MASTERPLAN 38 ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 36

Masterplan with notes

SYM STUDIO AND FACTORY 7 FOR ADOPTION 39 ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 37

This page has been intentionally left blank

SYM STUDIO AND FACTORY 7 FOR ADOPTION 40

Illustrative Masterplan (Not to scale)

ITEM ITEM (continued) (continued) 2 ATTACHMENT ATTACHMENT 3 Page Page 38 41 SYM STUDIO AND FACTORY 7 FOR ADOPTION ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 39

06 Masterplan Framework

Character Zones The Park is separated into three distinct zones - Sensitive Closed Canopy Bushland, Unique Sporting Experience and Adventure, Education and Interpretation. The zones work to create a cohesive park identity by building on existing site features. The Closed Canopy Bushland and associated sensitive experience comprises the eastern gully and remains relatively untouched. Exclusion fencing with minimal bush fi re suppression defi nes this zone with critically endangered vegetation communities accessible via rugged trails. The second zone expresses The Park’s cultural signifi cance, including the Unique Sporting Experience - expressed as “The Farm”. The upper oval will retain its current size, proportions and grade in keeping with its cultural heritage signifi cance. There will be a reduction of one netball fi eld to allow for the cricket pitch to be rotated 90 degrees to its current orientation. The lower netball courts will utilise the modifi ed condition and reinstate a portion of previously cleared farmland. The relocated courts may cause a disturbance to vegetation, and all works undertaken will ensure that any imporvments will meet all relevant statutory requirements. These works will aim to improve the parking space availability, and health of the Turpentines in the existing car park. Thirdly the Adventure, Education and Interpretation area encompasses various areas for passive recreation and is located on the edge of the closed canopy. The emphasis of this character zone is on discovery and adventure, along a hierarchy of paths and boardwalks that create connections and protect The Park’s ecological signifi cance. This character expands the theme of current user groups such as the scouts and girl guides. The cultural display space located at the edge of the gently sloping terrain is defi ned by post and rail fencing in keeping with 1943 aerial photographs and respects the overhead historic view corridor. The circular arrangement of medium size trees and managed lawn area act as a metaphoric bookend to visually reconnect The Park to Brush Farm House. Natural Systems The Park environment is categorised as a modifi ed natural system that supports patches of remnant vegetation. The Park forms part of a dynamic natural system which experiences the amplifi ed eff ects of storm events due to its historic land use and urban setting. It is the intention of this masterplan to respond to the existing level of disturbance by ensuring that the bushland remnant situated along the banks of Archers Creek and tributary are protected and managed as such in perpetuity. by programing spaces according to the their future impacts and ability for the natural system to be at the very least maintained and improved where/if possible. The Park is well suited to bioretention and reuse of urban stormwater runoff due to its upper catchment location and the existing extent of perimeter roads, currently discharging into The Park. Defi ning edge treatment along roads, including Lawson Street and Brush Road, combined with the integration of WSUD principles into the design of the new parking areas will reduce the negative eff ects of storm surge such as reduced sedimentation, improved soil stability and potential elimination of creek boardwalk destruction. In addition to bioretention, stormwater recycling is integrated into the function of the hardstand netball courts - with the sub-structure accommodating a water storage reservoir and associated electrical and mechanical. Storage potential of approximately 100,000L would be available for use in irrigation of the upper park and sports fi eld - before re-entering the biofi ltration system at sports fi eld edge. Generalist frog habitat has been incorporated into wsud initiatives with offl ine ponds integrated into new detention and energy dissipater structures to provide habitat. Protect remnant corridors and support revegetated corridors. In concurrence with Britton (2004), Recommendation 24 - review tree management in car park) the negative eff ects of pavement around the base of the signifi cant trees has been addressed holistically. This space has been programmed for revegetation to demonstrate the benefi ts of rehabilitation and to fi lter stormwater before entereing bushland. This corridor will be a metaphoric extension to The Glade on the north of Lawson Street as the road predominates as a barrier to understory and canopy connectivity.

SYM STUDIO AND FACTORY 7 FOR ADOPTION 43 ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 40

This page has been intentionally left blank

SYM STUDIO AND FACTORY 7 FOR ADOPTION 44 ITEM 2 (continued)

Legend

Character Zones ATTACHMENT

Natural Systems 3

Character Zones Page

Natural Systems 41

SYM STUDIO AND FACTORY 7 FOR ADOPTION 45 ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 42

Flora and Fauna. The environmental importance of The Park is highly valued by the community as the “lungs of the city” (Community Consultation, 2012). The conservation of remnant bushland, protecting existing habitats, creating habitats and sympathetic street tree planting have been adopted for the protection of existing biodiversity and maintaining the green enclave . Schizomeria Quadrat is located on the east gully-slope/creek and contains plants that form the rainforest environment often associated with Brush Farm Park (Biosphere, 2006). Within this masterplan the eastern gully is considered sensitive and disturbance to this portion of The Park has been minimised. A number of habitats are missing, such as semi-closed woodlands and their absence is refl ected by the lack of native birds. These two habitats could be restored in Ryde. A large area of disturbed land is available in Lambert Park that could be converted to heath and grassland (Biosphere, 2006). A portion of Lambert Park has been allocated to recreating habitat and would contribute to the continuation of the corridor through The Park. Feral species control and domestic animals has been considered in the masterplan through delination and signage. with the inclusion of post and rail fencing to restrict uncontrolled dogs from entering sensitive areas. People do take their dogs for walks through bushland reserve and this generally does little damage if the dogs stay to the tracks (Biosphere, 2006). The path hierarchy established in this masterplan excludes dogs form the eastern gully only. A portion of The Park is designated as Fire Prone Land (New South Wales Rural Fire Service (RFS)). The associated risks to person and property internal to The Park is reduced due to the buildings categorisation as non-habitable space. The Park’s eastern, western and southern boundary adjoins private residential homes and it is recommended that a site specifi c assessment in accordance with council policy should be established to adequately manage these park edges. Continuation of fi re risk management will be in consultation with the Rural Fire Service and the Park will be maintained to the guidelines of the RFS.

Circulation Key circulation aims include improving access and pedestrian drop off , provision of additional vehicular exits onto Lawson Street (east bound) and Marsden Road (south bound only) and defi ning pedestrian set down points to prioritise child safety access during the daytime and utilise scout and netball facilities in the evening. Pedestrian. A hierarchy of paths exist internal to The Park, prioritising accessibility. An additional network of primary accessible paths has been created to include access to facilities, upper and lower sports fi elds, turpentine - Ironbark remnant closed forest, and cultural display structure. The primary network is designed to accommodate children’s trike access. The active use of bicycles is not conducive to the overall aims of The Park as a sensitive environment and should therefore be restricted to the upper portion of the sports fi eld only. Key access points identifi ed at Denman Street, Lambert Street and Winbourne Street require raised stairway construction due to the steep topography. The landscape treatment of pedestrian thresholds or doormats activate the edges of The Park and encourage their use as an alternative to vehicular transport. The lower section of the dual boardwalk is accessible via Lambert Park parking area. The dual park boardwalk provides a highly valued community connection between Brush Farm and Lambert Park. At its southern extent, the boardwalk junctions with a sealed on-grade secondary path, utlising existing service access road. The sealed path is 1.5m wide fl anked with reinforced grass cell to achieve a combined width of 2.5m. An additional section of accessible secondary path connect the lower boardwalk with Brush Road. The tertiary trail system consists of the existing paths providing limited rugged access along and through the eastern gully. These existing trails are approximately 0.7m wide and are to be maintained to cause minimal localised disturbance and should exclude dogs. These trails require directional markers as orientation and directional markers. Emergency vehicle and service vehicle access is provided via two main entry /exit points to Brush Farm Park and via existing access to Lambert Park. The existing emergency access forms the basis for a dedicated access point on the eastern edge of the upper sports fi eld. A shared path caters to pedestrians, trikes and occasional emergency/

SYM STUDIO AND FACTORY 7 FOR ADOPTION 47 ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 43

This page has been intentionally left blank

SYM STUDIO AND FACTORY 7 FOR ADOPTION 48 ITEM 2 (continued)

Legend

Natural Systems - WSUD ATTACHMENT

Circulation Pedestrian 3

Natural Systems - WSUD Page 44 Circulation Pedestrian SYM STUDIO AND FACTORY 7 FOR ADOPTION 49 ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 45

service vehicles. The 2.5m wide sealed path is also fl anked by reinforced grass cell and passing bays to cater to service and emergency vehicles with a hardstand entry drive off Lawson Street and associated turning bays at both upper and lower sports fi eld locations. Vehicular. Parking internal to The Park is constrained to one continuous area that doubles the parking provision to 97 cars. The new car park includes new native trees that fi lter noise and visual disturbance from this busy intersection. Bus and trailer access for the scout /adventurer facilities are incorporated into parking area, to cater to relatively inexperienced volunteer bus drivers. The southern portion of Brush Road, adjoining Lambert Park, has been widened to accommodate two way public access. Two dedicated parking areas improves access to Girl Guide building. Formal parking and footpath along Brush Road integrates wsud initiatives to improve the stormwater conditions discharging into this sensitive eastern gully. Landscape The landscape response is restricted to The Park boundaries and at best includes the road verge - subject to RMS approval. Grading and layout at the main park entry, responds to the cultural heritage alignment of the carriage road and the existing busy passing traffi c conditions. The visual connection between House and Park has been achieved through a combination of landscape devices including defi ned park edges, vegetated swales, enhanced pavements, post and rail fencing, orchard planting, terracing and street trees. By creating visual contrast along Lawson Street attention is drawn to the important cultural site aspects such as the heritage view corridor. Views. The masterplan delineates an area that is to be actively managed by Council maintenance crews by installing a new post and rail fence on this relatively fl at ridge between east and west gullies. This area of vegetation has the potential to obscure the signifi cant view corridor that currently exists from Brush Farm House across the park to the distant view of land to the south. Historically, attempts by Council to demarcate a ‘narrow view cone’ have proved unsuccessful. To achieve the proposed view corridor, vegetation will need to be managed. This management will include pruning or removal of tree species greater than 5m in height so as to achieve approximately 50% of the simulated view established by Geoff rey and Britton in 2004. Prior to the instatement of the view corridor an ecological assessment will be required to ascertain the signifi cance of the vegetation planned for removal in relation to the natural remnant vegetation. Further, the study will also identify habitat trees and provide recommendations to minimise fauna disturbance. Active suppression of tree species >5M will maintain approximately 50% of the simulated view established by Geoff rey Britton in 2004. The revised view cone setout point is Brush Farm House, beraing between 152 degrees 50 minutes to 162 degrees (refer View Analysis, appendix A). Spectator terrace seating and viewing areas incorporate long linear rows of productive orchard trees reminiscent of the culturally signifi cant vineyard terracing. The relocated hardstand netball courts (3) are located to minimize the fi ll requirement to achieve a 1.5% fall and to reduce impact on surrounding bushland. The open cultural display area exists in a natural amphitheater enclosed by the surrounding canopy tree cover and acts as a gateway to demarcate the sensitive closed forest area. Post and rail fencing is used to demarcate sensitive ecological zones with the view corridor - actively managed to exclude native tree revegetation /regeneration. Lambert Park will be characterised by the existing scattered native trees, revegetated tall heath corridor, revegetated grassland adjoining Brush Road and the existing bush fi re asset protection zone. The structural components of the landscape consist of natural and robust materials and assembly details that are sympathetic of traditional construction methods. This use of materials respond to the genius loci of the cultural and environmental context of the site. Australian upcycled or FSC certifi ed hardwood is in keeping with the aims

SYM STUDIO AND FACTORY 7 FOR ADOPTION 51 ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 46

This page has been intentionally left blank

SYM STUDIO AND FACTORY 7 FOR ADOPTION 52 ITEM 2 (continued)

Legend

Circulation Vehicular ATTACHMENT

Landscape 3

Circulation - Vehicle Page

Landscape 47

SYM STUDIO AND FACTORY 7 FOR ADOPTION 53 ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 48

of this masterplan. Brush Farm materiality should be expressed through defi ned thresholds between the highly modifi ed urban environment and the sensitive bushland and convey a sense of arrival. The living landscape component recognises there may be disturbance to sensitive bushland areas, introducing a wall of revegetation that will delinate form a barrier to demarcate the protected areas and will mitigate these impacts. The use of exotic species within the upper and lower sports fi elds is used to interpret the cultural heritage of The Park. It is recognised that culturally signifi cant exotic specimens remain scattered in isolation within The Park and these trees are protected in accordance with Archeological Assessment (Steele, 2013) and used to interpret the cultural identity of Brush Farm Park. Places and Facilities The hardstand netball courts have been relocated to sit together with the existing grassed fi elds, forming a consolidated sporting precinct. This combined netball experience caters to introduce younger age groups to the sport during daylight hours and compliments the twenty-two new courts at Meadowbank that off er fi eld lighting for use in the evenings. The main access for the netball and cricket fi elds runs via a pedestrian deck connection to the internal carpark and dedicated drop-off points. The multifunctional amenities building consists of a second level allowing views across upper and lower sports fi elds for monitoring purposes. The building combines solar passive with ecologically sustainable design principles. The northern orientation provides desirable morning and afternoon sun. The internal layout engages with the landscape by providing indoor /outdoor spaces and multifunctional meeting spaces in combination with segmented secure storage. The building will also be equipped with unisex change and toilet facilities. The new amenities building will retain the existing scout and adventurer function while recognising the fl exibility of a function room for hire. A separate indoor/outdoor rest room is located in a high visibility location and caters to short stay visitors throughout the week and during peak sport activity periods to supplement to facilities incorporated with the multifunction amenities building. It should be noted that the current scout hall and land is owned by the NSW Scout Association, and any upgrades or additions will require extensive consultation and negotiations with this group. Spectator seating is integrated into the existing sloped banks in two locations - between Lawson Street and the upper sports fi eld as well as between the upper and lower sports fi elds addressing the netball hardstand courts. This seating caters to netball, cricket and dog training events. The picnic area and playground are separated from the carpark whilst still in close proximity to the carpark. This land use utilises previously damaged land and takes full advantage of afternoon sun and the closed canopy blue gum forest backdrop. The Cultural Display structure located at the south end of the netball courts forms a gateway and a barrier to the sensitive closed forest bushland. Whilst addressing the cultural display area to the north this structure has an environmental focus to provide information on fl ora and fauna, provide an assembly point for bushland volunteers and pay homage to their signifi cant contribution to The Park. The Welcome to Park amphitheater located at the main pedestrian entry to Lambert Park is designed to signify the main southern point of arrival into The Park as well as an functioning as an outdoor classroom for girl guides outdoor learning. Vegetated swales adjoin the widened road to replace a portion of the concrete low fl ow function of the stormwater system. Further stormwater modeling is required to ascertain the extent of wsud initiatives required to complement the native grassland /tall heath created habitat initiative for Lambert Park.

SYM STUDIO AND FACTORY 7 FOR ADOPTION 55 ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 49

This page has been intentionally left blank

SYM STUDIO AND FACTORY 7 FOR ADOPTION 56 ITEM 2 (continued)

Legend

Place and Facilities ATTACHMENT 3

Places and Facilities Page 50

SYM STUDIO AND FACTORY 7 FOR ADOPTION 57 ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 51

Storytelling Lawson Street storytelling seeks to takes advantage of the traffi c volume, which transports people through Brush Farm Park, and often through the Ryde municipality. The high level of drivers passing by presents an opportunity to illustrate and advertise cultural events to the community. The celebration of Brush Farm Park for its contribution to adventure, discovery and identity can be recognised at a local, state and national level. The interpretation and reference to The Park as signifi cant would become an important cultural contribution to the City of Ryde and high value asset. The internal Park boardwalk forms part of a signifi cant cultural loop which remains sensitive to the conservation of surviving physical and archaeological evidence (Britton, 2004). Remaining archaeological evidence is likely to include vineyard terraces and exotic specimen trees. The cultural loop can be entered at a variety of points and can be used internal to the park or extended up to Brush Farm House. The loop runs up the ridgeline dividing the east and west gullies to include the educational cultural display area, remnant vineyard terracing, signifi cant remnant trees and continues across Lawson Street to The Glade and Brush Farm House. Defi ning the heritage view corridor over and through The Park from Brush Farm House also contributes to the interpretation and cultural signifi cance of The Park to retain some of the historic sight lines documented to be once used by Gregory Blaxland.

SYM STUDIO AND FACTORY 7 FOR ADOPTION 59 ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 52

This page has been intentionally left blank

SYM STUDIO AND FACTORY 7 FOR ADOPTION 60 ITEM 2 (continued)

Legend

Story Telling ATTACHMENT 3

Story Telling Page 53

SYM STUDIO AND FACTORY 7 FOR ADOPTION 61 ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 54

07 Recommendations

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park has the potential to become a cultural Seven things we must centrepiece for recreation and learning. Its dramatic topography provides have in Brush Farm: an ideal natural setting for people of all ages and abilities to experience sensitive environments rarely seen elsewhere in Australia. To realise The Park potential it is recommended that the following happens: 1. actively managed distant view corridor Secure State and Federal Grant Funding. The State signifi cance of the park both environmentally and from a cultural heritage perspective is well 2. dual park boardwalk connection documented. This documentation should be used to demonstrate the 3. identifi cation /wayfi nding signage merits of receiving supplemental funding. and interpretation to brush farm Erosion, Stormwater and Water Quality. It should be noted that both 4. unique ‘the farm’ sport & creek lines and tributary within the Natural area have extensive recreation experience erosion, to the point where there is a risk of damaging Sydney Water 5. water quality improvements infrastructure and permanently losing existing pathways. Further 6. consolidation & upgrade of investigation should be undertaken by Council, by means of engaging a amenities building suitably qualifi ed consultant in hydrology or geomorphology to provide a solution in preventing further erosion. While addressing the direct 7. rehabilitate turpentine trees in the impacts will temporarily solve the issue of erosion, further investigation is carpark recommended in managing off site causes of erosion long term, i.e. re- engineering storm water outlets to slow fl ow within in nearby residential areas. Future fl ows into the reserve should also be considered during the ‘re-engineering’ process to cope with increased fl ows and prevent the potential for this situation to reoccur. Baseline modelling should be undertaken to establish design fl ood levels with the aim to improving pedestrian access, improving water quality and the implications of stormwater harvesting. Dual Park Boardwalk. Following the stormwater management plan design development and construction documentation of the boardwalk would provide an important upgrade and reduce the maintenace costs associated with the constant repair of the current ageing infrastructure. Manage Distant View Corridor. Eff ective immediately selective pruning and staged removal of regrowth trees should be undertaken in specifi c areas identifi ed in this document. Active management to supress tree species that grow >5M of this area will be required on an ongoing basis. Prompt initiation is required to reinstate the view corridor. This will include management of canopy species to prevent their regeneration and exclusion of revegetation. An ecological assessment of the existing vegetation prior to its removal and assessment is to ascertain the level of disturbance and provide mitigation measures to prevent harm to fauna will be undertaken. Identifi cation /Wayfi nding Signage and Interpretation. Design Development and Construction Package would provide an important component in drawing attention to the signifi cance of The Park, and in the ability to identify, interpret and navigate through and connect to, Brush Farm House. Upgrade Amenities Building. Leveraging the unique setting, the user groups

SYM STUDIO AND FACTORY 7 FOR ADOPTION 63 ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 55

and general community would benefi t from an updated multifunctional atrium building that could better meet the high demands of sporting groups as well improving the environmental credentials of the building and its immediate surrounds. Consolidate Netball Experience. Relocate netball hardcourts, integrate stormwater harvesting and improve water quality. Improve Health of Rehabilitate Turpentine Trees in the car park. Eff ective Immediately re-establishing the renmant corridor to improve the conditions for these signifi cant trees. A specifi c tree maintenance plan should include a transition from compacted asphalt to a permeable soil profi le. Internal Park Parking. Allocate funding to construct new wsud internal parking area, allowing for an additional 50 parking spots. Formalising Parking /Footpaths. Continue negotiations with RMS to permit formal weekend parking on Brush Road and Lawson street where access to The Park is in greatest demand. This potential improvement is an important opportunity to initiate additional water quality and pedestrian access improvements.

CITY OF RYDE BRUSH FARM AND LAMBERT PARK MASTERPLAN 64 ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 56

08 Implementation

Implementation years 1 - 5 • Upgrades to path network and steps throughout Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, including boardwalks in appropriate areas • Continued bush regeneration work in both parks • Erosion control study and works to be undertaken for creek lines • Upgrade to fi eld / amenities building interface, including drainage works • Terracing and seating areas to Lawson Street / park interface • Reinstatement and management of distant view corridor and completion of all compensatory planting

Implementation years 5 - 10 • Continued bush regeneration works • Continued erosion control works • Upgraded parking to Lawson Street • Continued management of distant view corridor

Implementation years 10 - 20 • Upgrade to internal parking to increase capacity • Relocation of hard surface netball courts - only if competition netball is not transferred to Meadowbank Park • New internal carpark • Upgrade to children’s play area • Remediation / protection works to Turpentines in existing asphalt carpark • Continued management of distant view corridor

SYM STUDIO AND FACTORY 7 FOR ADOPTION 65 ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 57

09 Resources

Reports Brush Farm Preservation Group, Local Residents, 1983.”The Quarry” Picnic Area: Report on Proposed Picnic Area in Brush Farm Park Eastwood City of Ryde, 2004. Landscape and Archaeology Assessment for the former Brush Farm Estate (prepared by Britton.G, Lavelle.S & Morris.C) City of Ryde, Lifestyle and opportunity @ your doorstep City of Ryde, 1991. Lambert Park Draft Plan of Management (prepared by Mitchell McCotter Consultants) City of Ryde, 1991. Conservation Analysis and Draft Conservation Policy (Volume 1) (prepared by Clive Lucas, Stapleton & Partners Architects) City of Ryde, 1992. Lambert Park Rehabilitation Plan City of Ryde, 1992. Lambert Park Planting Works Specifi cation (prepared by Manidis Roberts Consultants) City of Ryde, 1992. Lambert Park Rehabilitation Plan City of Ryde, 1992. Lambert Park Earthworks Specifi cation (prepared by Manidis Roberts Consultants) City of Ryde, 1994. Lambert Park Rehabilitation Plan (draft) (prepared by Manidis Roberts Consultants) City of Ryde, 1997. Denistone Catchment Reserves Urban Bushland Study, Ryde City Council Public Services and Facilities City of Ryde, 2001. Brush Farm House Lawson Street Eastwood Conservation Management Plan (prepared by DPWS Heritage Design Services) City of Ryde, 2005. Native Plants of The Ryde District: The Conservation Signifi cance of Ryde’s Bushland Plants (prepared by P.J. Kubiak) City of Ryde, 2006. Ryde Flora and Fauna Study (prepared by Biosphere Environmental Consultants) City of Ryde, 2008. Ryde 2030 Community Strategic Plan: Consultation Outcomes Report City of Ryde, 2009. Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park Plan of Management City of Ryde, 2009. Brush Farm House and Estate: our natural and cultural heritage City of Ryde, 2010. City of Ryde Local Planning Study: Heritage (prepared by Britton.G) City of Ryde, 2012. Integrated Open Space Plan (draft) NSW Government Department of Planning, 2009. Management and Maintenance Plan for “The Glade and surrounding ‘woodland’ area Stormwater Trust, Archer’s Creek: A Demonstration Water Catchment Tanner Architects, 2006. Brush Farm House Interpretive Plan (fi nal draft) (prepared by Musecape) Tanner Architects, 2007. Brush Farm House Interpretive Plan (prepared by Musecape) Steele. D, 2013. Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park Archaeological Management Plan

Documents City of Ryde, Suggested Species List: Native Plants of The Ryde Area Which Will Help Provide Habitat For Native Animals. City of Ryde. Conditions Relating To Shrub Plantings on Footpaths, Parks & Community Services Division City of Ryde, Preliminary List of Plants Native to Brush Farm Park Eastwood RTA, 1991. Parramatta Valley Cycleway, brochure, RTA Publications RTA, 1994. Ryde to Botany Bay Cycleway, brochure, RTA Publications

Plans/Surveys/Maps City of Ryde, 1992. Lambert Park Rehabilitation, plan , Edition Dwg B City of Ryde, 2001. Urban Bushland in Ryde LGA: Ecological Communities pre 1750, map (prepared by Oculus) City of Ryde, Bush fi re Prone Land Map for Brush Farm Park

CITY OF RYDE BRUSH FARM AND LAMBERT PARK MASTERPLAN 66 ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 58

Appendices

Brush Farm and Lambert Park Masterplan Report

67 ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 59

This page has been intentionally left blank

SYM STUDIO AND FACTORY 7 FOR ADOPTION 68 ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 60 Part B Appendices

Appendix A - Community Consultation

NSF Stakeholder Consultation Report Combined Stakeholder/Focus Group Results General Community Focus Group Results

Document Site Review Vists

Stakeholder Focus { 1 2 3 4 { Groups

Analysis & Opportunities

Council Working Group Council Workshop 1

Combined Focus Group Stakeholders

General Community

{ Council Workshop 2 Council Working Group

Draft Masterplan

Public Exhibition Public Comment

Masterplan Methodology Final Masterplan ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 61

F A C T O R Y 7 ARCHITECTS Studio 1, P.O.Box 53 Mona Vale NSW 2103 Australia p: 61 2 9918 7119 e: [email protected] www.symstudio.com ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 62 ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 63 ITEM

General Community Response Questionnaire Results 2 (continued)

Responses collected on the 12/7/26 Total Number of Completed Forms: 13

Design Response Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly ATTACHMENT Disagree Agree 1. Re-establish Old Growth Corridor 2 1 4 6 2. Environment/Heritage Orientation Area 5 5 3 3. Parking 1 1 2 5 3

4. Consolidate/Upgrade Netball Experience 2 8 3 3 5. Children’s Playground and Trike/Scooter Loop 1 4 4 4 6. Pedestrian Canopy Bridge 1 1 1 4 7 7. Pedestrian Canopy Bridge 2 1 5 7

8. Water Detention Basin and Vegetated Swales 2 5 6 9. Environment/Heritage Interpretation Deck 1 4 3 5 10. Dual Park Boardwalk Connection 1 5 7 11. Realign/Upgrade Elevated Stair Connection 4 5 4 12. New Elevated Stair Connection 2 5 6 13. Reinstate Significant Heritage View Corridor 2 3 4 4 14. Consolidate & Upgrade Amenities Buildings 2 3 8 15. BBQ/Picnic Facilities with 2-4 y.o. Play Equipment 4 4 5 16. Welcome to Park Orientation Amphitheatre 4 4 5 17. ‘Main St’ Cultural Celebration (Lawson St.) 1 2 3 4 3 18. Re-establish Heritage Connection 1 1 6 5 19. Re-configure Vehicular Access ‘heritage alignment’ 1 2 7 3 20. Volunteer Recognition Point 5 2 6

Page

Prepared by Sym Studio on behalf of City of Ryde Empowered by Nature • Controlled by Design Page 1 of 1 64 ITEM

Combined Stakeholder Questionnaire Results 2 (continued)

Responses collected on the 12/7/12

Design Response to Masterplan Components Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly ATTACHMENT Disagree Agree 1. Re-establish Old Growth Corridor 3 2 8 2. Educational Environment/Heritage Learning Area 1 8 4 3a. Primary Parking 4 5 4 3b. Secondary Parking 1 1 7 4 3 3c. Tertiary Parking 2 6 5 3d. Supplemental Parking 1 2 5 6 4a. Consolidate/Upgrade Netball Experience 1 1 5 6

4b. Children’s Playground and Trike/Scooter Loop 1 6 5 1 5a. Pedestrian Canopy Bridge 1 2 3 2 6 5b. Pedestrian Canopy Bridge 2 2 1 4 6 6a. Water Sediment Basin & Overlook 1 2 5 4 6b. Dual Park Boardwalk Connection 1 5 7 6.c Adjust Alignment/Upgrade Stair Connection 5 7 1 6.d New Elevated Stair Connection 2 5 6 7. Reinstate Significant Heritage View Corridor 3 1 3 1 5 8. Consolidate & Upgrade Amenities Buildings 1 4 8 1 9a. BBQ/Picnic Facilities with 2-4 y.o. Play Equipment 1 3 8 1 9b. Welcome to Park Amphitheatre 1 5 4 3 10. ‘Main St’ Cultural Celebration (Lawson St.) 8 4 1

Page

Prepared by Sym Studio on behalf of City of Ryde Empowered by Nature • Controlled by Design Page 1 of 2 65 ITEM

2 (continued)

ATTACHMENT

3

Stakeholder Representation Groups No. of Attendees

Brush Park Scouts 2 Brush Farm Dog Training Club 1 Eastwood Girl Guides 0 Bushland Management Working Group 2 Hunters Hill Flora and Fauna Preservation Society 2 Brush Farm Historical Society 3 Ryde Netball Association 2 National Trust of Australia 1 Northern District Cricket Association 1 Total Number of Attendees 14 Total Number of Completed Forms 13

Page

Prepared by Sym Studio on behalf of City of Ryde Empowered by Nature • Controlled by Design Page 2 of 2 66 ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 67

STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION FOR BRUSH FARM PARK AND LAMBERT PARK MASTERPLAN PREPARATION

FINDINGS REPORT JUNE 2011

Client contact Conrad Grayson, Sym Studio

Consultant contact Natalie Fisher, NSF Consulting

NSF Consulting | t 02 9327 5219| m 0402 401 899 | e natalie @nsfconsulting.com.au | www.nsfconsulting.com.au ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 68

Contents

1. Introduction 3 2. Research findings 4 2.1 Natural systems 2.2 Identity and character 2.3 Access and Connectivity 2.4 Governance, Custodianship and Maintenance 2.5 Activities/ Programming 2.6 Facilities, Amenities and Infrastructure 2.7 Social Values/ Storytelling and Legacy Appendix 1- Stakeholders with whom we consulted 20 Appendix 2 - Discussion guides 21

NSF Consulting ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 69

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park Masterplan- Stakeholder Consultation Report

1. Introduction series of image cards, designed to encourage stakeholder to think creatively and visualise their ideal 1.1 Overview site for the future. Sym Studio was commissioned by the City of Ryde Stakeholders were grouped into focus groups to prepare a Masterplan for Brush Farm Park and according to their broad areas of interest, where Lambert Park. The Parks have high ecological and possible. The following stakeholder focus groups heritage values that have been deliberated and were conducted. discussed for a number of years amongst well- established stakeholders who have some common Focus group 1 Monday 18 June 2012 and conflicting interests. At the same time, the Parks Brush Farm House function as a recreation and valued green space for the City of Ryde and supports a number of activities, Brush Farm Park Bushland Preservation Group including netball, cricket, scouts, girl guides and dog Brush Farm Bushland Management Working Group

training. Brush Park Scout Group

NSF Consulting was commissioned by Sym Studio to conduct a program of stakeholder consultation Focus group 2 Thursday 21 June 2012 designed to feed into the Master Plan process. Brush Farm House

This report details the findings from the stakeholder Eastwood/Ryde Netball Association consultation. Northern District Cricket Association

1.2 Consultation objectives Focus group 3 Wednesday 20 June 2012 The aim of the consultation was to gather input from Brush Farm House the full range of relevant stakeholders to feed into the development of the Masterplan. It was not intended Brush Farm Historical Society

to present information to gauge feedback, but Eastwood Girl Guides rather, to ask questions to feed into the design Ryde Hunters Hill Flora and Fauna Preservation Society process. For this reason the stakeholder consultation was conducted at the preliminary stages National Trust of Australia of the Masterplanning process before any ideas had been formulated. Focus group 4 Sunday 24 June 2012 On site. Brush Farm Park 1.3 Approach to the consultation A series of small focus groups was conducted with Brush Farm Dog Training Club stakeholders, rather than a large combined stakeholder meeting. This was done to elicit an intimate conversational setting to encourage the The full list of individuals who participated in the participation of all individuals. focus groups is shown in the Appendix.

Discussion guides were prepared for each focus group, tailored specifically for the stakeholders’ areas of interest and expertise. A copy of the discussion guides can be seen in the Appendix of this Report. A creative thinking exercise was conducted using a

NSF Consulting Page 3 ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 70 Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park Masterplan- Stakeholder Consultation Report

2. Research findings tracks through the site. Many bush care group members would prefer to see the existing tracks left in their degraded state rather than upgraded to 2.1 Natural systems encourage more people to walk through the area The natural systems of Brush Park are valued by all and potentially harm the natural systems. stakeholder groups, as there is an appreciation that the natural systems create a unique ambiance, feeling of privacy and seclusion and overall peaceful quality of the park. This was also the case amongst stakeholder groups with an interest in cultural history and heritage.

However, members of the heritage group placed greater value on maintaing remnant exotic species on site and were more critical of the idea of retaining some of the turpentine grassy understory.

As might be expected, the bushland management and preservation groups valued the natural systems more highly than other stakeholder groups. This is reflected by the time and effort the group’s volunteers dedicate to preserving and maintaining the bushland, including the planting of tens of thousands of trees and the estimation of over $1 million worth of volunteer work in the park. There were two members of the bush care group who had been volunteering for close to 40 years.

They key features of the natural systems that are appreciated and valued by stakeholders are:

 Rainforest species;

 Endangered ecological communities;

 The gullies; and

 The creeks.

The natural systems were valued so highly by the bush care groups that suggestions to introduce more opportunities for visitors to appreciate them were met with disdain. This included the idea of a canopy walk, and the associated concerns of the impact on the bushland, particularly during its construction. There was also serious concern about the impact on the bushland of increasing the numbers of walking

NSF Consulting Page 4 ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 71 Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park Masterplan- Stakeholder Consultation Report

2.2 Identity and character History and Heritage groups The historical and heritage groups appreciate the All stakeholder groups valued the site for its quality of cultural heritage of the site. In particular: space, including its intimacy and feeling of seclusion. The site was considered unique for its natural and  Cultural heritage, particularly Blaxland- an cultural heritage, combined with the quality of space. experimental farmer who brought in wine and On the whole there was no incompatibility between buffalo grass; the heritage and bushland group interests - most  Aboriginal heritage; stakeholder believed the two values can co-exist and complement each other. Any tension between the  Context of the park within the fruit bowl of Ryde heritage and bushland groups’ interests came from and greater Sydney; one dominant personality in each of the groups, but this level of intensity did not reflect the thoughts or  The third settled area of Sydney;

feelings of the groups as a whole.  View lines, particularly to the Parramatta River; Despite this common ground, each of the main  Brush Farm House and its cultural heritage; and stakeholder groups valued particular aspects of the identity and character of the park. The main  The role of the park as part of the lungs of the city. differences are as follows. Sports/ Guides/ Scouts Bushland management group As might be expected, the groups who use the park Bushland management and preservation groups for social and physical activities value the area for the appreciated the park for its unique ecological range of facilities and activities it supports. In environments and the peaceful ambiance of the site particular, the park is appreciated by these groups that the vegetation created. In particular, they valued for: the following:  Good sports training ground facilities for young  Remnant and critically endangered ecological children newly introduced to netball and cricket; communities;  Access from surrounding suburbs via the main  Peace and quiet; arterial roads bordering the park.

 Cool gully created by unique gully forest species;

 Rainforest species;

 Walking tracks, revealing elements of surprise;

 Vegetation that was valuable to Indigenous Australians.

NSF Consulting Page 5 ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 72 Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park Masterplan- Stakeholder Consultation Report

2.3 Access and Connectivity The Dog Training Club requires about 60 car parking spaces weekly, and a few times a year on event days Issues relating to access and connectivity were of require between 100-150 spots. greater importance to stakeholder groups who undertook activities on site and needed ease of The netballers need to accommodate a total of up to access to the site and within it. That is, the sporting 2,000 people every Saturday during the winter groups as well as the scouts and girl guides. season, which is the equivalent of about 240 people per session, with access requirements to and from Access to the site the car park before and after every match. For all stakeholder groups there was a feeling that Visitors to the Girl Guides Hall tend to park in Brush the park was uninviting and access to it was difficult. Road, which is convenient to the building and for Arriving by car from the busy surrounding roads was them, there is adequate parking, although they are said to be challenging, and there was no obvious or not provided with a dedicated car park. encouraged access by bicycle or on foot. Stakeholders agreed that access to the site by Connection between amenities vehicle was the only way to safely enter the park, A number of amenities are grouped in clusters and and few pedestrians or cyclists were said to be seen located in the one place, namely the dog training approaching the site. club house, the netball and cricket club facilities and Access within the site the scout hall. All of these amenities are located adjacent to the car park, which is successful. A number of issues were raised regarding access within the site. The girl guide’s hall is situated in an isolated part of the park. Its users tend to stay in and around their Car parking facilities and not venture to other areas of the park During peak times of on-site sports or other due to lack of connectivity. activities, there was considerable parking pressure on site and an inadequate number of car parking Disabled access was raised in all stakeholder focus spaces. All stakeholder groups agreed that parking groups as something that is not adequately was a problem. The worst times were said to be addressed within the park. Since the level of the turf Saturdays–– for most of the day–– when children was raised during resurfacing in recent months, there were being picked up and dropped off for sporting is no disabled access to the grassed netball courts activities. A number of stakeholders agreed that it from either the car park or from the club house. was impossible for parents to park during sports Walking tracks changeover times and there were considerable traffic The existing walking tracks are regularly maintained bottlenecks in the car park and into Lawson Street. by the bushland management group. There was a The Eastwood/Ryde Netball Association and the consensus view amongst all stakeholder groups that Brush Farm Dog Training Club said their members the existing walking tracks are centrally located and and visitors were known to park on Lawson Street, adequately cater for people to move about the site and some were subsequently booked by Council by foot. parking inspectors for leaving their car in There was particular resistance amongst members of undesignated areas. the bushland preservation and management groups that no more walking tracks should be introduced to

NSF Consulting Page 6 ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 73 Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park Masterplan- Stakeholder Consultation Report

the park, as it could lead to over-use of the parklands and disrupt the ecological balance.

Cultural heritage links The issue of reinstating historic views from Brush Farm House was a vexed one and the argument is long-standing. The cultural heritage groups believed it was important to reinstate the view from Brush Farm House to the Parramatta River. However, the bushland management and preservation groups were strongly against removing any vegetation to do this, and preferred using photography or other interpretative tools to acknowledge views from the House.

Only the cultural heritage stakeholder group believed it was important to acknowledge and maintain a physical link between the park and the House. Other stakeholders did not feel it was necessary, particularly since Lawson Street was such a busy road for pedestrians to cross.

NSF Consulting Page 7 ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 74 Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park Masterplan- Stakeholder Consultation Report

2.4 Governance, Custodianship and around the side of the building are dark and secluded. It is important that the Masterplan Maintenance includes the provision of new toilets that are well lit, well positioned, and have disabled access. Governance/ Custodianship The stakeholders were not asked questions in the focus groups that directly related to governance and custodianship.

It is clear that Council has a good relationship with the range of stakeholder groups and their ongoing custodianship of the park is unlikely to be of concern to the range of stakeholders.

Maintenance Quality of playing surfaces There was reportedly wear and tear of the grass on the netball courts that came about after it was resurfaced a few months ago. The Dog Training Club believes the wrong type of turf was used for resurfacing recently, as the grass has died off this winter, soon after the resurfacing was done.

Bushland The amount of work undertaken by the bushland management groups to maintain and preserve the natural bushland was acknowledged and appreciated by all stakeholder groups.

There are sensitivities amongst volunteers of the bushland management group about changes that were made to Lambert or Brush Park that supersede any work they have done. For example, following the infill of Lambert Park volunteer numbers were said to have severely declined. These types of sensitivities will need to be considered during the Masterplanning process. The volunteer work put into the bushland maintenance should be acknowledged and any necessary changes to areas they have planted or maintained will need to be carefully and sensitively explained.

Toilets The toilets can get congested when being used at capacity during matches. The additional toilets

NSF Consulting Page 8 ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 75 Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park Masterplan- Stakeholder Consultation Report

2.5 Activities/ Programming activities could be upset if the governance or custodianship of the park or parts of the park were Brush Park and Lambert Park support a broad range to change. of activities that all co-exist in a complementary way. The range of activities and their current programming For example, the Dog Training Club were concerned in the parks are outlined as follows. that the natural bushland was starting to encroach on their open training areas, and reported that each Netball Approximately 2,000 people year the wood chip line was creeping onto their fields go through Brush Farm Park and new trees being planted. They were worried on a Saturday morning in the that the bushland group was slowly but steadily winter season. taking more and more of the space that they were

During each game time slot entitled to.

there are 240 people playing, The bushland preservation and management groups with 15 on each court. believed that careful consideration should be taken Cricket Approximately 44 players use to ensure that active sports and activity groups don’t the cricket pitch every start to encroach into the bushland areas and upset Saturday, spread throughout the natural ecological balance. This group was also the day, during the summer opposed to any additional hard surfaces or additional season. buildings being proposed for the site. Girl guides Girl Guides meet at their There was reported parking pressure on site as well dedicated meeting room in as traffic congestion at particular times, including Lambert Park every Monday Friday night throughout the during the changeover of sports games when year. children are being dropped off and picked up. The circulation of traffic within the park should consider Scouts The Scouts use the scout hall the programming of activities on site and address five nights a week from these traffic problems. 6.30pm.

Dog training Dog training every Sunday afternoon. The group leases the space for all day every Sunday.

Bush regeneration Volunteer groups work on bushland maintenance most Saturdays

The majority of stakeholders in all of the stakeholder groups felt comfortable with the level and range of activities and uses that currently exist in the park. However, there was concern that this balance may be upset as groups with interests different to their own start to encroach into other areas of the park and increase their level of activities. So, there was a feeling that the equilibrium of complementary

NSF Consulting Page 9 ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 76 Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park Masterplan- Stakeholder Consultation Report

2.6 Facilities, Amenities and Fencing. A dog-proof fence along the Lawson Street boundary was said to be a priority for the Dog Infrastructure Training Club, as they had reported a number of Facilities fatalities of dogs who ran from their training area onto The facilities currently on site comprise club houses, Lawson Street. halls, toilets, storage spaces, kitchens and canteens. Infrastructure The existing buildings and their associated facilities Car park. The car park was said to be in a suitable were considered by all stakeholder groups to be location, but it needed to be expanded to sufficient. Stakeholder groups were happy to share accommodate the capacity identified by each of the facilities if necessary, including storage space, stakeholder groups. It is likely that relocating the car lockers, and playing fields. park would be accepted by all stakeholder groups, providing parking capacity is increased and With cricket membership remaining stable over congestion mitigated. recent years and expected to continue to do so, the cricket club would not require access to the pitch Disabled access. All stakeholder groups were any more than it currently has access–– on concerned that disabled access was inadequate. Saturdays during winter, accommodating 44 players This has become a particularly contentious and and their spectators. topical issue since the turf on the netball courts has been relaid and with its associated raised level, a As netball membership numbers steadily increasing ditch has been created which prevents wheelchair each year, it is likely that the netball association will access from the club house or car park onto the need additional time slots on the courts. They did field. not identify any additional facilities that they would need such as extra courts. Link to Brush Farm House. Only members of the historical society felt that a visual and physical link Amenities between the park and Brush Farm House should be On the whole, all stakeholder groups were satisfied reinforced. For other stakeholders it was not with the existing amenities provided in the park. important. However, some suggestions were made. Walking tracks. There was a general consensus that Spectator seating. The Dog Training Club requires a the extent of walking tracks currently in the park was modest bank of spectator seating around the training sufficient. The bushland management and area, ideally to accommodate up to 20 or 30 preservation groups were opposed to increasing the spectators. Seating was not required by the Cricket extent of pedestrian tracks through the park. Club and members of the Netball Association reported that spectators bring their own seats. It is likely that spectator seating would be used and appreciated by all three groups.

Shade. The Dog Training Club requested shade trees be planted to accompany spectator seating, particularly along Lawson Street, which is where most of their spectators were said to sit or stand.

NSF Consulting Page 10 ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 77 Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park Masterplan- Stakeholder Consultation Report

2.7 Social Values/ Storytelling and Bushland The social values unique to the bushland Legacy management and preservation stakeholder group Stakeholders were asked to select a few key images predominantly relate to passive recreation in a natural that visually represent the social values that they setting. There was also acknowledgement of the would like the Masterplan to encapsulate; values that importance of maintaining the sporting identity of the represent the ideal social fabric of the park. The key park and encouraging cultural activities. images have been grouped in this report to represent each of the following broad stakeholder group Heritage categories: The history and heritage stakeholder groups envisage Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park as an Bushland (management + preservation); area of versatile activities that reflect the Indigenous History/ heritage; and and non-Indigenous history of the area. They encourage the introduction of built form, the planting Sports ( + clubs/scouts) of exotic species and the use of formal design The collages on the following pages show a visual elements. representation of the social values held by each of the key stakeholder group categories, as well as Bushland + Heritage those that are common to combinations of the Common to both the bushland and heritage groups. For example, images chosen by individual(s) stakeholder groups were social values that relate to in both the bushland and the heritage focus groups respecting the natural setting of the site, preserving are shown on the collage titled Bushland + Heritage. the natural bushland, respecting Indigenous history, Whereas, those that were selected by members of but also acknowledging that the park can be a only the bushland stakeholder interest groups are recreational space that may include open grassland shown on the collage titled Bushland. areas.

The combination-based collages (eg. Bushland + Sports Heritage) will assist in the Masterplanning process to The sports and other stakeholder groups (scouts and find common ground amongst various stakeholder guides) would like to see the Masterplan reflect social groups. The images shown on the single values of family-friendly inclusive recreation that stakeholder group collage pages are useful when encourages people of all ages to visit. This should considering the most important values to that be done without compromising the natural setting. particular group only. Accessibility and parking issues were raised as challenges that needed to be addressed. The most powerful and meaningful of the images is the one that was chosen by all three stakeholder Bushland + Sport groups, entitled Bushland + Sports + Heritage. Disabled access was a common social value for the This single image is the most important value to all bushland and sports stakeholders. One image was groups. It will provide a route for the Masterplan to chosen in common to both groups, and that image address common values held by all stakeholder represented the importance for disabled access to groups. The following paragraphs describe the be improved in the parks. broad social values held by each stakeholder group, as illustrated by the collages that follow. Sports + Heritage The social values that are common to the sports and heritage/ historical stakeholders are those that relate

NSF Consulting Page 11 ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 78 Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park Masterplan- Stakeholder Consultation Report

to supporting physical activity in the parks, including organised sports and non-organised sports such as cycling. It was important for both sports and heritage/historical stakeholders that the park is designed to be family-friendly.

Bushland + Sports + Heritage Above all, the social value that was important to all stakeholder groups was that the park be designed for everyone. Ultimately it is a recreation reserve that should respect the full range of interests and activities that are already present, and it should be planned so that it remains a place for people of all ages.

NSF Consulting Page 12 ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 79

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park Masterplan- Stakeholder Consultation Report

Bushland

NSF Consulting Page 13 ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 80 Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park Masterplan- Stakeholder Consultation Report

Heritage

Versatile

NSF Consulting Page 14 ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 81 Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park Masterplan- Stakeholder Consultation Report

Bushland +Heritage

NSF Consulting Page 15 ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 82 Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park Masterplan- Stakeholder Consultation Report

Sports

Comfortable

Inexpensive

Child-friendly

Social Youthful

NSF Consulting Page 16 ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 83 Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park Masterplan- Stakeholder Consultation Report

Bushland +Sport

NSF Consulting Page 17 ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 84 Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park Masterplan- Stakeholder Consultation Report

Sport+ Heritage

Family-friendly

NSF Consulting Page 18 ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 85 Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park Masterplan- Stakeholder Consultation Report

Bushland + Sport + Heritage

Suitable for all ages

NSF Consulting Page 19 ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 86

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park Masterplan- Stakeholder Consultation Report

Appendix 1- Stakeholders Jillian Michie Eastwood Girl Guides with whom we consulted Val Nelson Ryde Hunters Hill Flora and Fauna Preservation Society

Group 1. Monday 18 June Cathy Ryde Hunters Hill Flora and Fauna Merchant Preservation Society Peter Brown Brush Farm Park Bushland Preservation Group John Boyle Ryde Hunters Hill Flora and Fauna Preservation Society Ted Teutsch Brush Farm Park Bushland Preservation Group Jennie Minifie National Trust of Australia (NSW)

Maurie Lang Brush Farm Bushland L Macdonald Ryde Council Management Working Group

Werner Klaranaar Brush Farm Bushland Management Working Group Group 4. Sunday 24 June Clarence Ng Brush Park Scout Group Noel Reilly Brush Farm Dog Training Club Stephen Rath Brush Park Scout Group Colin Brush Farm Dog Training Club Sandra Payne Co-ordinator, Bushcare Richardson Volunteers, City of Ryde Heidi Brush Farm Dog Training Club Richardson

Group 2. Wednesday 20 June

Judy Watt Eastwood/ Ryde Netball Association

Dianna Bills Eastwood/ Ryde Netball Association

Sue Eastwood/ Ryde Netball Association Woodhouse

Craig Manzies Northern District Cricket Association

Group 3. Thursday 21 June

Jim Vaughan Brush Farm Historical Society

Jenny Noble Brush Farm Historical Society

Warren Brush Farm Historical Society Stanfield

Val Bird Eastwood Girl Guides

NSF Consulting Page 20 ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 87 Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park Masterplan- Stakeholder Consultation Report

Appendix 2 - Discussion guides

The discussion guides are shown on the following pages.

NSF Consulting Page 21 ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 88

Brush Farm Park MasterPlan Discussion Guide

Heritage/ Historical/ Bushland

Introduction 1. Welcome participants, introductions of facilitators, Council staff and Sym Studio team 2. Purpose of the focus group. Process of MasterPlanning process. (Sym Studio to give overview). 3. Privacy and confidentiality. 4. Everyone encouraged to participate. No one should dominate. Supposed to be an informal conversation. 5. Must keep to topic and follow set agenda. 6. Audio recording the conversation. 7. Tea and coffee. Time of finish.

TOPIC QUESTIONS

Introductions Let’s start with some introductions around the table. If you could give a very brief introduction and include your name, what group you are here to represent, and how long you have been interested in the park.

Values Let’s talk now about how you value the park.

What do you most value about the park? [probe on the following]: - passive recreation space: open grassed areas, netball courts, bushland tracks; - viable remnant of natural bushland that is rare in the region (endangered Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest) - a key pert of one of the earliest farm estates following European settlement (its non- Indigenous history) - Its indigenous history

What is your favourite place to be in the park?

What are some special or unusual features of the park?

What is one aspect of the park that every resident should be aware of?

Who knows about the historic grape terraces? Where are they?

Aesthetics Do you think the aesthetics of the park are high? Does the park look good? Has that changed over time?

Do you think the works that have been undertaken within both parks, including bush regeneration, sports ground maintenance and creek line rehabilitation works have improved the aesthetics of the parks?

Have the works increased the usage, including passive and active?

Current usage How do you and your group use the park? [probe: group activities? Group lunches? Group meetings?]

When do you meet in the park? What times of day? What days of the week?

Do you use the park all year round?

What buildings and facilities do you and your group use in the park? [probe: existing building and their facilities. How often use, what use, when use].

What are you storage requirements in the buildings?

BRUSH FARM MASTERPLAN DISCUSSION GUIDE- HERITAGE/ HISTORICAL/ BUSHLAND ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 89

Access/ Access to the park. connections Thinking about access to the park, what are things that are important to consider? How important is: - connection between the house and park [explore pedestrian, bicycle and car] - vehicular access to Lawson St car park

How important is bicycle access to the park?

How important is pedestrian access to the park? What do you think about the idea of introducing an accessible loop path to engage visitors in historic or ecological features?

Access within the park.

Thinking about access within the park, what is important to consider? Does the existing vehicular access work? [probe: idea of reconfiguring vehicular access to Lawson St parking area]

How adequate are the existing creek crossings?

How adequate is the existing tree canopy access?

Should the parking area stay where it is? Or is there a better place for it? How about if it were moved to next to the playground?

Views How important are views to the park and within it? [probe on: - views to the Glades and beyond from house - importance of establishing and historic view corridor from the house (which means through the endangered ecological species community) - views across to the city CBD - views to the Blue Mountains - views down the Parramatta River

Rating exercise: Let’s try to prioritise the importance of each of these views in relation to one another. In what order would you put them? (show cards, each with the following and ask as a group to rate, in order of importance)

- Glades/ Historic views/ City CBD/ Blue Mountains / Parramatta River.

Fabric of future The Masterplan will identify the elements of the park to be changed and retained. park elements What is your view on the following ideas: - Amalgamating the two buildings on site to become a shared multifunctional building with an adjoining community meeting point; - Introduction of an Exercise Training Circuit; - Introduction of Water Quality Basins.

How would you rate the importance or appeal of each of those three concepts? [show cards with concepts and discuss order as a group]

Interpretation/ How important is it to expose and provide interpretation to historic elements in the park? Education For example, how about the site furniture having some historic interpretation?

Any other ideas?

BRUSH FARM MASTERPLAN DISCUSSION GUIDE- HERITAGE/ HISTORICAL/ BUSHLAND ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 90

Other ideas What else would you like to be considered in the Masterplan?

Ideal future Picture card exercise.

Finally, I have a large set of images here. They cover a range of topics and ideas, some relate to the park, others don’t. Some are completely abstract. I would like you all to look at as many cards in this set as you can. [Hand out small piles to each person and encourage them to pass them on, swap and share].

As you look at these images I would like you consider the ideal Brush Farm Park. That is, with no restraints or barriers. I would like everyone to take out up to 3 images that represent the ideal Brush Farm Park.

[when exercise is done, go around the room and ask each person to describe in a few words why they chose that image]

END.

BRUSH FARM MASTERPLAN DISCUSSION GUIDE- HERITAGE/ HISTORICAL/ BUSHLAND ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 91

Brush Farm Park MasterPlan Discussion Guide

Sporting groups

Introduction 1. Welcome participants, introductions of facilitators, Council staff and Sym Studio team 2. Purpose of the focus group. Process of MasterPlanning process. (Sym Studio to give overview). 3. Privacy and confidentiality. 4. Everyone encouraged to participate. No one should dominate. Supposed to be an informal conversation. 5. Must keep to topic and follow set agenda. 6. Audio recording the conversation. 7. Tea and coffee- help yourself. Time of finish.

TOPIC QUESTIONS

Introductions Let’s start with some introductions around the table. If you could give a very brief introduction and include your name, what group you are here to represent, and how long you have been interested in the park.

Group Can you start by telling me a bit about your clubs? membership What is the history of your club? When was it formed?

How many members are there? Where do they come from? What sort of people are they? [probe: age, gender etc]

What are the membership trends at the moment? Is membership increasing, decreasing, or staying the same?

What are the plans for the club over the coming years? [probe: expansion? Change of focus, membership drive etc]

Current usage When does your group use the park? In what seasons? [probe when that is] What times of day or night? How many people typically come?

What are your activities on site? [probe: Dog training: circuits? flat grassed area? shade? Visual screening? Sporting groups: flat areas, shade, sun aspect]

What on-site amenities do you and your group use?

Are there amenities on site that you don’t use? Why not?

Does your club/ group use other parks in the region? Why/ why not?

Storage: What storage requirements do you have [probe: agility training equipment, sporting goods]. Do you have enough storage space?

Do you share storage space with other clubs or groups? Does that work for you?

What other storage requirements do you have?

BRUSH FARM MASTERPLAN DISCUSSION GUIDE- SPORTING GROUPS ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 92

Capacity Do you feel that when you are at the park you are competing for use of space and amenities?

Do you find that you are having to extend into other areas as your player or membership base expands?

Do you think that, as the population of the area has increased over the years, there is increasing pressure on the park? Have you been seeing more people there over the years?

Do you think that Brush Farm Park has reached its capacity for providing sporting facilities? Or do you think it can provide more?

Access/ Access to the park. connections How do your members get to the park? [probe: car, public transport, bicycle etc]

Is current access to the park successful? Are there any problems?

Do your members use the Lawson St car park?

Would you prefer the car park were in a different position, or are you happy with where it is now?

Values What is it about Brush Farm Park that you value? What is really important to you?

Do you find this in other parks in the region? Or is Brush Farm Park unique?

Does the historical significance of the park mean much to you and your club?

What about the ecological significance? [explain if necessary: park supports endangered plant and animal species]

How about the indigenous and non-indigenous cultural history of the park and the House?

Future I want you to project a bit into the future of your club now.

Think about the club in 5-10 years time.

What will the membership numbers be?

Will you be doing any different activities?

What will your requirements be?

Will you be needing to go to a bigger regional park?

Are there any other parks in Ryde or the wider region that would be preferable for you than Brush Farm Park? Why/ why not?

BRUSH FARM MASTERPLAN DISCUSSION GUIDE- SPORTING GROUPS ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 93

Ideal future Picture card exercise.

Finally, I have a large set of images here. They cover a range of topics and ideas, some relate to the park, others don’t. Some are completely abstract. I would like you all to look at as many cards in this set as you can. [Hand out small piles to each person and encourage them to pass them on, swap and share].

As you look at these images I would like you consider the ideal Brush Farm Park. That is, with no restraints or barriers. I would like everyone to take out up to 3 images that represent the ideal Brush Farm Park.

[when exercise is done, go around the room and ask each person to describe in a few words why they chose that image]

END.

BRUSH FARM MASTERPLAN DISCUSSION GUIDE- SPORTING GROUPS ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 3 Page 94 ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 95

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park Archaeological Management Plan

Lawson Street, Eastwood, New South Wales

Report to City of Ryde

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology

February 2013 ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 96

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 2 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Report Contents

1.0 Introduction ...... 5

1.1 Background ...... 5

1.2 Location, Land Title, Ownership and Management of the Parks ...... 6

1.3 Description of Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park ...... 7

1.4 Heritage Context ...... 8

1.4.1 State Heritage Legislation ...... 8

1.4.3 Local Statutory Heritage Provisions ...... 12

1.5 Previous European and Aboriginal Heritage Assessments ...... 12

1.6 Methodology ...... 13

1.7 Report Outline ...... 14

1.8 Authorship and Acknowledgments ...... 14

2.0 The Environmental Context of Brush Farm & Lambert Parks ...... 19

2.1 Landscape Setting and Reconstructing the Original Environment ...... 19

2.2.1 Introduction ...... 19

2.2.2 The Evidence - Strengths and Limitations ...... 19

2.2 Site Topography, Geology, Hydrology, Vegetation & Soils ...... 23

2.2.1 Landforms & Site Topography ...... 23

2.2.2 Geology & Site Soils ...... 24

2.2.3 Site Hydrology ...... 25

2.2.4 The Vegetation of Brush Farm and Lambert Parks ...... 25

2.3 Recent Landuse History ...... 27

2.3.1 Walking Paths, Stormwater Controls, and Past Shale Quarrying ...... 27

2.3.2 Historical Aerial Images ...... 28

2.3.3 Brush Farm and Lambert Parks Today ...... 30

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 97

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 3 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Report Contents (Cont)

2.4 Evidence for Former Vineyard Terracing ...... 33

3.0 Aboriginal Archaeological & Historical Context ...... 62

3.1 Introduction ...... 62

3.2 European Observations of Aboriginal Life at Contact ...... 62

3.2.1 Daily to Day Activities and Material Culture ...... 62

3.2.2 Aboriginal People in Ryde at Contact ...... 68

3.2.3 Where Aboriginal People Camped, Transport and Communication ...... 72

3.3 Aboriginal Archaeological Context ...... 75

3.3.1 General Aboriginal Archaeological Patterns ...... 75

3.3.2 AHIMS Aboriginal Sites Register Search ...... 76

3.3.3 City of Ryde Potential Areas Report 2012 ...... 77

3.4 An Aboriginal Archaeological Site Prediction ...... 77

3.4.1 Rationale ...... 77

3.4.2 Brush Farm and Lambert Parks Aboriginal Archaeological Site Prediction ...... 78

4.0 European Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Context ...... 81

4.1 Introduction ...... 81

4.2 Chronology and Development of the Study Area ...... 82

4.2.1 Early Land Grants in the Field of Mars and North Brush ...... 82

4.2.2 William Cox’s Brush Farm Estate ...... 84

4.2.3 Gregory Blaxland’s Brush Farm ...... 84

4.2.4 Thomas and William Forster’ Brush Farm ...... 87

4.2.5 John Bennett’s Brush Farm ...... 88

4.2.6 The Carpentarian Reformatory ...... 88

4.2.7 Historical Landuse Summary ...... 90

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 98

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 4 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Report Contents (Cont)

4.3 Archaeological Evidence for Former Vineyards & Orchards ...... 90

4.3.1 Heritage Management Context ...... 90

4.3.2 Comparative Archaeological Contexts ...... 93

4.3.3 Orchards, Market Gardening and other Agricultural Landscape Features ...... 95

5.0 Future Planning at Brush Farm and Lambert Parks ...... 117

5.1 Draft Master Plan 2012...... 117

5.2 Mapping the Parklands Heritage Landscape ...... 118

5.3 Evidence for Former Vineyard Terracing ...... 118

5.4 An Assessment of Archaeological Heritage Sensitivity ...... 119

5.4.1 AMZ 1 ...... 119

5.4.2 AMZ 2 ...... 120

5.4.3 AMZ 3 ...... 120

5.4.4 AMZ 4 ...... 121

5.4.5 AMZ 5 ...... 122

5.5 Heritage Management Opportunities and Constraints ...... 122

5.5.1 An Evaluation of the Masterplan ...... 122

5.5.2 Balancing the Protection and Conservation of Environmental and Heritage Values .... 122

5.5.3 Opportunities and Constraints ...... 124

6.0 Heritage Management Recommendations ...... 127

6.1 Basis for Recommendations ...... 127

6.2 Recommendations ...... 127

7.0 References ...... 128

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 99

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 5 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Background

Brush Farm Park at Eastwood was dedicated for the purpose of public recreation in 1914, and Lambert Park that adjoins it was gazetted for the same use in 1957 and named in 1984. These parks have recognised natural and cultural heritage significance, and are valued today by the community for these intrinsic characteristics that are closely intertwined.

The parklands represent a surviving element of a larger Aboriginal landscape overlooking Parramatta River that existed in 1788. Although this land has over time become progressively surrounded by urban residential development, the reserves retain important vegetation communities associated with a regionally rare Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest ecology that survives on shale gullies at the headwaters of Archers Creek.

The parklands in combination also comprise the last 12 hectares of open-space still in public ownership that originally formed a part of the former Brush Farm Estate for which the first European occupancy can be traced back to the 1790s. The land as a result has strong historical associations with the life-history of the State heritage listed Brush Farm House that dates to the early 1820s which is situated adjacent to, but outside of, the adjoining recreational spaces. The known and potential archaeological evidence of the Estate’s former operations at Brush Farm Park in particular therefore represent an integral element of the cultural heritage significance of the place.

The parklands are today important sporting and recreational venues that are used by the local and wider community for a range of different activities within a landscape setting that has a distinctive bushland character. Increasing demand on this open-space for overlapping recreational needs requires balance with the conservation of its natural and cultural heritage values. The continued protection, and where appropriate the future enhancement, of the historical, archaeological, and environmental heritage of the place are central objectives of this forward planning.

This Archaeological Management Plan (AMP) has been prepared for the City of Ryde (Council) and provides additional levels of detail to existing heritage management provisions of the 2009 Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park Plan of Management. A Masterplan that will create a broader planning framework for future uses of the parklands to ensure the recognised environmental and cultural heritage values of the place are maintained is currently being developed by Council. This AMP has therefore also been prepared to inform and guide the master planning process for Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park.

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 100

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 6 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

1.2 Location, Land Title, Ownership and Management of the Parks

The location of Brush Farm and Lambert Parks at Eastwood is indicated in Figure 1.1 and Figure 1.2. Brush Farm Park is located below Brush Farm House and comprises land immediately to the south of Lawson Street. Lambert Park forms a southern continuation of the vegetation corridor that fringes the tributaries of Archers Creek that run through the two parklands before the creekline drains into Parramatta River. The two parks are separated from each other by the Rutledge Street Road Reserve (RSRR). The current condition and layout of the parklands is illustrated in Figure 1.3. The key features and facilities contained in the two parks are indicated in Figure 1.4.

Brush Farm Park (comprising Lot 7059 in DP 1062383) is Crown Land and approximately 8.16 hectares in size. It was dedicated for Public Recreation in April 1914. Council is the Trustee of the park as per a notification published in the Government Gazette (No. 141) in December 1955.

Lambert Park is approximately 2.59 hectares in size and was named in July 1984 and is owned by Council. It comprises three separate lots:

 Lot 24 in DP 27511 dedicated as public recreation space in January 1957.  Lot 27 in DP 28606 dedicated as public recreation space in April 1958.  Lot 45 in DP 28514 dedicated as public recreation space in January 1958.

Rutledge Street was gazetted as a road in July 1922. The RSRR is approximately 1.61 hectares in size. Its boundaries relative to the two parklands is defined by a combination of wire-mesh fence and survey marker pegs.

A number of lease agreements are in place at Brush Farm and Lambert Parks. Hire agreements are also in place for the use of the recreational oval for cricket, netball and dog training at Brush Farm Park. License agreements comprise:

• Brush Farm Dog Training Club Inc for the Dog Training Club. • Lambert Park - Guide Hall. • Eastwood Ryde Netball Association Inc. This is a licence agreement for the use of the amenities building and the canteen.

Key stakeholders responsible for the management of facilities in the parklands include:

• Brush Farm Park Trust (City of Ryde) - Management, leases, licences and bookings. • City of Ryde - Land owner, maintenance, supervision. • Department of Lands - Land owner. • Brush Farm Historical Society - Interest group, volunteering. • Brush Farm Park Preservation Group - Interest group, volunteering.

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 101

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 7 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

• Brush Farm Park Dog Club - Interest group. • Eastwood-Ryde Netball Association - Interest group. • Northern Districts Cricket Association - Interest group. • NSW Heritage Branch - Interest group. • Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council - Interest group. • Aboriginal Heritage Office - Interest group.

1.3 Description of Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park

Approximately one-quarter of Brush Farm Park consists of a cleared and open recreational playing field located within the northern portion of the park as indicated in Figure 1.4. This space functions as a cricket field that alternates in use as open-grass netball courts in winter, and is also used for school sporting activities and other public recreational pursuits throughout the year. The grassed surface of the playing fields has recently been upgraded by Council. The continuation of the open playing field area at the southern end of Brush Farm Park currently retains a light cover of sapling regrowith vegetation and is presently used for ‘passive’ public recreational purposes.

All-weather netball courts are also located to the northwest of the playing fields in this park, along with a sealed car-parking area, an amenities building used by the Eastwood/Ryde Netball Association, facilities utilised by the Brush Farm Dog Training Club, and a Scout Hall.

The remainder of the western, eastern and southern parts of Brush Farm Park (that comprises about 6 hectares of land in total) consist of a mix of regenerated and/or planted natural vegetation that fringe both sides of three relatively steep gullies through which tributaries of Archers Creek flow from north to south. These bushland areas also include a network of interconnected informal walking tracks that follow routes at different levels along the sides and bottom of the gullies that have been augmented with timber decking and viewing platforms in places.

Lambert Park is narrow and bisected by a single channel of Archers Creek from a point where two of the three tributaries that run through Brush Farm Park join just south of the RSRR. A large portion of this parkland has been considerably affected by past shale quarrying and subsequent filling, along with more recent creek line rehabilitation and other allied storm-water control activities.

Much of the native vegetation in this park is now degraded despite that considerable bush regeneration of the area has occurred since the 1980s, and in places it continues to be infested by weeds such as lantana and privet that are key threatening species in Schedule 3 of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 that applies to the Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark (STIF) ecological communities in both Brush Farm and Lambert Parks.

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 102

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 8 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

1.4 Heritage Context

1.4.1 State Heritage Legislation

This AMP has been prepared in consideration of the three principal pieces of legislation that provide statutory protection for Aboriginal and European heritage and the requirements for its management in New South Wales:

 The National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (as amended);  The NSW Heritage Act 1977 (as amended); and  The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended).

National Parks and Wildlife Act (1974)

The Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) is the principal government agency with responsibility for the protection and management of Aboriginal archaeological sites and Aboriginal cultural heritage values. It comprises an administrative branch of the NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet.

The NPW Act was amended through the National Parks and Wildlife Amendment Act 2010. The majority of the Aboriginal heritage management objectives and protection provisions of the NPW Act remain largely the same as they were originally established in 1974. However, a number of the amendments and administration functions of the NPW Act have implications for the current project as summarised below:

 The Director-General (DG) of the OEH is responsible for the protection and conservation of Aboriginal objects and declared Aboriginal places in NSW.  Part 6 of the NPW Act provides specific protection for Aboriginal objects and declared Aboriginal places by establishing offences of harm.  Harm is defined under the Act to mean destroying, defacing, damaging or moving an Aboriginal object from the land.  Under Section 86 of the NPW Act, it is an offence to knowingly, or cause or permit harm to an Aboriginal object (or Aboriginal place) without prior written consent from the DG of the OEH.  There are a number of defences and exemptions to the offence of harm under the NPW Act. One of these is that harm is carried out under the terms and conditions of an approved Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit (AHIP).  Section 87 of the NPW Act also provides for defences to harm done to an Aboriginal object if due diligence has determined that no Aboriginal object would be harmed, compliance with regulations or an approved code of practice was followed, and if it is shown as a low impact act and/or an (unintended) omission.

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 103

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 9 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

 The NPW Act establishes the DG of the OEH as the decision-maker for AHIP applications.  The OEH requires effective consultation with Aboriginal people as a fundamental component of the AHIP assessment process.  AHIPs are issued under Section 87 and Section 90 of the NPW Act. Recent amendments to the administration of the NPW Act allow for the issuance of approvals that combine Sections 87 and 90 submissions in certain circumstances to streamline and make more effective the implementation of the NPW Act.  Section 5 of the NPW Act defines an Aboriginal object as: ‘any deposit, object or material evidence (not being a handicraft for sale) relating to Indigenous and non-European habitation of the area that comprises New South Wales, being habitation before or concurrent with (or both) the occupation of that area by persons of non-Aboriginal extraction, and includes Aboriginal remains’.  A declared Aboriginal place is a statutory concept, meaning that it is any place (land, landscape element, or building etc) that is declared to be an Aboriginal place (under Section 84 of the Act) by the Minister administering the NPW Act because the Minister is of the opinion that the place is or was of special significance with respect to Aboriginal culture.  A declared Aboriginal Place may or may not contain Aboriginal objects.  The protection provided to Aboriginal objects and places applies irrespective of the level of their significance or issues of land tenure.  Section 89A of the NPW Act requires that the DG be notified of the location of any newly identified Aboriginal site or object which is then registered with the OEH Aboriginal Heritage Information Management Service (AHIMS) database.

In summary, the NPW Act:

 Is the primary legislation for the protection of Aboriginal cultural heritage in NSW and gives the DG the responsibility for the appropriate care, preservation and protection of Aboriginal objects and places.  Part 6 of the NPW Act provides specific protection for Aboriginal objects and places by making it an offence to harm them. An AHIP is required if impacts to Aboriginal objects and/or places cannot be avoided. An AHIP is a defence to a prosecution for harming Aboriginal objects and places if the harm was authorised by the AHIP and the conditions of that AHIP were not contravened.  The Act includes a ‘strict liability’ offence for harm to Aboriginal objects and places, but does not require someone to know that it is an Aboriginal object or place they are causing harm to in order to be prosecuted. Defences from prosecution include a low impact activity or

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 104

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 10 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

demonstration of due diligence conducted in accordance with the OEH Due Diligence Code of Practice.  However, if an Aboriginal object is encountered in the course of an activity (where an AHIP has not been approved) work must cease and an application must be made to the DG for an AHIP. An AHIP application must be accompanied by an assessment completed in accordance with the OEH Code of Practice.  Consultation with Aboriginal communities is required under Part 8A of the NPW Regulation 2009 and is to be conducted in accordance with the OEH Aboriginal Heritage Consultation Requirements for Proponents 2010 where AHIPs are sought.

No Aboriginal archaeological sites or objects have been identified to occur within either Brush Farm or Lambert Parks to date.

NSW Heritage Act (1977)

The NSW Heritage Act 1977 (as amended) is the principal legislation that provides statutory protection for non-Indigenous (European) heritage and the requirements for its management in NSW. The administration of the Act is overseen by the NSW Heritage Branch and is guided by the NSW Heritage Council in their regulatory role as part of the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure.

The primary purpose of the Act is to protect, conserve and manage the environmental heritage of the State. Environmental heritage is broadly defined under Section 4 of the Act as:

‘those places, buildings, works, relics, moveable objects, and precincts, of State or Local heritage significance’.

Amendments to the Act made in 2009 have changed the definition of an archaeological ‘relic’ whereby a relic is now referred as an archaeological deposit, artefact, object or material evidence that:

a) Relates to the settlement of the area that comprises NSW, not being Aboriginal settlement, and b) Is of State or Local heritage significance (Amendment No 136, Part 1).

The new definition is no longer based primarily on age (previously a ‘relic’ was described as comprising any item older than 50 years of age). This significance based approach to identifying ‘relics’ is consistent with the way other heritage items such as buildings, works, precincts or landscapes are identified and managed in NSW (NSW Heritage Branch 2009).

While a number of the archaeological provisions of the Act have been streamlined, the Act nevertheless retains the core principals and objectives that require anyone proposing to disturb land to

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 105

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 11 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

obtain a permit from the Heritage Council of NSW (under Section 140 or Section 160 of the Act) if it is known or suspected that ‘relics’ of significance may be disturbed, moved, or destroyed by future land alterations and/or use.

Section 139 of the Act provides that:

c) ‘A person must not disturb or excavate any land knowing or having reasonable cause to suspect that the disturbance or excavation will or is likely to result in a relic being discovered, exposed, moved, damaged or destroyed unless the disturbance or excavation is carried out in accordance with an excavation permit.

d) A person must not disturb or excavate any land on which the person has discovered or exposed a relic except in accordance with an excavation permit’.

If the site is the subject of an order under Section 130 of the Act, an Interim Heritage Order, or is listed on the State Heritage Register (SHR), approval for an excavation permit is required under Section 60 of the Act.

If the site is not the subject of an order under the Act and is not listed on the SHR, an excavation permit is required, in accordance with Section 140 of the Act.

Section 146 of the Act requires that the accidental discovery of relics should be reported to the Heritage Council of NSW:

‘A person who is aware or believes that he or she has discovered or located a relic (in any circumstances, and whether or not the person has been issued with an excavation permit) must;

e) within a reasonable time after he or she first becomes aware or believes that he or she has discovered or located that relic, notify the Heritage Council of the location of the relic, unless he or she believes on reasonable grounds that the heritage Council is aware of the location of the relic; and

f) within the period required by the heritage Council, furnish the Heritage Council with such information concerning the relic as the Heritage Council may reasonably require’.

When an item of heritage significance comes under the ownership or control of a public authority, the authority is required to record it in a heritage and Conservation Register, under Section 170 of the Act. The purposes of the provision are to alert the authority where works are proposed, which might affect the item.

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 106

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 12 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Neither Brush Farm Park nor Lambert Park form part of the Brush Farm House State Heritage Register (SHR) curtilage that applies to what is a relatively small area of land (including some garden remnants and other elements of the former landscape of the Estate) that surrounds the House to the north of Lawson Street.

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (1979)

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) establishes the statutory planning framework for environmental and land use planning in NSW through State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs), Regional Environmental Plans (REPs) and Local Environmental Plans (LEPs).

The EPA Act also establishes the framework for Aboriginal heritage values to be formally assessed in landuse planning and development consent processes. The Act has three main parts of relevance to Aboriginal cultural heritage. These are:

 Part 3 that governs the preparation of planning instruments (SEPPs, REPs and LEPs.

 Part 4 which relates to the development assessment process for local government (consent) authorities; and

 Part 5 which relates to activity approvals by governing (determining) authorities.

The OEH is an approval body under Part 5 of the EPA Act and may in many circumstances require formal consideration of a variety of cultural and community factors that may include potential impacts to significant Aboriginal anthropological, archaeological, and cultural and historical values to have been adequately addressed as part of their assessment process.

1.4.3 Local Statutory Heritage Provisions

Brush Farm Park is listed as an item of local heritage significance in Ryde (Draft) Local Environmental Plan 2011 (Schedule 5 – Environmental Heritage).

Lambert Park is not listed as an item of heritage significance itself within Ryde LEP, or as a heritage item on any other statutory or non-statutory schedule.

1.5 Previous European and Aboriginal Heritage Assessments

A number of previous heritage studies (most of which focus on the relationship of Brush Farm Park with nearby Brush Farm House) have been prepared for the parklands that have assisted in the development this AMP:

• Britton et al. 2004. Landscape and Archaeology Assessment for the Former Brush Farm Estate. Eastwood, NSW. Report to City of Ryde.

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 107

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 13 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

• Clive Lucas, Stapleton & Partners Pty Ltd. 1991. Brush Farm House & Landscape. Marsden Road and Lawson Street, Eastwood, NSW. Conservation Analysis and Draft Conservation Policy. Volume 1 – Conservation Analysis. Report to Ryde Municipal Council.

An important historical and archaeological theme identified in these studies is the potential for evidence of vineyard terracing associated with the period of occupation and use of the Brush Farm House by Gregory Blaxland during the 1820s to survive along the gullies in Brush Farm Park.

Two key floral studies have also been prepared for the parklands in recent years. These have also assisted in placing the key archaeological issues addressed in this AMP within an appropriate environmental and cultural heritage context:

• Biosphere Environmental Consultants Pty Ltd. 2006. Ryde Flora and Fauna Study. Brush Farm Park, Darvall Park, Lambert Park and Field of Mars Reserve. Report to City of Ryde. • Kubiak, P.J. 2005. Native Plants of the Ryde District. The Conservation Significance of Ryde’s Bushland Plants. Report to City of Ryde.

A landscape-archaeological approach is used here to examine how the parklands may have been used by Aboriginal people in the past, in what ways and when the landscape is likely to influenced the nineteenth century historic use of the place, and how the parks are currently managed by Council to achieve a balance between the community’s recreational and environmental conservation needs.

1.6 Methodology

The heritage documents that have guided the preparation of this AMP are listed below. The heritage provisions of the City of Ryde Council Draft Local Environmental Plan (2011) and Development Control Plan (2010) have also been reviewed:

 Australia ICOMOS. 1999. The Burra Charter. The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance. Australia ICOMOS Inc.  NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change & Water. 2010. Code of Practice for Archaeological Investigation of Aboriginal Objects in NSW. DECCW. Sydney.  NSW Heritage Office. 1996. NSW Heritage Manual. NSW Heritage Office and the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning. Sydney.

 NSW Heritage Office. 2006. Historical Archaeology Code of Practice. NSW Heritage Office, NSW Department of Planning. Sydney.

 NSW Heritage Office. 2008. Levels of Heritage Significance. NSW Heritage Office, NSW Department of Planning. Sydney.

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 108

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 14 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

 NSW Heritage Branch. 2009. Assessing Significance for Historical Archaeological Sites and ‘Relics’. NSW Heritage Branch, NSW Department of Planning. Sydney.

1.7 Report Outline

This AMP presents the following:

 An introduction to the project (Section 1.0).  A description of the environmental context of the parklands including their geology, topography, hydrology, vegetation and soils. The original environment played an important role in shaping how Aboriginal people will have used this landscape in the past. It also influenced how the land was used and developed during the historic period. In this context, consideration has also been given to how the original environmental conditions have been historically reconstructed, and the way this has a bearing on the current management of the parks (Section 2.0).  A background Aboriginal heritage context for the parklands that includes a review of what we know of the people who lived in this landscape in 1788 through the written records, and what types of archaeological evidence may survive now that can tell us about how people may have used the place in the past (Section 3.0).  An historical and historical-archaeological overview of the parklands. This review correlates the documented history of the use and development of the parklands with the known and potential archaeological remains of this landuse that may survive today (Section 4.0).  An explanation of the archaeological management approaches that have been developed for the parks which are allied with future landuse options that have been identified during the master planning process for the adjoining parklands (Section 5.0)  Archaeological heritage management recommendations and zoning plans to assist in the ongoing and future maintenance and use of Brush Farm and Lambert Parks (Section 6.0).  Sources and references cited in this report (Section 7.0).  Supporting documentation (Appendices).

1.8 Authorship and Acknowledgments

The information presented in this report for the Archers Creek vineyard terracing has built upon previous research compiled by Dr Peter Mitchell as this guidance is great appreciated. This AMP has also been prepared with the assistance provided by the following people:

Mr Hamish Putt City of Ryde.

Mr Jakub Czastka DSCA Associate.

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 109

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 15 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Figure 1:1: Location of Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park at Eastwood (Source: City of Ryde 2009).

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 110

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 16 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Figure 1:2: Location and Layout of Brush Farm and Lambert Parks (Source: City of Ryde 2009).

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 111

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 17 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Figure 1:3: Existing Condition of the Parklands (Source: City of Ryde 2012).

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 112

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 18 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Figure 1.4: Key Facilities and Recreational Spaces at Brush Farm and Lambert Parks (Source: City of Ryde Council 2009).

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 113

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 19 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

2.0 The Environmental Context of Brush Farm & Lambert Parks

2.1 Landscape Setting and Reconstructing the Original Environment

2.2.1 Introduction

How we reconstruct what types of vegetation were likely to have characterised the former Brush Farm Estate at Contact is based largely on five main lines of evidence. Each are to an extent interrelated and comprise the following:

 The plants and trees present on the ground today, some of which may be regenerated species that may have associations with pre-1788 ecological communities.  Vegetation communities endemic to the local landscape in similar transitional shale-based ridge-tops and gullies to those at Brush Farm and Lambert Parks.  Native tree and plant distributions that survive today in reserves and parklands across the Ryde LGA in comparable landscape and landform contexts to those within the study area.  Inferences that are derived from historical aerial and landscape photographs, and some painted/drawn images.  Early European historical descriptions.

These data sources are reviewed below to provide a baseline for the environmental discussions of the parklands to follow.

2.2.2 The Evidence - Strengths and Limitations

Early European Descriptions of the Parramatta River and its Environments

A number of descriptions of the landscape vegetation along Parramatta River at Ryde were recorded by the British during the first explorations following settlement at Sydney Cove that led to the establishment of the Government Farm at Rose Hill in November 1788. While some of these records vary in detail depending on where and why they were made, most can be broadly summed up by Governor Phillip who wrote when looking from the perspective of Sydney Harbour towards Parramatta that ‘as far as the eye can reach to the westward the country appears to be one continued wood’ (HRNSW 1(2) 1792:127). This continuous timber canopy is assumed to have been mixed open ironbark/turpentine woodland. What the understorey and ground cover below the trees may have comprised is less clear.

Most of the earliest observations were made by people from boats at water-level, and focused on the banks of Parramatta River and its immediate hinterland fringes. Few accounts as a result describe how the land on the more elevated slopes above the river appeared in 1788.

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 114

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 20 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

In 1788, the land at Eastwood was also physically isolated from the developing town at Sydney Cove. As such, early transport and communication was reliant upon Parramatta River. Until the first bridge crossing in Gladesville was constructed in 1881 the northern side of the river could only be directly approached initially by water, and then later via a punt crossing over from Abbotsford to Bedlam Point that from c.1831 connected with the Great North Road network. As a result, few landscape detailed descriptions for this period exist

North Brush

From the early 1790s the land north of the Field of Mars settlement (including the study area) was known as ‘North Brush’ or ‘the Brush’. This term appears to have been adopted because of the dense vegetation that was seen to characterise the country. The term ‘brush’ is sometimes used today within the context of describing dense clustering’s of bushes and ferns growing beneath taller trees in ‘rainforest’ environments.

Campbell (1927:367-368) explains the naming of the land that was to become Brush Farm Estate whereby Brush Farm was:

‘so called by reason of the more or less dense brush that lined the sides of the streamlets and gullies, especially near to the margin of the hill. About the beginning of the last century, however, clearing improvements for agricultural and stock purposes, and the operations of timber getters, denuded the forest to such an extent that the appellation of “brush” seemed to be no longer applicable, although retained in the name of Brush Farm. Here and there, nevertheless, would still remain a forest giant unsuitable for sawpit or other useful purpose, and it is likely that one of these trees became isolated at the extreme north-east corner of portion 20, or about five chains from the junction of Spurway Lane with Marsden Road. Bald knobs and other bare patches are, however, not infrequent in forest areas’.

Campbell’s observation provides an example of why descriptions by some early writers should be read within the context of the times during which they were made. Some records were made to promote the agricultural potential of land, whereas others were more generalist ‘layperson’ descriptions expressed by people to build a picture of the environment in which the writers found themselves.

Terms including ‘brush’ and ‘forest’ have in some cases both different meanings and were used in different historical descriptive contexts than the way they are more commonly applied today. Rolls (2002:86) suggests the term ‘forest’ did not always refer to the presence of heavy timber, but rather was often used to convey an image of more open grassland dotted with large trees. Many 1820s descriptions tend to confirm the observation that ‘forest land’ in a colonial context made reference to a landscape with thinly spaced timber ‘or to give it the colonial appellation, the forest land, [that] is very

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 115

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 21 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

thinly dotted with timber, and equal for all the purposes of agriculture’ (Wentworth 1824:78). At around the same time, Breton (1834) wrote ‘Open forest is that description where there is no underwood, where the trees in general are far asunder. “Scrub” is dense forest with much underwood and bad soil’. This author further described ‘brush’ and ‘scrub’ in the following way:

’Vine brush is almost impenetrable forest, where great numbers of climbers, parasitical plants and underwood are found; the soil is generally good. “Brush” is forest with occasional underwood, but not so dense as “scrub”; besides which, the latter may be without large trees; “brush” is never destitute of such’.

In this context, during the period William Cox rapidly consolidated previously granted parcels of land to create Brush Farm Estate from 1800, there are contemporary sale and public notice descriptions for properties in the Field of Mars that make reference to, but distinguish between, ‘brush’ and ‘forest’ areas on the same parcels of land.

For example, ‘Chatham Farm’ was described in the Sydney Gazette in 1806 as ‘a valuable Brush Farm containing One Hundred Acres.....about 40 acres clear and fit for cultivation; 15 which have only been twice cropped’. This property was ‘well watered’, had a ‘good barn with a shed at each end’.....and also included a ‘frame for a Dwelling House’. The remaining 60 acres is not described, but may be inferred to have comprised landforms with vegetation less suitable for ‘improvement’. Likewise, in 1825 William Sherwin’s land near Parramatta was called ‘Box-Brush Farm’ (Sydney Gazette 7 November 1825) which may have referred to either a type of tree (Grey Box – E. molucanna or Brush Box) and/or a prevalent type of ‘brush’ vegetation that characterised the farm at that time. It is therefore probable different kinds of ‘brush farms’ in discreet landscape and ecological contexts existed in ‘North Brush’ that were contemporary with the Cox and Blaxland ‘Brush Farm Estate’.

Baron von Hugel’s Description of Brush Farm in 1834

Campbell (1927:372) describes the original Brush farm homestead which was the ‘site of the building erected by William Cox in 1800 for the accommodation of Holt, his manager, and the structures considered necessary for the agricultural and pastoral pursuits in which he was engaged’ in the following way:

‘The writer was informed by Mr h. Johnstone, owner and occupant of Barrington’s grant, Portion 23, that the remains of the old homestead had disappeared about sixty years ago. The site of the old homestead is a gently sloping piece of ground of two or three acres in extent; fronting the streamlet that meanders down the valley. The grant is now subdivided into small holdings’.

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 116

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 22 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

The site of the first Brush Farm was to the west of present day Marsden Road some 700 metres from the current Brush Farm House. On the basis Govett’s 1829 survey of this part of the Field of Mars, the early buildings and cultivated land would have been below (south) an east-west tributary of Archers Creek with a series of north-south orientated headwater gullies occurring nearby to the east. The following description of the place is recorded in the memoirs of Holt (1838:86) in 1800:

‘We went to see the farm: I had never seen such mould [loose soil rich in organic matter etc] as it was, for it resembled an old church-yard; loose, black, rank looking earth; the ground, too, was very well situated, and I gave my opinion very much in favour of the purchase’.

French explorer Francois Peron visited the farm a little later in 1802 and made comment on the state of the cultivated land he saw there, the livestock and the convict labour at the place, and also described (from Britton et al 2004):.

‘a large and elegant mansion, surrounded by more considerable cultivated lands and covered by greater numbers of flocks and labourers, all indicating it to be the property of a rich and industrious owner’.

However, the first historical reference to the environment that can be reliably tied to the former Brush Farm Estate in the context of the existing Brush Farm House dates to 1834. This is over 40 years after settlement on the northern bank of Parramatta River at Ryde began in January 1792 with the establishment of eight small farms (between 30 and 100 acres in size) granted to former marines by Governor Phillip. This reference is also the most frequently cited in the literature to describe the early colonial landscape and environment of the early nineteenth century Estate. Furthermore, the description also post-dates the 1820s historical sources that detail the wine growing and production achievements of Gregory Blaxland during his occupation of Brush Farm House which may have surviving archaeological traces in Brush Farm Park.

This reference is in the ‘New Holland Journal’ kept by Charles von Hugel who toured Australia including parts of New South Wales between November 1833 to October 1833 to observe the flora of the Country and to collect seeds and flowers for his gardens in Austria. The entry below is (dated to 8 July 1834) and is reproduced from Clark’s (1994:362) edited translation of the text:

‘Today most of the family went to ‘Brush Farm’ to pay a visit to Dr Forster and Mr Bowermann [H.B. Bowerman], and I went with them. To get there we crossed the Parramatta River.....We found Mr Bowerman not at home, but his wife, a famous beauty and a truly lovely woman, received us….

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 117

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 23 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

‘Brush Farm commands an extensive view, similar to that from Kissing Point Church, which is only a few miles away. Mount Tillara and Mount Tomah, so far way from each other, are the two most striking features of the mountain range. Near the house, there is a deep valley with a type of vegetation all its own, containing a number of plants which I have found only in the Illawarra’.

This botanical correlation drawn by von Hugel between what he saw at Brush Farm and what he had observed in the Illawarra has influenced how bushland restoration works at Brush Farm Park in particular have been carried out over the last thirty five years or so. This conservation work has involved extensive weed removal (and allied slope stabilisation, track creation and storm-water control) and replanting of native vegetation types where natural regeneration has not been possible. Consequently, replanting has resulted in some areas of the gradual re-establishment of closed gully forest elements with open forest characteristics on the higher slopes of the tributaries of Archers Creek that run through the parklands.

What are now regionally important remnant wet forest and gully vegetation plants are well established in places in Brush Farm Park in particular, and this has in turn influenced how significance-values assessment criteria and maintenance principles have been progressively adopted by Council in planning documents such as the 2009 PoM. Because of these ecological values, strategic objectives have been recognised and management action-plans have been developed within a historical context that has at their core the importance of the early operations of the Brush Farm Estate. Namely:

 The conservation of the natural vegetation of Brush Farm Park, with priority given to STIF community and remnant rainforest species.  The conservation of known (and where possible potential) archaeology of the Brush Farm Estate, with priority given to identified remnants such as vineyard and orchard terraces as important components of the cultural heritage landscape of Brush Farm Park in particular.  Where it remains consistent with the overall objective of conserving the twofold character of the parklands – active (sporting) uses in the upper open spaces and ‘passive’ recreation in areas beyond this – to allow for the continuing use of the place as it presently exists.

2.2 Site Topography, Geology, Hydrology, Vegetation & Soils

2.2.1 Landforms & Site Topography

Brush Farm House is situated on an elevated northeast to southwest tending ridge at the southern end of the Hornsby Plateau. This ridgeline overlooks the valleys and flats of Parramatta River to the south and those of Lane Cove River to the east. The topography of Eastwood is characterised by low rolling to steep hills where local relief ranges between 50m and 120m above sea level. Narrow convex

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 118

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 24 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

ridges and hill crests generally grade into moderately inclined side-slopes in these landforms, and are incised by narrow drainage lines (Chapman and Murphy 1989:68).

At the northern end of Brush Farm Park adjacent to Lawson Street the elevation is approximately 95m asl. Further south, towards and through Lambert Park, the land drops away relatively steeply to about 85m asl as it leads towards Parramatta River. At the base of the gullies within the parklands the relative elevation is about 65m asl.

The contour plans of Brush Farm and Lambert Parks that are presented here as Figures 2.1 and 2.2 illustrate how the flat to gently sloping areas now occupied by the playing fields are defined to the east and west by the incised gullies of Archers Creek that continue through to Lambert Park.

2.2.2 Geology & Site Soils

The parklands are situated at the transition between two major geologic formations within the Sydney Bioregion; the Hornsby Plateau on Wianamatta Shale and the Cumberland Plain. The bedrock geology of Ryde LGA as a whole consists largely of Ashfield Shale that overlies Hawkesbury Sandstone. Large areas of this landscape have soils derived from the overlying shale that form a moderately undulating topography that stretches between the catchments of the Parramatta and Lane Cove River systems. Along Ryde’s eastern, northern, and southern margins, the rivers and their tributary creeks have over time cut through the overlying shale and created in places steep and craggy sandstone valley landforms through which these watercourses run. The sandstone soils are less fertile than those of shale on the adjoining ridgelines and flatter plateaus that characterise the elevated landscapes surrounding the parklands study area.

The transitional location of the parklands has lead to the formation of deep shale gullies dominated by clay soils. This geology has created a habitat suitable for the survival of some regionally rare plant species that are associated with the STIF that occur within parts of Brush Farm Park. It has also allowed for the re-establishment of transitional rainforest community plants that have been promoted by ongoing bush care and regeneration works.

At a more specific level, the dominant soil of the local landscape of which Brush Farm Park forms a part in particular is the erosional Glenorie Soil Landscape (Chapman and Murphy 1989:68ff). These soils comprise friable to hard-setting shallow to moderately deep loams and silty-sand clay that occur over strong basal clays. These soil profiles are underlain by Wianamatta Group Ashfield Shale consisting of laminate and dark grey shale, and Bringelly Shale formations that include shale, calcareous claystone, laminite, and fine to medium grained lithic-quartz sandstone. As described and illustrated below, shale profiles are exposed in places in the channels of Archers Creek close to the

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 119

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 25 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

RSRR, and these materials have been quarried in the past in parts Lambert Park for the production of road-base gravels and surface pavement fabrics.

2.2.3 Site Hydrology

At a regional level, the Ryde LGA is dominated by the catchments of Parramatta River to the south and Lane Cove River to the east. A number of creeks of varying size drain into these rivers including Terry’s Creek to the north, and Buffalo Creek to the east. At a local level, the catchment of Archers Creek is a significant landscape unit and encompasses an area of approximately 325 hectares. This catchment includes the ridgeline of Brush Farm Park and passes through Lambert Park via incised valleys and gullies until it reaches the flatter floodplain of Parramatta River.

Three main gullies bisected by tributary branches of Archers Creek occur within Brush Farm Park. These extend from Marsden Road, the Scout Hall, and Lawson Street respectively from the upper reaches of the watercourse. The two gullies in the north-western side of the park (extending from Marsden Road and the Scout Hall) combine to the east of the Brush Farm Bowling Club. These creeks then flow through the upper part of Lambert Park where they join the eastern (Lawson Street) gully and flow into Parramatta River via Meadowbank Park. The location and alignment of the main branches of Archers Creek that are contained within the parklands is illustrated in Figure 2.3.

2.2.4 The Vegetation of Brush Farm and Lambert Parks

Mindful that the parklands are a habitat suitable for the survival of plants associated with the STIF, and has also allowed for the establishment of a transitional rainforest community, von Hugel’s 1834 diary comments below provide a baseline for a widely cited appraisal of the vegetation of the parklands by Benson & Howell (1990:124-125). The following summary (ibid:125) provides a characterisation of the vegetation of the two parks within its historical context, and places the significant elements of this environment as it exists today within a urban residential setting:

‘Named Brush Farm by the early settlers because of this rainforest or ‘brush’, its species include trees of Cryptocarya glaucescens [Native Laurel], Euodia micrococca [Melicope], Guioa semiglauca [Guioa] and Schizomeria ovata [Crab Apple], shrubs of Alectryon subcinereus [Native Quince] and Eupomatia laurina [Native Guava], and the climber Aphanopetalum resinosum [Gum Vine]. There is a very large Trochocarpa laurina [Tree Heath] 12m high. The moist fertile gully soils have been particularly susceptible to weed invasion, not surprising in view of its settlement in 1794 and long farming history, before dedication as a park. In spite of its very weedy undergrowth, over 100 species can still be found at Brush Farm Park’.

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 120

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 26 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Further details that add to this environmental picture are provided by a biodiversity study prepared for Council in 2006 (Biosphere Environmental Consultants Pty Ltd 2006) that builds on a wider review of the native plants of the Ryde district (Kubiak 2005). The principal findings of the former study that included field-based data gathering and analyses are summarised below.

 The vegetation in the parklands has previously been classified as Blue Gum High Forest (Benson & Howell 1994). The topography of the place is however below 100m asl and thereby no longer satisfies the criteria of that particular ecological community listing. The 2006 study reports the parks either fulfil or come close to fulfilling their statistical criteria (species composition, relative abundance and associations) classification as STIF.  In Brush Farm Park, the most pervasive weed threat to the STIF ecology is ‘Panic Veldt Grass’ (Ehrharta erecta) located upslope on the gully edges adjacent to the disturbed land along the RSRR. The Noxious Weeds Act 1993 lists many of the weed species found in this park, and in particular Green Cestrum (Cestrum parqui) which under the Act ‘must be fully and continuously suppressed and destroyed’. Other weeds identified in the park require ‘the growth and spread of the plant must be controlled according to the measures specified in a management plan published by the local control authority’ according to the Act.  In Lambert Park, the 2006 study found that although had been extensively planted, these had not been maintained and the park remained excessively weedy.  In summary, the greatest threats to the STIF values in the parks come from the Class 3 noxious weed Green Cestrum and Class 4 noxious weeds Madeira (Anredera cordifolia), Moth Vine (Araujia sericiflora), Trad (Tradescantia fluminensis), Large-leaf Privet (Ligustrum lucidum), and non-listed but dominating Panic Veldt Grass. A general cause for concern was also identified as being the over-clearing of woody weeds which promotes erosion on the steep slopes in Lambert Park in particular.

The following key recommendations were provided by the 2006 assessment on the basis the above considerations:

 To reclassify the parklands vegetation as STIF Ecological Communities as opposed to representing the previous Blue Gum High Forest.  Areas with natural soil profiles in the parklands should be regenerated using weeding of small, manageable areas that would receive frequent follow-up weeding to avoid annual or more prolonged periods to stop weeds from seeding.  Natural regeneration principles should be followed in areas with an undisturbed soil seed bank, whereby planting or seed sowing should be avoided.

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 121

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 27 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

For Lambert Park, the following recommendations were also provided:

 The creation of new environmental communities in degraded areas of the park requires plantings to be protected from competition with weed species, and most of the RSRR should be maintained as a STIF Ecological Community.

For Brush Farm Park, additional recommendations were also provided:

 Council should reduce over-clearing on steep slopes by clearing only small mosaics that can be maintained weed free in the short term while the canopy is open, allowing regeneration to occur. Weeds should be prevented from seeding. Bank stabilisation is paramount on steep slopes and planting or seed sowing should only occur in areas with a disturbed soil profile.  The cleared area below the playing fields should be restored as native bushland. Exotic grasses could be killed using plastic sheets and when areas are devoid of living grasses the soil could be prepared for native seed stock. This area may be large enough to support the creation of a heath-shrub zone, and possibly surrounding a central native grassland zone.

2.3 Recent Landuse History

2.3.1 Walking Paths, Stormwater Controls, and Past Shale Quarrying

A number of changes have occurred in both parks, and many have occurred with knowledge of the importance of the STIF vegetation and associated remnant rainforest species that occur in parts of the parklands. These have included the creation of a network of paths that enable access down into the gullies from the playing field areas higher up whilst providing protection to the most sensitive ecological (and potential archaeological) areas. Other landuse in the parklands have occurred prior to the recognition of the natural and cultural heritage significance of the place.

Parts of Lambert Park were used as a shale and clay extraction quarry in the 1900s. Approximately one third of the reserve was mined. After quarrying ended, some of the slopes became unstable and parts of the park were filled after a landslip on the Clanwilliam Street side of the park in 1988. Archers Creek was also piped a short time after and the area was filled with mixed crushed sandstone capping between 1991 and 1994. The western upper side of the park is now characterised by fill. Small pockets of local vegetation occur on the upper slopes, and in the southern area where original soil profiles survives.

While Lambert Park is continuous with Brush Farm Park, the boundary between the two reserves is confused by the presence of the RSRR. The northern end of Lambert Park abuts the road reserve. The southern end of the park includes a large sewer easement that services surrounding residential properties, and also contains underground culverts that carry water from Archers Creek. This main

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 122

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 28 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

easement runs either side of two brick and concrete dish drains that collect surface storm-water and connect up with the former quarry site. Roughly rectangular in shape, approximately 250m long, and between 40m and 70m wide, Lambert Park was originally a narrow but steep gully but has now been considerably in-filled and the channel of its creek has largely been obscured as a result.

Brush Farm Park retains greater landform and vegetation integrity. Notable changes here however (excluding the carpark and adjoining amenity buildings on Lawson Street etc) include the presence of a large gross pollutant trap and storm-water outlet that was constructed in 1999 in the north-western gully below Marsden Road.

2.3.2 Historical Aerial Images

Aerial photographs spanning the period between 1930 and 1988 are presented here as Figures 2.4 to 2.10. These illustrate how the vegetation cover across the parklands has repeatedly changed in a sequence of both ‘managed’ clearance and through a pattern of natural retraction and regrowth over this time frame. These images also show how this historical sequence of vegetation change has in particular served to obscure both the definition of the gullies and channels of Archers Creek themselves, but also evidence of former vineyard terraces and orchard areas that are most visible in the aerial photographs dated to 1943s, 1951, and 1961.

Although the resolution of the 1930 photograph (Figure 2.4) is not sharp, what are suspected to be the locations of former vineyard/orchard activity on the edges of the gullies shows faint evidence of terracing in and amongst a light scatter of trees. At this time, Rutledge Street had not been extended, and what appears to be further terracing amongst regenerating bushland in the southern part of Brush Farm Park is evident. The northern (upper) section of the Brush Farm Park was also clearly formed into a rectangular playing field by this time. The land now occupied by the all-weather netball courts, carpark, and amenities buildings was also relatively clear of timber in 1930.

The vegetation covers across the two parks illustrated in the 1943 photograph (Figure 2.5) are at their sparsest at this point in the historical sequence. This image also provides the clearest definition (through shadow contrasts) between what are in places individual isolated trees and shrubs and former vineyard/orchard terracing, nearby plough lines and furrows, and the lines of the three creek channels in their gullies that define the cleared playing fields in Brush Farm Park. An enlarged section of this aerial image is provided by Figure 2.6.

A series of parallel lines (up to half a dozen in places) of what appear to be terraced banks are evident along the southern-facing side of the northwest gully in Brush Farm Park. Where this tributary of the creek joins the second branch of the watercourse (that runs from north to south), the orientation of these excavated strips/benches changes slightly and creates a ‘chequer-board’ shaped pattern at this

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 123

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 29 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

creek confluence. Extensive terracing then continues along the single channel of the creekline as the tributary flows onwards to the east, where denser vegetation cover at around the RSRR obscures the ground below.

The flat to gently sloping land to the north and west of the two gullies defined by Marsden Road and Lawson Street (now occupied by the netball courts, the Scout Hall, and the amenity buildings) is at this time almost completely clear of vegetation, excluding a scattering of small shrubs or low trees. This area shows a series of discernible (but faint) long and parallel furrows that are likely to be remnant agricultural plough lines, possibly associated with market garden and/or orchard-growing activity.

The boundaries of the central playing fields at Brush Farm Park as they are now are clearly evident in 1943. In particular, fences and a path define the perimeter of the oval to rectangular grassed area that is marked by an east-west line of plantings through its centre. This defines the drop in level between the ‘upper’ northern playing field area and the lower southern ‘netball overflow’ zone in the park today. The northern grassed surfaces of the playing fields at Lawson Street are in particular either significantly eroded and/or have died-off at this time.

The vegetation surrounding the central playing fields is also sparser in composition and distribution than today. This is most apparent along the eastern and southern edges of Brush Farm Park. The dense vegetation cover that today extends from the Brush Road boundary to the eastern edge of the playing fields is in 1943 almost completely absent. A concentration of orchard/vine terraces occur in the northeast corner of the park at Lawson Street, and additional markings on the ground can be seen in places adjacent to the creek and in the gully further to the south. The southern end of Brush Farm Park now covered with sapling regrowth is at this time entirely cleared down to the line of the RSRR.

The 1951 and 1961 aerial photographs (Figures 2.7 and 2.8) show relatively similar patterns of vegetation cover. In this period, there is evident an increase of regenerating trees and shrubs along the western gullies and creek channels that gradually obscure the previously highly visible vineyard/orchard terrace banks that are more defined in 1943, and the adjacent ploughed field along Marsden Street is still devoid of trees. A comparable increase of vegetation along the Brush Road gully situated to the east of the playing fields is also apparent, and by 1961 the netball courts in the ‘upper’ playing fields area are clearly marked out. The lower portion of Brush Farm Park towards the RSRR is still clear of trees and the light vegetation (possibly privet) that could be seen in places in 1930 in this part of the study area is now gone.

The main changes to the parklands that are evident in the decade from 1978 (as they are illustrated in Figures 2.9 and 2.10) are a significant increase in the extent and the density of the vegetation along

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 124

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 30 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

both the western and eastern gullies and creeklines, including considerable regrowth over the previously quarried landforms within Lambert Park to the south of the RSRR.

2.3.3 Brush Farm and Lambert Parks Today

Recording Methods and Objectives

A series of inspections of the parks have been carried out in preparing this AMP. These have been completed:

 To compile a photographic record documenting the condition of the parks as they exist today.  To evaluate the nature and condition of the grassed surfaces (playing fields and other recreation areas) between the bush corridors along the gullies of Archers Creek.  To evaluate the nature and distribution of the vegetation and landforms in the gullies that are connected by a network of informal paths and timber walkways that give access to the tributaries of Archers Creek from the lands above.  To develop an appreciation of the original site topography relative to the elevated ridge to the north (occupied by Brush Farm House), the surrounding gullies and bushland areas fringing the headwater tributaries of Archers Creek, and the lower lands largely occupied by Lambert Park that is bordered on three sides by residential development.

The illustrations below provide a baseline for comparison with the historical images presented and discussed in Section 4.0. The first series of these (Figures 2.11 to 2.22) are drawn from a report (Steele 2011) prepared for Council in advance of the recently completed upgrade of the Brush Farm Park playing field surfaces. Those to follow (Figures 2.23 to 2.26) were taken at the end of the works program (Steele 2012).

Brush Farm Park Playing Fields

An indicative view of the northern portion of Brush Farm Park (as it was in June 2011) looking to the northeast is provided by Figure 2.11. The exposed soil (and soil and fill) deposits of the bank fringing the grassed playing fields are shown in this image. Figure 2.12 provides a similar view looking south towards the amenity buildings in the background.

Views of the western portion of the playing fields are presented in Figures 2.13 and 2.14. The former (looking south) illustrates the relationship of the grassed and raised netball court surfaces (prior to their recent upgrade) to the track leading down to the lower bushland areas fringing one of the two park’s western gully’s that is bisected by a tributary of Archers Creek, while the latter (looking north) provides a view back to the amenity buildings shown in the background. Both of these images show the condition of the grass cover that was evident across much of the playing fields in June 2011.

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 125

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 31 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

A view of the playing fields looking north from the southern end of the proposed activity area is illustrated in Figure 2.15. The general fall of the current ground surface from east to west can be discerned in this image. Figure 2.16 provides an indicative view of the eastern portion of the Park and the vegetation fringing the grassed recreational fields. The gently sloping nature of the ground levels is again evident in this photograph.

Two indicative views of the Park’s northern playing fields looking down from Lawson Street are provided by Figures 2.17 and 2.18. The slightly raised appearance relative to the fringing bushland to the east and west is clearly illustrated in these images along with the condition of the playing fields grassed surface. The recent upgrades of the playing fields have not significantly changed this.

The nature of the raised embankment that is at the northern end of Brush Farm Park is illustrated in Figures 2.19 and 2.20 looking west and east respectively. This embankment was not modified to any great extent by the playing fields improvement project.

Indicative views of the nature of the playing fields at the southern end of Brush Farm Park are provided by Figures 2.22 and 2.22. These images show the significant difference in levels that currently exist between the cricket playing field and grassed netball courts occupying the majority of the study area, and the lower-lying ‘over-flow netball courts’ area to the south of the park. To what extent the recently completed playing field surface upgrades have modified this area (which is minimal) is described and illustrated below.

A sample of photographs showing how the reinstated turf surfaces of the playing fields at Brush Farm Park looked at the completion of the upgrade works program are provided by Figures 2.23 to 2.28.

The Gullies of Archers Creek

An indicative view looking west towards Marsden Road where the cleared and maintained grassed surfaces in the northwest of Brush Farm Park meets the regenerated vegetation along the western gully of Archers Creek is presented in Figure 2.29. This image shows that here, the two zones are clearly demarcated (with the landuse activities in each thereby implied) by low timber edgings at ground level. As previously, prior to the construction of the hard-surface netball courts in the late 1970s, this flat to gently sloping land (to the right of this image) was almost completely clear of vegetation and showed agricultural plough furrows possibly associated with market gardening and orcharding. The land closer to the creek channel and to the left of this photograph, and which is now covered by dense but young vegetation, also displayed considerable chequer-board terracing during the 1930s to the 1960s.

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 126

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 32 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Two views of how the netball courts relate to the adjacent regenerating bushland along the western gully in Brush Farm Park are provided by Figures 2.30 and 2.31. These images are looking towards the south-western corner of the courts. This facility has been constructed upon what is now a raised fill platform most likely created by a combination of excavation and subsequent grading to establish finish levels after construction. Again, the clear distinction between the sloping (created) grass contours surrounding the netball courts and the nearby bushland vegetation along natural ground surfaces at the creekline in this north-western portion of Brush Farm Park is evident.

An indicative view of what appears to be some terraced features that occur around the confluence of the western and central tributary branches of Archers Creek is illustrated in Figure 2.32. This area is densely vegetated now, but was far clearer up to the 1960s. The type of soil profiles that are exposed in this particular location can be seen in Figure 2.33. This consists of dark grey to brown humic loam overlying paler gray sandy clay. This soil horizon has high concentrations of shale fragments and ironstone inclusions as illustrated.

Further south down the gullies towards the RSRR, bedded shale is exposed in the side-channels of Archers Creek. An example of this is provided by Figure 2.34. These types of shale material, and its associated clay profiles, were quarried over large parts of Lambert Park in particular. The squared faces of this exposure indicate that quarrying also occurred in this location. Above the in situ horizontal shale beds are redeposited quarry tailings consisting of broken shale, and possibly sandstone materials associated with later ground capping.

Two examples of the more visually intrusive elements contained within the parklands, and which are both associated with the surrounding residential housing, are illustrated in Figures 2.35 and 2.36. The first of these images is of an overhead water pipe that runs through the central portion of the study area near the boundary of Brush Farm and Lambert Parks. In the background of this image can be seen a metal-grate safety fence that lines both sides of the steep creek channel in this location.

Three views of parts of what comprises a network of cleared and occasionally timber stepped and edged paths that provide access down into the gullies of Archers Creek from the playing field areas higher up in the parklands are provided by Figures 2.37 to 2.39. While these paths have been designed and located to provide protection to the most sensitive ecological (and potential archaeological) areas in both of the parks, there is some suggestion a number of the path/track alignments may follow contours that were originally created by previous vineyard/orchard terraces on the slopes within the gullies of Archers Creek.

Further indicative illustrations of what are suspected to be remnants of former vineyard/orchard terraces on the slopes within the gullies of Brush Farm Park are presented by Figures 2.40 to 2.43.

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 127

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 33 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Each show aspects of the difficulties involved in evaluating these types of landscape features in the context of the different ‘activity overprints’ that have created how they appear now. These terraces or stepped benches are described briefly below, and are detailed and mapped in further detail in later sections of this AMP.

The first two of these images (Figures 2.40 and 2.41) shows the presence of possibly two different levels of relatively flat terraces that occur adjacent to existing paths that run through the eastern gully of Brush Farm Park. The latter of the two photographs in particular shows the lower level to measure approximately 20m in length and 10m in width. Amongst the general cover of leaf-litter here there is a relatively sparse occurrence of immature regrowth vegetation. The denser ground cover of the sloping ‘side’ and ‘top’ of what appears to be a smaller benched area nearby and that is illustrated in Figures 2.42 and 2.43 has served to obscure the definition between what may have originally been a distinct vertical and horizontal surface. The parallel arrangement of the fallen logs that can be seen in the second of these photographs also obscures what is a clearly man-made feature that differs from the general contour patterns (and to some extent vegetation covers) that occur on the naturally sloping ground leading down to the creek that display no clear evidence for purposeful modification.

2.4 Evidence for Former Vineyard Terracing

A number of former vineyard terraces have been identified in the gullies in Brush Farm Park. These are discussed and mapped in following sections of this report. These comprise in summary:

 Terrace 1: A small localised and partly flat to gently inclined eroded benched area located on the midslope with a south easterly aspect.  Terrace 2: A narrow benched sideslope on the upper part of a slope with a westerly aspect. The bench is approximately 50m long.  Terrace 3: A distinct cut into an elevated slope that may represent a remnant construction feature of a now eroded terrace. Truncated subsoils and weathering bedrock are visible in this eroded profile. It is located on the midslope and has a westerly aspect.  Terrace 4: A distinct cut into an elevated slope that may represent a remnant construction feature of a now eroded terrace. Truncated subsoils and weathering bedrock are visible in this eroded profile.  Terrace 5: A broad and distinct benched terrace located on a footslope with a westerly aspect. The terrace is distinct and up to 40m at its widest point. To the south the footslope contours divides the terrace into an upper and lower benched element.  Terrace 6: This is one of the few clear terraced features currently evident in the eastern gully. It consists of a distinct cut into an east facing slope. The feature is obscured by erosion.

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 128

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 34 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Figure 2.1: Brush Farm Park Site Topography (Source: City of Ryde 2012).

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 129

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 35 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Figure 2.2: Lambert Park Site Topography - 1m Contour Intervals (Source: City of Ryde 2012).

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 130

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 36 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Figure 2.3: Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park Hydrology (Source: City of Ryde 2009).

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 131

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 37 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Figure 2.4: 1930 Aerial Photograph (Source: LDPI 2012).

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 132

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 38 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Figure 2.5: 1943 Aerial Photograph (Source: City of Ryde 2009).

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 133

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 39 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Figure 2.6: An Enlarged Section of the 1943 Aerial Photograph at Brush Farm Park (Source: City of Ryde 2009).

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 134

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 40 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Figure 2.7: 1951 Aerial Photograph (Source: LDPI 2012).

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 135

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 41 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Figure 2.8: 1961 Aerial Photograph (Source: LDPI 2012).

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 136

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 42 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Figure 2.9: 1978 Aerial Photograph (Source: LDPI 2012).

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 137

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 43 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Figure 2.10: 1988 Aerial Photograph (Source: LDPI 2012).

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 138

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 44 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Figure 2.11: A View of the Playing Fields (and Netball Courts) Looking East (Source DSCA 2011).

Figure 2.12: A View of the North Western Portion of the Park Looking (Source DSCA 2011).

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 139

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 45 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Figure 2.13: A View of the Western Portion of the Park Looking South (Source DSCA 2011).

Figure 2.14: A View of the Western Portion of the Park Looking Northeast (Source DSCA 2011).

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 140

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 46 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Figure 2.15: A View of the Park From the Southern End Looking North East (Source DSCA 2011).

Figure 2.16: A View of the Eastern Portion of the Park Looking North (Source DSCA 2011).

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 141

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 47 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Figure 2.17: A View of the Park From Lawson Street Looking South (Source DSCA 2011).

Figure 2.18: A View of the Park From Lawson Street Looking South West South (Source DSCA 2011).

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 142

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 48 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Figure 2.19: A View of the Park Boundary at Lawson Street Looking West (Source DSCA 2011).

Figure 2.20: A View of the Park Boundary at Lawson Street Looking East (Source DSCA 2011).

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 143

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 49 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Figure 2.21: A View of the Southern End of the Park Looking East (Source DSCA 2011).

Figure 2.22: A View of the Southern End at the Park Looking South West (Source DSCA 2011).

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 144

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 50 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Figure 2.23: A View of Brush Farm Park Looking South From the House (Source: DSCA June 2012).

Figure 2.24: The Playing Fields Looking North to Brush Farm House (Source: DSCA June 2012).

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 145

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 51 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Figure 2.25: A View of the Playing Fields Looking North West (Source: DSCA June 2012).

Figure 2.26: A View of the Playing Fields Looking West (Source: DSCA June 2012).

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 146

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 52 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Figure 2.27: A View of the New Cricket Pitch in the Playing Fields Area (Source: DSCA June 2012).

Figure 2.28: Soil Profiles Exposed for the Installation of the Cricket Pitch (Source: DSCA June 2012).

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 147

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 53 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Figure 2.29: A View at the Northwest Corner of Brush Farm Park (Source: DSCA July 2012).

Figure 2.30: Netball Courts and Fringing Bushland in Brush Farm Park (Source: DSCA July 2012).

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 148

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 54 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Figure 2.31: Netball Courts on Excavated Fill and Fringing Bushland (Source: DSCA July 2012).

Figure 2.32: Possible Terrace Feature in Central Gully (Source: DSCA July 2012).

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 149

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 55 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Figure 2.33: Possible Terrace Feature and Soil Profile in Central Gully (Source: DSCA July 2012).

Figure 2.34: Shale in Exposed in the Creek Bed of the Central Gully (Source: DSCA July 2012).

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 150

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 56 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Figure 2.35: Overhead Pipeline System in the Western Gullies (Source: DSCA July 2012).

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 151

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 57 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Figure 2.36: Concrete Drain and Safety Fence in Lambert Park (Source: DSCA July 2012).

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 152

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 58 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Figure 2.37: Unformed Path in the Eastern Gully (Source: DSCA July 2012).

Figure 2.38: Timber Edged Steps on Path in the Eastern Gully (Source: DSCA July 2012).

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 153

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 59 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Figure 2.39: Timber Edged Steps on Path in the Eastern Gully (Source: DSCA July 2012).

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 154

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 60 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Figure 2.40: Possible Terraced Feature in the Eastern Gully (Source: DSCA July 2012).

Figure 2.41: Possible Terraced Feature in the Eastern Gully (Source: DSCA July 2012).

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 155

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 61 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Figure 2.42: Possible Terraced Feature in the Western Gully (Source: DSCA July 2012).

Figure 2.43: Possible Terraced Feature in the Western Gully (Source: DSCA July 2012).

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 156

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 62 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

3.0 Aboriginal Archaeological & Historical Context

3.1 Introduction

No Aboriginal archaeological sites or objects have been recorded in either Brush Farm Park or Lambert Park. However, no systematic heritage survey for this purpose has been undertaken to date. Nevertheless, shell middens, rock engravings, axe grinding grooves and sheltered occupation sites in sandstone overhangs, some with painted art, occur in the local landscape. An assessment of the potential for archaeological evidence of past Aboriginal visitation and use of the parklands to remain undetected is presented in following sections of this report.

In addition, there are very few direct historical descriptions of how Aboriginal people may have used the type of landforms that characterised the study area at Contact (as situated above and ‘away’ from the main rivers), or during the earliest periods of European occupation and development of the land as the Brush Farm Estate.

The following sections provide an overview of what we know of the Wallumedegal people at around 1788, and what we can infer from the historical records. Also presented below is an evaluation of what the recorded archaeological evidence that survives today in Ryde can tell us about certain aspects of people’s lives in this landscape setting.

3.2 European Observations of Aboriginal Life at Contact

3.2.1 Daily to Day Activities and Material Culture

Approximately thirty named Aboriginal groups are recorded to have occupied the Sydney region in 1788. Attenbrow (2010) provides a review of what we know of these people at this time. This has been developed through an evaluation of the described social structure, material culture and subsistence activities of the people the British first met and later lived with during the first years following settlement at Sydney Cove.

Some of the key observations provided by the early recordings are presented below in a dot-point form to reflect that they derive from a range of scattered historical sources, were made at different places and times, and often for different reasons. They therefore tell us about a number of different aspects of people’s lives rather than representing a continuous historical narrative. Nevertheless, in combination the records can be used to create a generalised Aboriginal heritage context for the purposes of this report:

 Aboriginal groups appear to have comprised multiple extended families with each group ranging in size from possibly 30 to 70 or more people. Early British writers referred to the

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 157

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 63 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

extended Aboriginal family units as ‘tribes’. These groups are more commonly called bands or clans today.  These groups are recorded to have been organised around complex social, economic, spiritual and land-use inter-clan relationships. Some aspects of these relationships were recorded during the early post-Contact period. However, how many of the social and economic organisations that operated in 1788 remain unclear.  It appears individual groups/clans had specific primary access rights to the various resource zones provided by the coast, river, and inland areas contained within their country, but that people would have also routinely interacted with those from neighbouring clans/groups as day by day needs required.  Several dialect or language boundaries are recorded to have existed at Contact in the Sydney region that seemingly marked a distinction between coastal or ‘saltwater’ people and those from inland areas frequently referred to by early colonial diarists as living in the ‘woods’. The Aboriginal people at Ryde appear to have shared greater associations with other groups connected by the rivers to Sydney Harbour rather than those living in interior districts to the further to the west.  It further appears that local Sydney clans were e bi-or multi–lingual, and that this possibly helped to reduce periodic clan boundary conflicts between groups and also facilitated mutual access between them to lands including important fishing spots on the coast and along principal river systems and hunting areas inland.  The section of Parramatta River that now forms part of the City of Ryde was first viewed and quickly explored by the British shortly after the establishment of the settlement at Sydney Cove. The ‘head of the harbour’ at Rose Hill (Parramatta) had been explored within weeks.  The Aboriginal people who inhabited Parramatta River and the broader northern foreshore hinterland that were first encountered by the British during these early river explorations were the Wallumedegal (or Wallumattagal).  Their territory appears to have followed the northern bank of Parramatta River from Lane Cove River to the east, and to have extended to approximately the current City of Parramatta to the west (see Smith 2005). The settlement at Rose Hill appears to have been at the core of the territory of their neighbours, the Burramattagal. There is no record of the northern boundary of the Wallumedegal.  The precise boundaries of where Sydney Aboriginal groups were recorded to have lived or visited by the early diarists however are often unclear and occasionally conflicting. They did not conform to the arbitrary lines drawn on the first maps of Sydney, and are more likely to

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 158

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 64 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

have been defined according to important landscape and landform elements such as rivers, creeks, and ridgelines.  Some of the difficulties that are inherent in trying to determine where specific clan/group boundaries may have existed in 1788 can be seen from Philip Gidley King’s account of his visit to Parramatta in April 1790 with Governor Phillip (in Hunter 1968:269-275):

‘After dinner, I accompanied the governor from Rose-Hill to Prospect-Hill, which is about four miles distant: we walked through a very pleasant tract of country, which, from the distance the trees grew from each other, and the gentle hills and dales, and rising slopes covered with grass, appeared like a vast park. The soil from Rose-Hill to Prospect-Hill is nearly alike, being a loam and clay. It is remarkable that although the distance between these two places is only four miles, yet the natives divide it into eight different districts’,

 The first recorded meeting between Europeans and a Wallumedegal person (or who is most likely to have been a Wallumedegal) occurred briefly at Looking Glass Bay in mid February 1788. It is possible other similar encounters occurred during this period that was not recorded in the early diaries and colonial despatches.  Estimates of how many people lived in the region prior to 1788 suggest that approximately 1,500 occupied the coastal strip between Broken Bay and Botany Bay, and inland to Parramatta (Kohen & Lampert 1988:345). Attenbrow (2010) calculates this to be one person for every 1.5 square kilometres. A similar number of people are believed to have occupied the Cumberland Plain. Some researchers have put this combined figure as high as 8,000 people occupying the Sydney landscape between Botany Bay, the Hawkesbury River, and the Blue Mountains at Contact  The number of Wallumedegal people (or those of other associated/affiliated clans) living in the district at Ryde in 1788 is not known. The area however was described as being ‘crowded’ with Aborigines in the early 1800s, particularly as they were seen travelling in canoes along the rivers and creeks.

 Early historical records illustrate that Parramatta River (and its tributaries) in and around Ryde provided the Wallumedegal people with a rich and dependable fish-food resource obtained by a variety of fishing methods that included the use of hand-lines, spearing, and possibly through nets and tidal traps/weirs (see for example Attenbrow and Steele 1995). The two principal fishing methods that are recorded, line fishing and spearing, appear to have been divided according to gender; Aboriginal women were observed line fishing the river and creeks from bark canoes, and men were recorded spearing fish from canoes and the banks of rivers

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 159

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 65 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

and Harbour foreshore contexts. Historical accounts indicate people ate principally snapper, bream and mullet at Contact. Archaeological evidence indicates people also ate a far wider range of species (see for example Attenbrow & Steele 1995).

 Descriptions of people fishing from canoes (made from bark sourced from She Oak, Bangalay, and Stringybark etc) are common in the early records. Canoe bark was removed with stone axes, and later in the post-Contact period, with those of metal. Generally, canoes were from between 2.5m and 6m long, and propelled with wooden paddles. Small fires were often observed to have been kept alight on clay beds in the centre of the canoes to provide light and warmth and to cook food.  In general, there are few accounts of Aboriginal people ‘shell-fishing’ at Contact, although people were occasionally seen collecting shellfish from rocks and out of the sand and mud in shallow water, and diving for them in deeper waters (Attenbrow 2011:469). A number of accounts also described shells being scattered around people’s huts and fires during the early periods (Bradley 1969:75-76, 113, Hunter 1968:63-65, Tench 1979:287).  Early historical records describe the common sight of mounds of Aboriginal shells around the margins of many of the bays and inlets of Sydney Harbour and Parramatta River at Contact. These shell-heaps were progressively gathered and burnt by the early colonists for the production of shell-lime mortar used for building as the Port Jackson settlement expanded.  A number of shell middens survive today in Ryde. Some of these occur along the margins of Parramatta and Lane Cover Rivers, and others have been preserved within sandstone overhangs, particularly in Lane Cove National Park. A small number of these have been archaeologically excavated and show that they included other types of materials such as animal and fish food bones and stone artefacts.

 While early European accounts provide insights into how Aboriginal people utilized the various marine food resources that were available along the river flats, creeks and occasional mangrove swamps that characterised parts of Parramatta River at Contact, our understanding of how people may have hunted and processed land animals and birds in the immediate hinterland of the river is less clear.

 Most accounts of hunting derive from Sydney’s west and highlight communal techniques and the use of fire to drive game and coordinate their capture. A number of accounts (and painted images) from inland areas of New South Wales in particular also provide details of people using a variety of techniques to harvest birds including nets, spears, pit-traps and hand-caught methods using baits to ensnare birds. Similar methods to these are likely to have been used in Sydney but were not observed (or recorded) in any detail by the early diarists.

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 160

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 66 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

 An example is provided by Phillip who wrote in referring to the first half of September 1790 (Hunter 1968:312) that:

‘The weather being now very dry, the natives were employed in burning the grass on the north shore opposite to Sydney, in order to catch rats and other animals, whilst the women were employed in fishing: this is their constant practice in dry weather’.

 This is a valuable observation of the use of fire by Sydney Aboriginal people and is a practice which probably contributed to the grassy landscapes that were first observed by the British at Parramatta and along parts of the river at Ryde (see for example Flynn 1997, Smith 2005).  In this regard, Gammage (2012:211) describes the repeated allusions to ‘plantations in a gentleman’s park’ and ‘hills chequered with woods and lawns’ that appear in the early British descriptions of the Sydney environments within the context that they most likely represented ‘pre-prepared’ Aboriginal landscape ‘templates’ that were created using controlled fire management techniques to provide plant and animal resource abundance, predictability, continuity and choice whereby:

‘Typically people chose a feature like water, hill or rock, and laid out a template on or beside it. Grass might separate forest from water, tree belts channel a plain, grass and heath alternate, clearings line a rainforest, and son on...... Each template might have multiple uses or overlap, but together they rotated growth in planned sequences, some to harvest, some to locate’.

 Fires are frequently reported in the early historical accounts to have been lit by Aboriginal people around the fringes of the first British settlements in the Sydney landscape. A number of commentators speculated at the time whether this was to assist in hunting land and tree dwelling animals (such as possums, gliders etc), to clear and maintain pathways through the bush, to provide access to certain roots and tubers for food, to trigger certain fruit-flowering and pollination that require burning, and/or a combination of each of these types of reasons. All appear to have applied to Aboriginal fire management regimes at different places and at different times.  The surveyor, Thomas Mitchell reported that from his personal observations starting from 1827 that burning to reduce undergrowth and increase grasslands seemed to be happening less around Sydney by 1848 and that a thick under-storey of plants had re-grown over time. His comments suggest some of the difficulties Aboriginal people are likely to have had in

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 161

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 67 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

maintaining country, pathways, and food resources as they had before European settlement (see Attenbrow 2010:42). Of particular note is Mitchell’s comment that:

’Kangaroo are no longer to be seen there; the grass is choked by underwood; neither are their natives to burn the grass, neither s fire longer desirable there amongst the fences of the settlers’.

 A number of coastal NSW archaeological and ethnohistorical studies have examined Aboriginal settlement patterns and the possible role seasonality may have played in organising how people used the land at different times of the year. Anthropological research in particular shows people in many parts of Australia often moved seasonally from one part of their country to others when resources became available, more or less abundant, or finished (Attenbrow 2010:79-81). In Port Jackson, the colonists observed seasonal changes in subsistence patterns during their first winter in 1788 that shifted from predominantly fishing to an emphasis on yams and roots, shellfish, and catching of small animals. However, archaeological evidence for seasonal use of particular resources in specific locations is uncommon in Sydney.  Poiner (1976) has argued seasonality was a major influence on settlement patterns on the coast where large semi-sedentary summer camps gave way to the dispersal of smaller groups into the hinterland during winter when marine resources diminished. Ross (1976) has challenged this model (using ethnographic evidence) to argue inland winter migration was unlikely due to tribal boundaries. Instead, she argued that smaller groups were spread more thinly along the coast during winter. Attenbrow (2010:81) provides a model that takes a position that is somewhere between the two:

‘Although very large groups occasionally assembled for specific purposes, such as a whale beaching and initiation ceremonies, there is no unequivocal evidence documentary evidence that the size of the subsistence groups (bands) and the degree of mobility changed markedly throughout the year. However, on the basis of evidence from other regions it is likely that during the winter months the average size of the band decreased (from, several families to one or two families) and people moved camp more frequently than in summer. The multi-functionality of their tools, implements and weapons, and their highly portable nature.....suggests the people had a relatively high level of mobility at least for part if not the whole of the year’.

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 162

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 68 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

 A number of historical records can be placed within this broad theoretical landuse context. For example, Phillip noted in early May 1791 that many Aboriginal people (including Bennelong) who had been seen spending much of their time around the Sydney settlement were absent for several days at a time because ‘they found plenty of fish towards the head of the harbour’ (Hunter 1968:349). This is presumably to have been around the tidal reaches of Parramatta River close to Parramatta Park. This suggests a seasonal fishing and food gathering pattern and, interestingly, also coincides with the eel harvesting time that is mentioned by Collins as taking place in April. Bradley also mentioned an overabundance followed by a sudden scarcity of harbour fish in April and May 1788 (see Flynn 1997).  Tench (1979:79) described the ‘equipment’ of the Sydney Aboriginal people that he observed during his time in Port Jackson as:

‘exclusive of their weapons of offence, and a few stone hatchets very rudely fashioned, their ingenuity is confined to manufacturing small nets, …and to fish- hooks made of bone, neither of which are skillfully executed’.

 Other early European diarists contemporary with Tench however describe a far more extensive range and complexity of items made and used by Aboriginal people in the Sydney district. These included fishing and hunting spears that were tipped with bone, stone and shell barbs, shell and bone fish hooks and string fishing lines, timber/bark shields, clubs, canoes and digging sticks, baskets and net bags and a variety of flaked and ground stone artefacts inclusive of axe/hatchet heads, points, blades, scrapers, awls and pounders. Animal skins, bones and sinews are also recorded to have been used for a variety of purposes including cloaks, carrying bags and decorative items.  Early colonial observations of Aboriginal life in the Sydney region suggest that coastal groups used stone implements less often that hinterland groups and that materials of bone and shell was used in its place for the manufacture of such items as spear barbs, adzes and scrapers (Collins 1975:486, Hunter 1968:519).  This picture presents something of a paradox. While little is recorded in the early records of the use of stone by Aboriginal people (at least along the coastal strip and immediate hinterland), stone tool artefacts represent the most common type of archaeological evidence excavated from most sub-surface sites.

3.2.2 Aboriginal People in Ryde at Contact

The types of historical observations above describe some aspects of Aboriginal people’s lives during the earliest periods following settlement, and other records provide insights into how Aboriginal people

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 163

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 69 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

progressively ‘adapted’ to life in an increasingly settled society. Key points for this later Aboriginal history are summarised below:

 Initial encounters between the Wallumedegal and Europeans appear to have been cordial (see for example Attenbrow 2010, Kohen and Lampert 1987, Turbet 2001, and Willey 1979). However, subsequent pressures on food resources and land access led to changes in these early relationships. A number of instances of violence (from both sides) are recorded in Kissing Point in the 1790s, including the first European fatality in the Ryde district in 1797 that followed an Aboriginal ‘raid’ on a farm in the district. Smith (2005:16-17) contextualises this incident in the following way:

‘This hunger for Indian corn or maize spurred the first known raid by Aborigines which caused the first European fatality in the Ryde area. “At Kissing Point.....they dangerously wounded a settler and his wife, first burning every article belonging to them”, the Sydney Gazette reported in May 1797. The following day soldiers fired at “a large body of natives” who “instantly fled, leaving behind them spears, etc, and about 40 bushels of Indian corn which they had stolen”’.

 However, it is noted that by 1803 much of the land that could be cultivated along Parramatta River had been allocated to Europeans in land grants (Smith 2005:17). In this context, the significant restrictions on access to traditional food resources provided by the Parramatta River, and also to the lands in the hinterland previously readily available to Aboriginal people from the water, can be seen from a number of different perspectives. The (smaller) scale of theft of ‘40 bushels of Indian corn’ in this instance can also be contrasted by a separate account published in the Sydney Gazette in December 1804 that reported:

‘Last week a flock of sheep were chased by the natives from Farm Cove to the Brickfield Hill; where the owner accidentally witnessed the hunt, and obliged the pursuers to retire. Their design was manifestly that of selecting one for their own use, and availing themselves of the shepherd’s absence, attempted to effect it’.

 These conditions were further exasperated as the effects of introduced disease(s) in 1789 rapidly spread through the Sydney Aboriginal community.

 Nevertheless, many family groups survived (although some members may have died), suggesting the effects of the epidemic were varied. Records for example indicate the Wangal family of Bennelong, his wife, his sister Karangaran, brother ‘Mr Clark’ and his son ‘Dickie’ survived along with the Wallumedegal family of Maugoran and his children Balloderry, Bidgee Bidgee and Booron (see Irish 2005:108).

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 164

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 70 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

 Disruptions to Sydney Aboriginal groups’ traditional social, economic and spiritual lives that followed European settlement ultimately led to complex adaptation and the re-configuration of surviving clans and individuals, and in doing so, blurring the distinctions that had previously existed within Sydney’s Aboriginal population. From the early 1800s, Aboriginal people were often referred to as being part of the ‘Kissing Point Tribe’, the ‘Concord Tribe’, the ‘Duck River Tribe’, and the ‘Parramatta Tribe’ in the local landscape as they were observed at different places and times as European settlement expanded and consolidated.

 It is however simplistic to assume the 1789 epidemic destroyed the social and cultural links and traditions of the Sydney Aboriginal clans. Language survived, as well as other cultural practices. For example, ‘traditional tracking skills’ are recorded to have been employed in 1810 by a young man (recorded as Bundle) at Kissing Point who assisted police to capture a burglar by tracing ‘the marks of two prominent nails in the sole of a shoe, which was found shortly after in a neighbouring hut’ (Sydney Gazette 21 July 1810). Aboriginal children still spoke their language, and were numerous enough that local European children wished to learn it (see Sydney Gazette 20 April 1804). Many Aboriginal people were still living ‘semi-traditional’ lives in the 1810s and 1820s as revealed by the records for religious figures such as William Walker preaching to children in his care (at the Parramatta Native Institute) about the perils of ‘running wild’ and returning to their families in the ‘bush’! (Irish 2005:130-131). As Irish has noted (Irish 2005:131):

‘The existence of the so-called ‘tribes’ of Kissing Point, Concord, and Duck River into the 1830s suggests the clan and family cultural identities were being maintained. Although people moved between these locations, they appear to have maintained an identity distinct from Aboriginal people at Parramatta and from areas to the east. They are likely to have comprised the remaining Wann-gal and Wallumetta-gal and doubtless members of neighbouring clans and others from further afield.

 In this regard, as early as February 1791 the clans of Sydney were staging traditional ceremonies which Europeans were allowed to witness. It is likely they performed these ceremonies on sites which had been used for similar purposes prior to European occupation and which had not been built on or farmed. A number of accounts during the 1790s from the ‘Brickfields’ (around Central Railway) for example include that by Collins (1975:275-6) in 1794 who described a public display of ‘rites and ceremonies’ where in one ritual punishment, Carradah (having ‘exchanged names’ with Henry Ball of HMS Supply) faced spears for two days before he was wounded in the arm. In another account in 1795 and also at the Brickfields, Yeranibe Goruey (a Burramattagal man from Parramatta), is reported to have clubbed to death Bing-y-wan-ne, an ally of Bennelong’s, when he

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 165

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 71 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

was found with his companion Mawberry (ibid:345). A third account in the Sydney Gazette (22 December 1805) describes the death of Caruey (a Cadigal man) from a spear wound in the thigh who was buried, wrapped in paperbark, at the Brickfields. Thomas Watling’s pencil sketch of Gur- roo-ee (Caruey or Carraway) shows the gap where his incisor tooth had been knocked out in his initiation in the Erah-ba-diahang ceremony in the 1795, presumably at Farm Cove (Wocanmagully), and witnessed by Collins and other early British diarists.  A comparable example closer to the study area is provided in the memoirs of Joseph Holt (1838:160) in 1802:

‘Their manner of warfare is very singular; it has more the appearance of a ceremony than enmity, as among other people. Once a year, the tribes living in the neighbourhood of Sydney and Field of Mars, Northern boundary, and George's River — Cobramatta, all join; Cow Pasture, plains of Hawkesbury, Broken Bay, and the Seven Hills’.

 Although uncommon, there are interesting examples of a reverse cultural influence exercised by Aboriginal people on white children. For example, on 16 December 1804 the Sydney Gazette reported that a boy had almost lost an eye after being struck by a spear. The boys involved appear to have been European children imitating Aboriginal ‘warriors’:

‘The accident was sustained from a play fellow with whom he was sportively engaged in combat. This is not the only instance of serious injury to children consequent on permitting them to indulge in dangerous sports’.

 In broad terms, it may be that with the study area positioned in a landscape ‘between’ the developing townships of Sydney and Parramatta up until the c.1820s and beyond, it is probable Aboriginal people continued to visit and use the elevated ridges overlooking Parramatta River well into the historic period. Some of the more elevated land situated away from these rivers was probably considered by the early colonists to be relatively ‘remote’ in terms of both distance and accessibility from Sydney Cove and Rose Hill, possibly to be rugged but otherwise 'open space', and land which appears to have primarily been used during the earliest periods for European activities such as timber getting undertaken within parcels of land often under ‘absentee’ ownership. However, our understanding of Aboriginal life on the 'fringes' of these developing townships and within the ‘in between’ spaces that existed beyond the occupied, fenced and cleared lands is relatively poor.  Parramatta blanket returns between 1834 and 1843 provide a kind of Aboriginal census for these years. The 1834 returns record people from Duck River (“Watergoro tribe”), Prospect, Kissing Point and Breakfast Creek. The 1837 returns include members of ‘tribes’ from Duck River,

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 166

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 72 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Concord, Prospect (“Weymaly tribe”), Eastern Creek (“Warrawarry tribe”), South Creek and one person from Georges River. The 1839 returns comprise mainly Weymaly and Warrawarry people giving their place of residence as Bungarribee (Eastern Creek and Bungarribee Creek in Doonside and Rooty Hill). By 1840 the Weymaly and Warrawarry people were living at Eastern and South Creeks, although several individuals were back in the Prospect area. By 1841 most Weymaly were at Prospect, while the Warrawarry remained at Eastern Creek. The 1843 issue of blankets at Parramatta was also attended by people from Berrima, Bong Bong, Cowpastures and Liverpool. A noticeable feature of the blanket returns after 1837 is the disappearance of Aboriginal recipients from Kissing Point, Duck River and Concord (see Flynn 1987).

 We also know relatively little from the historical records about the lives of individual people who were part of the Wallumedegal that the European colonists first met in 1788, or their specific associations with neighbouring Aboriginal community groups. Likewise, our knowledge of the subsequent lives of the people comprising the ‘Kissing Point Tribe’ and other similar groups beyond around 1840 is limited.

 Two of the Aboriginal people we do have historical records for, and who had strong historical associations with the land which is now the City of Ryde, are Bennelong and Nanbaree. Bennelong was a Wangal (Wann-gal) man from across the south side of Parramatta River. Nanbaree (or Nanbarry) was a young boy of perhaps eight years of age when he was brought into Sydney (along with a young girl named Boorong aged around 10 to 13) suffering from the 1789 smallpox epidemic. Both recovered and remained in Sydney for some time.

 It appears that Bennelong and Nanbaree spent their last years at Kissing Point or there about. Bennelong died in early January 1813 (possibly aged 49) and was buried beside one of his wives in the garden or orchard area of James Squire’s Inn at Kissing Point within the vicinity of Bennelong Park (Sydney Gazette 9 January 1813). Nanbaree died in 1821 (aged about 37 years old) and was buried in the same vicinity as well.

3.2.3 Where Aboriginal People Camped, Transport and Communication

Although records exist for early interactions between Aboriginal people and the British at places such as ‘Kissing Point’, we know little about how people lived and where they camped and travelled in the more rugged sandstone and shale country that was ‘hidden away’ from view from the rivers during the earliest years following European settlement.

Numerous accounts describe the construction and form of Aboriginal shelters (‘gunyah’s’) that ranged from pieces of bark laid together in the form of a low oven, open at one end and of a length sufficient to cover the full length of an adult to pieces of bark cut from a single tree and bent in the middle and

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 167

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 73 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

placed on the ground on its two ends ‘exactly resembling two cards, set up to form an acute angle’ (Tench 1979:154).

Others observed that these huts were often large enough to accommodate six to eight people, and were often grouped together in large numbers. There are some early references to ‘villages’ on the coast between Botany Bay and Pittwater. For example, during an expedition to the south of Port Jackson, Tench observed that:

‘On the north-west arm of Botany Bay stands a village which contains more than a dozen houses and perhaps five times that number of people.....Governor Phillip, when on an excursion between the head of the harbour and that of Botany Bay, once fell upon a party which consisted of more than 300 persons’.

Tench goes on to conclude that:

‘there is reason, however, to believe that they depend less on them (huts) for shelter than on the caverns with which the rocks abound’.

Barrington (1810:20) also records for the coastal strip that people relied less on bark shelters:

‘They appear to live chiefly in the caves and hollows of the rocks, which nature has supplied them with, the rocks about the shore being mostly shelving and overhanging so as to afford tolerable retreat’.

However, precisely where in the landscape ‘gunyah’s’ were made is not recorded, and traces of these temporary shelters have not survived in the archaeological record. It is therefore not possible to precisely infer where, when, and to what extent people used bark and brush shelters and sandstone rock overhangs as camping places in the local landscape during the periods immediately following European settlement of ‘North Brush’ in the Field of Mars.

The historical records tend to emphasise the importance of the water’s edge (both on rivers and along the coastal foreshore) for Aboriginal camping and subsistence. However, there are some indications of the importance of camping in ‘set back’ areas. Attenbrow (2002:47) cites an observation from W.R. Govett written after a trip to the Berowra-Cowan area sometime between 1829 and 1834 suggesting valley bottoms were a ‘strategic’ connection point between marine and estuarine resources of the water, and terrestrial plant and animal resources of the ‘bush’ further inland:

‘The bottom of the ravines, especially where the creeks widen and open to the river, were much frequented by the coastal natives; for the wooded sides of the ridges in this neighbourhood, abound with various animals, and the waters below afford a plentiful supply of oysters and other shells’.

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 168

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 74 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

The importance of river transport to Aboriginal people who used canoes for travel between different parts of their country and for communication between different groups is both described and also implied in many early historical accounts. How and where these transport and communication networks may have operated at Contact in Ryde is however likewise unknown. Some clues are provided by archaeological evidence. .

Stone materials suitable for the manufacture of flaked stone artefacts and ground stone implements such as axe/hatchet heads are known to have been transported long distances by Aboriginal people in the past from sources such as the Hawkesbury-Nepean as evidenced by archaeological finds that have been recovered from a number of Sydney Aboriginal archaeological sites. The existence of these types of trade and communication can be traced through archaeology in some cases for many thousands of years before 1788.

It is likely that Aboriginal people visited and used the elevated landscape around the study area in the past as part of a broader mobile landuse pattern as they utilised the river marine resource zones available along the main river catchments to the south and east in particular, and possibly used the numerous creek and valley corridors as a way to travel though the land. In this regard, Hunter (1968:61) saw:

‘fires intended to clear that part of the country through which they have frequent occasion to travel, of the brush or underwood...... ’

By May 1793, a useable ‘road’ between Sydney and Parramatta had been created by the British. This followed in part a track originally ‘blazed’ by Phillip’s’ earlier exploration parties that had journeyed from Sydney Cove to find the future settlement site at Rose Hill. At its end, this track ran from the ‘landing place’ at the river and extended up to the redoubt on the ridge overlooking the Crescent (Jervis 1978:55). As described in the following section of this report, a subsequent network of major roads were gradually established in the landscape at Ryde along the peak of ridges and smaller lateral roads branched from the main thoroughfares to link with lower levels. This initially included ‘Blaxland's track’ that ran from Brush Farm along the ridge to Kissing Point with a road to cart timber and other produce from Pennant Hills, Castle Hill and Dundas to Parramatta River passing along the ridge near Brush Farm House (Marsden Road). Until the Great North Road section from Bedlam Point (that followed the line of Victoria Road to St Anne’s Church) was created, most travel and goods-transport to and from Sydney was along Parramatta River.

In this regard, these lines of travel following major ridgelines was known and used by Aboriginal people in 1788, as well as by explorers, surveyors and settler traffic later from the early 1790s as it afforded the best lines through country where river transport was not viable. However, an Aboriginal

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 169

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 75 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

‘pathway’ and a European road that followed a similar route through a landscape were distinct and different things. The latter was a physically created ‘thing’, while the former is probably best described as a ‘way’ – a known direction or line of movement. The Great North Road for example had numerous phases of construction and direction options, some of which were used and later abandoned and some of which persisted in use, over the period it was created. It essentially focused movement, altered the landscape, and gave direction by its physical existence. A ‘pathway’ however would have consisted of knowledge and experience of the best line of travel, and would have been ‘located’ more in people’s minds than as a presence on the ground. Aboriginal pathways therefore would have left ‘lighter’ marks in the landscape and may not necessarily have ‘condensed’ travellers into one narrow corridor, except, for example, where there was only one way past an obstacle.

3.3 Aboriginal Archaeological Context

3.3.1 General Aboriginal Archaeological Patterns

Our understanding of past Aboriginal land-use practices in the Sydney region has been progressively refined using the historical records as a baseline, and as a result of archaeological investigations undertaken at sites in the northern Cumberland Plain in particular. Summaries of the latter are provided by Jo-McDonald-CHM (1999), McDonald (2007), and White & McDonald (2010) that report on the importance of stream order provenance, landforms, distance from water, site aspect, geology, past vegetation landscapes, and how these interrelated factors appear to effect Aboriginal archaeological site location, complexity and composition.

A predictive model for Aboriginal site distribution on the Cumberland Plain has been developed (see for example JMDCHM 1999:19-21) that appears to be broadly applicable to the Brush Farm and Lambert Parks study area, and this is summarised below:

 The nature (density and complexity) of archaeological evidence will vary according to the permanence of water (e.g. stream order), landscape unit, and proximity to useable stone resources in the following way.

 In the headwaters of upper tributaries (first order creeks) archaeological evidence would be expected to be sparse and represent little more than background scatters of flaked stone artefacts. The tributaries of Archers Creek that run through the parklands broadly fit into the category of first/second order creeks.

 In the middle reaches of minor tributaries (second-order creeks) it would be expected that archaeological evidence would be sparse, but potentially reflecting focused activity (such as one-off camp site locations and/or single episode knapping events) undertaken by people in

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 170

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 76 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

the past. Two of the tributaries of Archers Creek in the parklands join at around the Rutledge Street Road Reserve.

 In the lower reaches of minor tributaries (third order creeks) it would be expected that archaeological evidence for more frequent occupation will be found. These archaeological remains may possibly include evidence for repeated occupation by small groups, possible knapping floors, and potential surviving evidence for more concentrated day to day activities undertaken by people over time.

 On major creek and river lines (fifth order watercourses) there would potentially be archaeological evidence for more permanent or repeated occupation. Sites would be expected to be more complex, and some may be found to be stratified depending on local sedimentation processes.

 Creek junctions (confluences) may provide evidence for the foci of past Aboriginal site activity. The size of the confluence (in terms of stream ranking nodes) could be expected to influence the size and /or complexity of the documented/potential Aboriginal heritage site.

 According to this model, ridge top locations located between drainage lines will usually contain limited archaeological evidence, although isolated knapping floors or other forms of one-off occupation may occur in such locations.

 Where naturally outcropping stone resources such as silcrete occur, it is expected that these will have been exploited by people in the past. Evidence for stone extraction activities (such as de-cortication, stone material quality testing and perhaps limited stone knapping) would be expected to occur in such locations, as might more general occupation evidence.

 Sites in close proximity to an identified (and accessible) stone raw material source would likely cover a range of characteristics relating to artefact size and the retention of cortex. As a general rule, the size of artefacts in an assemblage should decrease, as should the percentage of cortex with distance from the source from which it was procured in the past. In this context, raw material conservation would not be expected, given the short distances between stone sources in the local landscape.

3.3.2 AHIMS Aboriginal Sites Register Search

Over 60 Aboriginal archaeological sites are recorded in the City of Ryde LGA. As previously outlined, these include rock engravings and axe-grinding grooves, open shell middens and sheltered occupation sites, some of which include painted art.

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 171

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 77 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

A search of the NSW Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System (AHIMS) Aboriginal Sites Register maintained by the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) was undertaken at the initiation of this project. This search (for an area approximately 2km by 2km centred on Brush Farm House) indicates that no Aboriginal sites, objects, or identified areas of potential Aboriginal archaeological sensitivity occurred within the search parameters

The nearest known Aboriginal archaeological sites to the study area occur along Parramatta River to the south. This landscape has been the focus of most of the previous Aboriginal heritage surveys and assessments undertaken in Ryde. Partly because of the extensively urbanised nature of the land now, more elevated areas in the sandstone and shale landforms outside of either national park and Council reserves in the Ryde LGA have been subject to less archaeological scrutiny.

3.3.3 City of Ryde Potential Areas Report 2012

The Aboriginal Heritage Office (AHO) has recently prepared the City of Ryde Potential Areas Report (2012) for Council. This study provides the following assessment for Brush Farm and Lambert Parks (AHO 2012:19-20):

‘Brush Farm Park forms one of the early agricultural properties in the area and was distinguished at the time by its vegetation which included elements seen in the Illawarra and Blue Mountains. Its location on the crest of a hill with good views, along a ridge line that would have formed a pathway, and close to food supplies would have made the area attractive to aboriginal people long before the Europeans seized on its qualities. The lack of subsequent urban development over portions of the site makes it an area of moderate to high potential for unrecorded sites. The crest of Brush Farm Park is cleared and disturbed and the vegetation in the gullies was mostly cleared during the period of agriculture.

Lambert Park which appears well wooded and natural had at one time a shale and clay quarry; the quarry occupied one-third of the current area of the parkland. In addition part was covered in fill following a landslip in 1988 and the southern end was completely cleared. It therefore has a lower potential for unrecorded sites than its present forested condition suggests’.

3.4 An Aboriginal Archaeological Site Prediction

3.4.1 Rationale

Predictive models of Aboriginal archaeological site location attempt to identify where areas of relative archaeological/cultural heritage sensitivity (high, moderate and low etc) may occur and what they may consist of or may contain that can be used for the planning and management of both known Aboriginal heritage sites and places of potential sensitivity.

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 172

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 78 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

These models are most frequently based upon types of information that usually include the range of landscape units that may be contained within a study area, the results of previous Aboriginal archaeological and cultural heritage investigations that have been undertaken within the surrounding landscape, the distribution of previously recorded archaeological heritage sites along with their known nature, integrity, and potential composition, and an understanding of traditional Aboriginal landuse patterns (where possible).

3.4.2 Brush Farm and Lambert Parks Aboriginal Archaeological Site Prediction

The following types of Aboriginal archaeological evidence may potentially occur/survive within the parklands, and the types of Aboriginal heritage sites that are less likely to be present are also considered. This statement will no doubt be refined in the future:

I Rock Engravings: The distribution of engraved sites relates to the occurrence of suitable rock outcrops common in sandstone formations that were used by Aboriginal people in the past for the creation of engraved images. A number of engraving sites are known to occur in the local Ryde landscape.

Engravings can occur in groups with numerous depictions of animals, human figures, possible spiritual motifs, and other images of equipment such as shields etc, or single depictions, that generally are found to occur on extensive level sandstone platforms along with smaller ledges and rock exposures.

II Axe Grinding Grooves: These are grooves which resulted from the manufacture and/or maintenance of the working edge of some stone tools such as axe/hatchet heads by people in the past. They may be found where suitable sandstone is exposed in, or adjacent to, creeks or on elevated platforms where wet-grinding techniques are possible adjacent to natural rock holes and shallow ‘basins’.

As for rock engravings, axe/hatchet grinding grooves may occur in large ‘clusters’ that serves to facilitate their ready recognition, or may conversely comprise isolated items that are often difficult to detect within certain light conditions.

The uppermost bedrock geology of the parklands is shale which is most clearly exposed in places along the channels of Archers Creek. It is unknown at this time whether significant sandstone occurrences (that would have been exposed in the past and suitable for the creation or engravings or grind grooves) interface with this shale lithology within the parklands.

III Scarred Trees: These ‘sites/objects’ are historically recorded to have been created as the result of bark or wood removal from usually mature-age trees to make shields,

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 173

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 79 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

individual/family shelter coverings, fishing and travelling canoes, expedient food and toolkit containers, daily utilitarian maintenance items, or carving designs excised from the exposed wood for spiritual/ceremony boundary markings.

Most of these past Aboriginal landscape markers have not survived early Colonial timber clearance activities, ongoing bush-fire events, and sequential timber-cutting that has occurred in the post Contact period since 1788.

The definite ascription of scarring on a tree to be of an Aboriginal origin is not always possible. Europeans often removed bark for the provision of house construction, roofing and stock maintenance corral materials. Other ‘scars’ may be the result of early nineteenth and later twentieth century surveyor and property owner blazes, natural lightning strikes with limb loss, or as a result of a combination all of the above.

In general terms, unless a tree is at least 150 years old, the scarring that is observed on a mature tree is unlikely to have a traditional or early post Contact Aboriginal historical origin.

None of the trees in the parklands display any evidence for Aboriginal scarification. However, some of the surviving trees in the gullies possibly pre-date Colonial settlement and the subsequent establishment of the ‘Brush Farm Estate’ from c.1800. It is possible that scarred trees existed across the ridgelines in the local landscape before timber-felling commenced with the settlement of the ‘North Brush’ lands in the Field of Mars.

IV Open Camp Sites: These sites are likely to occur on dry and relatively flat landforms along or adjacent to both major and minor watercourses, along with foreshore zones. However, repeatedly or continuously occupied sites are more likely to be located on elevated ground situated at principal creek confluences in the local landscape.

Surface scatters of flaked stone artefacts (or potentially durable food remains such as animal and fish bone or shell) may be the result of mobile hunting activities, while single or low density occurrences might relate to tool loss, tool maintenance activities or abandonment. These types of sites are often buried in alluvial or colluvial deposits and only become visible when subsurface sediments are exposed by erosion or disturbance.

V Isolated Artefacts: These items occur without any associated evidence for prehistoric activity or occupation. Isolated finds can occur anywhere in the landscape and may represent the random loss, deliberate discard or abandonment of artefacts, or the remains of dispersed artefact scatters. Manuports are items consisting of raw materials of stone that do not naturally occur within the soil profiles of a given region. Transported onto a site by Aboriginal people from

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 174

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 80 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

sources elsewhere, these items will have subsequently been discarded before use as flaked or ground stone tools.

Monitoring of the recently completed resurfacing of the cleared recreational playing fields in Brush Farm Park (Steele 2012) suggests that any potential Aboriginal archaeological objects that may occur in these locations will seemingly be buried by some quantities of fill and will most likely consist of low density (background) scatters of flaked stone artefacts. It is furthermore expected that these types of finds, where they may occur, will be potentially of relatively low (scientific) sensitivity due to impacts associated with past historic landuses. However, by representing tangible evidence for past Aboriginal visitation and use of the place, any Aboriginal heritage finds that may be located in the parklands in the future may also be expected to have considerable cultural significance and value to the local Aboriginal community.

Soil profiles with the potential to contain Aboriginal archaeological materials are currently exposed in and amongst the dense vegetation in the gullies within the parklands. Mindful that these soils have been considerably modified by a variety of historic landuse activities (such as terracing and progressive creek-corridor rehabilitation) over time, the potential for at least intact Aboriginal features and deposits to survive in these areas is evaluated in following sections of this AMP.

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 175

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 81 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

4.0 European Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Context

4.1 Introduction

The lands comprising the parklands were first released to Europeans in 1794 as grants authorised by Lieutenant-Governor Grose. The site of the future Brush Farm House and its surrounds were in two adjoining lots; one (north) granted to Zadoc Petit, the other (south) to Thomas Bride. Both were privates in the New South Wales Corps. Between 1800 and 1803 William Cox acquired their grants and added them to adjoining property to consolidate his holdings he named ‘Brush Farm Estate’. In all, Cox bough fourteen separate parcels of land, some of which were purchased from John McArthur and some from the original grantees. The resulting Estate was managed by Joseph Holt.

Cox’s farm was being used to grow fruit trees and cultivate crops when French explorer Peron visited the place in 1802. By c.1807, the Estate was in Gregory Blaxland’s ownership and comprised the consolidation of nine 1794 land grants comprising approximately 455 acres. The construction of the two-storey Brush Farm House (or more correctly the now surviving component parts) was completed by c.1820 and included east and west wings with stables, and outbuildings with landscaped grounds and a carriage loop (Betteridge 2006:10). At this time, one acre of land is reported to have been under cultivation for wine. In 1821 Blaxland had three and a half acres under vines, and the 1822 Muster indicates the farm was substantially cleared with 6 acres of garden/orchard with Blaxland describing his vineyard in 1828 ‘to be on the side of a very steep hill’ (Britton & Associates 2004:12).

The Signal Station at ‘One Tree Hill’ was located on Blaxland’s land due to its prominent and elevated ridge location, but was discontinued in 1829 (Betteridge 2006:10). The significance of the station at the time is not surprising given the relative isolation of the ‘North Brush’ and the importance signalling played in contact with Sydney and Parramatta via Parramatta River. Prior to its closure, the telegraph network in 1825 had extended to Parramatta at May’s Hill with two stations on high ground situated in between at Bedlam Point and One Tree Hill.

Brush Farm was conveyed to Blaxland’s son-in-law Dr. Thomas Forster (a surgeon in the British Army) in 1831 and operated as a working farm noted as a producer of wine. Britton & Associates (2004:13) suggest Forster’s vineyard is likely to be the same as that described by Blaxland in the late 1820’s. Forster leased Brush Farm to his son William Forster, who lived there between 1859 and 1862 and again between 1869 and 1874. A survey of the road between Ryde and Parramatta indicates the location of William Forster’s vineyard with a large proportion of other properties along the road being orchards at the time of the survey (Britton & Associates 2004:13).

Much of the former Cox/Blaxland Estate was subdivided by the 1880s and portions were sold between 1881 and 1886. The Estate was mortgaged to Lancelot Threkeld and John Bennett, and Bennett’s Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 176

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 82 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

wife (Emma) acquired the portion which contained the house and outbuildings (Betteridge 2006:10). The Bennett family lived at the house until 1894, and it and the surrounding land were subsequently leased to the Crown and occupied by the State Children’s Relief Board and the Carpentarian Reformatory for Boys (ibid 2006:10). In 1904 the property was resumed by the Government and continued to be used for a reformatory until 1913 when the facility (‘Brush Farm Home for Boys’) was transferred to Mount Penang. From this time the house was used for various purposes, first as a girl’s institution, then as a home for mothers and babies in 1921, and later as a home for mentally deficient children, and subsequently Brush Farm Home in 1946.

The house and surrounding land was purchased in 1988 by the Department of Corrective Services (City of Ryde Council 2009:22). Under their ownership original features including the carriage loop and stables were removed and new buildings erected. Brush Farm House and its present curtilage were acquired by Ryde Municipal Council in 1989 in recognition of its heritage significance. In 1999 the NSW Government acknowledged its State significance with the granting of a Permanent Conservation Order. Ryde City Council commenced a major restoration program for the House as a community venue in 2005 (ibid:11).

The following sections present a chronological overview of the use and development of the parklands with a view to identifying what types of archaeological evidence may be associated with each period, and to what extent this evidence may be expected be present and/or survive now. This historical review also creates a framework for how the documented and potential archaeological resources of the parklands can be managed into the future as discussed in later sections of this AMP.

4.2 Chronology and Development of the Study Area

4.2.1 Early Land Grants in the Field of Mars and North Brush

A map showing the location and relationship between the original land grants in the Ryde district (between 1792 and c.1809) including ‘North Brush’ is presented in Figure 4.1. Campbell (1927) has used the historical documents on which this map is based to create the plan reproduced here as Figure 4.2. This shows some of the important surrounding landscape and historical elements relative to Cox’s original homestead and Blaxland’s later 1820s house. Features marked on this plan include the flagstaff at ‘One Tree Hill’ and ‘Blaxland’s track leading to Kissing Point’ that followed in part the present alignment of Marsden Road.

The ‘Brush Farm Estate’ created by William Cox in c.1800 comprised nine separate land grants that are shown to the left of this plan (and one that is not which was granted to James Bain and adjoined the western boundary of Petit’s and Bride’s land) and consisted of the following:

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 177

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 83 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

 James Bain (Cornish Hill – 1794).  Zadoc Petit (Petit’s Farm – 1794).  Sarah Petit (Petit’s Farm – 1796).  Thomas Bride (Bride’s Farm – 1794).  James Robb (Robb’s Farm – 1797).  Patrick Campbell (Islay Farm – 1794).  William Pattullo (Craigie Farm – 1794).  Samuel Wheeler (Wheeler’s Farm – 1794).  John Redman (John’s Farm – 1794).

Bain’s grant (October 1794) was 100 acres and adjoined Petit’s and Thomas Bride’s (December 1794) that were both 25 acres. Sarah Petit’s (Zadoc’s wife) grant of 20 acres was issued by Grose in September 1796. Bride’s grant was conveyed by deed poll to John McArthur in October 1798, Bain’s by conveyance to McArthur in December 2004, and Zadoc Petit’s grant was conveyed to Thomas Higgins in June 1800. The chain of title of Sarah Petit’s land is more complex, and was conveyed by deed poll in 1797 to Samuel Johnstone, James John Grant, and John McArthur in succession. William Cox had acquired these parcels of land by March 1801. James Robb’s 25 acres grant (May 1797) was conveyed to Cox at an unrecorded date (Clive Lucas, Stapleton & Partners 1991:21).

Lands that have the closest historical association with today’s Brush Farm House to the south of the above grants were those made to Patrick Campbell and William Pattullo (100 acres) in December 1794. Further south again was Samuel Wheeler’s 30 acre farm, and adjoining this to the east was John Redman’s 30 acre grant. Pattullo’s land was conveyed to Cox at an unrecorded date. Wheeler’s grant was conveyed to Campbell two weeks after he had received his adjoining land, and these lands were conveyed to William Raven, attorney to Campbell, to John McArthur in August 1799 and then to Cox by March 1801 (ibid:27). Redman’s land had been conveyed by deed poll to Cox a little earlier in September 1800.

There are no indications in the historical records that any significant improvements were made to these lands during the period from 1794 (or before) to early 1801. However, it is noted the 100 acre grant to Campbell included a condition that he fell timber on the land before December 1796 (Clive Lucas, Stapleton & Partners 1991:20). It is likely the Petit and Bride land grants were possibly used in this period for similar purposes. Archaeological evidence for the early landuses (such as fence lines, cleared tracks, timber structures etc) will generally be ephemeral in the archaeological record in the first place, and are unlikely to have survived (or be recognisable) later historical occupation phases that operated within the study area.

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 178

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 84 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

4.2.2 William Cox’s Brush Farm Estate

The 1801 Muster (Historical Records of NSW Volume 4) recorded William Cox’s full property holdings as totalling 1,380 acres (comprising Canterbury Farm and Brush Farm), with 400 acres cleared, 245 acres growing wheat and maize, 5 horses, 20 horned cattle, 1,000 sheep and a labour force of 20 assigned convicts. The previously referred to description of Brush Farm provided by French explorer Peron a little later in 1802 also included:

‘The whole of Mr Coxe’s land amounted to 860 acres, of which more than 300 were sown with wheat, 15 with maize & 6 with barley, and 12 with oats. 349 were reserved for pasturage of the cattle which 5 horses, 3 mares, and 27 horned cattle, besides 800 sheep of finest breeds’.

Petit’s and Bride’s 1794 farms were offered for sale at auction in 1804 (Sydney Gazette 1 April 1804) as ‘Lot V – One Tree Hill Farm’ with the property described as 55 acres ‘all cleared & but once crop’d’ (Clive Lucas, Stapleton & Partners 1991:28). Further sale notices at this time (Sydney Gazette April 1804) provide additional details for how some of the other parcels of land making up Cox’s Estate had or were to be used with Wheelers Farm and Campbell’s land ‘cleared or thereby, with remaining Timber fall, and 20 acres of it let for 4 years for clearing it’, and Redman’s land was ‘cleared’ and had a ‘hut on it’. Pattullo’s land was also ‘cleared’ in 1804.

In August 1804, Cox’s property return is described with a reduced acreage of 200, with 100 acres in pasture and 93 fallow, and 6 convicts in assignment (Historical Records of Australia Volume 5). In January 1805 this 200 acre parcel of land (including Bain’s grant, those of Sarah and Zadoc Petit, Bride’s and Robb’s) was purchased at public auction by D’Arcy Wentworth and Simeon Lord (ibid:28). The Sydney Gazette (14 January 1805) auction notice described Cox’s Brush Farm as:

‘situate in the District of the Field of Mars. The said farm contains 200 acres more of less; about 120 of which are cleared; it has a new Dwelling House on it of four rooms on the floor, besides a kitchen, store-room, &c an excellent garden of about two acres, well stocked with lemon, orange, pear, apple, peach; other fruit trees; a barn 60 feet long by 24, with a four stall stable at one end, and an ox-house at the other; a building 190 feet long; divided into useful storerooms, &c. and a loft over about 60 feet of it for Granaries; with various other convenient out-houses and yards complete for flock; and is altogether one of the most eligible situations for a family in this colony’.

4.2.3 Gregory Blaxland’s Brush Farm

A conveyance by article of agreement between Wentworth and Blaxland dated to February 1807 meant the former retained possession (until the sum and interest was paid) of ‘four hundred and fifty

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 179

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 85 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

five acres of land, now known and called by the name of the Brush Farm’. This included Islay, Wheeler’s, Craigie’s and John’s farms that had been transferred to Wentworth by the Trustees of the Cox Estate in April 1804, Cornish Farm, and the lands of the Petit’s’, Bride, and Robb in May 1805 (Clive Lucas, Stapleton & Partners 1991:34).

Blaxland was residing at Brush Farm by at least September 1808 (Sydney Gazette 4 September 1808). There are indications the farm was a ‘landmark’ property at this time in so far as a number of newspaper references directly referred to ‘the road between Sydney and the Brush Farm’ (Sydney Gazette 4 July 1808). Macquarie and Reverend Marsden visited Brush Farm in 1811 and the former wrote ‘I went with [Blaxland] to see his farm at the Brush which is a very snug good farm and very like an English one in point of comfort and convenience’ (ibid:35).

Blaxland had successfully sought a brewing license in 1814. His wine growing and production achievements during his occupation of Brush Farm from 1815 however dominate the historical records for the place into the 1820s. Key points in this timeline are provided below:

 In March 1815 (Sydney Gazette 4 March 1915) Blaxland had two acres of vines from ‘two year old plants, and three acres more only one year old plants’. This notice also stated that:

‘The situation is well chosen, the soil adapted to the growth of the plant; and as every possible care is bestowed on its cultivation, the most flattering expectation may be formed of an ample remuneration for the trouble, and the expense which an experiment in this delicate branch of husbandry must necessarily require’.

 In July of 1816 Blaxland sent Macquarie from Brush Farm a sample of that years wine harvest made from Black Constantia grape from the Cape. Blaxland had through experimentation found a grape type immune from the ‘blight’ where ‘although some of the new type were planted alongside badly diseased vines the new variety were unaffected and flourished the whole season and made vigorous shoots many feet long’ (Gray 1986:4)  In April 1818 Blaxland complained to Macquarie about the trespass of Government timber carriages on his property which foreshadowed his intention to build the present Brush Farm House. The extract below is from Clive Lucas, Stapleton & Partners (1991:36).

‘the present premises is so situate on the Farm that they are comparatively of little use in carrying on the cultivation of it, and of saving the manure, and are so low and unhealthy that my family never escape a summer without being subject to disorders or debility, from want of proper circulation of air, heat and dampness, for which reason I have for some time back determined to remove the whole of the present premises on a higher part of the Farm, gradually, as my circumstances will Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 180

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 86 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

afford it, to begin some time back I put up a stockyard, a part of the plan I had laid down, soon after it was finished government timber carriages passed with timber through the line I had intended for my yards and other buildings.....[I] delivered the following messages to [the overseer].....as the road they have now taken went immediately through the spot of ground on which I intended to erect my house and premises’.

 In November 1819 only one acre of the property was under cultivation for wine. This appears to have been with a new claret variety (Gray 1986:4).  The new Brush Farm House was not completed at this time (ibid:41). A physical survey of the existing Brush Farm House (Clive Lucas, Stapleton & Partners 2001) suggests the house in its original form was probably a two-storey building with a two-storey rear skillion of brick. The setting may have included a brick stables (single storey), and a rear building with a detached kitchen. Two maps were made between 1827 and 1829 that document the new position of Blaxland’s house (see Figure 4.2).  Blaxland had three and a half acres of vines under cultivation in 1821 (Fletcher 1976:204).  The Sydney Gazette (3 March 1822) report in 1822 that Blaxland intended to depart for England to submit a sample of red wine to the Royal Society of Arts who had offered a medal for the ‘for the finest wine of not less than 20 gallons of good marketable quality made from the produce of Vineyards in New South Wales’. This was the first export of wine from Australia and the exhibit was awarded the Silver Medal by the Society for 1823.  The 1822 Muster records Blaxland’s property included 500 acres with 400 cleared. This land had 6 acres of garden/orchard, 15 acres of peas/beans, 30 acres of oats, 70 acres of maize, 100 acres of wheat, and no barley. Sixty bushels of maize were also recorded to be ‘in hand’ at this time.  Amongst the various notices of minor thefts and trespasses at Brush Farm during the occupancy of Blaxland and his family, the Sydney Gazette (26 August 1824) report that the place had been trespassed in his absence with:

‘cutting and carrying away.....the green Wheat, other growing crops and artificial grasses.....cutting the Grape Vines.....stealing maize, potatoes, Fruit, &c’.

 The following description is drawn from Clive Lucas, Stapleton & Partners (1991:46) and provides an account of the position and condition of the vineyards at Brush Farm in 1828:

‘that the vineyard is situate on the side of a very steep hill. The cask No. 1 was made from the grapes on top of the hill; they were the first ripe; the soil thin and dry, totally unfit

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 181

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 87 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

for agricultural purposes; the other, No.2, from grapes that grew on the centre of the hill on a deeper and richer soil; they were ripe in about a week after the first. More wine was made from the grapes at the bottom of the hill the [?] is rich and deep, but it was of very inferior quality; which rich deep soil, from the experience I have had in the Colony, I consider totally unfit for the production of wine of value for commercial purposes, unless it is made into brandy soon after it has done fermenting’.

 Blaxland was awarded the Gold Ceres Medal from the Society for 1827/1828 with a sample of his wine from Brush Farm reported to be an improvement on his previous award in 1823 made from Cape grapes (Gray 1986:5).  In June 1830 Blaxland advertised vine cuttings for sale, and those applying would receive 50 free and pay 1/6 per 100 above this (Sydney Gazette 6 June 1830).  In August 1831 Blaxland conveyed by lease Brush Farm (including the house and property) to Thomas Forster, his son-in-law who had married his daughter Eliza in 1817 (Clive Lucas, Stapleton & Partners 1991:47).

4.2.4 Thomas and William Forster’ Brush Farm

Excluding birth and death notices, and census and directories from 1831 to his death in 1853, there are few details recorded about how Thomas Forster used Brush Farm House and its land. Between 1831 and 1835 the property was listed as ‘One Tree Hill’ in the NSW Calendar and GPO Directory. The 1841 Census records a total of 26 people possibly living (but more likely working/employed) at Brush Farm including a tradesman, ten gardeners/stockmen, and three domestic servants. This may suggest the property continued to function as a working farm (ibid:47). An editorial in the Australian (31 December 1841) makes reference to the recognised quality of the better wines produced in NSW including that of ‘Dr Forster’ in company with Macarthur and John Jamison.

In 1844 the property was leased to his son William for a term of 40 years. Thomas Forster died in 1853 and the estate went to his widow, who lived until 1876. Upon her death, William and his wife Eliza inherited Brush Farm.

Henry Grant Lloyd’s 1861 watercolour ‘From Brush Farm [A View]’ looking south towards Parramatta river suggests William Forster’s Brush Farm estate ‘was generally deforested by that time and offered an uninterrupted view to the Parramatta River’ (DPWS 2001:54). A second watercolour (‘Parramatta River, A View’) depicts the area as largely free of trees, with some agricultural plantings. These images are reproduced here as Figure 4.3. A survey map of the road between Ryde and Parramatta in 1862 indicates the position of William Forster’s vineyard (close to the ‘Bride’ adjacent to Brush Farm

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 182

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 88 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

House) is reproduced as Figure 4.4 that can be placed within the landscape setting evoked by Lloyd’s watercolours.

Electoral rolls record William Forster’s residence as being at Brush Farm between 1859 to 1862 and 1860 to 1874. There are no records for any of the Forster family living at the place in the final years (1878 to 1880) before the property was mortgaged to Lancelot Threkeld and John Bennett in 1881, after which the Estate was subdivided and portions sold between 1881 and 1886 (ibid:48). Bennett’s wife, Emma, acquired the portion (37 acres) which contained the house and outbuildings in 1882. A number of alterations were made to the house at these times that are not discussed here.

4.2.5 John Bennett’s Brush Farm

A full set of the c.1880-1881 subdivision plans for the Brush Farm Estate have been presented in a previous report (Clive Lucas, Stapleton & Partners 1991). Because of the large size of the land holding, these plans occur in a series of separate sheets prepared by different auctioneers and relate to different pieces of the land. Three of these subdivision-section plans are reproduced here as Figures 4.5 to 4.7. The first of these illustrates the suspected location of William Cox’s original Brush Farm House, with large areas of orchards marked as occupying lands to the south and southeast (presumably John Bennett’s). The second shows the location Brush Farm House and the land immediately to the south. The third plan is provided because it illustrates a number of landscape and landuse features that can be discerned at this time including ponded creeklines with ‘running water’ and ‘first class orchards in full bearing’ to the south of Rowe Street.

Clive Lucas, Stapleton & Partners (1991) have previously prepared a conjectural configuration of Brush Farm Estate prior to subdivision in c.1881. This is reproduced here as Figure 4.8 and shows the probable location of Cox’s original c.1800 house to the west of the current Brush Farm House, the likely location of vineyard and orchard areas to the northeast of this house, and the location of ‘Forster’s Vineyard’ below ‘Blaxland’s House’. These locations are mapped against the general topography of the ridgelines and gullies of Archers Creek that characterise the parklands.

4.2.6 The Carpentarian Reformatory

In 1894, Brush Farm House and the lands (approximately 60 acres) not subdivided and sold to others during the mid 1880s was leased to the Government for 10 years, and the auctioneer of this transaction recalled in 1905 (from Clive Lucas, Stapleton & Partners 1991:67) that:

‘The orchard (two-thirds of the sixty acres) at the time of letting was all young of very first choice class fruit and in perfect order and the house and cottages in complete repair. The orchard

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 183

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 89 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

comprised some 30 acres was in existence at the time though some summer fruit trees may have been replaced by orange trees since’.

The Government resumed the property (about 38 acres) in 1904. The Cumberland Argus and Fruitgrowers Advocate (17 September 1904) reported that:

‘The property at Eastwood, known as 'Brush Farm' which has for many years past been used for the purposes of the Reformatory for Boys, has been resumed by the Government. A great deal of this land at Brush Farm has been well worn in cultivation’.

The records kept by the Government for the place during this period (up to c.1913) are relatively detailed, and a number of photographs were taken when the house and the parklands were used as the ‘Brush Farm Home for Boys’ by the Department of Public Instruction. These show how parts of the study area appeared during the period.

The first of these images (Figure 4.9) provides a view in c.1910 taken from the verandah of Brush Farm House looking over the front garden looking south across the playing fields in Brush Farm Park. The Norfolk Pine trees illustrated are suspected to have been planted in the c.1820s. White timber post and rail fences define the cleared recreational field to the north and south, and three weatherboard structures are present in the left hand corner of this image.

A second view of these buildings (two cottages and a ‘chapel-type’ structure) looking northwest is provided by Figure 4.10, with an orchard in the gully evident in the foreground, and a small portion of the playing field that can be seen in the left background of the photograph. The structures illustrated appear to have been demolished around the time Lawson Street was constructed in c.1913. An inspection of this location was undertaken in November 2011 to ascertain the potential impacts of (the then) future resurfacing works on any archaeological traces that may survive of these buildings. The types of archaeological remains that were anticipated to most likely be present in this location were shallow foundation trenches for brick footings or piers, along with demolition/construction materials. No occupation deposits associated with the use of the buildings were expected. Subsequent grading works across the playing fields removed only a shallow depth (approximately 50mm to 100mm) of turf and recently developed loam. No archaeological features or deposits of note were exposed as a result of these works, including any trace of the weathered buildings (Steele 2012)

A third view of the playing fields area in Brush Farm Park dating to c.1910 is provided by Figure 4.11. Although the resolution of this image is poor, the uneven surface of the sports field at this time is evident, and what are likely to be orchard trees can be seen behind the white paling fence in the middle background of the photograph.

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 184

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 90 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

The view of the orchard shown in Figure 4.12 can be compared with that illustrated in Figure 4.10 that provides an indication of the slope of the land, its low cover of grass, and the spacing and size of the plantings. The playing fields area in Brush Farm Park appears to be located behind the trees shown in the middle background of this photograph.

The cleared and furrowed market garden area illustrated in the foreground of Figure 4.13 (looking east) provides a number of useful perspectives that help to place it within its landscape setting at the time. The tops of ‘Blaxland’s Pine Trees’ along Lawson Street can be seen in the centre background, with a weatherboard school house structure to the right, and the playing fields located further to the right again in this image.

The view of the Brush Farm buildings looking from the south is provided by Figure 4.14 and takes in land that is outside of the study area, but nevertheless provides a useful landscape image. In particular, the track running through the otherwise cleared and sloping to undulating ground in the foreground of this photograph provides a different view of the Archers Creek landforms that characterise Brush Farm and Lambert Parks a short distance to the north.

4.2.7 Historical Landuse Summary

Clive Lucas, Stapleton & Partners (1991) provide reconstructions of the potential heritage settings of Brush Farm Park to about the line of the Rutledge Street Road Reserve during the ‘Blaxland/Forster’, ‘Bennett’, and ‘Reformatory’ periods. These conjectural plans are reproduced here as Figure 4.15 to 4.17. A central feature on each is the historically documented presence of the Forster’s and possibly Blaxland’s vineyards to occur along and between the western and eastern gullies of Archers Creek, with orchards possibly extending through and to the south of the Brush Farm Park playing fields.

4.3 Archaeological Evidence for Former Vineyards & Orchards

4.3.1 Heritage Management Context

Does Archaeological Evidence of Blaxland’s Vineyards Survive in the Parklands?

Previous studies (Britton et al 2004) have speculated whether what appear to be hand-dug terraces on the gully side slopes in Brush Farm Park are remnant from the period Blaxland owned and operated Brush Farm Estate. No maps exist that can be matched with historical descriptions of where and to what extent vineyard areas were in use during the 1810s to the early 1830s. Some records approaching this level of detail are only available for later operations in the 1860s when William Forster was responsible for the management of the Estate. Britton et al (2004:56) raise the possibility the terrace elements could have an earlier origin as part of the vineyards established by Blaxland, and place this conjecture with in an historical context:

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 185

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 91 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

‘If they are Blaxland’s old vineyard terraces they would have likely been made by assigned convict labour and would either be from the 1820s or possibly even 1810s. In 1818, at the time he was relocating his premises from the old Cox farmhouse to the present Brush Farm House, Blaxland notes that “I have considered it most advisable to change both the aspect and the situation of my Vineyard ...”. The physical nature of the terracing certainly conforms well with Blaxland’s own 1828 description of his vineyard at that time. Certainly the coincidence of extant early vineyard terracing and the largely intact early homestead nearby is particularly rare in NSW and probably Australia.

One of the important features of Blaxland’s specifications for the vineyard terraces was the practice of deep trenches to retain soil moisture in the absence of reliable rain or a means of regular watering - a technique he had observed in use at Madeira on his way to Australia. A worthy research project, which would assist in verifying the provenance of the terraces, would be the limited archaeological investigation of a part of the terraces using a short transect to test the nature of the soil stratigraphy. Blaxland was not the first in the colony to successfully grow grapes for wine. However if the terraces can be unreservedly determined as those of Blaxland then this is indeed significant, for as Jamison stated in 1828 “Mr Gregory Blaxland has the merit of being the first who cultivated the vine, to the extent of making a few casks of wine annually”. For Brush Farm there would be no need to consider the conjectural reconstruction of a vineyard it would suffice to ensure the conservation of the existing old terraces and enable limited access for some of them to be clearly seen - preferably with associated brief explanatory information’.

Mitchell (2009) adopts a similar position that if evidence of Blaxland’s vineyard terraces survives in the parklands they represent important heritage landscape elements that require sensitive management and conservation. This researcher identifies three possible locations for vineyards from an analysis of historical aerial photographs (reproduced here as Figure 4.18), and provides a rationale and a broad methodology for how to test their provenance to determine whether the soil stratigraphy ‘may accord with Blaxland’s specifications’. Namely:

 ‘Areas 1 and 2 in the location of the original vineyard were probably continuous but the formation is not visible beneath the larger trees. It is estimated that the terrace step is 1.5m to 2m wide and the face or riser is less than 1m high.

 Area 3 is in the location of a former orchard, and in Area 4 terraces may be present but the sun angle is not throwing shadow on that slope and the features are not clear.

The 1943 air photo features are not natural steps but are constructed and they are much larger than stock tracks. The air photo evidence is entirely consistent with a former vineyard. Since 1943 a lot of

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 186

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 92 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

fill has been dumped on parts of the terrace pattern and the whole of the gully and slopes are now forested’.

Archaeological Heritage Context

Vineyard terraces dating from c.1826-1830 survive at John Jamison’s Regentville Estate and have been described as being about a metre wide by half a metre high (O’Brien 2002). At that site, vine terraces were fronted by dry stone rubble walls, but at Brush Farm Park no evidence of walling is currently evident. Stone suitable for this purpose is not readily available locally, and it is more likely terraces were faced by timber logs.

Some questions have been raised as to why Blaxland and/or Forster planted vines on the cooler south-facing slopes in the study area as this is not today’s practice. With reference to Busby’s 1830 publication of ‘best-practice’ viticulture for the period, Mitchell (ibid) suggests arable (more fertile) land was used for grain crops where soil was ploughed, and vines were relegated to steeper slopes that were dug by hand. Busby also describes a cultivation method of trenching to establish a vineyard that may have been used by Blaxland and more likely by Forster at a later date:

‘Before planting cuttings the ground was dug by hand for three spade depths in a trench approximately 0.75m – 1m wide and the subsoil was well mixed with the topsoil, The excavation of such a trench approximately along the contour on sloping ground would destroy the natural soil profiles and would result in the formation of a terrace. Mechanical mixing of the profile to this extent should be evident in an archaeological excavation’.

Research Objectives & Recommendations

Mitchell (2009) provides a rationale for how and why archaeological research could investigate the terraced landforms in the parklands:

1. ‘What else can be learnt from the activities about the viticultural history of Brush Farm Estate? 2. Undertake a surface survey to identify the terrace pattern as seen in the early air photographs and match this record to the archival data. 3. Select a suitable terrace or terraces for cross-sectioning by a qualified archaeologist with assistance from a soil scientist to determine their stratigraphy and degree of disturbance. The primary objective of this work is to confirm or refute the hypothesis that we are dealing with vine terraces. This will require Heritage office approval. 4. If the terrace are confirmed then we need we need to develop a set of management guidelines and practices that will conserve these features. This will need to be done in consultation with other interested parties, including the bush regenerators.

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 187

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 93 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

5. Suggest appropriate means of interpreting the terraces for the benefit of visitors to Brush Farm’.

Heritage Management Considerations

Mitchell (2009) provides the following heritage management considerations:

‘On the ground terrace remnants can still be seen in Area 1 and parts of Area 2, but bushcare work is affecting their integrity. The presence of large trees on the steps will eventually degrade them as trees mature and fall but that should probably be seen as an inevitable long-term cost of the bush regeneration. Weeding of smaller trees and shrubs is also affecting the terraces as the cut timber and weeds are being stacked on the steps of the terraces and in time this will rot down and trap soil on the step. In a sense the form of the terrace is now being exaggerated by bushcare maintenance. Whether this is a good or bad thing is a matter of opinion. More significant disruption has occurred with the dumping of fill and the construction of walking tracks in Area 2. This work is more or less complete and it is now difficult to identify terraces in that area’.

4.3.2 Comparative Archaeological Contexts

Cox’s Cottage at Mulgoa

Cox's ‘Cottage’ at Mulgoa Creek dates to c.1810 and is of State significance as one of the oldest weatherboard-clad dwellings in NSW. The site has research potential for the tangible evidence of its early nineteenth century fabric including the former vineyard terracing dating from the first half of the nineteenth century. A medal was awarded to Edward Cox for wines produced on his property (Fernhill) in 1847, and john Jamison was also producing wine at this time at Regentville. Two areas of former vineyard terraces are still evident, and the illustration of the surviving terraces at this site presented here as Figure 4.19 was taken in 1985.

Regentville

Regentville was built between 1823 and 1825, and in its heyday had a reputation as one of the most 'improved' properties in the colony. Around 1830 Jamison employed a German emigrant to lay out a terraced vineyard using the latest methods from Germany and France. One contemporary report described the vineyard as being enclosed by hedges of rose and lemon and containing between 30 and 40,000 vines, including more than 200 varieties (Morris & Britton 2000).

Baron von Hugel who had visited Brush Farm, also visited Regentville in 1834 and recorded his impressions (Clark 1994:263-264):

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 188

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 94 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

‘A couple of Sir John's cousins took us round. I had heard a great deal about a vineyard and was curious to inspect it, as it had been laid out by a German called Meyer. I had met this man earlier, in Sydney, and could hear from his accent that he was a North German, I think from Luneburg, and thought to myself that he would probably know more about looking after moorland sheep or at best about brewing Broyhan [a light pale ale made of wheat] but as for laying out a vineyard! But when I made a remark to him to this effect, he assured me that he had spent a long time on the Rhine.

Sir John's vineyard has been laid out according to mistaken notions current in the colony: wherever there is very arid, cold sandy soil, the settlers think that this is the best place for grape vines. Now Meyer was allotted a hillside facing due south, with the poorest description of sand and yellow clay. He neatly levelled this off into a large number of small terraces, none of them wide enough for the roots, with retaining walls of stones. The grape vine cuttings were then stuck into the sand here, without any soil or manure. The whole thing certainly looks like a vineyard, as these are painted in pictures - any child can recognize it instantly as such - but the results will not be satisfactory. ... I have tried wine from 'Regentville' in two places, as a guest of Mr Macquoid and of the Governor, but I can state quite candidly that neither substance was wine.’

In 2002, bushfires exposed a gully terraced with river boulders up both sides. The terraces are described as being about a metre wide and a half metre high (see Figure 4.20).

Camden Park Estate

Koppi et al (1985) have reported on one of the few archaeological investigations of a c.1820s vineyard context at Camden Park Estate that is comparable to Brush Farm Park. This study describes physical and chemical analysis of soils that were augmented with organic matter and placed at the base of vine trenches with introduced calcareous sandstone added to the mix to raise the pH levels of the Bringelly Shale soils at this site.

This vineyard site faces northeast with slopes of about 6-8 per cent above the influence of river flooding and small regular surface benches parallel to contours are suggested to be the remnants of minor terracing for each vine row. There was no evidence for terrace construction involving stone walls as previously noted at Regentville.

This investigation reviewed the writings of Busby (1825 and 1830) and Macarthur (1825 and 1830) that both compliment the knowledge base and refine research opportunities that have been identified by Mitchell (2009) at Brush Farm Park. The following extract (with original footnotes removed) is drawn from that report (Koppi et al 1985:30)

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 189

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 95 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

‘We know that prior to cultivation the soil of the vineyard site had a medium to heavy clay subsoil, like that found in the reference profile, and Busby notes that soils such as these are improper for the vine. He implies that all clayey soils are the same (which is not true) and provide adverse physical conditions for root growth. Macarthur also notes that wet clayey situations are unfavourable to the health of the plant and both authors note that the soil should be freely drained and porous. Modern thoughts are similar in that, for grapes, heavy poorly drained clays should be avoided.

Busby and Macarthur comment on the importance of stones in the soil to keep it 'open' and a bed of stones on the surface to help with water infiltration (thereby controlling erosion), to retard evaporative losses, and to improve surface temperature conditions. Macarthur also notes that the stones keep the low-hanging grapes from being splashed with dirt during rain. It was also thought that calcareous soils were favourable to the vine.

The slope of the land is of some importance, and in general a gentle slope is better than a steep one. If the slope is considered too steep then terracing was advocated by Macarthur. This consisted of making wide, near level steps down the slope, with the rise of each step being supported by a stone wall. The most desirable aspect for slopes in N.S.W. was north-easterly, because as Busby notes, the greatest enemy of vegetation is the hot westerly winds. The chosen aspect also favours early warming of the soil in spring and provides shelter from the cold south-westerly winds. The elevations of the site favours air drainage and would therefore limit the effect of late heavy frosts on fruit set.

When the climate, slope and aspect were favourable, a loose and open structure was thought to enable deep root penetration. If this was not the case then trenching was advocated. Because of droughts in the Colony, Busby stresses that in most cases trenching was indispensable to the health and longevity of the vines. Trenching was described by Busby as an inversion of the soil to 2 or 3 feet (60 or 90cm) in a trench 2.5 to 3 feet (75 to 90cm) wide at the bottom. The whole soil should also undergo a thorough mixing, with a little manure being added whenever possible. Macarthur adds that if the soil is clayey then stones should also be intermingled’.

4.3.3 Orchards, Market Gardening and other Agricultural Landscape Features

Brush Farm Park was used for a variety of overlapping agricultural purposes between c.1894 and the mid 1910’s by the Carpentarian Reformatory for Boys. In 1943 (see Figure 2.6) the land north and west of the two gullies defined by Marsden Road and Lawson Street now occupied by the netball courts, Scout Hall, and amenity buildings was largely cleared excluding a scatter of small shrubs and low trees. At this time the area was characterised by a pattern of parallel agricultural furrows likely to

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 190

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 96 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

be plough lines associated with market garden and/or orchard-growing activity. These furrows extended south to where terraced banks were evident along the southern-facing side of the northwest gully where this creek tributary joins the second watercourse branch that runs from north to south. Here, the orientation of the excavated strips/benches created a ‘chequer-board’ pattern at this creek confluence with further terracing continuing along the single channel of the creek as it flows onwards to the east.

The type of orcharding and small-scale gardening activities that were occurring on the land during the 1890s and 1910s are illustrated in Figures 4.12 and 4.13. The changes to the ground resulting from these will have overprinted themselves on any remnant archaeological evidences for earlier landuses associated with the Blaxland/Forster periods of occupation of this part of the former Estate. A second example of where landuse, in this particular instance during the early twentieth century, will be overlaid across any traces of earlier use of the eastern gully in Brush Farm Park for vineyard activity is provided by Figure 4.10. This image shows an orchard in the gully in the foreground looking towards Lawson Street, and the structures illustrated in the background appear to have been demolished around the street was constructed in c.1913.

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 191

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 97 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Figure 4.1: Original Land Grants in the Ryde District – 1792 to c.1809 (Source: Brush Farm Historical Society 2001).

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 192

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 98 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Figure 4.2: Brush Farm House and Important Surrounding Landscape and Historical Elements (Source: Campbell 1927).

Map Key

A ‘Formerly a school for the children of the neighbourhood’.

B & B2 Brush Farm homestead (B - Cox) and ‘Blaxland’s House’ (B2 - Brush Farm House).

C Flagstaff.

D One Tree Hill.

E Reverend Marsden’s House.

F Major Lockyer’s House.

G John Bennett’s House.

H Government Wharf (named One Tree Hill, and now Ermington Wharf).

J Rydale House of the Darvall Estate.

K Old Wharf Track.

L Blaxland’s Track to Kissing Point.

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 193

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 99 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Figure 4.3: Henry Grant Lloyd’s 1861 ‘View from Brush Farm’ House (Source: DPWS 2001).

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 194

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 100 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Figure 4.4: Approximate Location of William Forster’s Vineyard in 1862 (Source: Clive Lucas, Stapleton & Partners 1991).

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 195

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 101 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Figure 4.5: Brush Farm Subdivision Plan – c.1881 (Source: Clive Lucas, Stapleton & Partners 1991).

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 196

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 102 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Figure 4.6: Brush Farm Subdivision Plan – c.1881 (Source: Clive Lucas, Stapleton & Partners 1991).

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 197

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 103 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Figure 4.7: Brush Farm Subdivision Plan – c.1881 (Source: Clive Lucas, Stapleton & Partners 1991).

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 198

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 104 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Figure 4.8: Conjectural Configuration of Brush Farm Estate Prior to Subdivision in c.1881 (Source: Clive Lucas, Stapleton & Partners 1991).

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 199

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 105 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Figure 4.9: A View of Brush Farm House and Garden in c.1910 (Source: Department of Public Instruction 1910).

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 200

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 106 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Figure 4.10: Weatherboard Cottages on the Line of Lawson Street and Orchard Area on Archers Creek Looking Northwest in c.1910 (Source: Department of Public Instruction 1910).

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 201

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 107 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Figure 4.11: Playing Field at Brush Farm in c.1910 (Source: Department of Public Instruction 1910).

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 202

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 108 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Figure 4.12: ‘Orchard Work’ at Brush Farm in c.1910 (Source: Department of Public Instruction 1910).

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 203

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 109 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Figure 4.13: ‘School Garden’ at Brush Farm in c.1910 (Source: Department of Public Instruction 1910).

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 204

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 110 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Figure 4.14: Buildings at Brush Farm in c.1910 (Source: Department of Public Instruction 1910).

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 205

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 111 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Figure 4.15: A Reconstruction of the Potential Setting of the Brush Farm Study Area in the Blaxland/Forster Period (Source: Clive Lucas, Stapleton & Partners 1991).

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 206

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 112 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Figure 4.16: A Reconstruction of the Potential Setting of the Brush Farm Study Area in the Bennett Period (Source: Clive Lucas, Stapleton & Partners 1991).

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 207

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 113 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Figure 4.17: A Reconstruction of the Potential Setting of the Brush Farm Study Area in the Reformatory Period (Source: Clive Lucas, Stapleton & Partners 1991).

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 208

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 114 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Figure 4.18: Vineyard and Orchard Terraces at Brush Farm Park (Source: Mitchell 2009).

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 209

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 115 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Figure 4.19: Vineyard Terraces at Cox’s Cottage, Mulgoa Creek, NSW (Source: NSW Heritage Office SHR Listing 2012).

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 210

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 116 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Figure 4.20: Vineyard Terraces Exposed at Regentville, NSW (Source: O’Brien 2002).

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 211

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 117 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

5.0 Future Planning at Brush Farm and Lambert Parks

5.1 Draft Master Plan 2012

A Masterplan is being developed by Council for Brush Farm and Lambert Park that provides a planning framework for future uses to ensure the core environmental and cultural heritage values of the parklands are maintained. Future options that are considered in the Masterplan are mapped in Figure 5.1 and itemised below.

Brush Farm Park

Future plans for this park include:

 To re-establish the ‘old growth corridor’ and reconfigure vehicular access along a former heritage alignment at Lawson Street.  To create an environmental heritage orientation area to the west of the playing fields.  To upgrade the existing car parking area.  To create new BBQ facilities & play equipment at the northwest of the park near Marsden Street.  To demolish the existing amenities buildings and construct a new multi-functional community building.  To upgrade existing water detention basin and vegetation swales at the western edge of the playing fields.  To consolidate and upgrade the netball facilities within the playing fields.  To re-establish heritage views and manage tree heights to the south of the playing fields.  To create a new dual boardwalk connection between the western half of Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park.  To create new carparking space on Brush Road between Eric Street and the Rutledge Street Road Reserve (RSRR).  To create a new pedestrian canopy bridge over the eastern gully of Archers Creek from the central playing fields to a point at Brush Road to the south of Eric Street.

Lambert Park

Future plans for this park include:

 Future landuse plans for this park include:  To create a new managed open space on the Brush Road frontage.  To create a fauna/flora corridor.  To create a bushfire asset protection zone.

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 212

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 118 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

5.2 Mapping the Parklands Heritage Landscape

Five Archaeological Management Zones (AMZ) are defined here for the parklands according to their existing condition, broad landuse histories, and potential future landuse options as identified by the Masterplan. These zones are mapped in Figure 5.2 and comprise the following:

 AMZ 1: The north-western portion of Brush Farm Park that is presently occupied by the Lawson Street carpark, the amenity buildings, and nearby all-weather netball courts.

 AMZ 2: The western gullies of Archers Creek in Brush Farm Park. This zone includes the land defined by Marsden Road to the west, AMZ 1 to the north, the central playing fields area to the east, and the land extending down to the RSRR to the south.

 AMZ 3: The central playing fields area and the adjoining ‘overflow’ area to its south.

 AMZ 4: The eastern gully and its bushland corridor in Brush Farm Park.

 AMZ 5: Lambert Park. This park is bisected by a single and heavily modified tributary channel of Archers Creek, and has been significantly impacted upon by past shale quarrying. The limited landforms contained within this narrow strip of parkland, and its relatively uniform level of gross disturbance, does not warrant further subdivision for the purposes of identifying potential heritage impacts relative to the nature and scale of future landuse changes.

5.3 Evidence for Former Vineyard Terracing

A number of former vineyard terraces have been identified in the Brush Farm Park gullies. These are mapped in Figure 5.2 and comprise:

 Terrace 1: A small localised and partly flat to gently inclined eroded benched area located on the midslope with a south easterly aspect/  Terrace 2: A narrow benched sideslope on the upper part of a slope with a westerly aspect. The bench is approximately 50m long.  Terrace 3: A distinct cut into an elevated slope that may represent a remnant construction feature of a now eroded terrace. Truncated subsoils and weathering bedrock are visible in this eroded profile. It is located on the midslope and has a westerly aspect.  Terrace 4: A distinct cut into an elevated slope that may represent a remnant construction feature of a now eroded terrace. Truncated subsoils and weathering bedrock are visible in this eroded profile.  Terrace 5: A broad and distinct benched terrace located on a footslope with a westerly aspect. The terrace is distinct and up to 40m at its widest point. To the south the footslope contours divides the terrace into an upper and lower benched element.

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 213

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 119 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

 Terrace 6: This is one of the few clear terraced features currently evident in the eastern gully. It consists of a distinct cut into an east facing slope. The feature is obscured by erosion.

Also identified in the eastern gully is a seemingly intact area of natural landscape that consists of a west facing slope marked by a line of four mature trees on the break in slope, below which the land falls away relatively steeply to the channel of Archers Creek. This landscape element which appears to retain its original landform characteristics can be used as a ‘control’ against which to measure and evaluate the identified areas of terracing coded here as T1 to T6.

Additional details for each of these terraced areas (including further indicative images) are appended to this report (see Appendix 2).

5.4 An Assessment of Archaeological Heritage Sensitivity

5.4.1 AMZ 1

No significant archaeological heritage constraints have been identified for future options to re-establish the old growth corridor and to reconfigure vehicular access along a former heritage alignment at Lawson Street. Future actions to ensure these potential changes are carried out with a level of appropriate heritage management due diligence would include the use of plantings that are commensurate with vegetation types documented to have previously been on the line of Lawson Street in c.1913 and those opposite within ‘The Glade’. The potential need for future archaeological monitoring of site works that would change the existing conditions in these locations could be directed by site-specific heritage assessment at a time when design options are further progressed.

The existing bitumen carpark off-Lawson Street has been created through excavation and grading works that have modified the original pre-European topography. No built heritage items are known to have been present in this part of Brush Farm Park prior to the construction of the carparking area, although minor archaeological traces of a former drive leading to Brush Farm House may survive beneath current surfaces.

Aerial imagery from the 1930s shows this location was at that time was largely cleared of trees and vegetation, and had been used for market gardening and/or orcharding that created a pattern of minor agricultural furrowing. Fence-lines and other similar agricultural features that may be associated with this landuse history would be expected to be reflected by ephemeral and largely unremarkable archaeological traces.

Re-configuring the carparking facilities to extend to the current site of the existing all-weather netball courts is unlikely to have significant detrimental archaeological impacts. The netball courts have been constructed within a relatively deep-cut excavation footprint, and any potential archaeological features

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 214

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 120 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

and deposits that may have been located in this area of Brush Farm Park will have been removed by these excavations.

Minor works for the installation of new play equipment and BBQ facilities in this location are also unlikely to expose significant archaeological features and deposits. These new installations would be created on embankments around the edges of the already excavated netball courts footprint that appear to have been at least partially formed with up-cast spoil from this excavation that may cover original ground levels previously used for ongoing agricultural purposes.

Previous site preparation and construction activities (levelling and footing excavations) associated with the existing brick amenities buildings will have significantly disturbed the ground levels below current surfaces to some depth. The potential for any intact archaeological features or deposits to survive in this locality would appear to be limited.

Previous archaeological recording in the vicinity of the proposed site of a new water detention basin and vegetation swales show the natural soil profiles on the edge of the playing fields to be relatively shallow and/or to be capped with fill. The creation of these features within the existing construction footprints and/or immediately near in this locality will minimise disturbance to any surviving intact subsurface soil profiles.

5.4.2 AMZ 2

Options to create a new dual boardwalk connection between the western half of Brush Farm Park that would extend through Lambert Park has the potential to impact upon the terraced landscape elements that have been identified for this AMP and which are mapped in Figure 5.2, in addition to those that may still remain largely obscured due to the extensive nature of the vegetation cover that occurs along most of the gully lengths in this AMZ in Brush Farm Park.

Potential future impacts to these landforms can be avoided or mitigated to an acceptable level by the preparation of a Heritage Impact Statement (HIS) at an early planning and design stage that would identify and clarify potential heritage and possible environmental and/or ecological constraints. Detailed ground survey of preferred path alignment options, that would ideally follow existing informal pedestrian track corridors in these western gullies, would further assist in project planning and developing adequate levels of heritage and environmental protection and conservation management approaches when design options are further progressed.

5.4.3 AMZ 3

The main playing field areas to the south of Lawson Street (including the cricket oval and existing grassed netball courts) have a long history of recreational use. The existing demarcation between this

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 215

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 121 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

active recreational space and the fringing vegetation along the Archers Creek gully to the east is well defined. There is no identified need to significantly encroach upon this established landuse boundary. Maintaining in the future a distinction between sporting use of the grassed surfaces in this area and passive activity in the gully to the east will assist in the ongoing management of the vegetation in this part of Brush Farm Park.

The formalisation of the lower netball courts will require level playing surfaces and future works to create this will involve minor cut and fill works. The contours and the nature of the exposed ground profiles in these areas display evidence of past disturbance from past grading works and some benching. Similar upgrade works recently completed within the central playing fields area immediately to the north did not expose any archaeological features or deposits of note. Adequate levels of heritage management for this location could be identified by site-specific heritage assessment when design options are confirmed.

Plans to re-establish heritage view corridors to those of the Blaxland period of occupation of Brush Farm House and to manage tree heights to the south of the playing fields are unlikely to have any significant negative archaeological impacts. The vegetation that currently fringes the already cleared area to the east, west and south is predominantly immature sapling regrowth. The contours and the nature of the exposed ground profiles in these also areas display evidence of past disturbance from past grading works and some benching. No significant trees will be affected by these works, or those proposed to create a heritage display in this location.

5.4.4 AMZ 4

As illustrated in Figure 5.2, a series of terraced landscape elements that are likely to reflect former vineyard banks and flats have been identified along the eastern gully in Brush Farm Park. Some of these are also relatively extensive, and most occur in areas upslope and to the east of the channel of Archers Creek above the existing split level network boardwalks and informal walking paths in this portion of the park.

Options to create new carparking space on Brush Road between Eric Street and the RSRR, and to construct a pedestrian canopy bridge over the gully from the central playing fields area to a point at Brush Road to the south of Eric Street has the potential to disturb areas of these landforms. This is particularly the case with the canopy bridge at its eastern end where a two distinct levels of terraces are located close to existing boardwalks and steps leading up to Brush Road.

As for the western gullies in the park, potential future impacts to these areas of identified heritage and environmental sensitivity can be avoided and/or mitigated appropriately by preparing site-specific

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 216

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 122 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

assessments at an early planning and design stage that would should be guided by detailed ground survey and constraints mapping at a level that is beyond the scope of the current AMP.

5.4.5 AMZ 5

No heritage constraints are apparent for future works that may be proposed to create new features and facilities in Lambert Park. The original soil profiles of this land have been either removed from past shale and clay quarrying and/or significantly disturbed from the creation of service infrastructure associated with surrounding residential housing. The potential for original landforms and natural soil profiles to retain archaeological deposits would appear to be minimal, although ongoing bush-care and regeneration are progressively improving the surface appearances of this parkland.

As a consequence, no specific heritage constraints have been identified for the proposed improvements in Lambert Park, however it is recommended that an overview heritage assessment be prepared for future works when design options are confirmed to provide consistency in the due diligence approach that has been applied to heritage management planning for the parklands..

5.5 Heritage Management Opportunities and Constraints

5.5.1 An Evaluation of the Masterplan

All of the potential heritage and environmental constraints associated with the future landuse options in the parklands identified by the Masterplan can be managed to achieve acceptable cultural heritage protection and conservation management outcomes. In particular, possible adverse impacts to the terraced landscape elements that occur in the Brush Farm Park gullies as mapped in Figure 5.2 can be avoided through appropriate design at an early planning stage. These assessments would be guided by detailed ground survey of preferred path alignments options and directed towards the use of pre-existing path corridors to minimise the need for unnecessary disturbance to the existing conditions of the landforms and ecology of these parts of Brush Farm Park.

5.5.2 Balancing the Protection and Conservation of Environmental and Heritage Values

Key threats that have been identified to the primary STIF values in the gullies in Brush Farm Park in particular come from weed infestation, including in those areas where weeds have been cleared but have not been maintained allowing excessive weed levels to re-establish. Also of considerable concern in some parts of the gullies is the over-clearing of woody weeds which promotes soil erosion on steep slopes.

Amongst key recommendations provided by previous environmental studies to reduce threats to the core ecological communities in the gullies is the reduction of over-clearing on steep slopes by clearing only small mosaics that can be maintained weed free in the short term while the canopy is open,

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 217

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 123 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

allowing regeneration to occur. A general problem that is more of a challenge is to effectively control bank stabilisation on steep slopes that although can be achieved in suitable places by planting and seed sowing should only occur in areas with disturbed soil profiles which are more prevalent in Lambert Park rather than in most of the areas in the gullies of Brush Farm Park.

Key conservation and management threats of known and/or suspected vineyard terraces in the Brush Farm Park gullies stem primarily from two closely interrelated factors; the confined landscape contexts within which they occur where there are competing bush-care and visitor amenity needs, and because of difficulties that exist in distinguishing between what are more likely to be modified cultural elements and those that are natural landforms that display different types of vegetation cover and composition, landscape integrity, and levels of bank erosion.

The terrace systems created during the Blaxland/Forster periods of occupation include cut-and-fill landscaping of existing landforms and the modification of natural contours. At Brush Farm Park in particular, the landforms include moderate to steep gullies with breaks of slope that grade into benched or gently inclined slopes of different widths and gradients in a stepped fashion that descend down-slope toward the tributary creek channels.

Indicative illustrations of remnant terraces previously presented (Figures 2.40 to 2.43) show aspects of the difficulties involved in recognising and mapping these landscape features that have changed over time. The first two of these images (Figures 2.40 and 2.41) shows two different levels of relatively flat terraces adjacent to paths in the eastern gully of Brush Farm Park. Here, regrowth vegetation covers the sloping ‘side’ and ‘top’ of benched areas (Figures 2.42 and 2.43) and obscures the definition between what originally may have been distinct vertical and horizontal surfaces. The parallel arrangement of fallen and/or stacked logs evident in the second of these photographs also obscures a clearly culturally modified feature that differs from the general contour patterns (and to some extent vegetation covers) of the naturally sloping ground leading down to the creek that display no clear evidence for purposeful modification.

While the walking paths in the gullies have been designed and located to provide protection to the most sensitive ecological areas, there are suggestions that a number of the track alignments now constructed have followed flatter land contours that were originally created by vineyard terraces on the slopes within Brush farm Park in particular.

Mitchell (2009) also identifies how some unplanned bush-care work in the parklands is affecting the integrity of the remnant terraces. Weeding in places is affecting terraces because it is contributing to slope destabilisation processes and accelerating sheet-wash and soil creep, and in some locations cut

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 218

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 124 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

timber and weeds are being stacked on steps of the terraces which traps soil and accentuates and/or obscures the form of the terraces.

5.5.3 Opportunities and Constraints

The potential heritage and environmental constraints identified for the parkland Masterplan options illustrated in Figure 5.1 can be managed with acceptable cultural and environmental protection and conservation outcomes. Adverse impacts to the terraced landscape elements mapped in Figure 5.2 can be avoided by early planning. Site-specific cultural heritage impact assessments guided by ground survey to identify path alignment options using existing path corridors to minimise future disturbance to existing conditions should be allied with the preparation of a Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) for of the gullies. The VMP would identify and map ecological constraints that would be directly overlaid with specific HIS plans that would where future paths and structures (such as the canopy bridge points and carparking areas in the eastern gully) can be located and created with minimal levels of heritage and environmental impact.

Cultural heritage opportunities that have been identified which are allied with the management recommendations outlined in the following section of this AMP include:

 The cross-sectioning of selected vineyard terraces as advocated by Mitchell (2009) and in the way described in Appendix 1 to establish precisely what the archaeological resource is in the parkland gullies that needs to be conserved, and what management protocols and practices are needed to ensure the ongoing protection of these cultural landscape features.  Informed educative opportunities that exist with the proposals to augment the existing boardwalks in the gullies and at the sites of the future heritage orientation and display points.  The creation of new options for people’s movements through the parklands in ways that will reduce the pressures from increased public visitation that would be expected to accompany the types of park improvements identified in the Masterplan.

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 219

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 125 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Figure 5.1: Brush Farm and Lambert Parks Draft Masterplan 2012 (City of Ryde 2012).

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 220

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 126 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Figure 5.2: Archaeological Sensitivity Map for Brush Farm and Lambert Parks (DSCA 2012).

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 221

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 127 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

6.0 Heritage Management Recommendations

6.1 Basis for Recommendations

It is assessed that no significant heritage and environmental constraints for the future landuse options for the parklands identified by the Masterplan are apparent, and potential impacts can be managed to achieve acceptable cultural heritage protection and conservation management outcomes.

The following recommendations are provided in recognition of the legal requirements and statutory protection provided to Aboriginal and European heritage under the terms of the National Parks and Wildlife Act of 1974 and the NSW Heritage Act 1977

6.2 Recommendations

I Site-specific cultural heritage impact assessments, allied with Vegetation Management Plans, should be prepared early in planning for future proposals in the following locations in Brush Farm Park:

 A new boardwalk connection between Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park.  A new carparking space on Brush Road between Eric Street and the Rutledge Street.  A new pedestrian canopy bridge over the eastern gully of Archers Creek.

II The site survey data for vineyard terrace elements identified in the Brush Farm Park gullies appended to this AMP (Appendix 2) should be used to map these features at greater detail on current Council survey plans.

III Consideration is given to undertaking a limited program of archaeological investigation of a selected sample of remnant vineyard terraces in Brush Farm Park guided by the objectives and methods appended to this AMP (Appendix 1).

IV One copy of this report should be forwarded to:

Chief Executive Officer Mr Paul Morrison Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council PO Box 1103 STRAWBERRY HILLS, NSW, 2012

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 222

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 128 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

7.0 References

Attenbrow, V.J. 2002. Sydney’s Aboriginal Past. Investigating the Archaeology and Historical Records. First Edition. University of NSW Press.

Attenbrow, V.J. 2010. Sydney’s Aboriginal Past. Investigating the Archaeology and Historical Records. Second Edition. University of NSW Press.

Attenbrow, V.J. and D. Steele. 1995. ‘Fishing in Port Jackson, New South Wales - More than met the Eye.’ Antiquity. Vol 69. No 262:47-60.

Australia ICOMOS. 1999. The Burra Charter. The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance. Australia ICOMOS Inc.

Benson, D. and J. Howell. 1990. Taken for Granted: The Bushland of Sydney and its Suburbs. Kangaroo Press. Kenthurst.

Betteridge, M. 2006 (March). Brush Farm House Interpretive Plan (Final Draft). Prepared on behalf of Musescape Pty Ltd for Tanner Architects.

Biosphere Environmental Consultants Pty Ltd. 2006. Ryde Flora and Fauna Study. Brush Farm Park, Darvall Park, Lambert Park and Field of Mars Reserve. Report to City of Ryde.

Bowdler, S. 1970. Bass Point. The Excavation of a South-East Australian Shell Midden, Showing Cultural and Economic Change. BA (Hons) Thesis. Department of Anthropology. University of Sydney.

Britton, G. et al. 2004. Landscape and Archaeology Assessment. For the Former Brush Farm Estate. Eastwood, NSW. Report to City of Ryde.

Chapman, G.A. & C.L. Murphy. 1989. Soil Landscapes of the Sydney 1:100 000 Sheet. Soil Conservation Service of NSW, Sydney.

City of Ryde Council. 2009. Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park. Plan of Management.

City of Ryde Council. 2011. Draft Local Environment Plan.

City of Ryde Council. 2010. Development Control Plan.

City of Ryde Council. 2009/2010. Statement of the Environment Report.

Clark, D (Ed.). 1994. Baron von Hugel. New Holland Journal. November 1833 – October 1834. Melbourne. Miegunyah Press.

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 223

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 129 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Godden Mackay Logan. 2007. Ryde Foreshore: Natural and Cultural Study. Report (Draft) prepared for the City of Ryde Council.

Hiscock, P. and V. Attenbrow. 2003. Early Australian Implement Variation: A Reduction Model. Journal of Archaeological Science. Vol 30:239-249.

Irish, P. 2005. Aboriginal People at Homebush Bay: From the Wann-gal to the Present Day. Report to the Sydney Olympic Park Authority.

Jo McDonald-CHM. 1999. Survey for Archaeological Sites: Proposed Rouse Hill Stage 2 Infrastructure Works at Rouse Hill, Parklea & Kellyville, NSW (Mark II). Report Prepared for GHD on behalf of RHIC.

Kohen, J.L, E.D. Stockton and M.A.J. Williams. 1984. Shaws Creek KII Rock-shelter: A Prehistoric Occupation Site in the Blue Mountains Piedmont, Eastern New South Wales. Archaeology in Oceania. 19:57-72.

Kohen, J.L. 1986. Prehistoric Settlement in the Western Cumberland Plain: Resources, Environment and Technology. Unpublished PhD Thesis. School of Earth Sciences. Macquarie University.

Kohen, J.L. and R.J.Lampert. 1987. Hunters and Fishers in the Sydney Region. In Mulvaney, D.J. and J.P. White (eds.). Australians to 1788: 343-365. Fairfax. Syme and Weldon Associates. Sydney.

Kubiak, P.J. 2005. Native Plants of the Ryde District. The Conservation Significance of Ryde’s Bushland Plants. Report to City of Ryde.

Lampert, R.J. 1971. Burrill Lake and Currarong. Terra Australis 1. Department of Prehistory RSPacS, ANU, Canberra.

Long, A. 2005. Aboriginal Scarred Trees in New South Wales. A Field Manual. Department of Environment & Conservation. Sydney.

McDonald, J.J. 2007. Dreamtime Superhighway: An Analysis of Sydney Basin Rock Art and Prehistoric Exchange. Terra Australis 27. ANU Press. Canberra.

McCarthy, F. D. 1948. The Lapstone Creek Excavation: Two Culture Periods Revealed in Eastern New South Wales. Records of the Australian Museum. Vol. 21: 1-34.

McCarthy, F. D. 1964. The Archaeology of the Capertee Valley, New South Wales. Records of the Australian Museum. Vol. 26 (No 6): 197-246.

McCarthy, F. D. 1976. Australian Aboriginal Stone Implements. The Australian Museum Trust.

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 224

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 130 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Megaw, J. V. S. 1965. Excavations at the Royal National Park, New South Wales: A First Series of Radiocarbon Dates from the Sydney district. Oceania. Vol. 35 (3):202-207.

Nanson, G.C., Young, R.W. & E. Stockton. 1987. Chronology and Palaeoenvironment of the Cranebrook Terrace [near Sydney], Containing Artefacts More Than 40,000 Years Old. Archaeology in Oceania. Volume 22(2):72-78.

NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change & Water. 2010. Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Consultation Requirements for Proponents. Part 6 National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974. DECCW. Sydney.

NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change & Water. 2010. Code of Practice for Archaeological Investigation of Aboriginal Objects in NSW. DECCW. Sydney.

National Parks & Wildlife Service. 1997. Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Standards & Guidelines Kit. NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service. Sydney.

NSW Heritage Office. 1996. NSW Heritage Manual. NSW Heritage Office and the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning. Sydney.

NSW Heritage Office. 2006. Historical Archaeology Code of Practice. NSW Heritage Office, NSW Department of Planning. Sydney.

NSW Heritage Office. 2008. Levels of Heritage Significance. NSW Heritage Office, NSW Department of Planning. Sydney.

NSW Heritage Branch. 2009. Assessing Significance for Historical Archaeological Sites and ‘Relics’. NSW Heritage Branch, NSW Department of Planning. Sydney.

Organ, M. (Compiler). 1990. A Documentary History of the Illawarra and South Coast Aborigines: 1770-1850. Including Chronological Bibliography 1770-1990. Aboriginal Education Unit. University of Wollongong.

Stockton, E.D. and W.N. Holland. 1974. Cultural Sites and their Environment in the Blue Mountains. Archaeology and Physical Anthropology in Oceania. Vol 9:36-64.

Turbet, P. 2001. The Aborigines of the Sydney District Before 1788. Kangaroo Press.

White, B. & J.J. McDonald. 2010. Lithic Artefact Distribution in the Rouse Hill Development Area, Cumberland Plain, NSW’. Australian Archaeology. Volume 70:29-38.

Willey, K. 1979. When the Sky Fell Down. The Destruction of the Tribes of the Sydney Region: 1788-1850s. Collins. Sydney.

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 225

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 131 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Appendix 1

Archaeological Evidence of Former Vineyard Terracing at Brush Farm Park

A Proposed Management Method & Test Excavation Methodology

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 226

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 132 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Archaeological Evidence of Former Vineyard Terracing at Brush Farm Park A Proposed Management Method & Test Excavation Methodology

Introduction

Mitchell (2009) correctly identifies that if evidence of Blaxland’s vineyard terraces survives in Brush Farm Park they will represent important heritage landscape elements that require sensitive management and conservation into the future. This researcher also provides a rationale and general methodology for how to test for their provenance with the aim of answering a number of generalist questions. These are paraphrased below:

 What can be learnt from the activities about the viticultural history of Brush Farm Estate?  Undertake a surface survey to identify the terrace pattern as seen in the early air photographs and match this record to the archival data.  Select a suitable terrace or terraces for cross-sectioning by a qualified archaeologist with assistance from a soil scientist to determine their stratigraphy and degree of disturbance. The primary objective of this work is to confirm or refute the hypothesis that we are dealing with vine terraces. This will require Heritage office approval.  If the terrace are confirmed then we need we need to develop a set of management guidelines and practices that will conserve these features. This will need to be done in consultation with other interested parties, including the bush regenerators.  Suggest appropriate means of interpreting the terraces for the benefit of future visitors to Brush Farm.

The following methodology refines and adds detail to this proposal now that field survey for this AMP has identified the presence of former vineyard terracing (although their date(s) remain unclear at present), and specific locations in both the eastern and western gullies of Archers Creek in Brush Farm Park are mapped and could be selected to answer these types of research questions.

Archaeological Evidence of Former Vineyard Terracing

The landscape history both prior, but in particular subsequent to, the introduction of European land management practices have left a series of imprints in the form of erosional and depositional features which can be identified on the landforms of Brush Farm Park. These imprints include a combination of man-made features, for example walkways, as well as natural features such as skeletal top-soils. A particular problem in the context of Brush Farm is that many of the man-made changes to the landscape have enhanced the natural processes of erosion and deposition. The removal of the

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 227

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 133 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

natural vegetation in a landform already susceptible to erosional processes means that its long-term agricultural and subsequent recreational uses have modified the landforms considerably. This is evident in the general paucity of soils encountered across the study area, the entrenchment of creek channels and the presence of (relatively modern) sediment blankets across parts of the landscape. These former soils are now either deposited along the foot-slopes and narrow terraces of the three gullies as alluvial and colluvial lenses or, have been eroded down-stream as sediments.

The landforms of the three gullies are highly modified therefore making the identification of the former vineyard terrace systems problematical. The most obvious stepping and that more clearly visible in the 1943 aerial photograph which dates to a time when vegetation cover across the parklands was at its sparsest in the historic period post 1930 is no longer clearly visible with the exception of one location (Terrace 5). The combination of vegetation regrowth, weed infestation, organic litter and erosion of landform elements means that surface mapping by pedestrian survey is limited in its application. With this in mind, an alternative/supplemental methodology is presented here to augment the general findings presented in the preceding AMP.

Terrace systems include cut-and-fill landscaping of existing landforms and the modification of natural contours. In the context of the study area at Brush Farm Park the landforms include moderate to steep slopes with breaks of slope that grade into various benched or more gently inclined slopes of various widths and gradients in a stepped fashion descending down-slope. This steeply sloped landscape includes three gullies which are asymmetrical in form, each one dissected by entrenched first to second order tributary creeks. The first order channels are orientated at oblique angles and diverge on the main second order channels which are broadly aligned on a north-south axis. Entrenchment of these creeklines varies in places, but is in excess of 2.5m to 3m in extreme cases. Sheet-wash, channelled flow and soil creep are active geomorphic processes within the context of the three gully systems.

The field surveys of the parklands previously reported was undertaken with the aid of aerial images, a detailed 1:800 map (Craig and Rhodes 2011) and a hand-held GPS (Garmin etrek). GPS points were taken on either end of identified terrace and potential terrace landforms, with the coordinates focused at the break of slope on the lower aspect of the landform element.

Environmental Archaeological Research Design

Introduction

Environmental archaeology involves the investigation of the relationship between people and their geological and biological environment as well as ecological changes associated with their historical use of a place. In the context of the current study, the introduction of viticulture on a largely Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 228

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 134 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

unmodified landscape would have created both physical and chemical changes to the natural environment. At the same time, introduced plant species during the early historical period have provided biostratigraphic indicators on historical landscapes (Macphail 1999), with the potential for time-sensitive pollen profiles (chronological markers). In other words, the composition of pollen assemblages can illustrate a variety of data, including soil and stratigraphic markers potentially demarcating pre and post-Contact deposits, information on introduced species and potentially within a chronological framework.

Soil Chemistry

In viticulture as with all forms of agriculture, the soil chemistry determines the productivity of a particular soil type and therefore the soil chemistry needs to be maintained and/or enhanced in order for production to be sustained (Mackenzie and Christy 2005). This would include fertilisation practices that preserved soil and plant health, which from a soil chemical perspective means the addition of certain types of nutrients. This results in changes to the natural soil chemistry that reflects conditions suitable for the growth of vines. In particular, the introduction of procedures such as manuring to fix and elevate nitrogen levels in the soil would at the same time introduce high phosphate levels, which come from animal waste products.

The natural soil chemical signature for the Glenorie Soil Landscape in the study area has been established (Chapman and Murphy 1989). Should traces of these elevated nutrient levels survive and provide distinct chemical signatures, the potential for the terraces to be mapped becomes viable where deposits survive. In this case, a soil auger sampling program could potentially identify the location of vineyard terraces based on these chemical signatures.

Research questions concerning the soil chemistry are:

Can a soil chemical signature be identified that is indicative of either?

 The Glenorie soil landscape;  Viticultural practices; and  Modern contamination.

In the case that distinct chemical signatures are identified, can these attributes be mapped across landforms which include surviving soil and/or sediment profiles?

Does the soil chemistry mapping of viticultural signatures overlap with the aerial photography of the terraces from 1943?

Pollen

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 229

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 135 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

The investigation of pollen assemblages in soils and sediments of the study area can be used to investigate several key questions. As with soil chemistry, viticulture practices will introduce pollen directly through the pollination of the grapevines themselves, where inevitably some of the grapevine pollen will leach into the soils, but also indirectly as pollen trapped in manure is released into the soil profile. Whilst establishing the presence of grapevine pollen in soil profiles would be a valuable result, the principle purpose of using pollen analysis would be to identify the depth to which introduced species are found and thereby establishing the point at which soil profiles are contaminated by post- Contact land management practices. This is fundamental in order to determine at which depth soil samples are relevant for investigating soil chemical changes associated with viticulture (and potentially other European land management practices) and which changes pre-date European influences.

Research questions that would be investigated are:

Do soil profiles provide evidence of pre- and post-Contact deposits based on the absence or presence of introduced pollen plant species, or are all sample locations mixed or reworked?

If a distinction between pre and post-Contact pollen assemblages can be established, are there specific attributes or conditions which can be observed for the boundary to be identified, or is it simply serendipity driving the absence or presence of pollen species?

Is there any evidence of grapevine pollen in the introduced plant species?

Methodology

The following methodology outlines a two-tiered approach that initially focuses on establishing whether distinct chemical signatures and/or pollen assemblages can be identified using a geoarchaeological test pitting program. Soil samples taken would be analysed by an accredited geosciences laboratory and pollen samples by a qualified palynologist. Laboratory reports will be appended to the geoarchaeological report. Should the laboratory work indicate positive results, the test pitting would be followed by a later targeted soil auger program. This secondary phase would aim to provide coverage of slope profiles in order to map any remnant vineyard terraces. All sampling locations would be located using a hand-held GPS.

An initial geoarchaeological test excavation program of between one and three 1m² would be conducted on the best preserved vineyard terrace identified during the survey program. This would act as a stratigraphic control for the auger sampling. In the case that only one test pit is excavated, this should be located where the potential for deep and intact stratigraphy is highest, for example just back from the break of slope/terrace edge not disturbed by erosion or slumping. Where time or costs

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 230

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 136 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

permit, additional test pits would be placed both up and down-slope of the sampled terrace in order to provide stratigraphically secure control samples.

Excavation of the geoarchaeological test pit(s) would be undertaken using hand tools. Deposits would be excavated manually and sieved through nested 2mm and 5mm hand-sieves. Excavation would continue in spit depths of between 0.05m to 0.20m, which would be determined by the nature (e.g. thickness, presence or absence of lensing etc) of the deposits. However, once a minimum spit thickness is established, excavation depths would continue at the set interval where there is sufficient deposit depth. Excavation, sieving of deposits and sampling would be conducted using stratigraphic practice and nomenclature following the practice of the Australian Soil and Land Survey Fieldbook (McDonald et al. 1998), with separate excavation of individual deposits (stratigraphic units) and features. Archaeological features or deposits would be excavated and recorded according to standard principles. A series of soil and pollen samples would be taken with sampling locations carefully chosen to avoid contamination.

The auger sampling program would target the slopes on each of the selected gully location(s). Each slope from the crest down to creekline would be subject to sampling where sufficient soil depth is encountered above the weathering bedrock (C or R horizon). A sampling profile would be undertaken along two slope profiles above each individual gully, i.e. from crest/ridgeline to creek to crest/ridgeline. Deposits would be hand augered and then sub-sampled by stratigraphic unit for the purposes of soil chemical and pollen analysis.

Results

A final geoarchaeological report would be provided detailing the background research, methodology and results. This would include maps and photographs of all sampling locations, in addition to scale drawings of soil profiles. Interpretation of soil chemical analysis and pollen profiles would be included and the laboratory reports appended to the final document that would identify baseline data for the future management of this type of landscape archaeological resource.

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 231

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 137 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Appendix 2

Archaeological Evidence of Former Vineyard Terracing at Brush Farm Park

Site Survey Location Coordinate Data

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 232

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 138 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 233

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 139 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 234

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 140 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Intact Natural Benched Slope and Tree Looking North.

Intact Natural Benched Slope and Scattered Timber Looking North.

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 235

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 141 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Intact Natural Benched Slope and Timber Line Looking South.

Intact Natural Benched Slope and Timber Line Looking North.

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 236

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 142 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Intact Natural Benched Slope and Timber Line Looking North.

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected] ITEM 2 (continued) ATTACHMENT 4 Page 237

Brush Farm Park and Lambert Park, Eastwood, NSW 143 Archaeological Management Plan 22 February 2013

Dominic Steele Consulting Archaeology 21 Macgregor Street NSW 2132 Phone (02) 9715 1169 Mobile 0411 88 4232 Email: [email protected]