CBD and South East Light Rail Archaeological Research Design

Sydney Office 78 George Street Redfern NSW Australia 2016 T +61 2 9319 4811

Canberra Office 2A Mugga Way Red Hill ACT Australia 2603 T +61 2 6273 7540

GML Heritage Pty Ltd ABN 60 001 179 362

www.gml.com.au

CBD and South East Light Rail

Archaeological Research Design

Report prepared for KMH Environmental

September 2015

GML Heritage

Report Register

The following report register documents the development and issue of the report entitled CBD and South

East Light Rail—Archaeological Research Design, undertaken by GML Heritage Pty Ltd in accordance

with its quality management system.

Job No. Issue No. Notes/Description Issue Date

15-0217A 1 Draft Report 23 June 2015

15-0217A 2 Revised Draft Report 25 June 2015

15-0217A 3 Final Report 11 August 2015

15-0217A 4 Revised Final Report 4 September 2015

Quality Assurance

GML Heritage Pty Ltd operates under a quality management system which has been certified as

complying with the Australian/New Zealand Standard for quality management systems AS/NZS ISO

9001:2008.

The report has been reviewed and approved for issue in accordance with the GML quality assurance

policy and procedures.

Project Manager: Project Director & Reviewer:

Issue No. 3 Issue No. 3

Signature

Signature

Position: Graduate Consultant Position: Manager, Archaeology

Date: 4 September 2015 Date: 4 September 2015

Copyright

Historical sources and reference material used in the preparation of this report are acknowledged and

referenced at the end of each section and/or in figure captions. Reasonable effort has been made to identify,

contact, acknowledge and obtain permission to use material from the relevant copyright owners.

Unless otherwise specified or agreed, copyright in this report vests in GML Heritage Pty Ltd (‘GML’) and in the

owners of any pre-existing historic source or reference material.

Moral Rights

GML asserts its Moral Rights in this work, unless otherwise acknowledged, in accordance with the

(Commonwealth) Copyright (Moral Rights) Amendment Act 2000. GML’s moral rights include the attribution of

authorship, the right not to have the work falsely attributed and the right to integrity of authorship.

Right to Use

GML grants to the client for this project (and the client’s successors in title) an irrevocable royalty-free right to

reproduce or use the material from this report, except where such use infringes the copyright and/or Moral

Rights of GML or third parties.

Cover Image: Woolcott and Clarke’s Map of the City of Sydney 1854 with CSELR route indicated in red.

(Source: City of Sydney Archives)

GML Heritage

CBD and South East Light Rail—Archaeological Research Design,, September 2015

Contents Page

1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Project Background ................................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Project Description ................................................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Impact Assessment ................................................................................................................................. 2

1.4 Methodology ............................................................................................................................................. 2

1.5 Limitations ................................................................................................................................................ 3

1.6 Investigators, Contributors and Authorship ............................................................................................ 3

2.0 Summary of Site History .......................................................................................................................... 5

2.1 Background .............................................................................................................................................. 5

2.2 Previous Archaeological Investigations and Reports ............................................................................ 5

2.3 Summary Timeline ................................................................................................................................... 7

2.4 Endnotes ................................................................................................................................................ 12

3.0 Historical Archaeological Potential and Significance ...................................................................... 13

3.1 Preamble ................................................................................................................................................ 13

3.1.1 Historical Archaeological Zones .................................................................................................... 13

3.1.2 Historical Archaeological Management Units ............................................................................... 13

3.2 Potential and Known Archaeological Resources ................................................................................ 13

3.3 Summary Statement of Significance .................................................................................................... 14

3.4 Endnotes ................................................................................................................................................ 20

4.0 Archaeological Research Design ......................................................................................................... 22

4.1 Research Framework ............................................................................................................................ 22

4.1.1 Research Themes .......................................................................................................................... 22

4.2 Research Questions .............................................................................................................................. 23

4.2.1 Broad Research Questions ............................................................................................................ 23

4.2.2 Site Specific Questions ................................................................................................................... 24

5.0 Archaeological Management ................................................................................................................ 30

5.1 Scope of Archaeological Program ........................................................................................................ 30

5.2 Mitigation Measures .............................................................................................................................. 30

5.3 Investigation Methods............................................................................................................................ 32

5.3.1 Investigation Strategy ..................................................................................................................... 32

5.3.2 On-Site Protocols ............................................................................................................................ 33

5.3.3 In Situ Retention of Archaeological Features ............................................................................... 33

5.3.4 Site Specific Programs ................................................................................................................... 33

5.3.5 Archaeological Test Excavation ..................................................................................................... 35

5.3.6 Monitoring During Excavations ...................................................................................................... 36

5.3.7 Salvage ............................................................................................................................................ 37

5.3.8 Archival Recording .......................................................................................................................... 37

5.3.9 Artefacts ........................................................................................................................................... 37

5.3.10 Post Excavation Reporting ........................................................................................................... 38

5.3.11 Public Engagement and Interpretation ........................................................................................ 38

5.3.12 Unexpected Finds Procedure ...................................................................................................... 38

GML Heritage

CBD and South East Light Rail—Archaeological Research Design, September 2015

5.3.13 Human Remains .......................................................................................................................... 38

5.3.14 Interpretation ................................................................................................................................ 39

5.3.15 Aboriginal Heritage ...................................................................................................................... 39

5.4 Other Requirements ............................................................................................................................. 40

5.4.1 Workplace Health and Safety Requirements ............................................................................... 40

5.4.2 Training of On-site Personnel ....................................................................................................... 40

5.5 Endnotes ................................................................................................................................................ 40

6.0 Areas with High Archaeological Potential ......................................................................................... 41

6.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 41

6.2 Zone 1 HAMUs...................................................................................................................................... 42

7.0 Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................................................. 55

7.1 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................... 55

7.2 Recommendations ................................................................................................................................ 55

8.0 Appendices .............................................................................................................................................. 59

Appendix A

Historical Archaeological Management Units (HAMUS) and management zones across the CSELR

route

Appendix B

Mitigation measures outlined in the HIA 2013 with further refinements from recent archaeological

investigations and boundary and design modifications.

Appendix C

The CSELR Unexpected Finds Protocol prepared by GML for KMH Environmental on behalf of

ALTRAC.

Appendix C

Historical overlays for selected areas along the CSELR route.

GML Heritage

CBD and South East Light Rail—Archaeological Research Design, September 2015 1

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Project Background

GML Heritage Pty Ltd (GML) has been engaged by KMH Environmental on behalf of ALTRAC Light

Rail (ALR) Partnership to prepare a historical Archaeological Research Design (ARD) for works

associated with the CBD and South-East Light Rail (CSELR) Project.

The purpose of this ARD is to provide a methodology to guide management of the historical

archaeological resource during works. It has been developed to address the relevant conditions of the

project consent. This project has been assessed (application number SSI 6042) and approved under

Part 5.1 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) (EP&A Act). Permits under

National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NSW) (NPW Act) or the Heritage Act 1977 (NSW) (Heritage Act)

are therefore not required. The works will be carried out in accordance with the following project

approval documents:

Minister’s Conditions of Approval (MCoA) for the project;

Transport for NSW (TfNSW) Deed requirements; and

Revised Environmental Management Measures (REMMs) from the Environmental Impact

Statement, (EIS)/Submissions Report/Project Modification and Submissions to the modifications

report.

This report is required under condition REMM V1 of the project consent, which sets out the mitigation

measures for the historical archaeological management units (HAMUs) which were listed in Section

6.2.2 of the Heritage Impact Assessment prepared for the CSELR project in 2013 (2013 HIA). As part

of the mitigation measures for HAMUs, Section 6.2.2. requires that a Work Method Statement or

Archaeological Research Design be prepared by a qualified archaeologist in accordance with Heritage

Division requirements, prior to the commencement of works.

1.2 Project Description

The CSELR project consists of the design and construction of approximately 12km of a new light rail

system to service the Sydney Central Business District (CBD) and southeast Sydney. The route runs

from:

Circular Quay to Moore Park via Central and Surry Hills;

Moore Park to Randwick; and,

Moore Park to Kingsford via Kensington.

Stabling facilities will be provided at Randwick and Rozelle (also referred to as Lilyfield in some

documentation). The route of the CSELR is shown in Figure 1.1.

The project will require ground works, across a large portion of the study areas, for the installation of

tracks, platforms, services and other associated infrastructure. The extent of excavation required by

these works has not been fully determined, and will vary according to local conditions, but some

standard impacts are likely to occur. The key infrastructure works for construction of the CSELR

include:

GML Heritage


approximately 12 kilometres of new light rail track from Circular Quay to Kingsford, and

Randwick via Central, Surry Hills and Moore Park (including track required at the maintenance

depot and stabling facilities).

19 light rail stops along the route, including an interchange with heavy rail at major rail stations

(Circular Quay, Wynyard, Town Hall and Central), ferry interchange at Circular Quay and bus

interchanges at the Town Hall, Queen Victoria Building, Rawson Place, Central Station,

Randwick and Kingsford stops;

platforms at all stops to accommodate 45-metre-long light rail vehicles (LRV), except at the

Central Station and Moore Park stops, where platforms would be provided to accommodate both

45-metre and 90-metre-long light rail vehicles (double length vehicles for special event services

between Central Station and Moore Park);

terminus facilities at the Circular Quay, Kingsford and Randwick stops;

facilities in Randwick and at Rozelle for LRV stabling and/or maintenance (including washdown).

The Randwick stabling yard would include facilities for the temporary storage of LRVs overnight,

inspection and cleaning, and light maintenance or repair work. The Rozelle maintenance depot

would consist of maintenance inspection tracks with a building, workshops and storage and

would allow for more extensive maintenance and repair of LRVs;

integration with the existing light rail system including a new junction between the two lines at

the intersection of Hay Street and George Street;

approximately 11 substations along the route (each approximately 80 square metres in area) to

supply power for the LRVs;

a new bridge structure spanning the Eastern Distributor;

a tunnel under Moore Park;

a pedestrianised zone in George Street (from Bathurst Street to Hunter Street) with LRVs

operating wire-free in this zone; and

public domain improvements including paving, street trees, lighting and furniture.

1.3 Impact Assessment

The understanding of impacts contained in this report is based on the assessment undertaken in the

HIA. This is formed on the basis that ground disturbance within areas identified as having

archaeological potential in Zone 1 and 2 (See Section 3.0 of this report) may have an impact on

archaeological resources. Impacts include from activities such as trenching for the installation of

services, open area excavation for the laying of track and platform slabs, the excavation for footings

and substations or the removal of existing road surfaces and associated fills. The identification of

areas subject to specific impacts may be refined following the completion of detailed design for the

project.

1.4 Methodology

This report has been prepared in response to the approved requirements for the CSELR Project. In

2013 GML prepared the HIA for the CESLR project, (also referred to as Technical Paper 5), to

GML Heritage


accompany the EIS. In June 2015, GML prepared a Draft Construction Heritage Management Plan

(2015 CHMP) to manage and control potential heritage impacts during construction of the project,

while ensuring compliance with the relevant contract, approval and statutory requirements as part of its

role in the delivery of the project. The assessment of archaeology summarised here is based on

information provided in the HIA. According to the REMMs in the Conditions of Approval, the

assessment of potential and significance and the recommended mitigation methods outlined in the HIA

must be followed during construction. A refined methodology for the management of the historical

archaeological resource has been provided.

The methodology has been developed in accordance with the current NSW Heritage Council

Guidelines.

A review of the following has been undertaken and incorporated into the preparation of this report:

relevant heritage reports, archaeological zoning plans and archaeological assessments

previously prepared for relevant items and areas along the route, as available;

available physical information from archaeological investigations to refine known and potential

archaeology assessments;

design changes to the CSELR as relevant to changes in impacts to the archaeological resource;

and

The assessments of potential and known archaeology and its assessed significance from the 2013 HIA

have also been reviewed and refined where appropriate.

1.5 Limitations

This assessment does not consider built heritage values, Aboriginal cultural heritage values or

Aboriginal archaeological potential of the study area.

Mapping provided within this report has not been geospatially referenced as sufficiently detailed data

was not made available at the time of its preparation. As such, unless otherwise identified, the

graphics produced here should be used as indicative only.

This assessment does not consider the details of the construction design, which are yet to be finalised.

This report assesses the construction boundary for the CSELR route as shown on the Sydney Light

Rail Construction Site Drawings issued by Cardno on behalf of Transport for NSW dated 11 December

2014.

This assessment does not include an assessment of the social values of the study area.

1.6 Investigators, Contributors and Authorship

This report has been prepared by (Graduate Consultant), with input from

(Associate) and , AM (Partner). This report has been reviewed and edited by

(Project Manager) and (Archaeology Manager). In addition, GML would

like to thank the Office of Environment and Heritage for their comments on this report which have been

incorporated as appropriate. GML would also like to acknowledge , KMH Environmental,

, and the staff of Acciona Infrastructure Australia for their assistance

throughout the preparation of this report.

GML Heritage


Figure 1.1 The CSELR Project overview and Precincts. (Source: Transport for NSW 2015)

GML Heritage


2.0 Summary of Site History

2.1 Background

This section summarises relevant previous archaeological reports and investigations to refine the

known and potential archaeological remains that may be impacted by the CSELR. A summary of the

history of the precincts of the CSELR is included below.

2.2 Previous Archaeological Investigations and Reports

GML Heritage/ALTRAC Light Rail 2015 Draft Construction Heritage Management Plan (CHMP)

This high level document was produced by GML in April 2015, as part of the Draft Construction

Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and specifies management of heritage resources. The

document proposes methods for management of potential heritage impacts during construction of the

project whilst ensuring compliance with the relevant contract, approval and statutory requirements as

part of its role in the delivery of the project. The CEMP summarises the existing environment, aspects,

impacts and risks, the proposed mitigation and management strategies for heritage and other relevant

details such as training and reporting requirements. At the time of writing this ARD, the Draft CHMP

was being reviewed.

Artefact 2014–2015 Monitoring Notes for CSELR Investigative Works

Artefact produced summaries of their archaeological monitoring of a number of investigative works

undertaken from November 2014 to March 2015. These works occurred in the City Centre precinct

between the Tank Stream and Eddy Avenue HAMUs (HAMUs 1 to 11). These notes help refine the

known and potential archaeological remains and their results have been included in this report where

relevant.

GML Heritage 2014 CSELR Investigative Works—Archaeological Monitoring Report

Investigative works were undertaken by GML along the CSELR route that comprised of two

components focused on geotechnical investigations and service location investigations. Geotechnical

investigations collected data on subsurface conditions, including shallow depth boreholes, deep

boreholes, cone penetration tests and plate bearing tests. Service location investigations included non-

invasive geophysical surveys followed by slit trenching works to accurately locate subsurface services.

The results of the archaeological monitoring program for the trenches observed include information

regarding the subsurface conditions, particularly whether archaeological evidence was present. This

was recorded in three ways: Yes—evidence of archaeological features was observed; No—no

evidence of archaeological features was observed; or Undetermined—where the nature of the

subsurface profile was unclear or the presence or absence of archaeological features was unable to

be confirmed. While potential structural remains were identified in numerous trenches along the

CSELR alignment, it is not possible to assess what structures they relate to or their date, because of

factors such as poor visibility and the narrow and deep dimensions of investigative trenches.

Nevertheless, these investigations have helped confirm or refine mitigation of works within the zones.

GML Heritage


GML Heritage 2014 Anzac Parade Pedestrian Bridge Monitoring, Moore Park

Monitoring works for the Anzac Parade Pedestrian Bridge in Moore Park throughout 2014 uncovered a

number of archaeological features that inform this ARD. GML monitored excavations on both sides of

Anzac Parade. Monitoring and excavations during works uncovered the original tram tracks as well as

evidence of an earlier sandstone road on the current Gregory Avenue alignment.

Artefact 2014 CSELR Early Works—Moore Park Tennis Court—Aboriginal Heritage Test Excavation Report

A program of Aboriginal heritage excavation was undertaken at Moore Park tennis courts along the

CSELR route east of Anzac Parade near HAMU 23: Moore Park East. The report indicates that during

testing a number of historical features were uncovered in the area. Although the report did not identify

what these features were, the presence of historical artefacts and potential historical features is noted

and informs this ARD.

GML Heritage 2013 CSELR Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA)

The HIA was prepared by GML Heritage to support the EIS for the project. The HIA assesses potential

impacts of the CSELR on heritage items and conservation routes, for the area covered by the

Construction Footprint and Land Acquisition plans issued by Parsons Brinkerhoff on behalf of

Transport for NSW dated 4 September 2013. While some design changes are proposed for the

CSELR which necessitate refinements to the HIA, the assessment forms the basis for this research

design.

Casey and Lowe 1993 George Street North Monitoring Works

Casey & Lowe Associates undertook monitoring of the George Street North Improvements Stage II

Works between Argyle and Essex Streets, which are part of the City Centre precinct. The report

records details of archaeological features identified in First Fleet Park, including a sandstone sea wall,

timber piles and brick and sandstone wall foundations. At the George and Essex Street intersection a

number of features were identified including a brick oviform drain that was identified as Queens Wharf

Sewer, wall foundations that were identified as the front wall of nineteenth century buildings fronting

George Street, a sandstone slab drain and evidence of the original tram tracks. These results have

been included in the assessment of known and potential archaeological remains.

Godden Mackay Logan 1992 George Street North Monitoring Works

Godden Mackay Logan (now GML) undertook investigations during monitoring works of George Street

north improvements. A number of features were recorded that are likely to date to the pre-1850s

period of European occupation within the study area. These features include:

a c1830s–1840s sandstone and sandstock brick drain on the corner of George and Hunter

Streets;

a c1830s –1840s sandstone and sandstock brick drain on George Street between Hunter Street

and Barrack Lane; and

a section of wall west of Wynyard Street, possibly related to the Jerusalem Building constructed

in 1837.

The services represent evidence of attempts and materials used to control and direct drainage along

the early George Street frontage. The remains of substantial footings and building realignments as well

GML Heritage


as services and earlier road and path surfaces were recorded during the project. In particular,

frontages of earlier buildings remained intact below the roadway in the block bound by Grosvenor and

Essex Streets. Many of these remains pre-dated twentieth century resumptions and road widening

activities undertaken along George Street. Clean sand or sandbags were used to backfill features; all

exposed archaeology was left in situ.

2.3 Summary Timeline

A comprehensive historical overview of the site is included in Section 2.0 of the 2013 HIA.1 The HIA

provides a historical overview of the area through which the route of the CSELR passes as well as

historically important areas close by. It outlines the historical context (including a brief history of

settlement and land use) of the suburbs through which the CSELR is proposed to be built.

The route of the light rail has been divided into six precincts including the Rozelle Depot. A brief

summary of the European history of each precinct is provided below.

City Centre Precinct

Sydney Cove, and the current CBD, was the site of the first European settlement in Australia in 1788.

Since this time, significant landform modifications such as cutting and filling have been undertaken to

facilitate first settlement. A wide range of land uses were concentrated within this area, including

cemeteries at sites that are now Town Hall and Central Station. Since European settlement, extensive

development of the area has been undertaken with successive phases of development and

construction, including major projects such as construction of Central Station, the reclamation of

Circular Quay, and the construction of high-rise buildings along most of the CSELR route.

Surry Hills Precinct

Historically the area of Surry Hills lay outside the boundary of early Sydney, with the lands granted in

the 1790s. Subsequent subdivision and development of these large estates throughout the 1800s saw

farms and market gardens replaced with residential development and the construction of terrace

housing. In the 1900s, resumption of buildings for slum clearance, and the expansion of factory areas

into Surry Hills (following World War II) saw many houses demolished. From the 1950s, slums were

cleared for the construction of public housing, which now fronts parts of the Devonshire Street route. A

process of gentrification has since taken place in Surry Hills, with a number of new residents moving

into the area, often with the intent of preserving the terraced housing.

Moore Park Precinct

Moore Park forms part of a public common set aside by Governor Macquarie in 1811. At this time, the

area was undeveloped thick scrub and swamplands, with few roads providing access to the Randwick

region. The main road leading to Botany was present from at least 1813, but was formally laid out in

the 1840s as Botany Road. This road later became the basis for Anzac Parade. The commons were

separated for different public uses, including water supply to the colony, zoological gardens,

agricultural showgrounds and sports fields. Significant levelling and filling of the area was undertaken

to facilitate these developments.

Kensington/Kingsford Precinct

This precinct lay south of Macquarie’s commons in a swampland traversed by Lachlan Stream. In the

early 1800s a number of industries were established here, with a rough settlement of housing for

workers. In 1832, the area to the south of the Sydney Common was set aside for the construction of a

GML Heritage


racecourse. In 1849, the Randwick Toll Bar Cottage was constructed to collect tolls for traffic passing

along Old Botany Road to the racecourse, and beyond to La Perouse. The subdivision of Kensington

began with a design competition in 1889. Lots were sold from 1895, but no significant development of

the area began until the 1920s. To the south of Randwick Racecourse, Kensington Racecourse was

established as a less formal pony course in 1890. In 1947 this area became the University of NSW.

Throughout the mid-1900s extensive apartment construction took place and educational facilities were

expanded with NIDA opening in 1958.

Randwick Precinct

In the early years of the colony, this area was largely inaccessible, with few roads or tracks. The

earliest uses of the Randwick area would have included hunting, timber getting and the grazing of

stock. Land was set aside for Randwick Racecourse in 1833, encouraging residential development of

the area, particularly of Coogee and Randwick from 1834. A dedicated tram station for the Randwick

Racecourse was constructed in 1900 and by 1909, there were six tram lines entering the racecourse.

Randwick remained quiet until the construction of the Asylum for the Relief of Destitute Children began

in 1856. At this time, the beginnings of a village formed which included the establishment of High

Cross Park. Throughout the mid-1800s residential and commercial development increased, but this

was relatively slow until the 1880s, after the first tramline in Randwick was opened to cater to the

increased population. Further housing booms took place in the early twentieth century and again in the

1950s and 1960s. The asylum went on to have a number of uses, including as the Prince of Wales

Military hospital and a repatriation hospital. It is now the Prince of Wales Children’s hospital.

Rozelle Precinct

The first development in the Rozelle precinct took place in 1916 with the establishment of the Rozelle

Marshalling Yard for rail traffic proceeding to the goods yards at Darling Harbour. By 1928 numerous

trains were operating from the yard, with a locomotive depot operating until World War II. It continued

to provide storage for a range of goods until the goods line from Pyrmont closed in 1996. It was also

briefly used for the light rail to Lilyfield, but this operation ceased in c2007.

The key historical development events from each precinct are summarised in Table 2.1 below.

GML Heritage


Table 2.1 The Key Historical Events for Each of the CSELR Precincts.

Precinct Key History

City Centre precinct

Early Sydney establishment: early tracks and roads, private houses (often timber), government construction from 1788.

Sydney’s first burial ground (Old Sydney Burial Ground), 1792–1820.

Early George Street buildings, the gaol, grain store and the barracks by 1791.

Macquarie years: regulation of streets, 1810–1822.

Circular Quay and Tank Stream construction, 1837–1847.

Second development of Circular Quay, 1846–1857.

Bennelong Drain storm water channel, 1856.

First horse drawn tram Redfern to the Quay, 1861.

Government Lumber Yard from 1871.

First ferry jetty at Circular Quay, 1879.

Town Hall built, 1869–1889.

Old macadam surface of George Street was replaced with woodblocks (9 inch x 3 inch wide pieces) laid in tarred felt, 1882.

Electric tramway was opened along George Street to Harris Street, 1899.

Bubonic plague in Sydney caused resumption and redevelopment from 1901.

Resumption of land around Central Station, 1901.

George Street widened (western side demolished) to a uniform 80 feet from north of Grosvenor Street from 1911.

George, Alfred and Pitt St were extended and associated building demolition, 1930.

Circular Quay Railway Station opened, 1956.

Cahill Expressway opened, 1958.

Trams were replaced by diesel buses, 1959.

Surry Hills precinct

First Surry Hills land grants, 1790s.

Early industries including market gardens, brick kilns, stone quarrying, woodcutters, turf cutters and stock grazing from the 1790s.

Significant residential subdivision, 1830s.

Devonshire Street Cemetery (Sand Hills Cemetery), 1820–1901.

Albion Street Brewery from 1826–1851.

Cleveland Garden Estate and Cleveland House from 1820s.

New Mitchell Road plan, 1834.

Residential occupancy growth, 1850–1890.

Steam flour mill and then later as a soap and candle factory on Albion Street Brewery site, 1851–1860.

Standard Brewery built on the Albion brewery location from 1873.

Bubonic plague in Sydney caused resumption and redevelopment from 1901.

Exhumations from the cemetery (relocations to the Botany Cemetery) from 1901.

Devonshire Street was extended east from Crown Street to Bourke Street, 1916.

Stonemasons Yard on Bourke Street from 1943–1981.

Devonshire Street Housing Scheme demolitions along Devonshire Street, 1950s.

GML Heritage


Moore Park precinct

Common land set aside including what would become Moore Park, 1811.

Lachlan Water Reserve (now Centennial Park) established as Sydney’s sole water supply, 1837–1858.

Busby’s Bore construction, 1827–1837.

Victoria Military Barracks construction ,1841–1848.

Military Cricket Ground and rifle range (south of barracks),1852.

Moore Park area eroded and replanted with non-native grasses, 1850s–1860s.

Moore Park established, 1866.

Zoological gardens (southwest corner of Moore Park), 1879–1916.

Royal Agricultural Society Showground, the Sydney Cricket Ground and the first course of the Australian Golf Club, 1882.

Centennial Park laid out, 1886.

Steam-operated tramway to Randwick Racecourse, 1879–1900.

Electric trams to Randwick Racecourse, 1916–1960.

Randwick Road was widened and renamed Anzac Parade (including construction of Anzac Parade Obelisk and new tree plantings), 1917.

Sydney Girls High School, 1920.

Sydney Boys High School, 1928.

Air Raid trenches for World War II constructed, 1942.

Anzac Parade asphalted, 1947.

Anzac Parade widened and a narrow cement strip and iron railing fence replaced plantings, 2000.

GML Heritage


Kensington/Kingsford precinct

Lachlan Mills Estate : A water-powered mill operated on the bank of the Lachlan Stream, near what is today Todman Avenue, producing paper, cloth and flour, 1814–1832.

Wool-washing industries were established on the Lachlan Stream near what is now Anzac Parade and Bowral Street, 1825.

Lachlan Mills Estate shanties to house the workers, 1853.

Racetrack and training track (the ‘Sandy Course’), 1832–1838.

Randwick Toll Bar Cottage built near Alison Road and Anzac Parade (Randwick Tollgate), 1849–1909.

Land granted to the Australian Jockey Club (Randwick Racecourse), 1863.

Another toll house was built near the corner of Cleveland Street and Anzac Parade, 1860.

Bunnerong Road built, 1860s.

Town planning and redevelopment of Kensington 1889–1920.

Tram was extended to the new Kensington Racecourse, 1900.

Kensington Racecourse (site of UNSW), 1890–1942.

The ES Marks Athletic Field, 1906.

Randwick Road widened and renamed Anzac Parade, 1917.

Development of Kensington with subdivisions and construction, 1920s.

The Doncaster Hotel, 1923.

Kensington Migrant Reception Depot and military use of the racecourse site, 1942–1947.

New South Wales University of Technology (UNSW) began, with demolition of buildings on High Street, 1951.

Randwick precinct

A small settlement at Botany Bay from at least 1813.

Early use of the Randwick area for hunting kangaroos, dingoes and deer, running stock, and timber crews harvesting trees from the 1820s.

The first land sales made in Randwick in 1839.

Old Botany Road (Alison Road) formalised, 1840s.

Simeon Pearce built Blenheim House, an estate and market gardens from 1847.

Horse-drawn bus services operating between the city and Randwick from the1850s.

High Street, 1852.

Subdivisions of Randwick, centred around High Street, 1849.

Wansey Road, (originally Bourke Street), constructed in the late 1850s.

Asylum for the Relief of Destitute Children, 1856–1915.

High Cross Reserve fenced, trenched and planted with trees, 1869.

Influx of wealthy residents came to Randwick, 1870s.

Gas street lighting was installed, 1880.

Tramline to Randwick Racecourse from the city, 1880–1960.

A dedicated tram station was constructed within the racecourse site, 1900.

Electric lighting, 1911.

Walled entrance and turnstiles at the Alison Road entrance to Randwick Racecourse, 1911.

Destitute children’s asylum became the NSW Government renamed the property the Fourth Australian Repatriation Hospital,1915.

Renamed the Prince of Wales Hospital in 1920.

A stone cenotaph was erected in High Cross Reserve, 1925.

Prince of Wales Children’s Hospital was established, 1976.

GML Heritage


Rozelle Depot

The depot is on a reclaimed estuary, two small streams flowed through the site in early years.

The Rozelle Depot site was surrounded by Catherine, White and Brennan Streets by 1880.

Three small cottages on the land, 1890.

Double track from Dulwich Hill to Rozelle and Glebe Island opened and the Rozelle Marshalling Yard was created 1916.

Rozelle Yard locomotive depot with an engine shed, 75 foot (23m) turntable, water columns and coal storage facilities, 1916–1940.

Rozelle Yard was a storage area for the American Army, 1940–1945.

Rozelle Yard became a Goods Yard holding a variety of freight including wheat, barley, and other grains and coal.

Electric railway from Dulwich Hill to Rozelle, 1967.

The goods line from Pyrmont to Rozelle closed, 1996.

Light rail to Lilyfield opened, 2000.

The Rozelle Yard closed, 2007.

The key known extant archaeological features and areas of high archaeological potential for State

significant archaeological remains (Zone 1) or Locally significant remains (Zone 2), have been mapped

in Section 6.0 (Figures 6.1–6.10).

2.4 Endnotes

1 Godden Mackay Logan Pty Ltd, CBD and Sydney Light Rail - Heritage Impact Assessment, report prepared for Parsons Brinckerhoff

on behalf of Transport for NSW, November 2013.

GML Heritage


3.0 Historical Archaeological Potential and Significance

3.1 Preamble

This section summarises the key areas of historical archaeological potential within the CSELR study

area, as assessed in the 2013 HIA prepared by GML. Management recommendations for the

mitigation of impacts on the known and potential historical archaeological resource have been

developed in order to assist with the minimisation of impacts, and in order to ensure that historical

archaeology is dealt with in the most efficient and pragmatic manner possible, across the entire

CSELR route.

3.1.1 Historical Archaeological Zones

In order to manage the various levels of archaeological significance that may occur across the extent

of the CSELR route appropriately and pragmatically, the HIA developed three archaeological zones,

which are adopted in this ARD, to ensure a clear and consistent approach is applied to the

management of the archaeological resource along the CSELR route. The archaeological zones

respond to both known and potential archaeological significance, as follows:

Zone 1: State Significant Archaeological Resource—known or potential;

Zone 2: Locally Significant Archaeological Resource—known or potential; and

Zone 3: No Archaeological Resource Present.

3.1.2 Historical Archaeological Management Units

The 2013 HIA divided each precinct into a number of Historical Archaeological Management Units

(HAMUs). Units were allocated according to the nature and significance of the potential archaeological

resource in an area, thus each HAMU has been identified as either Zone 1, 2 or 3. This zoning allows

the varying nature and significance of the archaeological resource to be managed pragmatically and

consistently throughout the CSELR project.

Each HAMU, and the associated zoning, is identified and mapped along the CSELR route (Appendix

A).

Some archaeological units along the CSELR route have been previously assessed and, where

possible, existing information such as previous statements of significance for these areas, have been

included. Specific mitigation measures for the CSELR route have also been designed to be consistent

with previous management recommendations and documents such as conservation management

plans, particularly for State significant resources, for example, the Tank Stream. One extra HAMU has

been designated as a result of a new area being assessed as part of project modifications since the

2013 HIA was prepared, for Centennial Park and Randwick Dam.

3.2 Potential and Known Archaeological Resources

A summary of the known and potential historical archaeological resource follows the structure of the

2013 HIA by applying the three zones of significance to discrete HAMUs within the six precincts along

the CSELR route. A summary of the known and potential archaeological resource for each HAMU is

presented in Table 3.1.

GML Heritage


3.3 Summary Statement of Significance

Historical archaeological investigations of archaeological sites identified as having Local or State

significance are to be undertaken in accordance with NSW Heritage Council policies, which ensure

that disturbance of sites and ‘relics’ occurs in accordance with appropriate professional assessment,

standards and procedures.

The CSELR, as a declared State Significant Infrastructure (SSI) project does not require approval

under the Heritage Act. Nevertheless, this ARD complies with the current NSW Heritage Council

Guidelines.

A summary of significance or an assessment of the potential significance for each HAMU is presented

in Section 4.0 of the 2013 HIA and is not repeated here. Overall the CSELR route has known and

potential remains of State and Local significance and varying degrees of research potential as outlined

therein.

Table 3.1 below provides a synthesis of the HIA 2013 assessment of HAMU zones along with a

summary of the known and potential archaeological resource, its significance identified by zone type,

and the studies relevant to that HAMU. The table also provides the types of evidence that may be

encountered in the course of the project ground disturbance works. Any difference between this table

and the 2013 HIA results from refinements from archaeological knowledge gained through works

undertaken since that report was completed.

Table 3.1 Known and Potential Historical Archaeological Resource along the CSELR Route.

HAMU Zone Potential and Known Archaeological Resources


1. Tank Stream 1 State Significant Archaeological Resource—known (SHR, Sydney Water S170 Register, Sydney LEP 2012).

The exact location and depth of the Tank Stream is not precisely known in the vicinity of the CSELR route. Testing in March 2015 at the intersection of Pitt and Alfred Streets identified a sandstone arch at a depth of approximately 950–1540mm, assumed to be the outer shell of the stream.1 Testing in March 2014 confirmed the location of the channel, and identified a thick matt covering at 100mm depth over the top of the stream.2

The 2005 Tank Stream Conservation Management Plan (CMP) identified proposed impacts to the Tank Stream and/or within its 3m buffer zone would be considered unacceptable and a 10m buffer zone is highly sensitive (see the 2005 CMP).3

2. Alfred Street/Herald Square

1 Local and State Significant Archaeological Resources—potential and known (known archaeological sites; Central Sydney Archaeological Zoning Plan 1992 assumes all roadways have historical archaeological potential).

Archaeological monitoring during geotechnical works in 2014 and 2015 found physical remains of the former Sydney tram network, including timber sleepers, services and disturbed brick features. 4

High archaeological potential for archaeological evidence of Local significance (eg evidence of land reclamation, nineteenth-century development, early street alignments, Circular Quay tram lines, nineteenth and early twentieth-century services).

Low to moderate archaeological potential for archaeological evidence of State significance (eg evidence of the natural environment, early nineteenth-century development or maritime industries).

GML Heritage



3. First Fleet Park 1 State Significant Archaeological Resource— potential and known (SHR, Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority S170 Register, see also the 2010 CMP).5

Evidence for the survival of rare and intact remains and deposits have been exposed in previous archaeological investigations, including working surfaces and dock phasing in the northern part of the park.6 A ground penetrating radar survey was undertaken in 2009 and also confirmed significant subsurface features likely including early nineteenth-century domestic, commercial and retail premises along George Street, a seawall and features associated with Kings Wharf/Queens Wharf, possible remains of late nineteenth-century buildings, the Commissariat Stores and Government dockyard.7

High archaeological potential for archaeological evidence of State significance (eg evidence of early to late nineteenth-century residential and commercial premises, seawalls, and features associated with Queens Wharf).

The 2010 First Fleet Park CMP outlines guidelines applicable to the CSELR project, with which the mitigation measures and recommendations of this report are consistent.

4. George Street North

1 Local and State Significant Archaeological Resources—potential and known (known archaeological sites8; Central Sydney Archaeological Zoning Plan 1992 assumes all roadways have historical archaeological potential).

Archaeological investigations in the late 1990s indicated that substantial archaeological evidence was present throughout this area, including an oviform brick sewer near the Essex Street intersection containing artefacts that were likely deposited prior to1830, a sandstock brick foundation extending 2m into the street at the northeast corner of Essex and George Streets, a sandstone box drain near Bridge and George Street, a partially collapsed and blocked sandstock brick barrel drain at the Hunter Street intersection .9

Archaeological monitoring during geotechnical works in 2014 and 2015 found physical remains of the Sydney tram network which included: tracks, switching points, timber sleepers, cables and related bolts/brackets directly below the modern road base, below which were twentieth century services such as gas & water pipes, electrical conduits and drainage as well as evidence of late nineteenth century brick culverts, drains, guttering and unidentified sandstone and brick structures, which were also located in some areas at depths below 1000mm.10

High archaeological potential for archaeological evidence of Local significance (eg evidence of nineteenth century services and building remains, early macadam and woodblock paving road surfaces; and the George Street tram line).

Low–moderate archaeological potential for archaeological evidence of State significance (eg evidence of a c1792 Colonial Storehouse, early residences, the Old Sydney Gaol, the George Street Guardhouse c1810, military barracks and perimeter wall).

5. Martin Place 2 Local Significant Archaeological Resource—potential (no known listings; Central Sydney Archaeological Zoning Plan 1992 assumes all roadways have historical archaeological potential).

Moderate–high archaeological potential for archaeological evidence of Local significance (eg evidence of nineteenth and early twentieth-century development and services, the natural environment and early alignment of George Street and St Martins Lane).

6. Underground Tunnels

3 No Historical Archaeological Resource Present.

Nil potential due to previous large-scale excavation works.

7. Queen Victoria Building

2 Locally Significant Archaeological Resource—potential (no known listings; Central Sydney Archaeological Zoning Plan 1992 assumes all roadways have historical archaeological potential).

Moderate archaeological potential for archaeological evidence of Local significance (eg evidence of nineteenth and early twentieth-century development and services, early alignment of George Street and the George Street tram line).

Nil–low archaeological potential for archaeological evidence of State significance (intact evidence of c1811–1890s market).

GML Heritage



8. Town Hall 1 Local and State Significant Archaeological Resources—potential (no known listings; Central Sydney Archaeological Zoning Plan 1992 assumes all roadways have historical archaeological potential.

Low–moderate archaeological potential for archaeological evidence of Local significance (eg evidence of early alignment of George Street, nineteenth and early twentieth-century services and the George Street tram line).

Low archaeological potential for archaeological evidence of State significance (Old Sydney Burial Ground burials that were not exhumed or destroyed during construction of the Town Hall or Town Hall station).

9. George Street South


Low–moderate archaeological potential for archaeological evidence of Local significance (eg evidence of natural landforms or soil profiles).

Nil–low archaeological potential for archaeological evidence of State significance (intact evidence of early brickmaking activities or the corn/hay/cattle markets were identified).

10. Rawson Place 2 Locally Significant Archaeological Resource—potential and known (known archaeological sites; Central Sydney Archaeological Zoning Plan 1992 assumes all roadways have historical archaeological potential).

Archaeological monitoring during geotechnical works in 2014 and 2015 uncovered traces of the Sydney tram network including tracks, timber sleepers, cables and related bolts/brackets directly below the modern road base and other features including sandstone surfaces and unidentified brick and sandstone structures, which were located below the network.11

High archaeological potential for archaeological evidence of Local significance (eg evidence of nineteenth-century development and services, early alignment of George Street, nineteenth and early twentieth-century services and the George Street tram line).

11. Eddy Avenue 1 Local and State Significant Archaeological Resources—potential and known (known archaeological sites; Central Sydney Archaeological Zoning Plan 1992 assumes all roadways have historical archaeological potential).

Archaeological monitoring during geotechnical works in 2014 and 2015 found possible structural sandstone remains at 100mm below the surface and a possible bottle dump of unknown dates. 12

Low–moderate archaeological potential for archaeological evidence of Local significance (eg evidence of buildings the nineteenth century Convent of the Good Samaritan, the Sydney Female Refuge and/or the tram depot building, nineteenth and early twentieth-century services and the Eddy Avenue tram line).

Low–moderate archaeological potential for archaeological evidence of State significance (eg intact evidence of Carters’ Barracks).

Low archaeological potential of for archaeological evidence of State significance (Devonshire Street Cemetery burials).

12. Belmore Park 1 State Significant Archaeological Resource—known (SHR and identified on the Central Sydney Archaeological Zoning Plan 1992, archaeological assessment in the Belmore Park Heritage Study).13

High archaeological potential for archaeological evidence of Local significance (eg evidence of Pitt Street Presbyterian Church and WWII air raid shelters).

Low–moderate archaeological potential for archaeological evidence of Local significance (eg evidence of unidentified building fronting Old Burial Ground Road/Garden Road, the tram car shed, the Belmore Park tram line, Belmore Park facilities, nineteenth and twentieth-century services, earlier layouts of Belmore Park and alignments of Burial Ground Road/Eddy Avenue).

Moderate–high archaeological potential for archaeological evidence of State significance (intact Carters’ Barracks).

GML Heritage



13. Elizabeth Street 2 Locally Significant Archaeological Resource—potential (no known listings; Central Sydney Archaeological Zoning Plan 1992 assumes all roadways have historical archaeological potential).

Low–moderate archaeological potential for archaeological evidence of Local significance (eg evidence of early alignment of Elizabeth Street, early road surfaces, nineteenth and early twentieth-century services, the Elizabeth Street tram line, Albion Brewery).

There is high potential for historical archaeological remains to be present within the Elizabeth Street Park of unknown significance.

14. Chalmers Street 1 Local and State Significant Archaeological Resources—potential (no known listings; Central Sydney Archaeological Zoning Plan 1992 assumes all roadways have historical archaeological potential).

Low–moderate potential for archaeological evidence of Local significance (eg evidence of nineteenth century development and services, the early alignment of Chalmers Street and the George Street tram line).

Low archaeological potential for archaeological evidence of State significance (Devonshire Street Cemetery burials).


15. Devonshire Street West


Moderate archaeological potential for archaeological evidence of Local significance (eg evidence of nineteenth-century development and services, and the early alignment of Devonshire Street).

Nil–low archaeological potential for archaeological evidence of State significance (intact evidence of unrecorded activities of early land grants and estates).

16. Devonshire Street Central


Moderate–high archaeological potential for archaeological evidence of Local significance (eg evidence of nineteenth century and early twentieth-century development and services, and the early alignments of Devonshire Street.


17. Ward Park 2 Locally Significant Archaeological Resource—potential (no known listings; Central Sydney Archaeological Zoning Plan 1992 assumes all roadways have historical archaeological potential).

High archaeological potential for archaeological evidence of Local significance (eg evidence of nineteenth century and early twentieth-century development and services, and early alignments of streets constructed between the 1871 subdivision and 1916 extension of Devonshire Street).


18. Devonshire Street East


High archaeological potential for archaeological evidence of Local significance (eg evidence of nineteenth century and early twentieth-century development and services, Pawley’s Tannery (1842–c1871), William Pawley’s residence Chesterville and the early alignment of Riley Street and Miles Street).


GML Heritage



19. Bourke Street to South Dowling Street


Moderate–high archaeological potential for archaeological evidence of Local significance (eg evidence of late nineteenth century and early twentieth century development and services, the City of Sydney Council stone yard, early alignments of Bourke Street and South Dowling Street and the Bourke and South Dowling Streets tram line).

Nil–low archaeological potential for archaeological evidence of State significance (intact evidence of unrecorded activities of early land grants and estates or the land’s usage while vacant).

20. Olivia Gardens 3 No Historical Archaeological Resource Present.

Nil potential due to previous large-scale excavation works.

Moore Park Precinct

21. Moore Park West 2 No Historical Archaeological Resource Present.

Nil potential due to previous large-scale excavation works for the construction of Moore Park playing fields, and Anzac Parade Pedestrian Bridge west abutment.

22. Anzac Parade (Moore Park)

2 Locally Significant Archaeological Resource—potential (no known listings).

Low–moderate archaeological potential for archaeological evidence of Local significance (eg evidence of the early alignment of Anzac Parade and early boundaries of Moore Park)

23. Moore Park East 2 Locally Significant Archaeological Resource—potential and known (known archaeological site).

2014 Aboriginal test excavations found evidence of historical artefacts, possibly rubbish dumps, often at a depth of over 1000mm of unknown dates.14

Moderate–high archaeological potential for archaeological evidence of Local significance (World War II air raid trenches, early alignments of Lang Road, extant tram track close to Driver Avenue identified in previous archaeological investigations in the area).

Nil–low archaeological potential for archaeological evidence of Local significance (eg evidence of the early alignment of Anzac Parade and early boundaries of Moore Park).

GML Heritage




24. Tay Reserve 1 State Significant Archaeological Resource—potential and known (known archaeological site).

Archaeological monitoring during geotechnical works in 2014 found sandstone packing, possibly associated with an earlier road surface.15

Moderate–high archaeological potential for archaeological evidence of Local significance (eg evidence of the use of the open spaces around the toll gate and/or the toll house).

25. Anzac Parade (Kensington)


Low–moderate archaeological potential for archaeological evidence of Local significance (eg evidence of early alignment of Anzac Parade, nineteenth and early twentieth-century services and elements associated with the use of the Randwick Racecourse including pre-1930 stables or early twentieth-century sheds and outbuildings).

Nil–low archaeological potential for archaeological evidence of State significance (intact evidence of unrecorded activities of early land grants and estates, wool washing activities, or the early use of Randwick Racecourse).

26. University of New South Wales


Low–moderate archaeological potential for archaeological evidence of Local significance (eg evidence of early alignment of Anzac Parade, nineteenth and early twentieth-century services and elements associated with the use of the Kensington Racecourse).

Nil–low archaeological potential for archaeological evidence of State significance (intact evidence of unrecorded activities of early land grants and estates, wool washing activities, or early use of Kensington Racecourse).

27. Anzac Parade (Kingsford)


Low–moderate archaeological potential for archaeological evidence of Local significance (eg evidence of early alignment of Anzac Parade and nineteenth and early twentieth-century services).

Nil–low archaeological potential for archaeological evidence of State significance (intact evidence of unrecorded activities of early land grants and estates or wool washing activities).

Randwick Precinct

28. Centennial Park 2 Locally Significant Archaeological Resource—potential (no known listings, see CMP Centennial Parklands).16

Low–moderate archaeological potential for archaeological evidence of Local significance (eg evidence of the tram line, the early alignment of Alison Road, early boundaries of Centennial Park and nineteenth and early twentieth-century services).

Nil–low archaeological potential for archaeological evidence of State significance (intact evidence of unrecorded activities of early land grants and estates or wool washing activities).

29. Randwick Stabling Yard

2 Locally Significant Archaeological Resource—potential and known (Randwick Racecourse Conservation Management Plan Final Draft December 2006).17

High and known archaeological potential for archaeological evidence of Local significance (eg evidence of tram platforms and an overhead bridge constructed c1900).

Low–moderate archaeological potential for archaeological evidence of Local significance (eg evidence of nineteenth and early twentieth-century services).

Nil–low archaeological potential for archaeological evidence of Local significance (eg evidence of pre-1900 streams and culverts in the northwest corner of the stabling yard, nineteenth-century gate, c1907 workshop and wooden overbridges).

GML Heritage



30. Royal Randwick Racecourse

2 Locally Significant Archaeological Resource—potential and known (Randwick Racecourse Conservation Management Plan Final Draft December 2006).18

High and known archaeological potential for archaeological evidence of Local significance (eg evidence of brick stalls and sheds).

Low–moderate archaeological potential for archaeological evidence of Local significance (eg evidence of nineteenth and early twentieth-century services).

Nil–low archaeological potential for archaeological evidence of Local significance (eg evidence of boundary fences on Alison Road and a second set of entrance gates along Alison Road).

31. High Street 2 Locally Significant Archaeological Resource—potential (no known listings).

Low–moderate archaeological potential for archaeological evidence of Local significance (eg evidence of earlier alignments of High Street, early land grants and nineteenth and early twentieth-century services).

32. Prince of Wales Hospital

2 Locally Significant Archaeological Resource—potential (no known listings, see Prince of Wales Hospital Campus, Randwick CMP).19

Low–moderate archaeological potential for archaeological evidence of Local significance (eg evidence of early alignments of High Street and nineteenth and early twentieth-century services)

Nil–low archaeological potential for archaeological evidence of Local significance (eg evidence of use of the Prince of Wales Hospital site as a military hospital).

Nil–low archaeological potential for archaeological evidence of State significance (intact evidence of the Randwick Destitute Children’s Asylum).

33. High Cross Park 2 Locally Significant Archaeological Resource—potential (Randwick Council Heritage Inventory Sheet—High Cross Park).

Low–moderate archaeological potential for archaeological evidence of Local significance (eg evidence of early alignments of Belmore, Avoca and Cuthill Streets, of nineteenth and early twentieth-century services and earlier landscaping formats).

Nil–low archaeological potential for archaeological evidence of Local significance (eg evidence of unrecorded activities and/or elements associated with the continuous use of High Cross Park as open civic space).

35. Centennial Park—Randwick Dam

1 State significant Archaeological Resource–potential (see Post-Contact Non-Indigenous Archaeological Report).20

Moderate–high potential for archaeological evidence of State significance (eg evidence associated with dam embankments to construct Kensington Pond).

Moderate –high potential for archaeological evidence of Local significance (eg evidence of the tram lines which extended on the north side of Alison Road from 1880).

Rozelle Precinct

34. Rozelle Stabling/Maintenance Facility


High archaeological potential for archaeological evidence of Local significance (eg evidence of landscape modification and reclamation associated with the creation of the Rozelle railway marshalling yard and railway infrastructure).

3.4 Endnotes

1 Artefact Heritage, South-East Light Rail Archaeological Monitoring: Tank Stream Investigation, report prepared for the CBD and South

East Light Rail Project, March 2015.

2 GML Heritage Pty Ltd, CBD and South East Light Rail Investigative Works—Archaeological Monitoring Report, report prepared for

Transport for NSW, June 2014. 3 Sydney Water, Tank Stream Conservation Management Plan for Asset Management and Sydney Water Corporation, Sydney Water,

January 2005.

GML Heritage


4 Artefact Heritage Pty Ltd, South-East Light Rail Archaeological Monitoring—Shift Summaries, prepared for Transport for NSW,

February 2015; GML Heritage Pty Ltd, CBD and South East Light Rail Investigative Works—Archaeological Monitoring Report, report

prepared for Transport for NSW, June 2014. 5 Godden Mackay Logan Pty Ltd, First Fleet Park, The Rocks—Conservation Management Strategy, report prepared for Sydney

Harbour Foreshore Authority, February 2010; Casey and Lowe Associates, Archaeological monitoring of George Street North

Improvements (Stage II) Stormwater and Streetworks, report prepared for Sydeny Cove Authority, December 1993.

6 Casey, M, Museum of Contemporary Art and First Fleet Park Archaeological Monitoring Report, unpublished report prepared for John

Holland Interiors on behalf of the Museum of Contemporary Art, 1991; Casey & Lowe Associates, Archaeological Monitoring of George

Street North Improvements (Stage II) Stormwater and Streetworks, unpublished report of the Sydney Cove Authority, December 1993;

Casey & Lowe Associates, Museum of Contemporary Art: Results of Archaeological Testing, unpublished report for City of Sydney,

2000. 7 Godden Mackay Logan Pty Ltd, First Fleet Park, The Rocks—Conservation Management Strategy, report prepared for Sydney

Harbour Foreshore Authority, February 2010. 8 Godden Mackay Logan Pty Ltd, George Street North Upgrade Project (Stage IV) - Final Archaeology Report, prepared for the

Department of Public Works and Services, June 2000. 9 Casey and Lowe Associates, Archaeological Monitoring of George Street North Improvements (Stage II) Stormwater and Street works

report prepared for the Sydney Cove Authority, December 1993; Godden Mackay Logan Pty Ltd, George Street North Upgrade Project

(Stage IV) - Final Archaeology Report, prepared for the Department of Public Works and Services, June 2000. 10 Artefact Heritage Pty Ltd, South-East Light Rail Archaeological Monitoring—Shift Summaries, prepared for Transport for NSW,

February 2015; GML Heritage Pty Ltd, CBD and South East Light Rail Investigative Works—Archaeological Monitoring Report, report

prepared for Transport for NSW, June 2014. 11 Artefact Heritage Pty Ltd, South-East Light Rail Archaeological Monitoring—Shift Summaries, prepared for Transport for NSW,

February 2015. 12 Artefact Heritage Pty Ltd, South-East Light Rail Archaeological Monitoring—Shift Summaries, prepared for Transport for NSW,

February 2015. 13 Godden Mackay Logan Pty Ltd, Belmore Park, Sydney- Heritage Study, report prepared for the City of Sydney Council, August 2012. 14 Artefact Heritage, CBD and South East Light Rail Project, Moore Park Tennis Centre Early Works-Archaeological Salvage Excavation

Methodology, report prepared for KMH Environmental, September 2014. 15 GML Heritage, CBD and South East Light Rail Investigative Works—Archaeological Monitoring Report, report prepared for Transport

NSW, June 2014. 16 Urbis, Centennial Parklands Conservation Management Plan, report prepared for Conybeare Morrison & Partners, July 2010. 17 Godden Mackay Logan Pty Ltd, Randwick Racecourse Conservation Management Plan-Final Draft, report prepared for the Australian

Jockey Club, December 2006. 18 Godden Mackay Logan Pty Ltd, Randwick Racecourse Conservation Management Plan-Final Draft, report prepared for the Australian

Jockey Club, December 2006. 19 Casey & Lowe Pty Ltd, CBD Metro Environmental Assessment—Non-Indigenous Archaeology, report prepared for Sydney Metro,

August 2009.

20 Casey and Lowe Pty Ltd, Post-Contact Non-Indigenous Archaeological Report, report prepared for the Centennial Park and Moore

Park Trust, 2001, p 4.

GML Heritage


4.0 Archaeological Research Design

4.1 Research Framework

4.1.1 Research Themes

Proposed archaeological investigation should consider physical evidence associated with historical

development and occupation within a broad thematic context. The potential archaeological remains within

the study area should be considered in relation to NSW Historical Themes, compiled by the Heritage

Council of NSW, to ensure that information recovered can contribute to a broader research framework.

The NSW Historical Themes that are relevant to the CSELR route are outlined in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1: NSW Historical Themes that are Relevant to the CSELR Route.

Australian Theme

NSW Theme Local Theme Explanatory Notes Archaeological Examples

Peopling Australia

Convict Activities relating to incarceration, transport, reform, accommodation and working during the convict period in NSW (1788–1850).

There may be evidence related to the convict period, owing to the potential for late eighteenth and early nineteenth century remains, particularly in the City Centre precinct.

A convict landing place (First Fleet Park), buildings related to convict control (the George Street Guardhouse, military barracks, Old Sydney Gaol, the Colonial Storehouse, Carters’ Barracks), convict built remains, (eg the early sea walls of Circular Quay), or ex-convict development, (eg Cleveland House in Surry Hills).

Developing local, regional and national economies

Environment—Cultural Landscape

Activities associated with the interactions between humans, human societies and the shaping of their physical surroundings.

There is potential for evidence of activities associated with cultural landscape development and environment modifications across all precincts.

A landscape type (Lachlan’s Swamp), evidence of market gardens or land clearing, evidence of early land modifications, (eg. reclamation or drainage systems in naturally wet areas).

Developing local, regional and national economies

Industry Activities associated with the manufacture, production and distribution of goods.

A substantial part of historical development across the precincts is linked to activities associated with the manufacture, production and distribution of goods, particularly related to early economic growth.

Evidence of early industries (brick kilns, stone quarrying, woodcutters, turf cutters and stock grazing), Pawley’s Tannery, the Albion Brewery, the Standard Brewery, wool-washing industries or evidence of maritime industries undertaken on Sydney Cove.

Governing Defence Activities associated with defending places from hostile takeover and occupation.

A number of precincts can be associated with defence structures, including Convict or WWII defence structures in the City Centre and Moore Park.

Evidence of air raid shelters (Belmore Park, Moore Park), evidence of the Rifle Range of the Military Gardens/Reserves, evidence of colonial convict defence structures (eg The George Street Guardhouse or Military Barracks).

GML Heritage


Building settlements, towns and cities

Utilities Activities associated with the provision of services, especially on a communal basis.

Known and potential utilities providing services are likely to exist across all precincts. Some of these are early and highly significant examples, including the Tank Stream and Bennelong Drain.

Bennelong Drain storm water channel, the Tank Stream, gas and electricity easements, early evidence of tram services, early macadam surfaces of streets, kerbs and drains, water pipelines, sewage tunnels, culverts, wells or cess pits.

Developing Australia’s cultural life

Domestic Life Activities associated with creating, maintaining, living in and working around houses and institutions.

Houses and institutions of various kinds are another prominent component of all precincts. Although some of the CSELR route covers roads, historical widening of roads (such as along George Street) increases the likelihood of evidence of domestic life.

Randwick Destitute Children’s Asylum, evidence of domestic life such as artefact scatters, foundations of domestic buildings, evidence of domestic activity (eg associated with the Cleveland House Estate) or military barracks.

Developing Australia’s cultural life

Leisure Activities associated with recreation and relaxation.

There are a large number of areas that have had strong associations with recreation and relaxation, particularly early public commons, parks and sporting venues, particularly in the Randwick and Kensington/Kingswood precincts.

High Cross Reserve, Wimbo Park, First Fleet Park, Belmore Park, Ward Park, Moore Park, Centennial Park (Lachlan Water Reserve), Randwick Racecourse, Kensington Racecourse, the Sydney Sports Ground or the Moore Park zoological gardens.

4.2 Research Questions

4.2.1 Broad Research Questions

One of the main objectives of the proposed archaeological investigation is to recover information from the

site that is not available through any other sources. The types of broad questions that might be asked of

the CSELR site include:

What physical evidence of former activities survives within the CSELR footprint?

What is the extent of the surviving archaeological evidence?

What is the nature of extant archaeological features?

What is the date of the identified elements?

What can the material culture contribute to our knowledge about this site or other sites?

The proposed physical investigation(s) of the site are designed to answer these basic questions about the

nature and extent of the surviving archaeological resource. While these questions provide a basic

GML Heritage


archaeological context for the site investigation, more specific questions must be asked to address the

research potential of the study area.

4.2.2 Site Specific Questions


Can the archaeological evidence inform the initial modification to the landscape by early settlers?

The City Centre precinct route traverses a number of landforms between Circular Quay and Central

Station and the natural landscape has been substantially modified since European settlement. The

northernmost section of the City Centre precinct (between Alfred Street and George Street at Essex

Street) is dominated by reclamation fill, geotechnical investigations indicate the Circular Quay area is

likely to be underlain by 2–3 metres of fill overlying approximately eight metres of alluvium associated with

the Tank Stream paleochannel. An old alluvial channel that is part of the former Darling Harbour tributary

containing approximately 5m to 8m of alluvium is also anticipated in the vicinity of the Eddy

Avenue/Chalmers Street intersection. What is the nature of the site’s pre-European settlement landscape,

such as the original soil profiles or landforms? Is there evidence of the earliest impacts of European

settlement on the pre-settlement environment, for example land clearing or site formation? What evidence

is there of landscape modification processes, such as reclamation fills?

Can the archaeological resource contribute to our understanding of institutions of governance

and confinement of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries?

Significant buildings with physical remains could include the c1792 Colonial Storehouse, the residence of

Lieutenant Governor Ross c1790, the Old Sydney Gaol, the George Street Guardhouse c1810, the c1810

George Street gateway to the military barracks and its perimeter wall (near Wynyard), and Carters’

Barracks. Do archaeological features survive from this period? Do they contain artefacts related to these

institutions? What does this evidence reveal about the occupation of the site that no other site can?

What nineteenth century industries were present in early Sydney and what local technologies or

materials were employed?

Industries may include brickmaking activities such as brick kilns, structural remains, yard/work surfaces;

evidence of the corn/hay/cattle markets at Haymarket; or evidence of early locally produced goods. Can

specific infrastructure or other facilities be identified? What do remains from these industries tell us about

early industrial techniques? Is there any environmental data related to these activities? What local

resources were utilised in these activities?

What is the level of preservation of late eighteenth and early nineteenth century residences and

retail premises along the CSELR route?

Can the archaeological remains associated with early residences and retail premises provide information

not available from other sources? What impact did the 1911 widening of George Street have on earlier

structures? What does the evidence from this phase of the site’s history reveal about the living conditions

or socio-economic context of the early nineteenth century neighbourhood? Do any remains of early

commercial activities survive within the site? What form does this evidence take? What does this evidence

reveal about the nature and operation of these enterprises, their operators or the customers who

patronised them?

Do remains of utilities and infrastructure survive that can yield information about upgrades and

improvements to such services?

GML Heritage


Evidence of George Street, Chalmers Street, Elizabeth Street or Eddy Avenue changes and

improvements might include features such as Bennelong Drain (along King Street), sandstone kerbs,

early drains, early road surfaces, evidence of macadam and woodblock paving along the length of George

Street north; evidence of street realignments (and widening); and metal tracks and wooden sleepers

associated with the early tram line. What do these features reveal about the intended outcomes of

changes and improvements? What can this evidence demonstrate about changing technologies over time

of utilities?


What late eighteenth and early nineteenth century agricultural industries were present in this area

and what technologies were employed?

The earliest phases of European history on the site relate to the early land grants and agricultural

activities and industries, including market gardens, brick kilns, stone quarrying, woodcutters, turf cutters,

stone quarries and stock grazing. Does any evidence associated with this phase of site use survive? Is

there any evidence of unrecorded activities of early land grants and estates? What is this evidence and

what does it reveal about this period of the site’s history? Can specific activities and technologies be

identified? Is there any environmental data related to these activities? Can specific infrastructure or other

facilities be identified? How were natural resources exploited? How does the physical evidence compare

with the historical information related to this phase of site use?

If present, what can archaeological remains identified as related to residential or commercial

development yield about domestic occupation?

Following subdivision of the larger estates in the 1830s, areas of residential and small scale commercial

development began to emerge, and this development was further consolidated throughout the nineteenth

century. Is there any evidence of the Cleveland Garden Estate or Cleveland House? Do any other yard

features, subsurface features or landscaping elements survive? What does this evidence reveal about the

occupation of the site? What does the evidence from this phase of the site’s history reveal about the living

conditions or socio-economic context of the early nineteenth century neighbourhood?

If present, do remains of the Elizabeth Street brewing complex allow an understanding of

changing brewing techniques?

Can remains be attributed to either the Albion Street Brewery (1851–1860) or the Standard Brewery

(1873–1978)? What information can its archaeological remains provide about changing brewing

technologies? Is there any evidence of other industries undertaken on the site, including soap and candle

making? Do any remains exist beyond structural features, such as bottle dumps, yards or wells?

Can the absence or presence of archaeological remains be associated with compulsory

government resumption in the precinct?

Following the outbreak of the bubonic plague in 1901, large scale demolition of nineteenth-century

structures across the study area occurred during the resumptions. Demolition rubble indicative of the

resumption may be present; alternatively, a lack of rubble or other physical evidence from the later

nineteenth century may be indicative of the thorough government campaign to remove these structures.

What evidence can be associated with the processes of resumption and its impacts? What evidence of

the nineteenth century urban landscape survives following the early twentieth century resumptions?

GML Heritage


Moore Park Precinct

What information does evidence of early water reserves provide regarding construction

techniques and technologies?

This could include evidence of Busby’s Bore construction (1827–1837) or Lachlan’s Reserve. Busby’s

Bore is located to the east of the CSELR route, however, other elements related to construction are

possible, such as early boundary fences or drainage systems. Is the pre-European settlement landscape

relatively intact, such as original soil profiles or landforms? Is there any environmental data related to

these activities? Can specific infrastructure or other facilities be identified?

Can archaeological remains reveal information about the nature of recreational activities in the

precinct not available from other resources?

Can any remains be linked to the zoological gardens, the cricket ground or agricultural showground, or the

later Moore Park phases? Does any evidence of the types of activities remain, such as certain organised

sports or events? Do any other recreational or landscaping elements survive, such as plantings marking

roadways? What does the evidence reveal about the living conditions or socio-economic context of the

early nineteenth century neighbourhood?

What evidence for early public transport survives and can this yield information about

infrastructure, technology and development in the precinct?

Can remains be associated with particular track extensions or changes, the steam-operated tramway

(1879–1900) or electric trams to Randwick Racecourse (1916–1960)? What do the remains tell us about

how tram technology has changed, that no other resource can? Can the remaining tramway infrastructure

be linked to certain development of the neighbourhood?

What do remains of air raid shelters in Moore Park reveal about Australia’s defence system during

World War II?

During World War II a series of air raid trenches were built in various parts of Moore Park. Most were

constructed in early 1942 after an attack by Japanese midget submarines in Sydney Harbour occurred.

Most were filled in by late 1944 when the danger had passed. The trenches were mainly cut to a depth of

approximately 2m, lined with sandbags and sheets of iron to stabilise the sides. How do the construction

techniques compare to other known examples in Australia? What do the technical or aesthetic qualities

reveal about the shelters as a physical response to the World War II defence and protection of Sydney?

Can they be related to historical associations with Sydney’s defence systems during World War II, the

Australian military services, and the local community?

Kingsford/Kensington Precinct

If present, what information can evidence of Lachlan’s Stream or Lachlan’s Swamp provide about

European modifications of the natural environment?

What forms of modifications remain? Can remains provide about the European modifications to the

natural environment be linked to particular phases of the site’s history?

What nineteenth century industries were present in this precinct and what local technologies or

materials were employed?

Can these be related to the Lachlan water mill (The Lachlan Mills Estate) or the associated production of

paper, cloth or flour? Is there any evidence of convict built structures related to the mill? Is there any

GML Heritage


evidence of the early wool washing industries? How have these early industries utilised the natural

landscape and resources? Is there any evidence of the associated rough settlements to house the

workers of the estate? What can they tell us about living and working in this area?

What evidence of the Kensington Racecourse survives and can it be used to provide information

about the nature of racing in the area?

Kensington Racecourse was established in 1890 on former crown land. It was one of serval pony courses

established in Sydney in the late nineteenth century and held working class races that were popular but

less formal than other racecourses. What information can the archaeological remains provide about the

nature of the racecourse and the racing industry? How do these remains compare with the Randwick

Racecourse infrastructure? Can the remains be associated with certain kinds of spectators, such as the

working classes, and do they indicate a difference in the spectators to the Randwick Racecourse

spectators?

What can evidence of Aboriginal people or groups reveal about how they lived or used the land?

Is there any evidence of Aboriginal people or groups occupying the site following European settlement?

Can that evidence be related to individual people, such as an Aboriginal man known as King Billy Timbery

who lived at La Perouse and operated the Randwick toll gate in the 1860s (part of the Tay Reserve

HAMU)?

What does archaeological evidence reveal about the development of associated infrastructure

within the suburb?

What kinds of evidence of transportation remain, such as toll houses, new road alignments or street

landscaping or improvement projects? Do the remaining features correspond with a particular phase of

development, such as the racecourse construction, town planning and redevelopment of Kensington from

the1890s–1920s, or the development of UNSW?

Randwick Precinct

Can the archaeology yield information about initial modifications to the environment by early

settlers?

The Randwick precinct route covers an area that was swampy scrubland to the south and east of the

Sydney Common. The area was largely inaccessible with few roads and tracks except for Old Botany

Road leading to a small settlement at Botany. Is there evidence of the site’s pre-European settlement

landscape, such as original soil profiles or landforms? Is there evidence of the earliest impacts of

European settlement on the pre-settlement environment, for example land clearing, illegal timber clearing,

quarrying or dumping of nightsoil? What evidence is there of landscape modification processes, such as

drainage systems?

If present, can the archaeological remains associated with the Sydney Common yield information

about early use of the landscape?

The Sydney Common was used by hunters (chasing kangaroos, dingoes and deer) and fishermen, as

well as herdsmen looking after stock and timber crews harvesting trees. Is there any evidence of land use

prior to the first land sales in the 1830s? Is there any evidence of uses of early acreages, such as market

gardens?

What do remains reveal about how Randwick developed as a suburb?

GML Heritage


Do any remains of early technical advancements in the region remain? It was not until the 1870s that an

influx of wealthy residents came to Randwick and the area became viewed as a fashionable and healthy

suburb. How do advancements in transportation and utilities fit into the timeline of the suburbs

development and population growth? Is there evidence of street lighting changes, curbing and gutters,

post and telegraph systems or public transport systems? Does evidence of the arrival of trams or

extensions of the line to the suburb and racecourse remain? How did the development of UNSW, the

Prince of Wales hospital, Randwick Racecourse and residential development affect earlier land uses and

the natural landscape?

Rozelle Precinct

Do any remains of early landforms or uses survive within the site?

Do structural remains of early residential development and occupation survive within the site? Is there any

evidence within the precinct of the three small cottages dating from 1890? Are there any remains of early

street alignments or evidence of landscape modifications such as drainage systems that can yield

information about the development of this area that no other resource can?

If present, what do archaeological remains reveal about the technology and development of the

yard and depot?

Does archaeological evidence for transportation, utilities and other infrastructure survive that can

contribute knowledge about the development of this area as a suburb? Can remains be dated to a specific

phase, such as the Rozelle Marshalling Yard (1916), Rozelle Yard Locomotive Depot (1916–1940),

storage area for the American Army (1940–1945) or the Goods Yard (1945–2007)? Are there any

structural remains of early phases outside of yard surfaces and tracks, such as offices or loading docks?

Is there any evidence of specialised technologies or significant changes in technologies in that time? Did

the specific phases of the yard affect the kinds of features used and developed?

All Precincts

Can individual phases of development and construction be identified, and how do these relate to the

historical phasing of the site? Do these remains provide insight into construction techniques and changing

technologies through time?

What impact did later phases of construction/demolition have on the archaeological remains of earlier

development phases?

How does the archaeological record compare with the evidence from archival sources?

What evidence remains of the establishment and expansion of utilities within the study area? Is any

evidence of the early road alignments present within the study area? If so, what does this tell us about the

establishment and evolution of roadways in Sydney? What evidence is there of waste management such

as rubbish disposal, drainage and sewerage? Is there evidence of changes in technology or sanitation

over the nineteenth century?

Is there any evidence of Aboriginal occupation or land use following European settlement, such as

examples of glass or ceramics being knapped in the same way as stone tools? Does any evidence of

interactions between European settlers and local Aboriginal people remain?

Does the archaeological evidence at this site provide insight into the individuals that lived and/or worked

here (within an institutional, commercial and/or domestic context)? Can individuals or groups be identified

(eg Aboriginal people, workers, soldiers, farmers, women, children)? What does this information reveal

GML Heritage


about the environment in which they lived and/or worked? Are other historically significant figures (such as

Simeon Pearce in Randwick), visible in the archaeological record?

Does the archaeology allow for comparison with other sites in Sydney, NSW and elsewhere from similar

periods or site types?

GML Heritage


5.0 Archaeological Management

5.1 Scope of Archaeological Program

In accordance with the SSI 6042 REMM V1, the mitigation measures for HAMUs in the 2013 HIA are

to be implemented, in accordance with the HAMU zones. Some HAMUs have been refined with more

detail of the archaeological resource based on further information resulting from recent excavations

and modifications to the CSELR footprint.1 These revisions of the assessment help refine management

strategies to ensure impacts are appropriately mitigated once final impacts are determined.

The 2013 HIA required that archaeological resources be managed in accordance with their

significance. The identified level of significance can influence the degree of impact that may be

acceptable or the level of investigation and recording that may be required.

HAMUs identified as containing known or potential State significant relics will require the highest level

of management, including the need—in some circumstances—to redesign in order to avoid and/or

mitigate possible impacts on fabric. HAMUs with State significant archaeology may warrant

preliminary archaeological testing once the detailed impacts of the CSELR route have been

determined in order to locate and further understand the integrity and extent of the actual resource,

allowing for appropriate planning for the mitigation of impacts.

Locally significant archaeological resources, while still important, will be able to be managed in a

greater variety of ways and are less likely to require any redesign, depending on the extent, nature and

intactness of the resource found.

Management and mitigation strategies, developed in the 2013 HIA to address the likely significance of

the identified historical archaeological resource, are identified for each archaeological zone, and are

described in detail in Appendix B. Some HAMUs also require specific mitigation and management

strategies tailored to the anticipated nature of the archaeological resource in that area or as specified

in the project Conditions of Approval. Where this is the case, these strategies are included as specific

points in the mitigation strategies for each HAMU.

Given that the archaeological management zones have been designed to address the needs of each

of the identified HAMUs in a uniform way and across the whole of the CSELR route, flexibility has been

built into the management recommendations for each of these zones, where possible. This is to allow

for the possible presence of varying levels of significant archaeological resources within one zone type

and for the occurrence of unexpected relics of significance across the zones.

The three archaeological management zones described in Section 3.1.1 are applied across the

CSELR route and the relevant mitigation measures for each are outlined below.

5.2 Mitigation Measures

The following mitigation measures as stated in the 2013 HIA are required to be implemented for each

historical archaeological zone and are outlined below:

Historical Archaeological Zone 1

Mitigation measures for Historical Archaeological Management Units (HAMUs) identified as Zone 1—State Significant

Historical Archaeology; known or potential, would be managed in accordance with the following strategies:

GML Heritage


Impact and/or removal is generally unacceptable for archaeological resources listed on the State Heritage

Register and/or identified as being highly intact.

An Excavation Director who meets the NSW Heritage Branch requirements for directing State significant

archaeological investigations must monitor the works.

In situ retention of the archaeological resource is likely to be required, unless it is highly disturbed and/or of a

fragmentary nature—or if the impacts are assessed by the excavation director to be minor in nature.

A Work Method Statement or Archaeological Research design will be prepared by a qualified historical

archaeologist in accordance with Heritage Division requirements, prior to the commencement of works. The

Work Method Statement or Archaeological Research Design will outline a methodology for the investigation,

salvage and/or conservation of archaeological resources.

An archaeological testing program would be implemented in this HAMU to test the location, extent, integrity and

nature of State significant (Zone 1) archaeological resources. The testing program would be undertaken in

accordance with an approved archaeological Work Method Statement or Archaeological Research Design.

The results of the testing program would further refine the Work Method Statement or Archaeological Research

Design for the investigation, salvage and/or conservation of archaeological resources .

Works which may impact, disturb or destroy relics within Zone 1 HAMUs will be monitored by the Excavation

Director to ensure unacceptable impacts do not occur.

The NSW Heritage Division and Transport for NSW to be notified when intact State significant relics are

discovered.

Public engagement such as media releases; public open days during the works program; and/or post-works

heritage interpretation may be warranted.

Post-excavation reporting, artefact analysis and conservation of relics would be required if relics are found.


Mitigation measures for HAMUs identified as Zone 2—Locally Significant Historical Archaeology; known or potential,

would be managed in accordance with the following strategies:

Impact and/or removal is likely to be acceptable if appropriate mitigation measures are followed.

A Work Method Statement or Archaeological Research design will be prepared by a qualified historical

archaeologist in accordance with Heritage Division requirements, prior to the commencement of works. The

Work Method Statement or Archaeological Research Design will outline a methodology for the investigation,

monitoring and/or salvage of archaeological resources.

Archaeological monitoring can be led by the State significant Excavation Director/local excavation director for

works within Zone 2 areas, followed by open area excavation as required (which depends on the nature, extent

and integrity of the archaeological resource to be impacted, and the level of impact proposed).

If unexpected State significant relics are discovered in Zone 2 areas—such relics may need to be managed in

accordance with the Zone 1 requirements. The Excavation Director is to determine if the unexpected relics are

likely to be reassessed as State significant, and then determine appropriate mitigation (ie manage as Zone 1 or

Zone 2).

The NSW Heritage Division and Transport for NSW is to be notified when intact State significant relics are

discovered.

GML Heritage


Public engagement such as heritage interpretation and/or public open days may be warranted, depending on the

nature and significance of the archaeological resource.

Post-excavation reporting, artefact analysis and conservation is required if relics are found.


Mitigation measures for HAMUs identified as Zone 3—No Historical Archaeological Resource Present, are unlikely to

have an impact on historical archaeology. Works in these zones would be managed in accordance with the following

strategies:

All contractors to receive a heritage induction prior to works commencing.

Archaeologist on call to investigate any unexpected discoveries of archaeological remains identified during

ground works.

5.3 Investigation Methods

5.3.1 Investigation Strategy

The required investigation method is based on the historical archaeological zones (Zones 1, 2 and 3).

A program of archaeological testing, monitoring and recording is proposed, as well as more detailed

manual excavation in parts of the site, where warranted, to mitigate the impacts to the site’s potential

archaeological resources and to realise the site’s archaeological potential.

Based on the historical archaeological potential and significance outlined in Section 3.0, a strategic

approach to the investigation of the historical archaeological resource should be employed. This

approach involves a focused program of test excavations and archaeological monitoring in Zones 1

and 2. The implementation of detailed investigation strategies such as archaeological test or salvage

excavation would only occur for major below ground disturbances. Construction impacts that would be

considered significant below ground disturbances should be identified when detailed construction

plans are finalised. However, impacts such as re-paving, resurfacing of roads, the re-excavation of

service trenches or piling are unlikely to require the implementation of excavation strategies but may

require a program of monitoring and recording, as described below.

A testing program would be required if significant below ground disturbances are unavoidable for the

Zone 1 HAMUS in the areas with high potential for archaeological remains of State significance (see

Section 6.0). Following the testing program and depending on the nature, integrity and significance of

remains, a salvage archaeological excavation may be required.

A monitoring program would be implemented where below ground disturbances occur in the remaining

areas of Zone 1 and in the areas with high potential archaeological remains of Local significance in

Zone 2.

Any testing or monitoring programs in Zone 1 and Zone 2 would be implemented to determine the

nature and extent of surviving features and deposits, to identify and record these features, and/or to

determine whether further investigation may be warranted.

Archaeological investigation would not be required in Zone 3 or in areas of low or moderate

archaeological potential in Zone 2. The unexpected finds procedure would apply in these areas of

Zones 2 and 3.

The decision to undertake open area excavation in any parts of the site would be made during the

works program, and would be based on the nature and extent of archaeological remains exposed at

GML Heritage


the site during excavation works. This approach is considered appropriate for this site given the

difficulty in determining the degree of disturbance or survival of archaeological remains across the site

prior to ground disturbance.

In some cases, the most appropriate strategy for the management of archaeological resources may be

to not excavate them at all. Retaining sites intact preserves them as part of a research collection that

may be investigated in the future, or allows for long term management of significant places. This

management strategy requires that such sites either remain undeveloped or that they be developed in

a way that avoids or minimises physical impacts to significant remains. Any areas of archaeological

potential that would remain undisturbed as part of the construction program would not be subject to

archaeological investigation.

5.3.2 On-Site Protocols

All Zone 1 archaeological investigations must be supervised by an excavation director who meets the

NSW Heritage Branch requirements for directing State significant archaeological investigations. All

Zone 2 archaeological investigations must have direct supervision by an excavation director who

meets the NSW Heritage Branch requires for directing either State or Local significant archaeological

investigations.

All archaeologists working on the CSELR project must be provided with a copy of the 2013 HIA, the

2015 CHMP and this ARD prior to attending site.

5.3.3 In Situ Retention of Archaeological Features

Impact and/or removal of archaeological resources is generally inappropriate for items listed on the

State Heritage Register and/or identified as being highly intact. In situ retention of the archaeological

resource is likely to be required, unless it is highly disturbed and/or of a fragmentary nature—or if the

impacts are assessed by the excavation director to be minor in nature.

Three elements of the site’s potential archaeological resource that have been identified as warranting

in situ retention are the Tank Stream, Belmore Park and First Fleet Park. Consent conditions MCoA

B58 states these features shall not be destroyed or permanently modified. Conditions REMM V2, V5

and V12 outline environmental management measures for each park. The construction design should

be developed in accordance with these constraints.

During construction work, other significant heritage items that are identified should be retained if

impacts can be avoided. If the finds are found to be highly significant and require preservation in situ,

incorporation into the design, and/or appropriate conservation and modification of the design will need

to be considered.

If they cannot be retained in situ, archaeological features should be appropriately recorded, removed,

catalogued or in some rare cases, reinstated at the completion of the project.

5.3.4 Site Specific Programs

Tank Stream

A site specific testing program may be required to expose the extent of the Tank Stream along Alfred

Street within the CSELR footprint, to allow construction to occur around the area without incurring

impacts that will destroy or permanently modify the heritage listed item. Mitigation measures outlined in

condition REMM V2 would also be implemented for the Tank Stream, including:

GML Heritage


Provision of physical protection through construction of bridging structure to retain integrity of

the Tank Stream, as required;

Implementation of management in accordance with policies in Sydney Water’s Tanks Stream

Conservation Management Plan; and

consultation with Sydney Water, City of Sydney and NSW Heritage Division of OEH.

The 2005 Tank Stream Conservation Management Plan (CMP) identified that proposed impacts to the

Tank Stream and/or within its 3m buffer zone would usually be considered unacceptable and a 10m

buffer zone is highly sensitive.2 The buffer zone is measured from the conduit, the outer limit of the

physical structure (usually of brick and concrete construction), which protects the integrity of the

existing route stormwater channel and enclosing tunnel.

Belmore Park

A testing program may also be required in Belmore Park, if below ground disturbance was

unavoidable. In these areas, if the proposed shallow ground disturbance is required during

establishment of site compounds, a testing program would be implemented to identify features within

the area of impact. Should archaeological features be identified, the works program would need to be

modified to avoid destroying or modifying the potential archaeological resource, as required by MCoA

B58. Mitigation measures outlined in condition REMM V12 would also be implemented for Belmore

Park, including that:

subsurface archaeological remains within Belmore Park would be protected from compaction or

movement of vehicles over the park’s ground surface;

significant trees and landscaping to be retained within Belmore Park would be protected from

damage by vehicular or machinery movement;

significant landscape elements (such as sandstone kerbing) that are to be removed from

Belmore Park for the construction compound would be salvaged, catalogued and stored for

reinstatement following completion of construction works; and

a photographic archival recording of Belmore Park would be undertaken prior to works

commencing.

Belmore Park does not have a CMP and is in not included in the Central Railway Station CMP.3

However, guidelines for future development proposals and other considerations are made in the

Heritage Study.4 The mitigation and management measures outlined in this report are consistent with

the guidelines and considerations of the Belmore Park Heritage Study.

First Fleet Park

First Fleet Park will not involve excavation and therefore an archaeological testing program will not be

required (Condition O11). The 2010 First Fleet Park CMP outlines guidelines applicable to the CSELR

project, with which the mitigation measures and recommendations of this report are consistent.5

Mitigation measures outlined in condition REMM V5 would also be implemented for First Fleet Park,

including:

The potential historical archaeological resource would be managed in accordance with the

policies outlined in the First Fleet Park Conservation Management Strategy.

GML Heritage


Consultation would be undertaken with the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority.

No excavation would be undertaken within First Fleet Park to minimise the risk of impacting on

potential subsurface archaeology.

Services, if required, would be above ground or installed within existing service trenches.

The subsurface archaeological remains within First Fleet Park would be protected from

compaction or movement of vehicles over the park’s ground surface.

The scope of appropriate ground works within First Fleet Park HAMU would be developed in

consultation with a suitably qualified archaeologist and Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority to

ensure the impact on the archaeological resource is as minor as possible

A photographic archival recording of First Fleet Park would be undertaken prior to works

commencing.

Tay Reserve

The Tay Reserve HAMU has been identified as having potential for Aboriginal archaeological deposits

within upper stratigraphic layers associated with the original Randwick toll house and gate located here

in the nineteenth century—it was a known place used by Aboriginal people post 1788. Therefore,

where Aboriginal objects are identified in historical deposits, these deposits should be tested and/or

salvaged in accordance with the methodology outlined in the CSELR ACHAR/ATR. This states:

test excavation would be undertaken in 1m x 1m test excavation units (EUs)—or 500mm x

500mm EUs if the area is restricted by size—to test for the presence of Aboriginal

archaeological material (including objects) within the underlying soil profile.

Excavation would be undertaken in 100mm spits, unless the deposit/stratigraphy defines a

shallower depth of excavation spit. No bulk earthworks excavation will be undertaken.

All removed soil/sands are sieved. If a machine is being used, the excavation director will

determine the depth of each spit and the speed of soil/sand removal.

All excavated deposits would be sieved through 3mm or 5mm sieves. Hand or mechanical

sieving, and wet or dry sieving would occur—the precise mechanism would be constrained by

the limitations of the work site at the time of the test excavation. All objects would be recorded

in correspondence to their test units and catalogued appropriately.

5.3.5 Archaeological Test Excavation

Archaeological test excavation refers to the excavation of small trenches within the site, positioned to

expose a representative sample of the potential archaeological resource within the site. The objective

of test trenching is to determine the location, integrity, nature and extent of archaeological resources at

the site, to inform further decisions about their management (eg whether further investigation is

warranted). Archaeological testing is recommended for areas within HAMUs assessed as having high

research potential, that are likely to survive relatively intact or where the integrity of the resource is

uncertain. The results of the testing program may further refine the work method statement or

archaeological research design for the investigation, salvage and/or conservation of archaeological

resources. The archaeological testing program could be implemented following the closure of the area

to public access but prior to construction.

GML Heritage


Prior to the ground disturbance occurring, the area of high archaeological potential should be

investigated by a qualified archaeologist, using a sampling strategy and observing the principles of

stratigraphic excavation. The testing program would include machine excavated slit trenches to the

width of the excavator bucket and bisecting the area at regular intervals. Machine excavation could be

used until features were identified, at which point hand excavation would be used for the exposure and

cleaning of archaeological features. The test trench locations should only cover areas requiring below

ground disturbance and to the depths required for construction. A specific sampling strategy should be

developed, including the locations and quantities of test trenches required for each area of high

archaeological potential, after detailed construction impacts are prepared.

Following the completion of archaeological testing, the excavation director will determine what further

action is required, such as further archaeological excavation or monitoring of ongoing site works.

When major below ground disturbances (including trenching or deep open area excavation) are

required for the following HAMUS in the areas with high potential for archaeological remains of State

significance (see Section 6.0), this archaeological testing methodology will likely be required to test the

location, extent, integrity and nature of State significant (Zone 1) archaeological resources. Following

the testing program and depending on the nature, integrity and significance of remains, salvage

archaeological excavation may be required. The following areas are assessed as likely to contain

significant archaeological remains, and testing should be undertaken:

Alfred Street/Herald Square;

George St North;

Town Hall;

Eddy Avenue;

Chalmers Street;

Tay Reserve; and

Centennial Park—Randwick Dam.

5.3.6 Monitoring During Excavations

Archaeological monitoring refers to the supervision by an archaeologist(s) of excavation works

undertaken by mechanical excavator. The objective of archaeological monitoring is to determine the

nature and extent of surviving features and deposits, to identify and record these features and/or

determine whether further investigation (e.g. open area excavation), if any, may be warranted.

The archaeologist(s) would be required on site at the commencement of works within an area and as

further required, depending on the nature and extent of surviving features and deposits identified

during works.

During archaeological monitoring the archaeologist(s) on site would have the authority to halt site

works, as required, to undertake investigation or recording of any archaeological remains exposed

during the monitoring process.

Work should not recommence in these areas until directed by the archaeologist(s) on site.

GML Heritage


Monitoring of historical archaeological potential remains may also be required to be conducted in

conjunction with Aboriginal heritage testing and salvage programs.

Archaeological monitoring would be required during below ground disturbances of areas assessed as

having low potential for archaeological remains of state significance or high potential for archaeological

remains of Local significance (see Section 6.0). Following the archaeological monitoring and

depending on the nature, integrity and significance of remains, a salvage archaeological excavation

may be required.

5.3.7 Salvage

Salvage refers to archaeological excavation (or open area excavation). Salvage would be required if

significant archaeological resources are found during the works program. Salvage requires excavation

of a larger area to identify spatial relationships between features or deposits that may be present and

to maximise the information and material that may be recovered from a site. Archaeological excavation

(salvage) may also be required following archaeological testing, if it is revealed that significant

archaeological remains survive substantially intact within a site. Archaeological excavation may also

be required if the monitoring program also reveals that significant remains survive substantially intact

within a site.

The speed of salvage excavation should be determined by the time required to adequately and

correctly record and recover all archaeological features present and works would not proceed until all

salvage is completed to the satisfaction of the excavation director.

5.3.8 Archival Recording

Archival recording refers to the illustrative, locational and digital recording of heritage items in

accordance with the guidelines issued by the Heritage Council of NSW. The area containing heritage

items would be clearly identified and/or fenced until the completion of the archival recordings.

With respect to archaeological remains, once exposed, archaeological remains would cleaned by hand

and recorded in accordance with their level of research potential.

Where any archaeological remains were exposed, measured drawings, relative levels and GPS

locations would be recorded. These would be keyed into the master site plan. Photogrammetry may

also be used where appropriate to produce drawings and 3D recordings of the remains.

Photographic recording of all phases of the work on site would be undertaken, using a scale and north

arrow. The photographic record would include recording archaeological features and their conservation

to archival standard in accordance with the procedures outlined in the ‘Photographic Recording of

Heritage Items Using Film or Digital Capture manual prepared by the then NSW Heritage Council in

2006.

5.3.9 Artefacts

If any significant cultural material is uncovered during archaeological investigations it would be

retained for analysis and for possible use in public interpretive programs and/or displays, if an

interpretative program is implemented. Any artefacts that are recovered would be provenanced

according to their contexts. Artefacts would be cleaned and stored in an appropriate repository,

observing specialist conservation requirements where appropriate (eg for leather artefacts). Artefacts

should be logged in a database that reflects current best practice archaeological data recording.

GML Heritage


Any artefacts recovered during the archaeological investigationswould be the property of Transport for

NSW and would be retained in a safe and secure location provided by them.

5.3.10 Post Excavation Reporting

The NSW Heritage Division and Transport for NSW should be notified if and when intact state

significant relics are discovered during archaeological testing, salvage or monitoring programs.

On completion of on-site works and artefact analysis, a report would be prepared by the excavation

director that presents a detailed description of the works performed and their results, illustrated by

photographs, survey plans and an artefact catalogue, as appropriate. The report would include a

response to the relevant research questions raised in this ARD.

Copies of the final report would be provided to the Heritage Division, Sydney City Council, and

Randwick Council.

5.3.11 Public Engagement and Interpretation

Following salvage, archival recording and post-excavation reporting would be required to meet the

OEH and NSW Heritage Division criteria. Public engagement such as media releases, public open

days during the works program and/or post-works heritage interpretation may also be warranted.

5.3.12 Unexpected Finds Procedure

The identification of unexpected archaeological finds will be managed under the Unexpected Finds

Procedure (Appendix C).

Any items of heritage significance not previously identified in the 2013 HIA would be managed in

accordance with MCoA B89e(ii), including:

the cessation of works in the vicinity;

assessment of the significance of the item(s); and

determination of appropriate mitigation measures including when works can re-commence by a

suitably qualified and experienced archaeologist in consultation with the department and the

Heritage Council of NSW and assessment of the consistency of any new non-Aboriginal

heritage impacts against the approved impacts of the SSI and notification of the Heritage

Council of NSW, in accordance with Section 146 of the NSW Heritage Act 1977, and the

department.

5.3.13 Human Remains

If human remains were to be discovered during any phase of works associated with the CSELR

project, works would cease immediately in the surrounding area.

The SSI approval does not allow the works to destroy, modify or otherwise physically affect human

remains as per condition MCoA B53.

The finding would need to be reported immediately to the NSW Coroner’s Office and the NSW Police.

A specialist forensic anthropologist would be consulted to determine the nature of the remains.

Works associated with the Town Hall, Eddy Avenue and Chalmers Street HAMUs are in the vicinity of

known historical burial grounds and may require consultation with the NSW Heritage Division. Any

GML Heritage


investigation would be undertaken in consultation with the Department of Planning and Environment

(NSW) and in accordance with Skeletal Remains: Guidelines for Management of Human Skeletal

Remains (Heritage Council NSW 1998) and exhumed and reinterred at an appropriate location. Works

could not recommence in the area unless authorised by the Department of Planning and Environment

(NSW) and/or the NSW Police Force.

5.3.14 Interpretation

During construction, should historical archaeology of State significance be identified, a public

interpretation program should be implemented, such as hoarding signage, pamphlets, public open

days or a website.

The post excavation report would make recommendations for long term interpretation appropriate to

the nature and significance of the historical archaeological remains investigated. Opportunities to

interpret any evidence discovered during site works should be considered as part of a holistic

approach to interpreting the site, and be undertaken in accordance with the Heritage Interpretation

Strategy, prepared by GML in 2013. The historical archaeological values revealed by the historical

archaeological investigation should be incorporated into the integrated approach to heritage

interpretation along the CSELR route. This integrated approach should address Aboriginal cultural

heritage, historical archaeology, built heritage and intangible heritage values.

If required, an interpretation plan should be developed to address the holistic interpretive approach to

the site’s heritage. The plan would seek to develop the concepts identified in the CSELR Heritage

Interpretation Strategy report prepared by GML in 2013, and would also address the interpretation of

any significant archaeology investigated during the course of the CSELR project. It should outline the

form of on-site physical interpretives such as signage, artefact assemblages or ground inlays, and/or

off-site digital interpretive elements such as a website or an app.

5.3.15 Aboriginal Heritage

Mitigation measures for Aboriginal heritage are being addressed in an Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

Assessment Report (ACHAR) and an Archaeological Technical Report (ATR) prepared separately.

The purpose of these reports is to identify whether the study area possesses or has the potential to

possess Aboriginal heritage archaeological sites, places, objects, landscapes and/or values, in

accordance with the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) guidelines for Aboriginal heritage

assessment. It provides a significance assessment, impact assessment and management

recommendations to assist with the future responsibilities for the management of Aboriginal cultural

heritage within the study area.

Monitoring of historical archaeological potential remains may be required to be conducted in

conjunction with Aboriginal heritage testing and salvage programs.

Identification of any natural soil profiles or Aboriginal objects in historical deposits during historical

archaeological investigations would trigger Aboriginal management strategies, such as those identified

in Section 5.3.4 for Tay Reserve.

If Aboriginal objects or archaeological material is identified in historical fill layers, it would be recorded

by the context in which it was found, then removed from the immediate context, cleaned, inventoried

and bagged on site. Work would continue in the immediate area and RAPs for the project and OEH

would be notified of the discovery.

GML Heritage


5.4 Other Requirements

5.4.1 Workplace Health and Safety Requirements

Workplace health and safety (WHS) requirements would need to be adhered to at all stages of the

project. The proposed archaeological investigation would need to consider site constraints that may

arise throughout the course of the project, such as levels of contamination of subsurface deposits that

may preclude manual excavation or structural instability of areas of the site that would prevent safe

access. Such constraints may constrain the areas of the site that may be investigated or the degree to

which these areas may be investigated or recorded. Such safety constraints may override any

heritage requirements.

5.4.2 Training of On-site Personnel

In accordance with the 2015 CHMP, all project personnel including subcontractors will receive training

as per D&C JV’s environmental obligations during the project induction, toolbox talks and specific

training.

All project personnel should attend a general project induction prior to commencing work on the

project. This will include a component on heritage management and the associated mitigation

measures which will be implemented for the project. Additional inductions prior to the commencement

of works in each fee zone may also be required to address specific relevant heritage management

requirements.

Ongoing ‘toolbox talks’ will highlight the specific environmental requirements for activities being

undertaken at each worksite, which may include relevant heritage management requirements. Records

of toolbox talks and attendees should be kept.

Records must be kept of all inductions and all attendees must sign an attendance register as a record

that all project personnel have been made aware of the environmental requirements of the project.

Specific heritage training will include:

Prior to the works commencing, the appointed qualified heritage specialist will prepare and

deliver a site heritage induction for all relevant personnel involved in the works to explain the

obligations of all personnel under the SSI approval SSI-6042 and the appropriate methodology

for the management of Aboriginal, non-Aboriginal heritage and skeletal remains.

5.5 Endnotes

1 Parsons Brinckerhoff, CBD and South East Light Rail Project State Significant Infrastructure Approval (SSI-6042)—Modifications

Report, report prepared for Transport for New South Wales, December 2014, p 103. 2 Sydney Water, Tank Stream Conservation Management Plan for Asset Management and Sydney Water Corporation, Sydney Water,

January 2005.

3 Rappoport & NSW Government Architect’s Office, Central Station Conservation Management Plan, report prepared for RailCorp, June

2013. 4 Godden Mackay Logan Pty Ltd, Belmore Park, Sydney—Heritage Study, report prepared for the City of Sydney Council, August 2012. 5 Godden Mackay Logan Pty Ltd, First Fleet Park , The Rocks - Conservation Management Strategy, report prepared for Sydney

Harbour Foreshore Authority, February 2010.

GML Heritage


6.0 Areas with High Archaeological Potential

6.1 Introduction

The following figures (figures 6.1–6.9) indicate the areas within the CSELR boundary that have high

potential for archaeological remains of State (Zone 1) or local (Zone 2) significance. In accordance

with Section 5.0 of this ARD, management strategies for each HAMU are based on assessed

archaeological potential and significance. In Zone 1 HAMUs, areas with high archaeological potential

and below ground disturbance will require an archaeological testing program to be implemented. In

Zone 2 HAMUs, areas with high archaeological potential and below ground disturbance will require an

archaeological monitoring program to be implemented. Figures 6.10–6.13 provide further detail of

areas of high archaeological potential of State significance. Appendix D includes historical overlays

from selected of the areas along the CSELR route.

GML Heritage


6.2 Zone 1 HAMUs

Figure 6.1 City Centre north precinct HAMUs and known archaeological features or areas of high archaeological potential. (Source: Google Earth Pro with GML overlays)

GML Heritage


Figure 6.2 City Centre south precinct HAMUs and known archaeological features or areas of high archaeological potential. (Source: Google Earth Pro with GML overlays)

GML Heritage


Figure 6.3 Surry Hills precinct HAMUs and known archaeological features or areas of high archaeological potential. (Source: Google Earth Pro with GML overlays)

GML Heritage


Figure 6.4 Moore Park precinct HAMUs and known archaeological features or areas of high archaeological potential. (Source: Google Earth Pro with GML overlays)

GML Heritage


Figure 6.5 Kingsford and Kensington north precinct HAMUs and known archaeological features or areas of high archaeological potential. (Source: Google Earth Pro with GML overlays)

GML Heritage


Figure 6.6 Kingsford/Kensington south precinct HAMUs and known archaeological features or areas of high archaeological potential. (Source: Google Earth Pro with GML overlays)

GML Heritage


Figure 6.7 Randwick north precinct HAMUs and known archaeological features or areas of high archaeological potential. (Source: Google Earth Pro with GML overlays)

GML Heritage


Figure 6.8 Randwick south precinct HAMUs and known archaeological features or areas of high archaeological potential. (Source: Google Earth Pro with GML overlays)

GML Heritage


Figure 6.9 Rozelle precinct HAMUs and known archaeological features or areas of high archaeological potential. (Source: Google Earth Pro with GML overlays)

GML Heritage


Figure 6.10 1. Tank Stream, 2. Alfred Street/Herald Place and 3. First Fleet Park HAMUs (Zone 1) details of known historical features archaeological features. (Source: Google Earth Pro with GML overlays)

GML Heritage


Figure 6.11 4. George Street North HAMU (Zone 1) details of known historical features archaeological features. (Source: Google Earth Pro with GML overlays)

GML Heritage


Figure 6.12 11. Eddy Avenue and 12. Belmore Park HAMUs (Zone 1) details of known historical features archaeological features. (Source: Google Earth Pro with GML overlays)

GML Heritage


Figure 6.13 24. Tay Reserve and 35. Centennial Park—Randwick Dam HAMU (Zone 1) historical overlays and known archaeological features. (Source: Google Earth Pro with GML overlays)

GML Heritage


7.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

7.1 Conclusions

The subject site has a complex development history given the large geographical areas covered

by the CSELR footprint. For management of the project, the route and maintenance depot have

been divided into six precincts; the City Centre, Surry Hills, Moore Park, Kingsford/Kensington,

Randwick and Rozelle.

The 2013 HIA provides a historical overview of the area through which the route of the CSELR

passes as well as historically important areas close by. This information has been summarised

for each precinct in Section 2.0 of this report. Overlays of historical plans have been used to

identify areas of high archaeological potential within the boundary and identify the scope of the

archaeological program.

Three archaeological zones have been applied across the CSELR route in order to manage the

various levels of archaeological significance that may occur. The archaeological zones have

been developed to respond to our existing knowledge of known or potential archaeological

significance, and are named as follows:

Zone 1: State Significant Archaeological Resource—known or potential;

Zone 2: Locally Significant Archaeological Resource—known or potential; and

Zone 3: No Archaeological Resource Present.

Each precinct has been divided into a number of Historical Archaeological Management Units

(HAMUs). Each unit has been determined according to the nature and significance of the

potential archaeological resource in an area.

In accordance with the project condition of consent, REMM V1, the mitigation measures for

HAMUs listed in the 2013 HIA must be implemented. Some historical archaeological

management units have been refined with more detail of the archaeological resource owing to

new information resulting from recent excavations and modifications to the CSELR footprint.

7.2 Recommendations

1. The investigation methodology and research framework outlined in this Archaeological Research

Design should be adopted as the strategy for undertaking physical investigation of the site in

conjunction with construction. (Figures 6.1–6.10 identify the locations where archaeological testing

or monitoring will be implemented, in relation to the archaeological potential and significance of

these areas.)

The CSELR project has been assessed and approved under Part 5.1 of the Environmental

Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW). Permits under the National Parks and Wildlife Act

1974 (NSW) or the Heritage Act 1977 (NSW) are therefore not required. The works will be

carried out in accordance with the key project approval documents and in accordance with the

relevant NSW Heritage Council Guidelines.

GML Heritage


2. Three elements of the site’s potential archaeological resource must be retained in situ; the Tank

Stream, Belmore Park and First Fleet Park. The construction design has been developed in

accordance with these constraints. During construction work, other significant heritage items that

are identified should be retained if possible. If they cannot be retained in situ, archaeological

features should be appropriately recorded, removed, catalogued and in some cases, reinstated at

the completion of the project.

3. Archaeological investigation is only required in response to, or in conjunction with, proposed

ground disturbance in areas of archaeological sensitivity. Any areas of archaeological potential

that would remain undisturbed as part of any future redevelopment of the site (or other site works)

does not require archaeological investigation.

4. The required investigation method is based on the historical archaeological zones (Zones 1, 2 and

3). A program of archaeological testing, monitoring and recording is proposed, as well as more

detailed manual excavation in parts of the site, where warranted, to mitigate the impacts to the

site’s potential archaeological resources and to realise the site’s archaeological potential.

5. Archaeological testing is required if below ground disturbances are unavoidable for the Zone 1

HAMUS in the areas with high potential for archaeological remains of State significance. Areas of

the site to be tested should be cleared under the supervision of suitably-qualified archaeologists to

reveal archaeologically-sensitive deposits or features. Where an archaeological testing program is

proposed, provision should be made for adequate recording of any archaeological features or

deposits encountered following the establishment of the site compound and prior to construction in

that area, with scope for detailed investigation of specific areas.

6. Archaeological monitoring will occur where below ground disturbances will occur, in the remaining

areas of Zone 1 and in the areas with high potential archaeological remains of Local significance

in Zone 2 to determine the nature and extent of surviving features and deposits, to identify and

record these features and/or determine whether further investigation is warranted. Where

archaeological monitoring is proposed, provision should be made for adequate recording of

archaeological features or deposits encountered during the monitoring program, with scope for

detailed investigation of specific areas, as required.

7. Identification of Aboriginal objects in historical deposits or any natural soil profiles during historical

archaeological investigations would trigger Aboriginal management strategies, including controlled

test excavation, which incorporates sieving of all removed soil/sand, in accordance with

ACHAR/ATR Section 12.

8. If Aboriginal objects or archaeological material is identified in historical fill layers, it would be

recorded by the context in which it was found, then removed from the immediate context, cleaned,

inventoried and bagged on site. Work would continue in the immediate area and RAPs for the

project and OEH would be notified of the discovery.

9. The unexpected finds protocol applies to the remaining areas of Zone 2 and all of Zone 3.

10. All Zone 1 archaeological investigations must be supervised by an Excavation Director who meets

the NSW Heritage Branch requirements for directing State significant archaeological

investigations. All Zone 2 archaeological investigations must have direct supervision by an

Excavation Director who meets the NSW Heritage Branch requires directing for archaeological

investigations either State or Local significant archaeological remains.

GML Heritage


11. All archaeologists working on the CSELR project will be provided with a copy of the 2013 HIA, the

2015 CHMP and this ARD prior to attending site.

12. All relevant site personnel will attend a site induction prior to commencement of works in Zones 1,

2 or 3 to ensure they are aware of the heritage issues associated with the site and the role of the

archaeologist(s).

13. The decision to undertake open area excavation in any parts of the site will be made during the

works program, and will be based on the nature and extent of archaeological remains exposed at

the site during excavation works.

14. If human remains were to be discovered during any phase of works associated with the CSELR

project, works must cease immediately in the surrounding area. The SSI approval does not allow

the works to destroy, modify or otherwise physically affect human remains as per condition MCoA

B53. The finding would need to be reported immediately to the NSW Coroner’s Office and the

NSW Police. A specialist forensic anthropologist would be consulted to determine the nature of

the remains. Works could not recommence in the area unless authorised by the Department of

Planning and Environment (NSW) and/or the NSW Police Force.

15. Following salvage, archival recording and post-excavation reporting is required.

16. If any significant cultural material is uncovered during any archaeological investigation, it would be

retained for analysis and use in public interpretive programs and/or displays. Public engagement

such as media releases, public open days during the works program, and/or post-works heritage

interpretation may also be appropriate. Interpretation may take the form of on-site physical

interpretation such as signage, artefact assemblages or ground inlays, and/or off-site digital

interpretive elements such as a website or an app.

17. Should State significant relics be found on site, an interpretation plan may be prepared which

outlines how the significant archaeological resource found can be interpreted within the public

spaces of the completed development.

GML Heritage


GML Heritage


8.0 Appendices

Appendix A

Historical Archaeological Management Units (HAMUS) and management zones across the CSELR

route.

Appendix B



Appendix C


ALTRAC.

Appendix C


GML Heritage


GML Heritage

CBD and South East Light Rail—Archaeological Research Design—Appendix A, September 2015 1

Appendix A

Historical archaeological management units (HAMUs) and management zones across the CSELR

route, within the boundary for the CSELR route as shown on the Sydney Light Rail Construction

Site Drawings issued by Cardno on behalf of Transport for NSW dated 11 December 2014 and with

HAMUs and zones as defined by GML in 2013 with 2015 additions.

GML Heritage


GML Heritage


GML Heritage


GML Heritage


GML Heritage


GML Heritage


GML Heritage


GML Heritage


GML Heritage


GML Heritage

CBD and South East Light Rail—Archaeological Research Design—Appendix B, September 2015 1

Appendix B



HAMU Zone Mitigation


1. Tank Stream 1 Mitigation measures as outlined for Zone 1 historical archaeology would apply.

Additional Measures:

The Ministers Conditions of Approval (B58) specifies that the Tank Stream cannot be destroyed or permanently modified during construction.

Condition REMM V2 specifies:

o Physical protection would be provided through construction of bridging structure to retain integrity of the Tank Stream, as required.

o Management would be implemented in accordance with policies in Sydney Water’s Tanks Stream Conservation Management Plan.

o Consultation would be undertaken with Sydney Water, City of Sydney and NSW Heritage Division of OEH.

The Tank Stream would be protected by the construction of a subterranean bridging structure that would allow the CSELR to cross the item, but not physically impact on it. This would be developed in consultation with Sydney Water, City of Sydney, NSW Heritage Division; as well as a suitably qualified structural engineer, heritage consultant and archaeologist.

The Tank Stream is a working, State Heritage listed Sydney Water owned infrastructure item, and cannot be impacted. Relics are likely to be associated with the Tank Stream. It would be managed in accordance with the policies outlined in the Tank Stream CMP.

Consultation with Sydney Water, City of Sydney, NSW Heritage Division; as well as a suitably qualified structural engineer, heritage consultant and archaeologist is required to ensure ongoing conservation and protection of the Tank Stream throughout the CSELR works program.

An archaeological testing program is likely to be required to expose the extent of the feature within the footprint and avoid impacts to the Tank Stream fabric.

2. Alfred Street/Herald Square

1 Mitigation measures as outlined for Zone 1 (State significant) historical archaeology would apply.


Archaeological testing within this HAMU would be required for areas of high archaeological potential, as identified in Section 6.0.

Works in this HAMU are likely to require some open area excavation and archival recording during site works, and post-excavation analysis and reporting. The nature and intactness of the archaeological resource may warrant interpretation.

GML Heritage



3. First Fleet Park 1 Mitigation measures as outlined for Zone 1 historical archaeology would apply.


The Ministers Conditions of Approval (B58) specifies that First Fleet Park cannot be destroyed or permanently modified during construction.

Condition REMM V5 specifies that:

o The potential historical archaeological resource would be managed in accordance with the policies outlined in the First Fleet Park Conservation Management Strategy.

o Consultation would be undertaken with the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority.

o No excavation would be undertaken within First Fleet Park to minimise the risk of impacting on potential subsurface archaeology.

o Services, if required, would be above ground or installed within existing service trenches.

o The subsurface archaeological remains within First Fleet Park would be protected from compaction or movement of vehicles over the park’s ground surface.

o The scope of appropriate ground works within First Fleet Park HAMU would be developed in consultation with a suitably qualified archaeologist and Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority to ensure the impact on the archaeological resource is as minor as possible

o A photographic archival recording of First Fleet Park would be undertaken prior to works commencing.

If below ground disturbances were unavoidable, a program of testing is also likely to be required to expose the extent of the features within the impact zone, to allow construction to occur around the area without incurring impacts that will destroy or permanently modify the heritage listed item.

Only light structures such as site sheds and light loads would be used in this area to prevent damage to subsurface archaeology. The subsurface archaeological remains within First Fleet Park would be protected from compaction or movement of vehicles over the park’s ground surface. This may involve use of geotextile fabric or similar. Advice would be sought from a relevant expert as to the exact nature of these protection measures.

4. George St North 1 Mitigation measures as outlined for Zone 1 historical archaeology would apply.

Additional Measures



5. Martin Place 2 Mitigation measures as outlined for Zone 2 historical archaeology would apply.


Archaeological monitoring within this HAMU would be required for areas of high archaeological potential, as identified in Section 6.0.

Works in this HAMU are likely to require some open area excavation and archival recording during site works, as well as post-excavation analysis and reporting. The nature and intactness of the archaeological resource may warrant interpretation.

6. Underground Tunnels

3 Mitigation measures as outlined for Zone 3 historical archaeology will apply.

GML Heritage



7. Queen Victoria Building




In the unlikely event that remains associated with the previous market are identified and assessed as State significant, this archaeology would be managed in accordance with Zone 1 mitigation measures.

8. Town Hall 1 Mitigation measures as outlined for Zone 1 historical archaeology would apply.



If skeletal remains are identified they would be managed in accordance with Zone 1 strategies and, at a minimum, managed in accordance with the Heritage Division guideline Skeletal Remains: Guidelines for Management of Human Skeletal Remains, and exhumed and reinterred at an appropriate location. If identified, consultation with the Heritage Division would be required.

9. George St South 2 Mitigation measures as outlined for Zone 2 historical archaeology would apply.




In the unlikely event that remains associated with early brickmaking or the corn/hay/cattle market are identified and assessed to be State significant, this archaeology would be managed in accordance with Zone 1 mitigation measures.

10. Rawson Place 2 Mitigation measures as outlined for Zone 2 historical archaeology would apply.




11. Eddy Avenue 1 Mitigation measures as outlined for Zone 1 historical archaeology would apply.



If skeletal remains are identified would be managed in accordance with Zone 1 strategies and, at a minimum, managed in accordance with the Heritage Division guideline Skeletal Remains: Guidelines for Management of Human Skeletal Remains, and exhumed and reinterred at an appropriate location. If identified, consultation with the Heritage Division would be required.

GML Heritage



12. Belmore Park 1 Mitigation measures as outlined for Zone 1 historical archaeology would apply.


Is below ground disturbances were unavoidable, a program of testing is also likely to be required to expose the extent of the features within the impact zone, to allow construction to occur around the area without incurring impacts that will destroy or permanently modify the heritage listed item.

The subsurface archaeological remains within Belmore Park would be protected from compaction or movement of vehicles over the park’s ground surface. This may involve use of geotextile fabric or similar. Advice would be sought from a relevant expert as to the exact nature of these protection measures.

13. Elizabeth Street 2 Mitigation measures as outlined for Zone 2 historical archaeology would apply.


14. Chalmers Street 1 Mitigation measures as outlined for Zone 1 historical archaeology would apply.



If skeletal remains are identified they would be managed in accordance with Zone 1 strategies and, at a minimum, managed in accordance with the Heritage Division guideline Skeletal Remains: Guidelines for Management of Human Skeletal Remains, and exhumed and reinterred at an appropriate location. If identified, consultation with the Heritage Division would be required.


15. Devonshire St West

2 Mitigation measures as outlined for Zone 2 historical archaeology would apply.



In the unlikely event that remains associated with unrecorded activities of early land grants and estates are identified and assessed as of State significance, this archaeology would be managed in accordance with Zone 1 mitigation measures.

16. Devonshire St Central




Works in this HAMU (particularly in the location of the proposed substation) are likely to require some open area excavation and archival recording during site works, as well as post-excavation analysis and reporting. The nature and intactness of the archaeological resource may warrant interpretation.

In the unlikely event that remains associated with unrecorded activities of early land grants and estates are identified and assessed as State significant, this archaeology would be managed in accordance with Zone 1 mitigation measures.

GML Heritage



17. Ward Park 2 Mitigation measures as outlined for Zone 2 historical archaeology would apply.



If extensive ground disturbance works were proposed within the Ward Park HAMU, they are likely to require some open area excavation and archival recording during site works, as well as post-excavation analysis and reporting. The nature and intactness of the archaeological resource may warrant interpretation.


18. Devonshire St East






19. Bourke St to South Dowling St





20. Olivia Gardens 3 Mitigation measures for areas outlined as Zone 3 within the basement footprint of the Olivia Gardens building would apply.

Moore Park Precinct

21. Moore Park West 2 Mitigation measures as outlined for Zone 2 historical archaeology would apply.



Works in this HAMU where air raid shelters are located are likely to require some open area excavation and archival recording during site works, as well as post-excavation analysis and reporting. The nature and intactness of the archaeological resource may warrant interpretation.

22. Anzac Parade (Moore Park)




GML Heritage



23. Moore Park East 2 Mitigation measures as outlined for Zone 2 historical archaeology would apply.



Works in this HAMU where air raid shelters are located are likely to require some open area excavation and archival recording during site works, as well as post-excavation analysis and reporting. The nature and intactness of the archaeological resource may warrant interpretation.


24. Tay Reserve 1 Mitigation measures as outlined for Zone 1 historical archaeology would apply.




If archaeological evidence relating to use/occupation of the site by Aboriginal people in the historical period is identified, the Office of Environment and Heritage and local Aboriginal stakeholders would be contacted.

25. Anzac Parade (Kensington)




Works in this HAMU (particularly in the location of the proposed substations) are likely to require some open area excavation and archival recording during site works, as well as post-excavation analysis and reporting. The nature and intactness of the archaeological resource may warrant interpretation.

26. University of New South Wales




Works in this HAMU are likely to require some open area excavation (particularly in the area of the UNSW Anzac Parade stop) and archival recording during site works, as well as post-excavation analysis and reporting. The nature and intactness of the archaeological resource may warrant interpretation.

27. Anzac Parade (Kingsford)




Randwick Precinct

28. Centennial Park 2 Mitigation measures as outlined for Zone 2 historical archaeology would apply.



29. Randwick Stabling Yard




GML Heritage



30. Royal Randwick Racecourse




31. High Street 2 Mitigation measures as outlined for Zone 2 historical archaeology would apply.



32. Prince of Wales Hospital




In the unlikely event that skeletal remains are identified they would be managed in accordance with Zone 1 strategies and, at a minimum, managed in accordance with the Heritage Division guideline Skeletal Remains: Guidelines for Management of Human Skeletal Remains, and exhumed and reinterred at an appropriate location. If identified, consultation with the Heritage Division would be required.

33. High Cross Park 2 Mitigation measures as outlined for Zone 2 historical archaeology would apply.

35. Centennial Park—Randwick Dam





Rozelle Precinct

34. Rozelle Stabling/Maintenance Facility

2 Mitigation measures as outlined for Zone 2 historical archaeology, where relevant, will apply.



Mitigation measures would be further refined once the final scope of works is determined, as proposed works may have impact beyond those assessed above.

GML Heritage


GML Heritage

CBD and South East Light Rail—Archaeological Research Design—Appendix C, September 2015 1

Appendix C


ALTRAC.

GML Heritage


Appendix D


Grimes’ Plan of Sydney, 1800. The arrow points to William Patterson’s house and garden shown facing the principal street (George Street) as reference 26. (Source: Kelly and Crocker, 1978, Sydney Takes Shape)

GML Heritage


George Street looking south from Brickfield Hill (near the Town Hall) in the 1870s. (Source: SLNSW)

George Street looking south from King Street c1900 showing the new George Street tram system. (Source: Powerhouse Museum)

GML Heritage


Detail of Woolcott and Clarke’s 1854 plan showing development near what is now central station. (Source: City of Sydney Archives)

GML Heritage


Detail of Woolcott and Clarke’s 1854 plan showing development along Devonshire Street at this time. Note the Cleveland House Estate (centre left) had not yet been developed and extends north to the burial ground across Devonshire Street. The Strawberry Hills and the Marylebone subdivisions can be seen, as can the location of Pawley’s tannery and the Albion Brewery. (Source: City of Sydney Archives)

GML Heritage


An 1881 image looking south along Anzac Parade from the corner of South Dowling Street. (Source: Randwick Local Studies Collection)

GML Heritage


An 1884–1914 Parish Map showing the location of the tramway running along the eastern side of Randwick Road, and the loop in front of the Cricket Ground and return to the main line. Also shown are the Zoological Gardens within Moore Park and the area set aside for the Royal Agricultural showground, the cricket ground and the sports ground. (Source: City of Sydney Archives)

GML Heritage


A 1953 view of Anzac Parade Junction on the corner of Cleveland Street and Lang Road, looking north. The Cleveland Street line is veering left. In the centre of the image is the tram waiting shed which was demolished in the 1960s. On the far right is the corner of the Parklands Sport Centre Pavilion (tennis pavilion) still located on the site. (Source: City of Sydney Archives)

GML Heritage


Part of the 1892 plan of the Municipality of Randwick by Higginbotham and Robson showing the consistency of the road route since this time. (Source: SLNSW)

GML Heritage


A 1903 Civic Plan showing the location of the Toll Bar Cottage on the corner of Alison Road and Anzac Parade. This building was demolished in 1909. (Source: City of Sydney Archives)

An 1890 view of the Toll Bar Cottage built in 1849 near the corner of Alison Road and Anzac Parade on the site of the current Tay Reserve. (Source: Randwick: A Social History, 1985, p 53)

GML Heritage


Early twentieth century view looking south towards Tay Reserve following the demolition of the Toll Bar Cottage. Dacey Avenue is shown to the right of the image. Alison Road heads off to the left and Anzac Parade (then Bunnerong Road) is shown heading south from the centre of the image. Note the trams and tram wire that cross this intersection. (Source: SLNSW)

GML Heritage


Part of the 1892 plan of the Municipality of Randwick by Higginbotham and Robson.The beginnings of the new Kensington subdivision is shown locating Eastern Avenue which later became part of Anzac parade, connecting with Bunnerong Road which runs past Kensington Racecourse. Land on the southern side of Kensington Racecourse is shown as crown land. (Source: SLNSW)

GML Heritage


A 1901 plan showing development of the new tram siding within the Randwick Racecourse and fronting Randwick Road (Alison Street). (Source: AJC Archives)

GML Heritage


A c.1875 photograph looking south across Alison Road to Randwick Racecourse. Note the row of horse-drawn vehicles parked along Alison Road and the sandy nature of the land in the foreground. (Source: Hood Collection SLNSW)

GML Heritage


A c1930 parish map showing the course of the tramway along Randwick Road. (Source: Land and Property Information)

GML Heritage


An 1890 Metropolitan Detail Sheet showing development on the subject site prior to the construction of the Rozelle Goods Line in 1916. Catherine Street is now part of Lilyfield Road and much of Brennan Street has been absorbed by the City West Link. White Street no longer exists. (Source: SLNSW)

GML Heritage


An early image of the Rozelle stabling/maintenance depot looking west towards Catherine Street Bridge (nd). Brennan Street, now the City West Link, is to the left of the image. (Source: Oakes J, 2002, Sydney’s Forgotten Goods Railways, Australian Railway Historical Society, p 43)

Rozelle stabling/maintenance depot viewed from Lilyfield Road near the Catherine Street overbridge. (Source: Oakes J, 2002, Sydney’s Forgotten Goods Railways, Australian Railway Historical Society, p 49)

Documents

CBD and South East Light Rail Archaeological Research Design