botany bay 132kv electricity cable project - ausgrid · 2018-06-26 · botany bay 132kv electricity...

Botany Bay 132kV Electricity Cable Project

Cultural Heritage Assessment

November 2006

Navin Officer heritage consultants Pty Ltd

acn: 092 901 605

Number 4 Kingston Warehouse 71 Leichhardt St. Kingston ACT 2604

ph 02 6282 9415 fx 02 6282 9416

A Report to Molino Stewart Pty Ltd

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Project

During the next decade EnergyAustralia must replace ageing infrastructure in the Sydney CBD and the inner metropolitan area. It has been identified that replacement of two existing high voltage feeders which currently connect EnergyAustralia’s Bunnerong subtransmission substation (“STS”) at Matraville with its Canterbury STS at Earlwood, must be achieved by late 2008.

The preferred replacement for the feeders, known as Feeders 908 and 909, however, is a new connection between Bunnerong and Kurnell across Botany Bay.

It is proposed that the new feeders would take the following route:

• from Bunnerong STS, following the road alignments to La Perouse (3.2km);

• under the National Park at La Perouse by way of horizontal directional drilling (0.5km);

• across Botany Bay by way of submarine cable to a section of Silver Beach situated outside (but next to) the National Park at Kurnell (2.2km); and

• from Silver Beach to Kurnell STS, following the road alignments (1.5km).

At Bunnerong STS, little work is proposed other than the laying of the cables within the site and connecting them to new terminations and existing equipment/apparatus.

The new connections would provide an opportunity to upgrade Kurnell STS so that supplies to the Kurnell Peninsula are more secure, as well as facilitating the additional power into the CBD and inner metropolitan area. The proposed works at the Kurnell STS comprise:

• Replacement of the ageing outdoor high voltage switch gear with a building to house the Gas Insulated Switchgear and Control and Protection equipment to which the new cables would be connected.

• Three new transformers in new transformer bays.

• An underground retention system which would capture any oil spilled in the unlikely event of rupture of a transformer.

The Project will be known as the ‘Botany Bay Cable Project’.

This project will be assessed under Part 3A of the Environment Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and this study will form part of the Environmental Assessment of the project.

Previously recordings

One previously recorded Aboriginal site is located within the Kurnell section of the study area; this site was not able to be located during the current study and appears that it may have been destroyed or covered during the construction of the Kurnell STS.

Thirteen previously recorded Aboriginal sites and one potential archaeological deposit (PAD 1 on the eastern side of Little Bay Road) are located in the general vicinity of the La Perouse section of the study area. The sites include art sites and middens.

Aboriginal burials have also been recorded in the vicinity of both the Kurnell and La Perouse sections of the study area.

None of these recorded sites or the PAD will be directly impacted by the 132kV cable project.

There are 23 recorded European heritage items in the vicinity of the study area. Two of these sites, Prince Charles Parade and Captain Cook Drive, will be directly impacted by the installation of the new electricity cable as the cable will be installed in the road reserves of these roads. The impact on the heritage significance of these items is considered to be minor.

The Nationally Heritage Listed Kurnell Peninsula will not be affected by the current proposal.

Recordings resulting from this study

One Aboriginal PAD, K PAD 1 at Kurnell, was identified during the field survey of the study area. This area will be impacted by the project.

Two European historic sites, LaPH1 (‘First Fleet Marine’ Restaurant and Boatshed Building, La Perouse) and KH1 (St John Fisher Catholic Church, Kurnell), were identified during the field survey of the study area.

Both are assessed as having low local significance, and neither will be directly impacted by the project.

Recommendations

It is recommended that:

Under the current proposal K PAD 1 will be impacted by the project. Archaeological subsurface investigation of the area should be undertaken to determine the nature, extent and integrity of any potential archaeological deposit. Mechanical excavation with an auger is the preferred investigation method.

• If subsurface testing is required before approval of the project under Part 3A then a section 87 permit is required from the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC). If a planning focus meeting for this project was not held before 1st January 2005 then the Interim guidelines for Aboriginal Community Consultation need to be followed. This process requires a preparatory time of at least seven weeks prior to commencement of fieldwork; and

• If subsurface testing is required after the approval of the project under Part 3A then the testing regime should form part of the statement of commitments for the project.

Under the current proposal, the previously recorded PAD (PAD 1 on the eastern side of Little Bay Road) will not be affected by the project. However, if the current route is varied so that the cable is required to be laid on the eastern side of Little Bay Road then this PAD will be impacted. If this occurs then the (above) recommendations for K PAD 1 should be followed for PAD 1.

The entire study area is located within landscapes that are considered to be sensitive in terms of their potential to contain Aboriginal sites. To mitigate potential impacts in these sensitive areas, monitoring of cable excavations should be conducted for the whole cable route. Monitoring should be undertaken by a qualified archaeologist and a representative from the La Perouse Local Aboriginal Land Council.

• This proposed action should form part of the statement of commitments for the project and should follow the protocols for the location of new Aboriginal sites (Appendix 3). The protocols should also be included in the statement of commitments for the project.

Based on a detailed aquatic ecology survey of the seabed along the proposed route corridor on either side of the main shipping route and numerous Hydrographic surveys it is concluded that there is no need for a detailed maritime survey of the proposed pipeline route.

Two European historic sites, Prince Charles Parade and Captain Cook Drive, Kurnell, will be impacted in a minor way as part of this project by the installation of cable in the road reserve of these roads which are both listed on the Kurnell REP.

It is considered that the heritage significance of the sites will not be significantly affected by the proposed 132kV electricity cable.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 REPORT OUTLINE........................................................................................................................... 1

2. ABORIGINAL PARTICIPATION ...................................................................................................... 4

3. STUDY METHODOLOGY................................................................................................................. 4

3.1 LITERATURE AND DATABASE REVIEW .............................................................................................. 4 3.2 FIELDWORK.................................................................................................................................... 4 3.3 PROJECT PERSONNEL .................................................................................................................... 5 3.4 RECORDING PARAMETERS.............................................................................................................. 5

3.4.1 Aboriginal Sites ..................................................................................................................... 5 3.4.2 Historical Sites ...................................................................................................................... 6

4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT......................................................................................................... 8

4.1 BOTANY BAY.................................................................................................................................. 8 4.2 KURNELL ....................................................................................................................................... 9 4.3 LA PEROUSE................................................................................................................................ 11

5. ABORIGINAL CONTEXT ............................................................................................................... 12

5.1 TRIBAL AND LINGUISTIC BOUNDARIES............................................................................................ 12 5.2 ETHNOHISTORICAL OBSERVATIONS ............................................................................................... 12 5.3 POST CONTACT ABORIGINAL HISTORY .......................................................................................... 14 5.4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS............................................................................................... 15

5.4.1 Kurnell ................................................................................................................................. 15 5.4.2 La Perouse.......................................................................................................................... 17

5.5 PREDICTIVE ABORIGINAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL STATEMENT ............................................................... 23

6. HISTORICAL CONTEXT ................................................................................................................ 24

6.1 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................ 24 6.1.1 The Explorers...................................................................................................................... 24 6.1.2 Permanent European Settlement in the Area ..................................................................... 24 6.1.3 Early Industries ................................................................................................................... 25 6.1.4 The Depression................................................................................................................... 26 6.1.5 Links to Sydney’s Electricity Supply.................................................................................... 26

6.2 HISTORICAL INVESTIGATIONS ........................................................................................................ 28 6.2.1 Botany Bay.......................................................................................................................... 28 6.2.2 Kurnell ................................................................................................................................. 28 6.2.3 La Perouse.......................................................................................................................... 30

6.3 SUMMARY OF HISTORICAL HERITAGE LISTINGS.............................................................................. 31 6.4 PREDICTIVE HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY STATEMENT .................................................................... 33

7. RESULTS........................................................................................................................................ 34

7.1 ABORIGINAL SITES ....................................................................................................................... 34 7.2 HISTORIC SITES ........................................................................................................................... 35 7.3 INVENTORY OF SITE LOCATIONS.................................................................................................... 36 7.4 SURVEY COVERAGE AND VISIBILITY VARIABLES ............................................................................. 40

8. SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT..................................................................................................... 41

8.1 EUROPEAN HERITAGE .................................................................................................................. 41 8.1.1 Assessment Criteria ............................................................................................................ 41 8.2.2 The Study Area ................................................................................................................... 42

9. STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS ........................................................................................................ 43

9.1 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT ACT 1979 (NSW) .................................................. 43 9.2 ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION ACT 1999 (CTH) .......................... 43

9.2.1 The EPBC Act and heritage................................................................................................ 44 9.2.2 Approval triggers ................................................................................................................. 44

9.2.3 Exemptions from the approval requirement........................................................................ 46 9.3 HERITAGE ACT 1977 (NSW) ........................................................................................................ 46

9.3.1 Heritage items and land ...................................................................................................... 46 9.3.2 Relics .................................................................................................................................. 47 9.3.3 Historic shipwrecks ............................................................................................................. 47 9.3.4 Heritage and conservation register ..................................................................................... 47

9.4 NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE ACT 1974 (NSW)........................................................................ 48 9.4.1 Aboriginal places and Aboriginal objects ............................................................................ 48 9.4.2 Consultation with Aboriginal stakeholders .......................................................................... 49 9.4.3 Notification of sites of Aboriginal objects ............................................................................ 49 9.4.4 Statutory constraints arising from artefacts which constitute background scatter .............. 49

9.5 HISTORIC SHIPWRECKS ACT 1976 (CTH) ...................................................................................... 49

10. MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS........................................... 50

10.1 ABORIGINAL SITES...................................................................................................................... 50 10.2 EUROPEAN SITES ....................................................................................................................... 50 10.3 RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................................... 50

11. REFERENCES.............................................................................................................................. 52

APPENDIX 1 RECORD OF ABORIGINAL PARTICIPATION ......................................................... 56

APPENDIX 2 HISTORIC HERITAGE LISTINGS .............................................................................. 58

APPENDIX 3 PROTOCOL FOR THE DISCOVERY OF NEW ABORIGINAL SITES ...................... 92

Botany Bay 132kV Cable Project 1 Navin Officer Heritage Consultants November 2006

1. INTRODUCTION

During the next decade EnergyAustralia must replace ageing infrastructure in the Sydney CBD and the inner metropolitan area. It has been identified that replacement of two existing high voltage feeders which currently connect EnergyAustralia’s Bunnerong subtransmission substation (“STS”) at Matraville with its Canterbury STS at Earlwood, must be achieved by late 2008.

The preferred replacement for the feeders, known as Feeders 908 and 909, however, is a new connection between Bunnerong and Kurnell across Botany Bay.

It is proposed that the new feeders would take the following route:

• from Bunnerong STS, following the road alignments to La Perouse (3.2km);

• under the National Park at La Perouse by way of horizontal directional drilling (0.5km);

• across Botany Bay by way of submarine cable to a section of Silver Beach situated outside (but next to) the National Park at Kurnell (2.2km); and

• from Silver Beach to Kurnell STS, following the road alignments (1.5km).

At Bunnerong STS, little work is proposed other than the laying of the cables within the site and connecting them to new terminations and existing equipment/apparatus.

The new connections would provide an opportunity to upgrade Kurnell STS so that supplies to the Kurnell Peninsula are more secure, as well as facilitating the additional power into the CBD and inner metropolitan area. The proposed works at the Kurnell STS comprise:

• Replacement of the ageing outdoor high voltage switch gear with a building to house the Gas Insulated Switchgear and Control and Protection equipment to which the new cables would be connected.

• Three new transformers in new transformer bays.

• An underground retention system which would capture any oil spilled in the unlikely event of rupture of a transformer.

The Project will be known as the ‘Botany Bay Cable Project’ and the location of the proposed works is shown in Figure 1.1.

This project will be assessed under Part 3A of the Environment Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and this study will form part of the Environmental Assessment of the project.

1.1 Report Outline

This report:

• Documents consultation with the local Aboriginal community carried out in the course of the investigation;

• Describes the environmental setting of the study area;

• Provides a background of local and regional archaeology for the study area;

• Provides a historical background for the study area;

• Documents the results of a field survey of the study area;

• Defines statutory requirements relevant to the cultural heritage of the area; and


• Provides conclusions based on the results of the investigation and the potential impact of the proposed development on the Aboriginal and European archaeological resource.

Figure 1.1 The Botany Bay Cable Route (blue line)

(Base map supplied by Molino Stewart)


Figure 1.2 The Botany Bay Cable Route – La Perouse section

(Base map supplied by GHD)

Figure 1.3 The Botany Bay Cable Route – Kurnell section

(Base map supplied by GHD)

Directional drill under National Park


2. ABORIGINAL PARTICIPATION

The Botany Bay study area falls within the boundaries of the La Perouse Local Aboriginal Land Council (LPLALC). This group was contacted by telephone and an invitation was extended to the Council to provide a representative to participate in the archaeological field survey of the study area.

As a result, Daryl Rook from the LPLALC participated in the field survey. During to the survey, an on-site meeting was held with David Ingrey, the LPLALC sites officer. Subsequently, Mr Ingrey assisted in identification of a number of Aboriginal sites on the La Perouse peninsular.

A Record of Aboriginal Participation is provided in Appendix 1.

3. STUDY METHODOLOGY

3.1 Literature and Database Review

A range of documentation was used in assessing archaeological and historical knowledge for the Botany Bay area and its surrounds. This background research was used to:

• determine if known Aboriginal and European sites were located within the area under investigation;

• facilitate site prediction on the basis of known regional and local site patterns; and • place the area within an archaeological and heritage management context.

The review of written and documentary sources included heritage registers, local histories and archaeological reports.

Aboriginal literature sources included the NSW DEC Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System (AHIMS), associated files and catalogue of archaeological reports.

Sources of historical information included monographs, historical studies and parish maps.

The following heritage registers and schedules were searched:

• The National Heritage List (Australian Heritage Council);

• The Commonwealth Heritage List (Australian Heritage Council);

• The Register of the National Estate (Australian Heritage Council);

• Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System (AHIMS) (NSW DEC);

• The State Heritage Register (NSW Heritage Office);

• The State Heritage Inventory (NSW Heritage Office);

• Maritime Heritage Online (NSW Heritage Office);

• Heritage Schedule(s) from the Randwick Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 1998, Sutherland LEP 2000, and Kurnell Peninsula Regional Environmental Plan (REP) 1989;

• NSW DEC s170 Heritage and Conservation Register; and

• Register of the National Trust of Australia (NSW) 1998.

3.2 Fieldwork

Fieldwork was conducted over three days in June 2006, the Aboriginal component taking one day and the historical component taking two days. Field survey was conducted on foot and involved inspection of all areas of ground surface visibility within the study area.


3.3 Project Personnel

Archaeologists Nicola Hayes and Lindsay Smith, and Aboriginal representative Daryl Rook conducted the fieldwork. Keith Cherry from EnergyAustralia also participated in part of the survey.

Nicola Hayes and Lindsay Smith compiled this report.

3.4 Recording Parameters

3.4.1 Aboriginal Sites

The archaeological survey aimed at identifying material evidence of Aboriginal occupation as revealed by surface artefacts and areas of archaeological potential unassociated with surface artefacts. Potential recordings fall into three categories: isolated finds (background scatter), sites and potential archaeological deposits.

Isolated finds

An isolated find is a single stone artefact, not located within a rock shelter, and which occurs without any associated evidence of Aboriginal occupation within a radius of 60 m.

Isolated finds may be indicative of:

• Random loss or deliberate discard of a single artefact;

• The remnant of a now dispersed and disturbed artefact scatter; and

• An otherwise obscured or sub-surface artefact scatter.

Except in the case of the latter, isolated finds are considered to be constituent components of the background scatter present within any particular landform.

The distance used to define an isolated artefact varies according to the survey objectives, the incidence of ground surface exposure, the extent of ground surface disturbance, and estimates of background scatter or background discard densities. In the absence of baseline information relating to background scatter densities, the defining distance for an isolated find must be based on methodological and visibility considerations. Given the varied incidence of ground surface exposure and deposit disturbance within the study area, and the lack of background baseline data, the specification of 60 m is considered to be an effective parameter for surface survey methodologies. This distance provides a balance between detecting fine scale patterns of Aboriginal occupation and avoiding environmental biases caused by ground disturbance or high ground surface exposure rates. The 60 m parameter has provided an effective separation of low density artefact occurrences in similar southeast Australian topographies outside of semi-arid landscapes.

Background scatter

Background scatter is a term used generally by archaeologists to refer to artefacts that cannot be usefully related to a place or focus of past activity (except for the net accumulation of single artefact losses).

There is, however, no single concept for background discard or 'scatter', and therefore no agreed definition. The definitions in current use are based on the postulated nature of prehistoric activity, and often they are phrased in general terms and do not include quantitative criteria. It is commonly agreed that background discard occurs in the absence of 'focused' activity involving the production or discard of stone artefacts in a particular location. An example of unfocused activity is occasional isolated discard of artefacts during travel along a route or pathway. Examples of 'focussed activity' are camping, knapping and heat -eating stone, cooking in a hearth, and processing food with stone tools. In practical terms, over a period of thousands of years an accumulation of 'unfocused' discard may result in an archaeological concentration that may be identified as a 'site'. Definitions of background discard comprising only qualitative criteria do not specify the numbers (numerical flux) or 'density' of artefacts required to discriminate site areas from background discard.


Sites

A site is defined as any material evidence of past Aboriginal activity that remains within a context or place that can be reliably related to that activity.

Frequently encountered site types within south-eastern Australia include open artefact scatters, coastal and freshwater middens, rock shelter sites including occupation deposit and/or rock art, grinding groove sites and scarred trees. For the purposes of this section, only the methodologies used in the identification of these site types are outlined.

Most Aboriginal sites in south-eastern Australia are identified by the presence of three main categories of artefacts: stone or shell artefacts situated on or in a sedimentary matrix, marks located on or in rock surfaces, and scars on trees. Artefacts situated within, or on, a sedimentary matrix in an open context are classed as a site when two or more occur no more than 60 m away from any other constituent artefact. The 60 m specification relates back to the definition of an isolated find (Refer above). In a rock shelter, a site is defined as one or more artefacts occurring within or immediately adjacent to the sheltered space. Unlike a single artefact in an open context, a rock shelter provides a probable occupational focus to the interpretation of a single artefact and can therefore be considered to be indicative of a site. An exception would be a single artefact that may have been deposited in the shelter through natural processes.

Any location containing one or more marks of Aboriginal origin on rock surfaces is classed as a site. Marks typically consist of grinding features such as grinding grooves for hatchet heads, and rock art such as engravings, drawings or paintings. The boundaries of these sites are defined according to the spatial extent of the marks, or the extent of the overhang, depending on which is most applicable to the spatial and temporal integrity of the site.

Potential Archaeological Deposits

A potential archaeological deposit, or PAD, is defined as any location where the potential for subsurface archaeological material is considered to be moderate or high, relative to the surrounding study area landscape. Archaeological potential is assessed using criteria developed from the results of previous surveys and excavations relevant to the region. The boundaries of PADs are generally defined by the extent of particular landforms known to have high correlations with archaeological material. A PAD may or may not be associated with surface artefacts. In the absence of artefacts, a location with potential will be recorded as a PAD. Where one or more surface artefacts occur on a sedimentary deposit, a PAD may also be identified where there is insufficient evidence to assess the nature and content of the underlying deposit. This is mostly due to poor ground surface visibility.

A small number of criteria are used as guidelines in identifying potential archaeological deposits in rock shelters. These are:

• Shelter should contain a sediment floor at least around one square metre in area;

• Deposit must be at least 15 cm deep (determined by inserting tent pegs);

• Deposit should be relatively compact and show evidence for a significant period of accumulation (deposit should not be spongy and contain only clean sand derived from recent stone weathering);

• The shelter space should be at least one metre high and one metre deep (but exceptions may occur, such as where the deposit is deep); and

• The shelter should be relatively dry.

3.4.2 Historical Sites

As with Aboriginal archaeological field surveys, the effectiveness of historical archaeological field survey is to a large degree related to the obtrusiveness of the sites being sought and the incidence and quality of general and ground surface visibility. The methods used to investigate sites are based


on trained observation, skilled interpretation and accurate recording of the physical remains, combined with the archaeologist’s own experience of what is likely to be found.

Unlike Aboriginal archaeological field surveys, in many instances historical surveys are aided by the availability of historical documents that assist in locating sites. In this regard, a range of historical research techniques may include the use of early town and rural directories, land title searches, analysis of early maps, photographs and aerial photographs, technological encyclopaedia, immigrant’s guides, trade and popular journals, mail order catalogues, bankruptcy records, government records and other specialised sources. In some instances, oral histories may also be available to assist the archaeologist to locate sites.

Some sites are wholly below ground surface while others are partially or wholly above ground. They may be derelict, ruinous or still functioning.

For the most part, the visibility of wholly above ground historic standing structures, such as buildings, fences, etc., poses little problem for the field surveyor. This of course can be variable, particularly where the structure is partially or completely covered by vegetation, or has been covered or enclosed by additional construction.

For those structures or items that are partially above ground, visibility and full identification can be difficult. In such cases it may be necessary to undertake an archaeological excavation to ensure that the item is correctly and completely identified and recorded.

For items that are wholly below ground, there may be no visible indications of their presence on the surface, or in some cases only a few indications, such as an earth platform or fragmentary artefacts, visible on the surface of the site. In such cases it may also be necessary to undertake an archaeological excavation to ensure the item is correctly and completely identified and recorded. However, the option not to excavate should be a primary consideration for any site that is subject to development. Where a site is not under threat, archaeological deposits are safer left in the ground.


4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT

4.1 Botany Bay

The following description is an extract from Maritime Services Board (MSB) 1976:34.

Botany Bay is roughly circular in shape, about eight kilometres across at its widest point, with an entrance flanked by sandstone headlands approximately 1.2 km apart. The maximum water depth of 18.3 m between the heads soon shoals within the bay; to a depth of 5.5 m at low water at the centre of the bay, and to depths of less than 3.6 m within 760 m of the northern and southern foreshores.

Seaward of the entrance the depth of water steadily increases and at a distance of three kilometres off the coastline the depth is approximately 82 m.

The bed of the Bay is predominantly sand, and prior to any dredging it had been naturally shaped to form a large channel inside the entrance, orientated in a south-easterly direction. This channel, which under natural conditions shoaled to a depth of 9.1 m within 3,800 m of the entrance, resulted in the deepest water of the Bay being nearer to the northeastern foreshore.

Quibray Bay and Woolooware Bays are located on the southern side of Botany Bay, on either side of Towra Peninsula. Both of these bays are shallow - the maximum depth at low water in each being approximately 3.9 m and 3.4 m, respectively. Extensive mangrove swamps ring both Bays which have been extensively used for many years for oyster farming.

The Georges River discharges into the southwestern side of the Bay. The depth contours near the river mouth are very irregular and the maximum depth of water at Captain Cook Bridge is approximately 10.6 m while further east between Dolls Point and Towra Point the maximum depth reduces to about 3.5 m.

A large shoal, Taylor Bar, which extends in a north-easterly direction from Dolls Point, is actually the northwestern side of the river channel.

The foreshores around the Bay between Bumborah Point on the north and a point inside the southern headland to the west of Inscription Point consist of very low lying, flat stretches of sand.

The first comprehensive survey of the Bay was made by Captain Gowland R.N. in 1871. A comparison between the bed levels from this survey, together with those from a less detailed survey by Captain Hunter in 1789, and the natural depths from soundings taken by the MSB in 1962 illustrate the long term stable nature of the Bay.

The ocean waters off Botany Bay are frequently disturbed by the effects of the constantly varying weather conditions. Major storms occur throughout the year but with an increased frequency during the mid-summer and mid-winter months. Because of the nature of the meteorological disturbances which result in high wave action off Botany Bay, such wave action often occurs with little warning and usually lasts for one to three days, after which relatively calm conditions often prevail.

While some of the wave energy which entered the Bay under the natural conditions prior to any dredging work was diverted by refraction and diffraction to the areas immediately inside the headlands, the orientation of the entrance and the increased water depth near the northeastern foreshore resulted in a concentration of the wave energy being directed across the Bay along the natural channel.

The saline wetlands of Botany Bay are amongst the largest and best preserved on the New South Wales coast. Some of the larger swamps in the Botany Bay estuary are prime habitats of local and even regional importance. The bay, with its wide range of available habitats, supports a diverse population of water-associated birds, that is, over 170 species (Anon 1979).


4.2 Kurnell

The Kurnell Peninsula is composed of Quaternary sands forming an isthmus connecting Cronulla to the Triassic sandstone of the Kurnell Headland. The eastern end of the peninsula is characterised by a rocky coastline; elsewhere there are estuarine swamps and embayment and sandy beaches.

The Kurnell Peninsula comprises a barrier of marine or shelly sands overlying the down-warped beds of Hawkesbury sandstone. The Hawkesbury sandstone is exposed at the eastern end of the peninsula and forms the high cliff of the coast between the Botany Bay mouth and the entrance to Port Hacking. The southern edge of the barrier extends from Cronulla Beach on Bate Bay to the sandstone exposures, which begin at Boat Harbour, and continues east around the coastline. The northern edge of the barrier forms the southern shore of Botany Bay and comprises the wetlands and estuarine mudflats of Weeney Bay, Quibray Bay and Towra Point.

The barrier formed at the end of the Pleistocene period. The barrier sands overlie an old confluence of the Cooks-Georges River system and were deposited by northward ocean currents as sea levels rose and the river valleys drowned. This channel is now 90 m below the present sea level at the centre of the peninsula (Albani et al 1976). Pleistocene aged deposits will similarly be up to 90 m below the present sea level. The sea level reached a stand still at about 6,000 years ago.

A palaeosol that underlies much of the Kurnell barrier is exposed in a number of places over the peninsula. The palaeosol is dated between 6,000-7,000 years ago, or at the time the barrier formed. The palaeosol is an old stable land surface rich in organic remains and tree stumps indicative of a forest environment over a prolonged period during which little dunal activity took place. There is no indication of the length of time that these conditions prevailed. The more recent wind deposited shelly beach sands constantly move in a front parallel to the beach with occasional blow-out dunes forming at right-angles. These dune fields have a uniform profile with no evidence of stratification and have not been dated. Dr Albani has observed no evidence of a staged development and suggests that the dunes may be as recent as the last 200-300 years, forming as a result of deforestation.

At the beginning of European settlement the dune fields were vegetated, although Aboriginal firing practices were likely to have produced open and mobile dune areas (Byrne 1987a). The central part of the dune system as it has been known over the entire twentieth century was not natural, and in the past 50 years much of the natural attributes of the central peninsula have been destroyed. The extensive clearing caused destabilisation of the dune system and swift aeolian re-deposition of sand in a generally northerly direction, infilling parts of Quibray Bay (Dallas 2002) and pushing the Bay progressively northwards. A major bushfire (Dickson, quoted in Byrne 1987) in 1928 facilitated the dune mobility.

Barrier features are common along the eastern coast of Australia although many have been affected by European landuse. The Kurnell Peninsula is certainly no exception and over the past 150 years the central part of the peninsula has suffered extreme disturbance. The major impacts include:

• Clearance of original vegetation;

• Grazing;

• Recreational driving;

• Shell midden extraction for road base and lime;

• Sand extraction and dredging;

• Heavy industry such as oil refining and storage; and

• Infrastructure projects such as road construction, overhead power lines and a sewage scheme.

As a result, most of the original vegetation has been destroyed, and most of the Aboriginal sites have been disrupted or destroyed in this area (Dallas & Irish 2004).


The Kurnell STS has been constructed on an area of swamp that appears to have been intentionally filled. Parish maps indicate the approximate timing of this action was between 1925 and 1951 (Figures 4.1 and 4.2).

Figure 4.1 Extract from Sutherland Parish map 1925

(Land & Property Information (L&PI) Map no. 14039502)

Figure 4.2 Extract from Sutherland Parish map 1951 (L&PI Map no. 14039701)

Current Location of Substation

Current Location of Substation


4.3 La Perouse

The Botany Bay Cable Project study area is partly located on the La Perouse Peninsula and Phillip Bay. The study area begins at Bunnerong STS and follows Military Road, turning into Bunnerong Road, continuing into Anzac Parade and terminating outside the National Park at La Perouse.

The following description is extracted from PWD 1990.

La Perouse area is composed of Hawkesbury sandstone, with aeolian Quaternary sand dune deposits occurring to Congwong and Frenchmans Bay (Philip 1973). The Headland consists of a low rounded hill draining in three directions into Botany Bay with low sandstone cliffs on the southern and eastern edges and a wide rock platform extending to the water’s edge on the western side.

The rocky edges of the headland give way to sandy beaches in Frenchmans Bay and Congwong Bay. Behind these beaches are the undulating Quaternary sand dunes which have in recent years been disturbed by sand blow outs associated with the loss of native vegetation.

Bare Island is located approximately 100 m south of the headland separated by a narrow channel of water. It has sandstone cliffs of approximately 5 m high on all sides. These arise above a rock platform which is somewhat undercut at the waters edge. The island has a small area of soil above the rocks. It was extensively modified when the fort was constructed in the 1880s.

Soils on the headland are either shallow earthy sand or yellow earths. These soils have high erosion potential with low soil fertility. They are highly permeable and may have seasonally perched water tables (Chapman 1989).

The vegetation of La Perouse headland and Bare Island has been extensively modified with few native plants remaining on the site. The present vegetation consists of exotic grasses with a few (probably planted) stands of Acacia sophorae. The low cliffs are dominated by Kikuyu grass and the weed Chrysanthemoides monolifera. An original endemic plant probably Styphelia laeta was noted on the rock outcrop to the northern area of the headland.

La Perouse headland has one large mature Norfolk Island pine near the Cable Station. There are several other small exotic shrubs and groundcovers around the Cable Station, and a number of Norfolk Island hibiscus to the driveway.

East of La Perouse headland in the sand dunes behind Congwong Bay there is an extensive closed heathland community with species including Banksia ericifolia, Leptospermum laevigatum, Westringia fruticose and Allocasurina distyla and the exotic weed Chrysanthemodies monolifera. Behind the beach and on the slopes leading up to La Perouse headland the sand dunes are being stabilised with dune grasses and native shrubs.

Frenchmans Bay, west of La Perouse headland, is vegetated with grasses in the sand dunes giving way to private residential gardens.

There is little documentation on the original vegetation which occurred on La Perouse peninsula. It appears that the vegetation was progressively cleared over time as the area was developed.

North of the headland the sandstone continues just below the surface, outcropping at various locations along Bunnerong Road. Bunnerong road crosses a drainage line/stormwater drain that has been utilised for market gardens for almost 100 years, this drainage line is just before the Little Bay Road turnoff heading north. The Eastern Suburbs Cemetery and Crematorium are located on a rise above the original Botany Bay foreshore but those foreshores have since been reclaimed for Port Botany facilities.

The La Perouse part of the study area has been highly impacted by the construction of roads, tramways, cemeteries, the crematorium and industrial developments. The area of the STS is also heavily disturbed and the proposed location of the new cable connections is overgrown with lantana and other weeds.


5. ABORIGINAL CONTEXT

5.1 Tribal and Linguistic Boundaries

The information available about the occupation and use of Botany Bay by Aboriginal people comes from a variety of sources. References to the Aborigines of the Sydney region are found in the journals, diaries and general writings of the early colonists, explorers and settlers. ‘Natives’ were one of the main subjects of interest to those who arrived in the First Fleet and ‘all the journals contain frequent references to them’ (Fitzhardinge 1961). Other information sources include reports, published documents and histories, oral information retained by the local Aboriginal community, and the traces of past generations left in the landscape of Botany Bay that have been identified and interpreted by archaeologists to provide a context for Aboriginal occupation of the area.

The exact boundaries between Aboriginal groups that existed in 1788 are impossible to reconstruct because of the lack of reliable data available from that time. There have been numerous attempts at mapping the pre-contact and contact territories of Aboriginal people in the Sydney region (Capell 1970, Eades 1976, Kohen 1986, 1988, Mathews 1901a, 1901b, Ross 1988, Tindale 1974). The primary data are limited, as the early observers (members of the First Fleet and settlers) did not document how Aboriginal people perceived of their own groups or how they differentiated themselves from one another.

The linguistic and tribal boundaries and size of areas attributed to the various Sydney region Aboriginal groups vary between different interpreters. Kurnell falls within Dharawal linguistic and/or tribal boundaries (Kohen, Eades, Ross) and Gwiyagal linguistic boundaries (Capell). Meanwhile, Tindale has an Eora tribe, which was closely linked to the Tharawal (Dharawal) tribe, extending from the northern shores of Port Jackson to the edge of the plateau overlooking the Hawkesbury River and south to Botany Bay and the Georges River.

Contemporary reviews now place the Kurnell peninsula in the territory of the Gweagal band of the Eora people. The Eora spoke Dharawal and are known from early historical descriptions of encounters with Europeans along the Georges River and southern shores of Botany Bay (for example, Turbet 1989, Salt in Sutherland Shire Environment Centre web site www.ssec.org.au).

Today, Local Aboriginal Land Council boundaries are situated so that the Kurnell study area is located entirely within the boundaries of La Perouse Local Aboriginal Land Council. That Land Council area extends south from Port Jackson to around Waterfall, and west around the shores of Botany Bay. Much of the Land Council's southwestern boundary is delineated by the Illawarra Railway Line.

5.2 Ethnohistorical Observations

Accounts written by early visitors to Australia that document the more obvious details of Aboriginal life include Cook (in Reed 1969), Banks (in Beaglehole 1969), Bradley (1786-92), Collins (1798), Hunter (1968), Phillip (1789) and Tench (1793, 1789, 1961). Although these early commentators were not trained in anthropology or linguistics some useful information is provided by them regarding the Aborigines around the Sydney region and Botany Bay.

The earliest observations of Aborigines at Botany Bay were made in April and May of 1770 by Captain James Cook and Joseph Banks. The French voyager Peron also made observations in Botany Bay in 1802. Rich summarises observations made by Cook and Banks in her report on an archaeological excavation at Yarra Bay (Rich 1986:43-46).

The Endeavour was moored in Botany Bay for eight days (April 29 - May 6, 1770). For seven of the eight days Cook and Banks were on, or around, the Bay, only spending one day exploring the countryside further afield. It can be surmised therefore that most of their observations about the Aborigines pertain to Botany Bay.

Cook comments that ‘The land naturally produces hardly anything fit for Man to eat, and the Natives know nothing of Cultivation’ (Cook in Reed 1969:130). Rich notes that this assumption by Cook

http://www.ssec.org.au/


about the paucity of food resources around the Bay probably biases his observations of Aboriginal lifestyle.

References to the environment of the Bay describe it as mostly being covered with light white sand or swamps (Banks in Beaglehole 1969:57). Deep black soil was noted toward the head of the Bay, as were large flats of sand and mud (Cook in Reed 1969:45, 49-50).

Vegetation is described as swamps or heath, and woodlands with widely spaced trees that were reportedly free from undergrowth. Trees included ‘two sorts of gums’, and palms (Cook in Reed 1969:43). Grass grew in tufts close together. On the northwestern side of the Bay there was apparently no trees and the vegetation comprised a ground cover of a ‘thin brush of plants about knee high’. The area resembled English moors (Banks in Beaglehole 1969:60).

Fresh drinking water was observed at The Watering Place at Kurnell and in rock holes along the northern shore of the Bay (Cook in Reed 1969:41). Fish were plentiful in the Bay and shellfish were abundant on the sand and mudflats. Birds, including waterfowl, were also plentiful.

Cook and Banks noted the presence of Aboriginal camps in a number of locations including two open sites with huts on both ‘points’ of Botany Bay, and two shell middens with fires and shells, one of which was reported to be ‘near the shore’ (Cook in Reed 1969:39-42). Cook also made the general observation that the Aborigines did not live in large groups but were dispersed along the water side.

Cook observed Aborigines fishing and collecting shellfish. He thought that shellfish, principally oysters, mussels and cockles, formed the main component of the Aboriginal diet. The shellfish was picked out of the sand and mud from their canoes, and sometimes cooked and eaten in the canoes, which were 12 or 14 feet (around 4 m) long. The canoes were made of one piece of bark which was drawn or tied up at each end with the middle kept open by sticks used as thwarts (Cook in Reed 1969:41). A relatively large number of canoes were observed on the Bay.

Fish were caught by spear or hook and line, but it appears that stingrays were not eaten. Other foods, particularly plant foods were also eaten, but neither Cook nor Banks appears to think that they were important. Cook (Cook in Reed 1969:43) comments on the large number of trees, particularly palms, with toeholds for climbing, although it is not stated what type of food was obtained from the trees.

Material culture observed by Cook and Banks included fishing and hunting spears, fish hooks and lines, a shield, and spear throwers. Stone tools and other wooden items such as digging sticks were not mentioned.

Tench (1961) describes the equipment of the Sydney Aborigines as ‘exclusive of their weapons of offence, and a few stone hatchets very rudely fashioned, their ingenuity is confined to manufacturing small nets, ... and to fish-hooks made of bone, neither of which are skilfully executed.’ Tench also notes the use of bark canoes for fishing.

Comments were made on the types of Aboriginal shelters observed. These were described as consisting ‘only of pieces of bark laid together in the form of an oven, open at one end, and very low, though long enough for a man to lie at full length in ... they depend less on them for shelter, than on the caverns with which the rocks abound’ (Tench 1793). Collins (1798) observed that the huts were ‘often large enough to hold six to eight people’. These shelters were often grouped together. Disused canoes were sometimes used for this purpose (Collins 1798).

It appears that coastal people preferentially used shell artefacts rather than stone, hafting shells into spear throwers, and using them as spear barbs (Collins 1804 [1910]:320). Shell was also used for working wood (Phillip 1789:45). Tench states that the coastal Aborigines used shell ‘affixed to the end of the throwing stick’ to cut up whale meat, in preferences to axes (Tench 1793 [1961]:177).

Within a short period of time after white settlement, the Sydney Aboriginal population was greatly reduced as a result of two epidemics, (most) probably smallpox. The first epidemic was only a short time after settlement in 1789, and the second from 1829 to 1831 (Butlin 1983). The first outbreak of


the disease is believed to have killed 50 per cent of the Aboriginal population (Collins 1798, Ross 1988, Tench 1961, Turbet 1989).

Loss of life on such a scale resulted in a major social reorganisation of Aborigines around the area (Ross 1988) with ‘remnants of bands combining to form new groups’ (Kohen 1986). Therefore, the anthropological observations and other observations by chroniclers of the time do not depict the pre-settlement situation accurately.

5.3 Post Contact Aboriginal History

Within a few days of Phillip’s arrival in 1788, a French expedition led by Rear Admiral Jean-François de Galaup La Pérouse (Comte de La Pérouse) entered Botany Bay, established a temporary stockade and commenced cultivation in Frenchmans Bay. During the 8 week occupancy of the area by La Pérouse and his sailors the original Aboriginal inhabitants were repelled to a principal camping place at Long Bay (‘Boora’) with a subsidiary camping ground in caves at Little Bay (Pringle 1979).

With the abandonment of the French settlement, the Aborigines gradually returned to the La Perouse area together with people from other tribes who were being repelled by European settlers elsewhere, particularly along the south coast. Numerous middens have been uncovered in the foreshore sand dunes of Congwong bay, Frenchmans Bay and Yarra Bay (Pringle 1979).

In 1800, there was apparently a relatively large Aboriginal population around the foreshores of Botany Bay and in the gullies north of the bay. From 1810 to 1830 the occupancy of the Aborigines was seriously disturbed by European hunters and fisherman (Anon n.d: 9).

Gojak (1992) describes a hiatus in Aboriginal occupation of the area between the first major phase of occupation until the early 1800s, and the start of a second phase of occupation, possibly ‘as early as 1870’ (Gojak 1992:5). He notes that the area was sufficiently remote from the city to allow the authorities to ignore the Aborigines. However other sources note that by the 1850s there was a ‘Blacks Camp’ at La Perouse, where Aborigines from other areas took refuge. A Constable Byrne reports on 35 Aboriginal residents at La Perouse, and another smaller camp at Botany in the 1880s (Report of the Protector of Aborigines 1882-83). Surmon (1965) states that these Aborigines probably originated from the Illawarra district. Most of the present Aboriginal community is probably descended from south coast groups.

In the 1880s, a small Anglican mission was established, and on March 30, 1895, seven acres and six and half perches was gazetted as a ‘Reserve for the Use of Aborigines’ – (AR 22358). At the time of the gazettal, the Crown Survey Plan indicates at least three buildings identified as ‘Aborigines Quarters’ situated on the foredune at Frenchmans Bay.

This original reserve consisted of a roughly square block of land, approximately 170 x 140 m situated along the southern half of the embayment and extended up to 150 m inland from the shore.

The Aborigines Protection Board policy was to make Aboriginal reserves self-supporting by establishing farms on them and using the inhabitants as farm labour. However, this was not a possibility at La Perouse as the soil was too sandy. Consequently, the La Perouse people had to be ‘self supporting fisherman at Frenchmans Bay beach adjoining the reserve’ (Williams 1988:7).

The Aborigines were provided with a boat, fishing equipment, rations and a blanket by the Aborigines Protection Board, in keeping with the government policy of the day. The community relied on tourism to supplement its fishing economy, and in fact became a tourist attraction in its own right (Gojak 1992:6). The community made shell work ornaments and traditional artefacts such as shields and boomerangs for sale to the tourists, and held boomerang throwing and gum leaf blowing demonstrations and lessons (MUSEcape Pty Ltd 1997, pers. comm. La Perouse LALC informants). They also sold fish to, and provided boat rides for, tourists.

About six and a half perches of the reserve were revoked on March 16, 1917 (Crown survey plan portion 181). One acre and one rood of the Reserve (AR 22358) were revoked on November 14, 1930, and then four acres, three roods and twelve perches were revoked on the 9, January 1931 (McGuigan n.d.). A new reserve of eight acres and five perches, situated behind and to the northeast


of the original settlement, was gazetted on 2 October, 1959 - AR 82060 (Portions 181 and 1778, Parish of Botany). In 1929-1930, the tin houses of the settlement were sinking in the sand and the reserve buildings were moved from their unstable beach site to this higher ground.

By 1976 the ‘Reserve’ had been developed by the Housing Commission as an Aboriginal Housing project and was administered by the Aboriginal Lands Trust. The Lands Trust was abolished in 1983 when new legislation was enacted to set up Aboriginal Land Councils, and the Aboriginal community finally had some autonomy at La Perouse.

In September 1985, Yarra Bay House was handed over to the La Perouse Local Aboriginal Land Council for use as its office.

5.4 Archaeological Investigations

Documentary references can be supplemented by scientific data on the Aboriginal occupation of Botany Bay.

The southern Sydney/Botany Bay area has been the subject of archaeological investigation over many years. To date over 700 Aboriginal sites have been listed in the AHIMS as occurring within the catchment areas of Botany Bay, Bate Bay and Port Hacking. Site types include shell middens, shelters with art/deposit/midden, rock engravings, open artefact scatters, scarred trees and burials. The sites have been variously recorded by professional archaeologists and interested amateurs, and it appears that multiple recordings have been made of some sites.

The majority of Aboriginal sites on the NSW coast date to within the last 6,000 years when sea levels eventually stabilised around the present level (the Holocene Stillstand). Following the stabilisation of sea levels, the development of coastal estuaries, mangrove flats and sand barriers would have increased the resource diversity, predictability, and the potential productivity of coastal environments for Aborigines. In contrast, occupation during the late Pleistocene, that is, before 10,000BP (Before Present), may have been sporadic and the Aboriginal population relatively small. Sites older than 6,000 years are rare as most of these would have related to previous shorelines which have now been destroyed or submerged by rising seas. The majority of sites along the Sydney coast date to within the last 2,500 years. After the stabilisation of sea levels Botany Bay would have provided a rich environment for the Aboriginal inhabitants of the area.

In the south Sydney region only three excavated sites have provided dates prior to 5,000BP. One of these is an Aboriginal hearth comprising over 30 sandstone cobbles and charcoal which has been dated to 7,800BP (Site No. 45-6-2495). The hearth was located in the course of investigations at the Prince of Wales Hospital Destitute Children’s Asylum Cemetery (Godden Mackay/Austral Archaeology 1997).

5.4.1 Kurnell

There are two interpretations for the origin of the name Kurnell. One view is that it is an Anglicisation of a single syllable Aboriginal name for the peninsula – ‘Cunnel’, which may have been based on the name of an Aboriginal Elder born on the peninsula – Cundlemong (pronounced ‘Cunnelmong’) (Salt in Sutherland Shire Environment Centre web site www.ssec.org.au). Alternatively, it may be based on the Aboriginal pronunciation of a local settler’s name – Connell (Neve referenced by Salt in Sutherland Shire Environment Centre web site www.ssec.org.au).

Salt quotes Aboriginal sources in stating that the Kurnell Aborigines were guardians of sacred white clay pits in their territorial lands (Salt in Sutherland Shire Environment Centre web site www.ssec.org.au). Aborigines are said to have walked hundreds of miles to procure the clay which had a multitude of uses including body decoration, medicine, and the construction of canoe hearths.

Archaeological investigations on the Kurnell Peninsula have been conducted since at least 1912 when W. W. Thorpe conducted an excavation in Skeleton Cave. Subsequent investigations have included amateur studies, academic research, specific area assessments as part of development impact assessments, and an overall management study commissioned by the National Parks and





Wildlife Service and the Australian Heritage Commission (Smith et al 1990). An overview of the studies carried out within the Kurnell area can be found in Navin Officer 2005.

A search of the DEC AIHMS sites register has identified one site within the Kurnell section of the study area, as follows:

Kurnell Peninsula, Site No. 52-3-0212 (Midden) AMG: 334300.6234500 (approximate)

(As no AMG grid reference appears on the DEC site card for this site, the reference has been approximated using information from that site card and plotted against the Port Hacking 1:25 000 topographic map, 2nd Edition.)

No date is recorded on the site card for this site. It is described as shell heaped on the north side of Captain Cook drive ¼ mile east of its junction with Banks Drive [Sir Joseph Banks Drive].

This site was not located during the current study and appears that it may have been destroyed or covered during the construction of the Kurnell STS.

Burials

Aboriginal skeletal material from within the boundaries of the La Perouse Local Aboriginal Land Council has been documented by Donlon (1991). Access to this report is restricted. The report provides detailed information; however, for the purposes of this study, it is enough to note that nine skeletons have been located at Kurnell. The report also states that those remains are now located at the Australian Museum, Sydney.

Figure 5.1 Location of recorded Aboriginal midden site within the Kurnell section of the study area

(Green line indicates study area and blue dot shows approximate location of midden site) (Extract from Port Hacking 1:25 000 topographic map 3rd Ed (L&PI 2001))

52-2-0212

0 1km


5.4.2 La Perouse

A number of archaeological investigations relating to Aboriginal heritage have been conducted in the La Perouse area. Surveys have been carried out at Yarra Bay-Bumborah Point (Ross 1979), Frenchmans Bay (McIntyre 1985, Navin Officer 2000), Yarra Point (Rich 1986), Port Botany (Navin Officer 2003), Bare Island and La Perouse headland (Haglund 1989), Phillip Bay (Sullivan 1992a), La Perouse (Sullivan 1992b), Little Bay (Dallas 1996) and Malabar (Dallas 1999). Excavations have been conducted at Yarra Point (Rich 1986) and Randwick (Godden Mackay & Austral Archaeology 1997).

Searches of the DEC AIHMS sites register located 14 sites within one kilometre of the La Perouse section of the study area. The majority of these sites have limited site information as they were recorded many years ago. There also appears to be duplications within the register with a few sites appearing to have two sites numbers. The grid references for some of the sites on the register also appear to have been miscalculated from their original site cards.

The sites located in close proximity to the La Perouse section of the study area are described below.

Frenchmans Bay Foredune, Site No. 45-5-2587 (Midden)

AMG: 336500.6238000 (approximate) Botany Bay 1:25000 topographic map 2nd Ed

In 1985, McIntyre compiled a report documenting protection works conducted by Randwick Council at a large midden/campsite at Frenchmans Bay. The site is located (approximately) on the foredune in the middle section of the embayment, about 50 m south of the stone groyne. The grid reference for the site is based on the site description, a photograph of the site included in McIntyre’s report, and discussions with Ms McIntyre.

The visible extent of the site in 1985 was described as a large blowout, approximately 50 x 20 m and several metres deep, in the dunes immediately in front of the Aboriginal settlement. Very little shell was visible at the site. Some in situ shell was noted in section towards the front of the dune, where shells including rock oyster, turban, periwinkle, cockle and mud oyster were embedded in a grey/black sandy matrix. Most of the artefacts appeared to be eroding out of the western side of the blowout. McIntyre postulated that ‘undisturbed archaeological material may extend for some distance to the west’ (McIntyre 1985:1). A feature of particular interest, comprising an area of sandstone rubble packed with clay, was tentatively interpreted as the foundations of the old wooden mission church which was remembered to have stood immediately east of the blowout (Mrs. Longbottom in McIntyre 1985:1).

Material which was visible in the blowout included shell, stone artefacts, several pieces of clay smoking pipe and two teeth (probably macropod). The area was also strewn with more recent debris, mostly glass and metal.

McIntyre noted that the existence of the site had been known for some time – ‘Ms Tembrey, a local Aboriginal woman, remembers that her father used to bring her to the site and show her stone axes and other artefacts. Mrs Longbottom (Senior) remembers when the original mission occupied this area’ (McIntyre 1985:1). It was also reported that burials had been ‘known to occur somewhere in the immediate vicinity of the site’. Refer Burials section below.

Artefacts, including ‘backed blades, eloueras, grinding stones, axes, copper or brass pins which had been fashioned into fish hooks, ochre, etc’, had been collected from the site over a period of approximately 15 years by a local resident, Mr Blaxland. Some of his artefact collection is now housed at the Australian Museum. It should be noted here that collecting Aboriginal artefacts from Aboriginal sites is illegal.

Site conservation strategies included sealing the site with gravel, re-covering the site with the blown-out material, deviating storm water runoff around the dune and revegetating the area.

It was concluded that the site protection works conducted by Randwick Municipal Council had been carried out satisfactorily and were in the best interests of the site. It was recommended that the


Council monitor the protection works from time to time to ascertain if the realignment of the small creek had been successful.

Yarra Point; Botany Bay, Site No. 45-6-0292 (Midden) AMG: 336280.6238150 AGD 56

This site was described by Kinross in 1983 as,

Small midden profile visible to depth of 40 cm – width 3 m – possibly more not visible. Matrix uniform mid-grey. Shells tightly packed. Mostly mussels, some limpets, cockles and snails. One large root penetrating. Scattered midden material extending to nearby outcrop. No artefacts or charcoal noticed.

Rich (1986) conducted a surface recording and excavation of the site located on the small sandstone headland between Yarra Bay to the north, and Frenchmans Bay to the south. The midden deposit occurred between Yarra Bay House and the sandstone platforms edging the Bay, about 10 m from, and 4 m above, high water mark. Scattered shell and stone artefacts occurred discontinuously in a band about 20 m wide and 100 m long around Yarra Point (Rich 1986:56).

Fourteen species of shellfish were present in the approximately 60 x10 m midden, including mussel, triton, oyster, periwinkle and turban. Fish and mammal bone was also present. Some 44 artefacts were retrieved from the excavation, including flaked ceramics.

Rich (1986:3) concluded that the site had limited scientific significance, as the whole deposit had been heavily disturbed over the past 150+ years. However, she noted the site had considerable significance to the local Aboriginal community and was a locally uncommon site type - only one other midden site had been recorded in the local area, at Frenchmans Bay. Rich postulates that the site probably once extended around the entire edge of Yarra Point headland and on to Frenchmans Bay, but has been destroyed. It was recommended that the site be conserved by revegetation with shallow rooting native plants.

This site will not be directly affected by the Botany Bay Cable Project.

Congwong Beach, Site Nos 45-6-0561 and 45-6-1762 (Midden) AMG: 336900.6237400 ADG 56

This site has two site numbers with the same grid reference in the DEC AIHMS sites register. Site No. 45-6-0561 was recorded by Gatenby. Site No. 45-6-1762 was recorded by the NPWS in 1988 as,

Small exposed section of a midden. The exposed section measures 5 m by 2 m at the crest of a stabilised sand dune. It is possible that the midden measures 15m by 15m. The site is approximately 8 m above MHWM (Mean High Water Mark).

The deposit consists of shells, fish bones and some fragments of sandstone and charcoal. The strata of shell and bone are approximately 300 mm deep, although there may be further strata below the one visible. The colour of the sand within the strata is dark grey.

The area north of the site, predominantly on eroded clay strata, is the result of removal of dune sand for construction works at Kingsford-Smith airport.


La Perouse Site 1 No. 45-6-0648 (Rock Engraving)

AMG: 336339.6237439 with a hand held GPS. The DEC register grid reference is 336300.6237350.

This site was described both by Campbell in 1891 and by R. H. Matthews in 1898. It consists of an engraving of a whale and its calf on sandstone outcrop about two metres above sea level. The site has been badly eroded over the years and the engraving is now barely visible.



La Perouse Site 2 - 5 Nos 45-6-0649 to 45-6-0652 (Rock Engravings)

AMG: 336553.6237349 with a hand held GPS. The DEC register grid reference is 336572.6237358.

These sites are a collection of engravings, including that of a shark, located on a sandstone outcrop at the end of La Perouse peninsula. As well as the shark there are also segmented marks about 1.5 m in diameter and two boomerang-shaped marks on the outcrop. As with the above site these engravings were also described by Matthews (1898) and Campbell (1899).


La Perouse Site 6 No. 45-6-0653 (Rock Engraving) AMG: 336450.6237600 (approximate)

(As no AMG grid reference appears on the DEC site card for this site, the reference has been approximated using information from that site card and plotted against the Botany Bay 1:25 000 topographic map, 2nd Edition. In addition, the reference was plotted onto an earlier Imperial map to confirm its accuracy.)

This site was originally recorded and described in 1960 by I. M. Sim (Mankind Volume 6, No 20) as,

On a vertical rock face which terminates the southern extremity of Frenchmans Bay. The figures are about 6 feet west of the road leading to the wharf and kiosk. 40 feet west of the figures and just above the waterline is a rock shelter about 20 feet long and 8 feet deep. Subjects ‘1 kangaroo; 2 curved lines’ (NPWS Site Card).

The site was re-visited/recorded in 1979 by R. Taplin. At that time, the site was described as,

Sydney 01 3 23 4-on vertical rock wall at back of beach a few feet north of previous, here is a cut kangaroo and part of another. Recorded by Mr Ian Sim, they were pointed out to me by Mrs Moore of Randwick historical society, but are buried beneath the extended foundation of a road. Buried but not destroyed’ ([second] NPWS Site Card).

This site appears to be somewhere in the vicinity of the present circuit road (Anzac Parade). The site was reported to have been covered by a retaining wall in the early 1960s and it is probable that the site survives below the present circuit road, approximately 50 m southwest of the present 'Boatshed' restaurant.


La Perouse, Site No. 45-6-0659, and La Perouse Reserve, Site No. 45-6-0873 (Rock Engraving)

AMG: 336700.6238010 (approximate)

(Reference was approximated using information from the DEC site cards and plotted against the Botany Bay 1:25 000 topographic map, 2nd Edition. In addition, the reference was plotted onto an earlier Imperial map to confirm its accuracy. The DEC register grid references for this site are 337011.6238281 (659) and 336828.6238278 (873) AGD 56.)

There are currently two site cards and two site names for this site, however from the site description on each site card it is clear that they are for the same site. The site was recorded in 1975 by S. Sullivan and in 1980 by W. Cook.

Sullivan describes it as,

A small outcrop of sandstone measuring 12 ft x 8 ft. There are two pecked and grooved engravings on the site. The first is of a large kangaroo measuring a total of 2 square metres and appears to be looking over its right shoulder towards the west. The tail is covered by an over-growth of grass. The second engraving is of a human figure holding a boomerang in his left hand and shows the fingers gripping the boomerang. The human figure is also holding a spear in his right hand. The legs have also been over-grown by grass. The human figure measures 1 square metre.



Bare Island; Yarra Bay, Site No. 45-6-0886 (Shelter with Midden) AMG: 336400.6238500 AGD 56

This site was described by Sullivan in 1978 as, ‘a midden with mussel, oyster, anadara and ninella torquata shells. The site contained artefactual material and was well packed, 10-20 cm depth. The Midden was exposed for about 1 chain’.


Botany Bay, Site No. 46-6-0976 (Shelter with Midden) AMG: 336161.6239636 ADG 56

This site was recorded in 1979 by Taplin. It was described as a rock overhang facing Bunnerong and containing middens at several locations. All but three of these locations are disturbed and others have been partly filled in with drifting sand. Three have also been overgrown with lantana and scrub.


La Perouse, Site No. 45-6-1144 (Midden) AMG: 336450.6237600 (approximate)

(Reference was approximated using information from the DEC site card and plotted against the Botany Bay 1:25 000 topographic map, 2nd Edition. In addition, the reference was plotted onto an earlier Imperial map to confirm its accuracy. The DEC register grid reference for this site is 336570.6237600 AGD 56.)

Minimal information exists for this site which is described by R. Taplin in 1979 as, ‘Facing Frenchmans Bay, on a raised rocky point is a much disturbed midden, over a foot deep’ (NPWS Site Card, 1979). This site was noted by Haglund in the course of her survey of Bare Island and La Perouse headland as 'the possible remains of 45-6-1144, a shell midden … is poorly preserved and has suffered trampling and disturbance' (Haglund 1989). The remnants of this site are situated on the small rock promontory adjacent to the area on which the La Perouse jetty was situated.


La Perouse, Site No. 45-6-1145 (Midden) AMG: 336750.6237450 (approximate)

(Reference was approximated using information from the DEC site card and plotted against the Botany Bay 1:25 000 topographic map, 2nd Edition. In addition, the reference was plotted onto an earlier Imperial map to confirm its accuracy. The DEC register grid reference for this site is 336800.6237400 ADG 56.)

This site was described by Guider in 1980 as,

A concrete footpath cuts through the centre of what appears to have been a large shell midden. As children take short cuts across the sandhills on both sides of this path and wind naturally displaces the sand many shells and bones are visible. Some of these shells and bones slide down the steep slope and onto the footpath.


Congwong Cave, La Perouse, Site No. 45-6-1146 (Shelter with Art) AMG: 336750.6237375 (approximate)


This site was described by Taplin in 1975 as, ‘a shelter with art. The shelter measured 15 feet long, 1 to 5 feet deep and 1 to 4 inches high. Its aspect is south and it contains grey finger marks on its walls’.



Yarra Bay, Captain Phillip Monument, Site No.45-6-1237 (Midden) AMG: 336350.6238550 (approximate)


This site was inadvertently excavated in 1979 due to Randwick Council’s placing stone flagging around Phillip Monument. The site was a small area of midden material, artefacts and bones.


Little Bay Road PAD1, Site No. 45-6-2658 (PAD) AMG: 337000.6238900 ADG 56

No site card or report is available for this site. This area of potential is located on the corner of Bunnerong Road and Little Bay Road. This corner has been recently landscaped during construction of a nearby housing development (Plate 5.1). The extent of the PAD is not known.

At this time, the site will not be affected by the proposed project. However, if placement of the electricity cable is changed so that it is laid beneath the eastern side of Little Bay Road then such placement will impact this site.

Plate 5.1 Little Bay Road PAD 1, location according to DEC grid reference (dotted red line). The area

has been recently landscaped during construction of nearby housing development (centre right).

Burials

According to Donlon’s report (1991) one skeleton has been located in the ‘La Perouse’ area. Aboriginal burials are generally found in soft sediments such as aeolian sand, alluvial silts and rock shelter deposits. They are often associated with shell middens on the NSW coast. Burials are generally only visible where there has been some disturbance of subsurface sediments or where some erosional process has exposed them.

McIntyre (1985:7) notes that burials were known to occur somewhere in the vicinity of the Frenchmans Bay midden site. Mr Blaxland (local resident and artefact collector) remembers that Mr


Joe Timbrey, a local Aboriginal resident (now deceased), once found skeletal material nearby. He reburied the material and would not disclose its whereabouts to Mr Blaxland.

Cyril Cooley, a La Perouse resident recalls, ‘On the bottom section of the now known mission there was as far as I can remember, an old cemetery where our old ancestors used to sit each day and make Aboriginal artefacts such as spears, nulla nullas, boomerangs and shell ornaments which were sold at the tram loop on the weekends and holidays’ (Cooley 1988).

Figure 5.2 provides a map showing the locations of all Aboriginal sites within the La Perouse section of the study area.

Figure 5.2 Location of Aboriginal sites within the La Perouse section of the study area

(Green line indicates study area and blue dot show site locations) (Extract from Port Hacking 1:25 000 topographic map 3rd Ed (L&PI 2001))

0 1km

45-6-0292

45-6-0886

45-6-0659 & 0873

45-5-2587

45-6-0653

45-6-1144

45-6-0648

45-6-1145

45-6-0561 & 1762

45-6-0649 to 0652

45-6-1146

45-6-0976

45-6-2658

45-6-1237


5.5 Predictive Aboriginal Archaeological Statement

Unrecorded Aboriginal sites that may occur within the study area include:

• Middens in open contexts within sand bodies or within rock shelters;

• Art sites including rock engravings on sandstone platforms and pigment art within rock shelters;

• Artefact scatters occurring in open contexts;

• Burials especially occurring within sand bodies; and

• Historical Aboriginal sites associated with European contact, such as the former Aboriginal reserve at La Perouse.

Areas of archaeological sensitivity within the study area include:

• The La Perouse headland, particularly the sandstone outcrops which contain Aboriginal rock engravings;

• The former Aboriginal encampment and subsequent Mission and Government Reserve at La Perouse;

• Kurnell shoreline and aeolian dune system which has been proven to contain burials and occupation sites evidenced by middens and artefact scatters;

• Any areas of alluvial and aeolian sand deposit within La Perouse which again have been proven to contain occupation sites and burials; and

• Any locations of fresh water (rivers and creeks), for example, the small unnamed creek that runs into Botany Bay on the northern side of Kurnell Peninsula, which at the time of Captain Cook’s landing in 1770 was an area of Aboriginal occupation.

The Botany Bay landscape as a whole is an important cultural landscape because of the interrelation between generations of Aboriginal people and their food and living resources, dwellings and occupation sites, graves, story places, and the history of events that took place within it.


6. HISTORICAL CONTEXT

6.1 Historical Overview

The European history of Botany Bay has been well documented in numerous books, reports and articles. A summary history only is provided here, with particular reference to information relevant to the study area.

6.1.1 The Explorers

Botany Bay, Kurnell and La Perouse, are, to many, the most historic localities in Australia. When Captain Cook first entered Botany Bay in April 1770, he landed on its southern shore at Kurnell. However, it was his reports of the northern shore that steered future events. Cook mapped the whole of the Bay and much of the hinterland, including the La Perouse peninsula. His shore party discovered a fresh water stream flowing into the Bay on its northern shore, west of Bare Island, (Randwick and District Historical Society 1989:3).

On bringing the First Fleet into Botany Bay 18 years later, Captain Arthur Phillip sought the stream from Cook’s report. Less impressed with the Bay than Cook, on 26 January 1788, Phillip sailed for Sydney Cove, which offered a more sheltered anchorage. As he was preparing to depart, the French navigator, Jean-François de Galaup La Pérouse (Comte de La Pérouse), sailed his ships Astrolabe and Boussole into Botany Bay, assisted by an officer of the First Fleet.

While Phillip founded the British Colony of NSW on the southern shore of Port Jackson, La Pérouse and his party erected a stockaded camp, including an observatory and garden on the peninsula near the present Frenchmans Bay, so named by Phillip to signify the landing place of the La Pérouse expedition. They stayed for about six weeks and were the first European residents of the area (Randwick and District Historical Society 1989:3-6).

Few visits were made to the shores of Botany Bay during the first years of the colony. Casual visitors included convicts, hunters, timber-getters and shepherds. Members of Phillip’s staff and naturalists made periodic visits (Larcombe n.d.). Peron, a French voyager, visited the area in 1802.

6.1.2 Permanent European Settlement in the Area

European settlement in the Botany Bay area occurred by extension from Port Jackson (Pringle 1979). Land grants were made to Europeans from the 1820s onwards, with the first private land grant on which a private dwelling, ‘Bunnerong House’, was built being made in 1823. Bunnerong House, later to become the site of the Bunnerong Power Station and subsequently Port Botany container terminal, was a magnificent sandstone house built in 1825 by John Neathway Brown, on 13 acres overlooking Botany Bay.

From about 1820, troops were stationed on the La Perouse headland to control shipping in Botany Bay. They were initially housed in huts, and then in a stone tower built around 1821. From 1831 the tower was used as a Customs House. In 1832 some small huts were erected to the east of the tower. In 1861 and 1863 cottages were constructed for boatmen working at the customs station. An 1867 parish map shows a boat house on the shores of Frenchmans Bay (Kass 1989 in PWD 1990:15-16).

Nearby to the northwest, at a sale of Crown Land in 1834, Thomas Kellett bought the land on which he was later to build the Sir Joseph Banks Hotel. The Hotel itself was probably built around 1844 (Silva 1978). The Sir Joseph Banks Hotel still exists today.

In the latter half of the nineteenth century La Perouse continued to be developed, principally by extension of existing facilities. A road to the headland from Sydney was surveyed and built in 1869 (Kass 1989). A telegraph cable was laid from New Zealand to La Perouse in the 1870s and construction of the Bare Island Fort commenced in 1881. However, the population of the area was still sparse; comprising mostly Aborigines, telegraph workers and the military.


The beginning of the twentieth century saw a tramline to La Perouse open in 1902 and a jetty constructed on the western side of the headland in 1905. A road linking the tram terminus to the jetty was constructed, allowing visitors to access the area by ferry from Kurnell (Kass 1989). Suburbia slowly moved southwards from Maroubra after the Second World War. The tramline was removed in the 1960s and a new ring road around the headland was constructed.

6.1.3 Early Industries

Early industries in the Botany Bay area included the production of shell lime, wool scours, tanneries, market gardening, boat building and, of course, fishing.

Lime Works, Wool Scours, Tanneries and Paper Manufacturers

Lime burning was one of Botany Bay’s earliest industries. Rich (1986) notes that the explorer Peron, who visited Botany Bay in 1802, refers to the production of shell lime in the bay (Larcombe n.d.). The earliest Sydney lime mortars were derived by burning accumulations of shell found just above the high tide mark, particularly around Botany Bay and the Georges River. Aboriginal middens were also 'mined' for lime throughout coastal NSW. After 1804, supplies of shell lime for Sydney came mostly from Newcastle. Gangs of convicts dug up the shells, sifted them and then piled them over large heaps of wood and the whole lot were burned (Gibbons 1979:60). An 1888 plan of the study area foreshore depicts the ‘State Sand, Lime and Brick Company’ situated close to the shore, near the Government Pier. It seems probable that the Aboriginal midden sites recorded along this part of Botany Bay were exploited for lime. Both lime and timber were transported by sea from Botany Bay to other parts of the colony requiring building materials from as early as 1802 (MSB 1976:36).

Simeon Lord was known to have opened the first Wool Mill in Botany Bay, after receiving a 135 acre land grant near Cooks River in 1812 (Thorpe 1990:6). Other prominent industries also detailed on the 1888 plan are a wool scour, Armstrong Tannery and a paper mill. In 1914, there were 40 tanneries and wool scouring establishments within the Botany municipality (Sydney Morning Herald 11/4/1914).

Market Gardening

The earliest reference to market gardening in the area was made by an observer named Backhouse in the 1830s (Larcombe nd:13). Backhouse describes the swamp areas of Botany being converted into gardens. The Botany market gardens were then the main vegetable supply for Sydney - they supplied Sydney with constant fresh produce even during periods of drought (Larcombe nd:13). A large portion of Simeon Lord’s land near Cooks River was let out to market gardeners. Hancock’s and Lobb’s Gardens were also quite extensive (Jervis 1938: 64). An 1887 Plan of Botany also shows Correy’s Tea Gardens on the shore, opposite where Sir Joseph Banks Road now enters Botany Road.

Boat Building

Photographs of nearby Frenchmans Bay in the first decades of the twentieth century show numerous boatsheds along the beach. The boat building industry in the area was apparently destroyed by the war, when boat construction was centred on the war effort (correspondence - NSW Heritage Office to Randwick City Council S96/1014/3:1999).

Recreation and Tourism

La Perouse, in particular, has had a long association with recreation and tourism. As early as the 1830s the area was a location for society picnic parties from Sydney. The Sir Joseph Banks Hotel established a long history of sporting recreation and in its heyday it boasted a jetty with bathing houses, five cinder running tracks and a grandstand and stadium that seated several thousand people.

In 1882, the tramline was extended to Botany and a tradition commenced where participants and spectators of the annual St Patrick’s Day march in the city would journey by tram to the area for a day of sporting events and picnicking (Silva 1978). By the beginning of the twentieth century


guesthouses were established at Yarra Bay. The construction of the tramline to La Perouse in 1902 substantially increased tourist visitation to the area.

Prior to the construction of the Bunnerong power station in about 1929 the foreshore, which was then in the vicinity of Bumborah Point Road, was dotted with modest weekenders of Sydney’s well-to-do merchant class, and the area was still regarded as semi-rural.

6.1.4 The Depression

The effects of the Great Depression of the 1930s were felt all over Australia. Unable to pay rents or mortgages, the only alternative was to set up a makeshift home in one of Sydney’s many unemployment camps. Unemployment camps sprang up all over Sydney but they tended to be located in the “scrubby, sandy, flea infested beauty spots” (Workers Weekly 16 March 1934) south of the harbour.

There were several of these camps in the Botany Bay, including Happy Valley, Frog Hollow and Hill 60 (Randwick Municipal Council 1985). Happy Valley was the biggest of the camps, containing 130 dwellings and 200 to 300 people. It was established gradually over three years from 1930 in a gully area to the west of Anzac Parade at La Perouse on land leased by the NSW Golf Club (Randwick Municipal Council 1985).

Frog Hollow was identified by Ruth Simms and Iris Williams on the first draft of a 1930s-1950s community map (Percival 1995:28-29) as being located at the northern end of Frenchmans Bay, adjacent to Yarra Bay headland.

It is remembered that in the 1940s, the army conducted training exercises with tanks on the beach and foredune areas of Frenchmans Bay (MLPAC 1986:65).

Suburbia slowly moved southwards from Maroubra after the Second World War. The tramline was removed in the 1960s and a new ring road around the headland was constructed.

6.1.5 Links to Sydney’s Electricity Supply

The first occasion on which a public demonstration of an electric light was given in Sydney was on 11 June 1863, when the city was illuminated in honour of the marriage of the Prince of Wales. The light, which was installed at the Observatory, was a single arc-lamp. Electricity for lighting was first used commercially in Sydney in 1878. The government of the day had decided to hold an international exhibition and to build an International Exhibition Garden Palace in the Botanic Gardens. Time in which to complete the Palace was short and Sir Henry Parkes imported several generators from England so that work could be carried out at night by means of are-light (Anderson 1955:7-8).

While Sydney City Councillors investigated the use of electricity for lighting Sydney’s streets, a number of councils in NSW installed electric systems for lighting their streets. In 1888, Tamworth was the first town in the Southern Hemisphere to light its streets by means of electricity. It was soon followed by Young, Penrith, Moss Vale, Broken Hill and Redfern. By 1891, each of those places had its own electricity supply system (Anderson 1955:10).

It was not until 8 July 1904 that Sydney’s streets were first illuminated using electricity. On that date electricity generated from Pyrmont Power Station illuminated the major streets from north to south between Circular Quay and Redfern Railway Station, and east to west from Hyde Park to Darling Harbour. By the end of that year most of the major streets of inner Sydney were lit using electricity (Anderson 1955:28-30).

The first real steps of expansion into Sydney’s suburbs were taken in 1910 when Sydney City Council entered into agreements with the municipalities of Annandale, Mascot, Randwick and Woollahra to extend the mains into their areas for the purpose of supplying the public. In that year the first substation to supply electricity for street lighting in a suburban municipality was built in Annandale (Anderson 1955:46).


By 1923, with the growing public demand for electricity, steps were taken to determine where to build a second power station. Four sites were selected for final consideration. The first was at Coalcliff on the South Coast coal fields, the second was on the Georges River, the third was on the Parramatta River, and the fourth was on the northern foreshore of Botany Bay near Bumborah Point. The latter location, at Bunnerong, was considered the most suitable. It was close to Botany railway line, it was a waterfront site, and, more importantly, it was close to the system load centre. Works on the site began in 1926 and erection of the station buildings commenced in 1927 (Anderson 1955:89-94).

Bunnerong Power Station began commercial operation on 2 January 1929. By May 1930, all construction work on the buildings and circulating water systems had been finished and the construction staff disbanded. Section ‘A’ of Bunnerong Power Station was completed (Anderson 1955:98-99). In early 1938 the Sydney County Council decided to build the ‘B’ section of Bunnerong, a completely new boiler house and an extension to the turbine house. Bunnerong ‘B’ first saw service on 5 September 1939; just days after Britain had declared war on Germany (Wilkenfeld and Spearitt 2004:7). Plate 6.1 shows the Bunnerong Power Station in operation during its zenith.

The Bunnerong Power Station at Botany Bay was progressively decommissioned between 1977 and 1981. Demolition of the power station commenced in 1979/80, with major demolition occurring in 1986/87. In March 1994 the 5 storey Bunnerong Switching Station or sub-station was demolished. The site of Bunnerong, the grandest power station of them all, is now part of the Port Botany container terminal (Wilkenfeld and Spearitt 2004:9).

Plate 6.1 Bunnerong Power Station – Section ‘A’ at right and Section ‘B’ at left, circa 1950 (Anderson 1955:164)


6.2 Historical Investigations

6.2.1 Botany Bay

There are three historical shipwrecks listed on the National Shipwreck Database that occur in Botany Bay, there is no definitive location for any of these sites. They are:

• Eileen

Location: Beached – sunk off Kurnell, 1934 – possibly salvaged;

• Minnie Wamsley

Location: Botany Bay, 1903; and

• Olive

Location: Botany Bay, Frenchmans Beach, 1930 – Possibly salvaged.

6.2.2 Kurnell

Several investigations have been made into the historical heritage of the study area. Prominent among them are:

• A heritage study of the Shire of Sutherland in 1993 (Perumal Murphy Wu 1993);

• A Draft Conservation Management & Cultural Tourism Plan for the Cape Baily Lighthouse in 1999 for the NPWS (Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd 1999); and

• A Heritage Issues Statement on the Cronulla Sewage Treatment Plant (Goddon Mackay Pty Ltd 1997).

There are ten European heritage items recorded for the Kurnell section of the study area. These are summarised in Table 6.1, and their locations are shown in Figure 6.2. Where available, listings are provided in Appendix 2.

These items include one nationally listed heritage item - the Kurnell Peninsula Headland. On 25 February 2005, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Ian Campbell, announced the listing of the Kurnell Peninsula Headland on the National Heritage List maintained under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).

The place occupies an area of approximately 325 ha on the southern headland at the entrance to Botany Bay. It includes the Meeting Place Precinct, including Captain Cook’s Landing Place, the coastal, landmark, sandstone, areas of Kurnell Headland between Sutherland Point in the north and Doughboy Head in the south, Endeavour Heights and sand dunes, including Botany Cone, in the south-west. The boundaries are defined by Botany Bay National Park (Kurnell Section) and a small parcel of Sydney Water land at Potter Point (Figure 6.1).

The site was selected for recording on the National Heritage List due to its significance as the site of Captain Cook’s first landing in Australia, and the site of the first recorded contact between indigenous inhabitants and British settlers. It was also the first site in Australia to be explored by British scientists, such as Joseph Banks. It is therefore considered to be of ‘outstanding heritage value’.

This site will not be affected by the current proposal.


Figure 6.1 Kurnell Peninsula Headland – National Heritage Listed Area (Australian Government – Department of Environment and Heritage)


6.2.3 La Perouse

Higginbotham (1989) and Kass (1989) have conducted reviews of the historical sources relevant to the La Perouse headland and the associated National Park estate. As a consequence, Higginbotham compiled a list of known sites or potential archaeological deposits. He also noted that archaeological deposits may be associated with the former Aboriginal Reserve (Higginbotham 1989:inv.no.66).

In 1990, the NSW Public Works Department (PWD 1990) completed a landscape analysis for La Perouse headland and Bare Island Historic site.

Two recordings of historic archaeological material have been made in the La Perouse area:

• McIntyre’s recording of a midden exposure in the middle portion of Frenchmans Bay noted the presence of clay pipe fragments and building foundations, together with reports of copper or brass pins fashioned into fish hooks (McIntyre 1985:1). This recording confirms the presence of an archaeological deposit associated with the site of the old Aboriginal Mission and Reserve; and

• In February 1999, surface runoff erosion along the foreshore of Frenchmans Bay, just north of the boat ramp, exposed a late nineteenth century former tip or dump site. The scour pit was approximately one metre deep and 5 x 9 m in area, and included glass and other artefacts dating between the 1870s and 1890s. Some of the relics were souvenired by visitors, though several were recovered and deposited with the La Perouse Museum and the Australian Museum, Sydney. The NSW Heritage Office recommended the site should be backfilled and the surface runoff directed away from the site.

The site occurs within an area known to have been subject to residential and commercial activities since at least the 1870s, including Edward Hemming’s accommodation house and various boatsheds and other businesses. The recording confirms the survival of, and potential for archaeological deposits associated with these activities, especially within the foreshore and fore-dune sand bodies of Frenchmans Bay area.

There are thirteen European heritage items recorded for the La Perouse section of the study area. These are summarised in Table 6.1 and their locations are shown in Figure 6.3. Where available, listings are provided in Appendix 2.


6.3 Summary of Historical Heritage Listings

Table 6.1 Historical heritage listings within the vicinity of the study area.

No. Item Location Heritage Listing

Kurnell

1 Church (former) 121-123 Captain Cook Drive, Kurnell Peninsula, Kurnell.

NSW Heritage Inventory (HI); Kurnell Peninsula REP 1989.

2 Silver Beach and roadway

Prince Charles Parade, Kurnell Peninsula.

NSW HI; Kurnell Peninsula REP 1989.

3 Indigenous Trees 256-262 Prince Charles Parade, Kurnell Peninsula

NSW HI; Kurnell Peninsula REP 1989

4 Botany Bay National Park – Kurnell Historic Site (including all monuments and trees)

Kurnell Peninsula, Botany Bay NP NSW HI; Kurnell Peninsula REP 1989; Department of Environment and Conservation s170 Heritage & Conservation Register (DEC HCR)

5 Captain Cook Drive Kurnell Peninsula. Kurnell Peninsula REP 1989.

6 Prince Charles Parade Kurnell Peninsula. Kurnell Peninsula REP 1989.

7 Kurnell Peninsula Headland

Approximately 325 ha on southern headland at entrance to Botany Bay.

National Heritage List.

8 Foreshore Wall; Silver Beach

Kurnell Peninsula DEC HCR

9 Houston’s Lookout Kurnell Peninsula, Botany Bay NP DEC HCR

10 Maru-yena Road Kurnell Peninsula, Botany Bay NP DEC HCR

La Perouse

11 Botany Bay Entrance About 300 ha Comprising La Perouse Peninsula and the NE section of Kurnell Peninsula.

Register of the National Estate (RNE); National Trust, NSW (NT NSW).

12 Tomb of pere le Receveur

La Perouse Peninsula. RNE; NSW HI; Randwick LEP 1998; NT NSW; DEC HCR.

13 Macquarie Watchtower La Perouse Peninsula. RNE; NSW HI; Randwick LEP 1998; NT NSW; DEC (HCR).

14 La Perouse Memorial La Perouse Peninsula. RNE; NSW HI; Randwick LEP 1998; NT NSW; DEC HCR.

15 La Perouse Museum (Old Cable Station)

Anzac Parade, La Perouse. NSW HI; Randwick LEP 1998; NT NSW; DEC HCR.

16 Bare Island Fort, Causeway and Former Barracks

La Perouse. RNE; NSW Heritage Register (HR); Randwick LEP 1998; NT NSW; DEC HCR.

17 Jesse Stuart Broomfield Fountain

Anzac Parade, La Perouse. NSW HI; Randwick LEP 1998.

18 Chinese Market Garden Bunnerong Road, La Perouse. NSW HR; Randwick LEP 1998.

19 Pioneers Park, Botany Cemetery

Bunnerong Road, Matraville. NSW HI; Randwick LEP 1998.

20 Eastern Suburbs Crematorium

51 Military Road, Matraville. NSW HI; Randwick LEP 1998.

21 Gardens and Lawns La Perouse Peninsula DEC HCR

22 Happy Valley Depression Shacks

La Perouse, Congwong Beach DEC HCR

23 La Perouse Headland La Perouse DEC HCR


Figure 6.1 Location of historic sites within the Kurnell section of the study area. (Green line indicates study area and black squares and lines, and grey shading show site locations)

(Extract from Port Hacking 1:25 000 topographic map 3rd Ed (L&PI 2001))

Figure 6.2 Location of historic sites within the La Perouse section of the study area.

(Green line indicates study area and black squares and lines, and grey shading show site locations) (Extract from Botany Bay 1:25 000 topographic map 3rd Ed (L&PI 2002))

0 1km

9

108

1

2

4/7/11

5

6

3

0

11

12

1314

15

16

17

1819 & 20

212322


6.4 Predictive Historical Archaeology Statement

The types of places or items that may form part of the historical archaeology context include:

• Below ground evidence, including building foundations, occupation deposits, features and artefacts;

• Above ground evidence, including buildings, works, industrial structures and relics that are intact or ruined;

• Areas of land that display evidence of human activity or occupation; and

• Shipwrecks, deposits and structures associated with maritime activities.

Unrecorded historic sites and features of heritage significance that may occur within the study area include:

• Buildings and structures will be focused along the early centres and corridors of occupation, industry, travel and transport;

• Standing, ruined, buried, abandoned or still in use structures;

• Standing commercial and public buildings, which are most likely to survive within the suburban landscape;

• Tramway sites, features and infrastructure will be focused along the rail corridor;

• Sites associated with early roads will be closely associated with early cadastral road reserves, watershed ridgelines, and related to early river and creek crossing points;

• Archaeological sites such as the occupation remains of former dwellings including homesteads, houses and huts, will be distributed in close association with land settlement patterns, and correlated with favourable agricultural lands, trading nodes and transport corridors;

• Shipwrecks and the submerged remains of other structures or deposits such as from wharves, jetties and piers are likely to occur on the banks and bed of Botany Bay. Jetty wharf locations tend to cluster at towns and adjacent to industrial sites.


7. RESULTS

7.1 Aboriginal Sites

No previously unrecorded Aboriginal objects or sites were identified in the course of the field survey. One area of archaeological potential (K PAD 1) was identified. The entirety of the study area is considered to be archaeologically sensitive due to its landscape context close to Botany Bay.

Kurnell Potential Archaeological Deposit 1 (K PAD 1)

AMG: 335100.6235525 to 335350.6235350 to 334550.6235300 to 334600.6235000 taken from the Port Hacking 1:25 000 topographic map 2nd Edition.

An area of potential archaeological deposit was identified along the Kurnell foreshore. The area encompasses the whole of the foreshore from the high water mark to Torres Street. The area is relatively flat and sloping slightly to the south. Prince Charles Parade appears to have been banked up on the southern side. The area is covered in sand deposits. A site has been identified in close proximity to the study area in a similar landscape context at Sutherland Point (Site No. 52-3-0219).

The foreshore has been disturbed from the construction of Prince Charles Parade and landscaping along the foreshore.

The proposed cable route that enters Kurnell at Silver Beach and continues in a westerly direction along Prince Charles Parade and then south along Silver Beach Road will impact this area (Plates 7.1 to 7.4).

Beneath the disturbance from the roads and landscaping along this part of the route it is considered that there is moderate to high potential for subsurface archaeological deposits to remain in situ. In addition, there is also a moderate to high potential for the presence of burials within this area.

Plate 7.1 Location of cable entrance to Kurnell at Silver Beach (facing south)

Plate 7.2 Cable route along Prince Charles Parade eastern end (facing west)

Plate 7.3 Cable route along Prince Charles Parade western end (facing east)

Plate 7.4 Cable route along Silver Beach Road (facing south)


7.2 Historic Sites

Two previously unrecorded historic sites were identified within the study area. They are a church located on Prince Charles Parade, Kurnell, and a building on the eastern shore of Frenchmans Bay, La Perouse.

St John Fisher Catholic Church (KH1), Kurnell

This site is a catholic church located at 60 Prince Charles Parade, Kurnell (Plate 7.5). A plaque under the front west window dates the building to 1937. It is a typical single level rectangular-shaped church structure of the early twentieth century. Its walls are constructed of light yellow brick, with white four-pane sash windows and three stained glass windows over the white wooden front door. A brick steeple is above the front door and has a white cross on top. The roof is constructed of corrugated iron with white and green guttering and trim. A low orange brick wall separates the church from Prince Charles Parade. The Church in excess of 50 years old and therefore protected under Section 139 of the NSW Heritage Act 1977 as a relic.

Plate 7.5 St John Fisher Catholic Church, Kurnell (facing southwest)

‘First Fleet Marine’ Restaurant and Boatshed Building (LaPH1), La Perouse

This site was described by Navin Officer (2000) as a relatively recent timber framed two storey building, built over the foreshore and suspended on timber piles. The building has formerly operated as a boatshed and has been modified for its current use as a restaurant and café. The original building was probably constructed in the 1940s or 1950s. A now vacant timber platform, suspended on piles, abuts this building on its southern side and was the former site of a now demolished timber-framed, fibro clad two storey building (Plate 7.6).

Plate 7.6 ‘First Fleet Marine’ Restaurant and Boatshed Building on eastern shore of Frenchmans Bay (circled). Comte de La Pérouse memorial in foreground (facing northeast).


7.3 Inventory of Site Locations

Table 7.1 All sites in the vicinity of the Botany Bay study area (see Figures 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3) Sites that will be directly impacted are marked with an *

Recording Type Recording Code Location (Grid references in AMG:AGD 56)

Midden 45-5-2587 336500.6238000

Midden 45-6-0292 336280.6238150

Midden 45-6-0561 & 45-6-1762 336900.6237400

Rock engraving 45-6-0648 336339.6237439

Rock engraving 45-6-0649 to 0652 336553.6237349

Rock engraving 45-6-0653 336450.6237600

Rock engraving 45-6-0659 & 45-6-0873 336700.6238010

Shelter with midden 45-6-0886 336400.6238500

Shelter with midden 46-6-0976 336161.6239636

Midden 45-6-1144 336450.6237600

Midden 45-6-1145 336750.6237450

Shelter with art 45-6-1146 336750.6237375

Midden 45-6-1237 336350.6238550

PAD 45-6-2658 337000.6238900

Midden 52-3-0212 334300.6234500

*PAD K PAD 1 335100.6235525 to 335350.6235350 to 334550.6235300 to 334600.6235000

Historic – Church (former) 1 121-123 Captain Cook Drive, Kurnell.

Historic – Silver Beach 2 Prince Charles Parade, Kurnell Peninsula.

Historic – Indigenous Trees 3 256-262 Prince Charles Parade, Kurnell

Historic – Monuments, etc. 4 Kurnell Peninsula, Botany Bay Nat Park

*Historic – Captain Cook Drive 5 Kurnell Peninsula.

*Historic – Prince Charles Pde. 6 Kurnell Peninsula.

Historic – Kurnell Headland 7 325 ha on southern headland of Botany Bay.

Historic – Wall, Silver Beach 8 Kurnell Peninsula

Historic – Houston’s Lookout 9 Kurnell Peninsula, Botany Bay Nat Park

Historic – Maru-yena Road 10 Kurnell Peninsula, Botany Bay Nat Park

Historic – Botany Bay Entrance 11 300 ha, comprising La Perouse Peninsula and the NE section of Kurnell Peninsula.

Historic – Tomb 12 La Perouse Peninsula.

Historic – Watchtower 13 La Perouse Peninsula.

Historic – Memorial 14 La Perouse Peninsula.

Historic – Museum 15 Anzac Parade, La Perouse.

Historic – Bare Island Fort 16 La Perouse.

Historic – Fountain 17 Anzac Parade, La Perouse.

Historic – Market Gardens 18 Bunnerong Road, La Perouse.

Historic – Cemetery 19 Bunnerong Road, Matraville.

Historic – Crematorium 20 51 Military Road, Matraville.

Historic – Garden and Lawns 21 La Perouse Peninsula

Historic – Happy Valley Shacks 22 La Perouse, Congwong Beach

Historic – La Perouse Headland 23 La Perouse

Historic – Church KH1 60 Prince Charles Drive

Historic – Boatshed café LaPH1 Frenchmans Bay


Figure 7.1 Location of all Aboriginal and Historic sites in the vicinity of the study area

Blue = Aboriginal, Red = Historic (base map supplied by Molino Stewart)


Figure 7.2 Location of all Aboriginal and Historic sites at Kurnell

Blue = Aboriginal, Black = Historic. (Extract from Port Hacking 1:25 000 topographic map 3rd Edition (L&PI 2001))

8

1

2

5

6

3

52-2-0212

0 1km

K PAD 1

KH1

4/7/24

9

10


Figure 7.3 Location of all Aboriginal and Historic sites at La Perouse Blue = Aboriginal, Black = Historic.

(Extract from Botany Bay 1:25 000 topographic map 3rd Edition (L&PI 2002))

0 1km

11

12

13

14 15

16

17

18 19&20

21

36

22

45-6-0292

45-6-0886

45-6-0659 & 0873 45-5-2587

45-6-065345-6-1144

45-6-0648 45-6-114545-6-0561 & 1762

45-6-0649 to 0652 45-6-1146

45-6-0976

45-6-2658

45-6-1237

LaPH1


7.4 Survey Coverage and Visibility Variables

The effectiveness of archaeological field survey is to a large degree related to the obtrusiveness of the sites being looked for and the incidence and quality of ground surface visibility. Ground surface visibility is a measure of the bare ground visible to the archaeologist during the survey. There are two main variables used to assess ground surface visibility, the frequency of exposure encountered by the surveyor and the quality of visibility within those exposures. The predominant factors affecting the quality of ground surface visibility within an exposure are the extent of vegetation and ground litter, the depth and origin of exposure, the extent of recent sedimentary deposition, and the level of visual interference from surface gravels.

The obtrusiveness of different site types is also an important factor in assessing the impact of visibility levels. Sites based on rock exposures, such as rock shelters, open engravings and grinding grooves are more likely to be encountered than sites with no surface relief located on, or within, sedimentary matrices. Rock platform sites are still subject to visibility constraints in the form of obscuring ground litter, flood debris and sedimentation, however, rock shelters are less likely to go uninspected. The inspection rate of rock shelters is likely to be 100 per cent in a comprehensive survey, however, the extent of leaf litter and recent sediment on a rock shelter floor may be an important factor in a recorder’s ability to detect either a site, or simply a potential archaeological deposit.

In another example, artefacts made from locally occurring rock such as quartz may be more difficult to detect under usual field survey conditions than rock types that are foreign to the area. The impact of natural gravels on artefact detection was taken into account in the visibility variables estimates outlined above.

The natural incidence of sandstone platforms suitable for grinding grooves or engraving, together with the incidence of old growth trees, are important considerations in identifying both survey effectiveness and site location patterns outside of environmentally determined factors.

Visibility varied across the Botany Bay study area but was generally poor. Areas of visibility were limited to foot tracks and erosion scalds.

The whole length of the cable route in the Kurnell section of the study area was surveyed on foot. Visibility along the route was poor, exposure incidence was less than 10% and visibility within these areas was 50% to 80%. The cable will be laid within the paved road along the majority of this route so survey was undertaken on the verge beside the road.

Only the periphery of the Kurnell substation was able to be surveyed as it was not possible to gain access to the substation. The exposure incidence immediately outside the substation was approximately 20% with 80% visibility within the exposures. Within the substation it appear that the exposure incidence decreased to less than 10%.

The location of the directional drilling station on the La Perouse section of the study area was surveyed on foot, as was the immediate vicinity of La Perouse Peninsula and the Bunnerong substation. Visibility in these areas was poor due to landscaping and disturbance. The exposure incidence was less than 10% with most of the exposure being at the drilling station. Visibility within these areas was approximately 30% due to road gravel cover.

The majority of the cable route in the La Perouse section of the study area was not completely surveyed on foot. For those parts, sections along Bunnerong and Military Road, it was deemed that visibility was nil as the cable is to be laid beneath the road along these parts of the route. Both of these roads are highly developed and landscaped. In addition, the bedrock along those parts of the route is also very shallow and any surface deposits, therefore, will be also be shallow.

One section of the cable route at its crossing of the drain, was surveyed. Again this area is highly disturbed with exposure being less than 10% and visibility within these areas being less than 50%. Here the cable will be bored under the drain.


8. SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT

8.1 European Heritage

8.1.1 Assessment Criteria

The NSW Heritage Office has defined a methodology and set of criteria for the assessment of cultural heritage significance for items and places, where these do not include Aboriginal heritage from the pre-contact period (NSW Heritage Office & DUAP 1996, NSW Heritage Office 2000). The assessments provided in this report follow the Heritage Office methodology.

The following heritage assessment criteria are those set out for Listing on the State Heritage Register. In many cases items will be significant under only one or two criteria. The State Heritage Register was established under Part 3A of the Heritage Act (as amended in 1999) for listing of items of environmental heritage that are of state heritage significance. Environmental heritage means those places, buildings, works, relics, moveable objects, and precincts, of state or local heritage significance (section 4, Heritage Act 1977).

An item will be considered to be of State (or local) heritage significance if, in the opinion of the Heritage Council of NSW, it meets one or more of the following criteria:

Criterion (a) an item is important in the course, or pattern, of NSW’s cultural or natural history (or the cultural or natural history of the local area);

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

Criterion (c) an item is important in demonstrating aesthetic characteristics and/or a high degree of creative or technical achievement in NSW (or the local area);

Criterion (d) an item has strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group in NSW (or the local area) for social, cultural or spiritual reasons;

Criterion (e) an item has potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of NSW’s cultural or natural history (or the cultural or natural history of the local area);

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

Criterion (g) an item is important in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a class of NSW’s (or the local area’s):

• Cultural or natural places; or

• Cultural or natural environments.

An item is not to be excluded from the Register on the ground that items with similar characteristics have already been listed on the Register. Only particularly complex items or places will be significant under all criteria.

In using these criteria it is important to assess the values first, then the local or State context in which they may be significant.

Different components of a place may make a different relative contribution to its heritage value. For example, loss of integrity or condition may diminish significance. In some cases it is constructive to note the relative contribution of an item or its components. Table 8.1 provides a guide to ascribing relative value.


Table 8.1 Guide to ascribing relative heritage values

Grading Justification Status

Exceptional Rare or outstanding item of local or State significance. High degree of intactness Item can be interpreted relatively easily.

Fulfils criteria for local or State listing.

High High degree of original fabric. Demonstrates a key element of the item’s significance. Alterations do not detract from significance.


Moderate Altered or modified elements. Elements with little heritage value, but which contribute to the overall significance of the item.


Low Alterations detract from significance. Difficult to interpret.

Does not fulfil criteria for local or State listing.

Intrusive Damaging to the item’s heritage significance. Does not fulfil criteria for local or State listing.

8.2.2 The Study Area

St John Fisher Catholic Church (KH1)

St John Fisher Catholic Church is over 50 years old it is classified as a relic, and therefore protected under Section 139 of the NSW Heritage Act 1977. It also has a strong or special association with the Kurnell community for social, cultural and spiritual reasons (Criterion d), and is important in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a class of the local area’s cultural places (Criterion g).

The Church has a high degree of original fabric, which is a key element of the item’s significance, and has no visible alterations that detract from its significance. It is therefore considered to have high heritage significance and fulfils the criteria for listing at a local level.

‘First Fleet Marine’ Restaurant and Boatshed Building (LaPH1)

Despite its relatively recent age, this building presents a mid twentieth century character and is evocative of the formerly extensive foreshore buildings and boatsheds at the north western side of La Perouse headland. It therefore contains significant local heritage values as an evocative scenic and visual component of the cultural landscape (Criterion c).

This building has altered and modified elements, and elements with little heritage value but which contribute to the overall significance of the item. It is therefore considered to have moderate heritage significance and fulfils the criteria for listing at a local level.


9. STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS1

Both Commonwealth and State legislation establish requirements for approvals dealing with heritage issues in development proposals. Below is a brief outline of the requirements which are relevant for the purposes of this report.

9.1 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW)

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 ("Planning Act") governs development in NSW, and applies to the Project. The Planning Act provides three separate regimes for environmental impact assessment and/or approval of development:

• Part 4 provides the development consent regime. Part 4 may require development consent from a "consent authority", which will usually be the relevant local council.

• Part 5 applies to development which is permissible without development consent and which, relevantly, is carried out by or on behalf of a "public authority" (such as EnergyAustralia). Part 5 requires comprehensive environmental assessment but does not impose an external approval requirement.

• Part 3A (which commenced on 1 August 2005) provides a regime for assessment, and approval by the Minister for Planning ("Planning Minister"), of certain major infrastructure and other projects.

The Planning Minister recently made an order under Part 3A, which has the effect of making the Project subject to Part 3A. If a project approval is issued for the Project under Part 3A, then the following heritage related approval regimes will not apply to the Project:

• the approval regime under Part 4, or the excavation permit regime under section 139, of the Heritage Act 1977 (NSW); and

• the permit regime under section 87, or the consent regime under section 90, of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NSW).

The usual practice for the management of cultural heritage issues when a project is a development to which Part 3A applies, is to address heritage issues in the environmental assessment which is undertaken for that project under Part 3A. In this regard, EnergyAustralia will consult with the Department of Planning with respect to the appropriate assessment process under Part 3A.

The operation of the Planning Act is structured around the applicable environmental planning instruments, which are made under the Planning Act, and any orders made by the Planning Minister for the purposes of Part 3A. Environmental planning instruments include State environmental planning policies ("SEPPs"), regional environmental plans ("REPs") and local environmental plans ("LEPs").

In this case, the applicable environmental planning instruments include Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 17 - Kurnell Peninsula. Both of those instruments identify items of heritage significance in the areas to which they apply. Although the heritage-related development consent requirements in those instruments do not apply because the Project is governed by Part 3A of the Planning Act, this report includes an assessment of heritage significance and heritage impact in relation to relevant items identified in those instruments.

9.2 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth)

The key Commonwealth environmental statute is the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) ("EPBC Act").

1 The following information is provided as a guide only and is accurate to the best knowledge of Navin Officer Heritage Consultants. Readers are advised that this information is subject to confirmation from qualified legal opinion.


9.2.1 The EPBC Act and heritage

The EPBC Act provides a regime for approvals from the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment and Heritage (the "Commonwealth Minister") in relation to the taking of "actions" in certain limited circumstances. The Project constitutes an "action" under the EPBC Act.

The relevant circumstances include where an "action" will, or is likely to, have a "significant impact" in relation to a "matter of national environmental significance". Matters of national environmental significance listed in the EPBC Act relevantly include:

• the world heritage values of a listed World Heritage place; and

• the national heritage values of a listed National Heritage place.

In addition, an action which will, or is likely to, have a significant impact on the environment on Commonwealth land would require an approval from the Commonwealth Minister. In this context, it should be noted that the term "environment" is defined in the EPBC Act to include "heritage values of places".

Some guidance on the heritage values of places may be found on the Register of the National Estate, which was established under the (now repealed) Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975 (Cth) and is retained for information purposes.

The "heritage value" of a place is defined in the EPBC Act to include "the place's natural and cultural environment having aesthetic, historic, scientific or social significance, or other significance, for current and future generations of Australians". It appears this may include (among other things) indigenous heritage value.

The EPBC Act defines the term "place" very broadly, to include:

"(a) a location, area or region; and

(b) a building or other structure, or group of buildings or other structures (which may include equipment, furniture, fittings and articles associated or connected with the building or structure, or group of buildings or structures); and

(c) in relation to the protection, maintenance, preservation or improvement of a place - the immediate surroundings of a thing in paragraph (a) or (b)."

9.2.2 Approval triggers

The Commonwealth Department of the Environment and Heritage ("DEH") has issued guidelines to assist in determining whether an impact is likely to be considered "significant" for the purposes for the EPBC Act. It is important to note that these guidelines are only an expression of DEH policy on the matter.

An action does not have to occur at or on a place to have a significant impact on it.

Each of the relevant heritage approval triggers is addressed in turn:

(i) World Heritage List

There are no listed World Heritage places in the vicinity of the Project. Therefore, this approval trigger is not relevant to the Project.

(ii) National Heritage List

There are some legal issues concerning whether this approval trigger would apply to EnergyAustralia in the context of the Project, given the wording of the relevant sections of the EPBC Act. However, this report is prepared without analysing these legal issues, on


the assumption that this approval trigger may apply if the relevant impact threshold is satisfied.

A "National Heritage place" is a place which has been included in the National Heritage List under the EPBC Act. The "National Heritage values" of a "National Heritage place" are those "National Heritage values" of the place which are specifically included in the National Heritage List for that place.

In 2005, the Commonwealth Minister included parts of the Kurnell Peninsula headland in the National Heritage List. This report therefore provides an assessment of whether the Project will, or is likely to, have a significant impact on the National Heritage values of that listed place.

(iii) Commonwealth land

The approval process

Actions which require approval are called "controlled actions". A person proposing to take an action that the person thinks is or may be a controlled action must refer the proposal to the Commonwealth Minister for a decision whether or not it is in fact a controlled action. In making a decision, the Commonwealth Minister must consider "all adverse impacts (if any) the action has or will have, or is likely to have, on the matter protected by each provision of Part 3 [of the EPBC Act]".

If the Commonwealth Minister decides that an action is a controlled action, then the assessment and approval process in Parts 8-11 of the EPBC Act applies, but only in relation to those impacts which the Commonwealth Minister decided caused the action to be a controlled action.

The Commonwealth Minister must determine the mode of assessment required for each controlled action, from the following options:

• an accredited assessment process of the Commonwealth or a State or Territory (such as, potentially, the assessment process under Part 3A of the Planning Act);

• an "assessment on preliminary documentation", as directed by the Commonwealth Minister;

• the preparation of a public environment report;

• the preparation of an environmental impact statement ("EIS"); or

• the conduct of a public inquiry.

In some cases, the assessment process will involve public consultation.

The assessment is then carried out in accordance with the Commonwealth Minister's determination. Once the assessment is completed:

• DEH, or the commission (in the case of an inquiry), must prepare an assessment report on the proposed action, having regard to the outcome of the assessment; and

• the Commonwealth Minister will determine the application for approval on the basis of, among other things, the relevant assessment material and DEH's assessment report.

An approval may be subject to conditions.


9.2.3 Exemptions from the approval requirement

The EPBC Act provides limited opportunities for exemption from the assessment and/or approval requirements discussed above. The authors have assumed that none of these exemptions apply to the Project.

9.3 Heritage Act 1977 (NSW)

The Heritage Act provides two approval mechanisms for protecting heritage - statutory listing or orders in respect of specific heritage items and land, and general protection for all "relics".

9.3.1 Heritage items and land

The Heritage Act establishes a listing regime to protect places, buildings, works, relics, moveable objects, precincts (all defined as "items") and land. An item or land may be:

• listed on the State Heritage Register - the list is maintained by the NSW Heritage Council, and items or land may be placed on the list by direction from the Planning Minister (on the recommendation of the NSW Heritage Council); or

• subject to an interim heritage order ("IHO") - an IHO may be issued by:

~ the Planning Minister (the "NSW Minister") - in the case of items or land of either State or local heritage significance; or

~ the relevant local council, if it has an appropriate delegation from the Planning Minister - in the case of items or land of local heritage significance.

If an item or land is on the State Heritage Register or is subject to an IHO, then a person must not:

• demolish the building or work;

• damage or despoil the place, precinct or land, or any part of the place, precinct or land;

• move, damage or destroy the relic or moveable object;

• excavate any land for the purpose of exposing or moving the relic (unless the relic is protected by an IHO issued by a local council);

• carry out any development in relation to the land on which the building, work or relic is situated, the land that comprises the place, or land within the precinct;

• alter the building, work, relic or moveable object;

• display any notice or advertisement on the place, building, work, relic, moveable object or land, or in the precinct; or

• damage or destroy any tree or other vegetation on, or remove any tree or other vegetation from, the place, precinct or land,

except in accordance with an approval from the NSW Heritage Council, or (in the case of an IHO made by a local council) the relevant local council.

The Heritage Act provides some exemptions from the requirement for an approval.

As indicated in section 9.1, if the Planning Minister grants approval for the Project under Part 3A of the Planning Act, then this approval regime will not apply.

Nevertheless, this report provides an assessment of the likely impacts of the Project on any items which are included on the State Heritage Register or subject to an IHO.


9.3.2 Relics

A person must not:

• disturb or excavate any land where the person either knows or has "reasonable cause to suspect" that the disturbance or excavation will or is likely to result in a "relic" being discovered, exposed, moved, damaged or destroyed; or

• disturb or excavate any land on which the person has discovered or exposed a "relic",

unless this is done in accordance with an excavation permit issued by the NSW Heritage Council.

The term "relic" is defined in the Heritage Act as "any deposit, object or material evidence which relates to the settlement of the area that comprises NSW, not being Aboriginal settlement, and which is 50 or more years old". For the purpose of Part 6 Division 9 of the Heritage Act (which prohibits excavation as set out above), a relic does include an historic shipwreck.

The Heritage Act provides some exemptions from the requirement for an approval. In addition, the prohibition discussed above does not apply to an item which is listed on the State Heritage Register or is subject to an IHO.

As indicated in section 9.1, if the Planning Minister grants approval for the Project under Part 3A of the Planning Act, then this permit regime will not apply.

Nevertheless, this report provides an assessment of the likely impacts of the Project on any known relics.

Irrespective of whether any requirement for approval or a permit applies, a person who is aware or believes that he or she has discovered or located a relic must notify the Heritage Council within a reasonable time, unless he or she believes (on reasonable grounds) that the Heritage Council is already aware of the location of the relic.

9.3.3 Historic shipwrecks

The Planning Minister may declare the remains of any ship within State waters or within the State to be an "historic shipwreck". It is then an offence to move, damage or destroy any historic shipwreck otherwise than in accordance with a historic shipwrecks permit. These protections do not apply to State waters to which the Historic Shipwrecks Act 1976 (Cth) applies (see section 9.5 below).

9.3.4 Heritage and conservation register

The Heritage Act also requires a "government instrumentality" (which includes EnergyAustralia), among other things:

• to maintain its own Heritage and Conservation Register, for all heritage items which it owns or occupies and which:

are listed on the State Heritage Register are subject to an IHO;

are listed in an LEP as heritage items; or

could, in accordance with guidelines issued by the Heritage Council, be listed on the State Heritage Register or subject to an IHO;

• for items on its Register "that are under its care, control or management":

to ensure that the items and relevant land are maintained with due diligence according to State Owned Heritage Management Principles which are approved by the Minister for the Environment from time to time; and


to comply with the "heritage asset management guidelines" issued by the NSW Heritage Council from time to time; and

• to give the NSW Heritage Council at least 14 days written notice before the government instrumentality removes any item from its Register or demolishes any place, building or work entered in its Register.

This report includes an assessment of heritage significance and heritage impact in relation to relevant items identified in relevant Heritage and Conservation Registers.

9.4 National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NSW)

The National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 ("NPW Act") is the primary legislative mechanism for the protection and management of Aboriginal objects and Aboriginal places in NSW. The NPW Act makes the Director-General of the National Parks and Wildlife (National Parks Director-General") the authority responsible for the protection of Aboriginal objects and Aboriginal places.

9.4.1 Aboriginal places and Aboriginal objects

Parts 6 and 6A of the NPW Act protect "Aboriginal places" and "Aboriginal objects".

An "Aboriginal object" is defined to mean "any deposit, object or material evidence (not being a handicraft made for sale) relating to the Aboriginal habitation of the area that comprises New South Wales, being habitation before or concurrent with (or both) the occupation of that area by persons of non-Aboriginal extraction, and includes Aboriginal remains".

An "Aboriginal place" is a place which the Minister for the Environment declares to be so, by notice published in the NSW Government Gazette, on the basis that the Minister is of the opinion that the place "is or was of special significance with respect to Aboriginal culture".

A person must not:

• disturb or excavate any land, or cause any land to be disturbed or excavated, for the purpose of discovering an Aboriginal object,

• disturb or move on any land an Aboriginal object that is the property of the Crown, other than an Aboriginal object that is in the custody or under the control of the Australian Museum Trust,

• take possession of an Aboriginal object that is in a national park, historic site, state conservation area, regional park, nature reserve, karst conservation reserve or Aboriginal area,

• remove an Aboriginal object from a national park, historic site, state conservation area, regional park, nature reserve, karst conservation reserve or Aboriginal area, or

• erect or maintain, in a national park, historic site, state conservation area, regional park, nature reserve, karst conservation reserve or Aboriginal area, a building or structure for the safe custody, storage or exhibition of any Aboriginal object,

except in accordance with a permit issued by the National Parks Director-General.

In addition, a person must not knowingly destroy, deface or damage, or knowingly cause or permit the destruction or defacement of or damage to, an Aboriginal object or Aboriginal place, except in accordance with a consent issued by the National Parks Director-General.

As indicated in section 9.1, if the Planning Minister grants approval for the Project under Part 3A of the Planning Act, then these consent and permit regimes will not apply.

Nevertheless, this report provides an assessment of the likely impacts of the Project on any identified Aboriginal objects or Aboriginal places in the vicinity of the Project.


9.4.2 Consultation with Aboriginal stakeholders

In January 2005, the Department of Environment and Conservation ("DEC") introduced Interim Guidelines for Aboriginal Community Consultation with regard to the preparation of applications for a consent or permit under the NPW Act. The Interim Guidelines include a required process of notification of intended applications in the local media, an invitation for stakeholder groups to register interest, and various time periods providing an opportunity for registered stakeholders to comment and review proposed methodologies and assessments.

Documented and appropriate consultation with relevant Aboriginal Community representatives is required by the DEC for endorsement of consultant recommendations or the provision of consents and permits by the DEC (refer Standards for Archaeological Practice in Aboriginal Heritage Management in 1997 NPWS Standards and Guidelines Kit).

9.4.3 Notification of sites of Aboriginal objects

A person who is aware of the location of an Aboriginal object must notify the National Parks Director-General in the prescribed manner and within a reasonable time after the person becomes aware of the location of an Aboriginal object. The obligation will not apply where the person believes, on reasonable grounds, that the National Parks Director-General is already aware of the location of that Aboriginal object.

9.4.4 Statutory constraints arising from artefacts which constitute background scatter

Background scatter is a term generally used by archaeologists to refer to artefacts that cannot be usefully related to a place or focus of past activity. There is no single concept for background 'scatter' or discard, and therefore no agreed definition. The recognition of background material within a particular study area is dependent on an appreciation of local contextual and taphonomic factors. Artefacts within a ‘background’ scatter can be found in most landscape types and may vary considerably in density.

Standard archaeological methodologies cannot effectively predict the location of individual artefacts within background scatters. Surface survey may detect background material either as individual artefacts (‘isolated finds’), or even as small, low-density ‘sites’. Subsurface testing may sample, and through analysis, characterise background material. However, beyond the scope of archaeological sampling, the potential to encounter background artefacts within the context of development related ground disturbance will always remain.

Most previous cultural resource management archaeological methodologies have acknowledged that there is little scientific justification for the conduct of archaeological salvage or ground disturbance monitoring to effect the recovery of background artefacts. The intrinsic scientific value of any recovered artefacts does not, in general, outweigh the expense of conducting the monitoring. However, low density distributions of artefacts are a current subject of interest by some heritage practitioners and DEC policy regarding this issue may change in the future. The monitoring of construction related ground works by Aboriginal groups is now increasingly practiced. The recovery of background scatter artefacts is often a probable outcome of such monitoring exercises.

9.5 Historic Shipwrecks Act 1976 (Cth)

This Act aims to protect certain shipwrecks and relics of historic significance that are in or have been removed from Australian waters or waters above the continental shelf of Australia.

A wreck must be at least 75 years old, before it can be declared to be an historic shipwreck. A permit from the Commonwealth Minister is required before any disturbance to an historic shipwreck can occur.


10. MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Botany Bay Cable Project will necessitate the disturbance of ground within the footprint of the new 132kV cable route. Any natural ground surface or subsurface deposits will be destroyed by the project. A majority of the study area has been previously disturbed by the construction of roads, landscaping and the industrial developments in La Perouse.

This project would be approved under Part 3A of the Environment, Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

10.1 Aboriginal sites

There are 15 previously recorded Aboriginal places (14 sites and one PAD) located in close proximity to the Botany Bay study area, none of which will be directly affected by the project.

No additional Aboriginal sites or objects were located during the field survey of the Botany Bay Cable Project. However, one new area of archaeological potential, K PAD 1, was identified on Kurnell Peninsula. This area will be impacted by the proposed project.

10.2 European sites

There are 25 European historic sites located in close proximity to the study area. Twenty three are previously recorded sites and are two new sites, the ‘First Fleet Marine’ Restaurant and Boatshed Building (LaPH1), and St John Fisher Catholic Church (KH1), were identified during this study.

Parts of two of these sites, Prince Charles Parade and Captain Cook Drive, will be directly impacted by the installation of the of the new electricity cable as the cable will be installed in the road reserves of these roads. However, the impacts on the heritage significance of the items are considered to be minor.

The Nationally Heritage Listed Kurnell Peninsula will not be affected by the current proposal.

Based on a detailed aquatic ecology survey of the seabed along the proposed route corridor on either side of the main shipping route and numerous Hydrographic surveys it is concluded that there is no need for a detailed maritime survey of the proposed pipeline route.

10.3 Recommendations

It is recommended that:

1. Under the current proposal K PAD 1 will be impacted by the project. Archaeological subsurface investigation of the area should be undertaken to determine the nature, extent and integrity of any potential archaeological deposit. Mechanical excavation with an auger is the preferred investigation method.

• If subsurface testing is required before approval of the project under Part 3A then a section 87 permit is required from the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC). If a planning focus meeting for this project was not held before 1st January 2005 then the Interim guidelines for Aboriginal Community Consultation need to be followed. This process requires a preparatory time of at least seven weeks prior to commencement of fieldwork.; and

• If subsurface testing is required after the approval of the project under Part 3A then the testing regime should form part of the statement of commitments for the project.

2. Under the current proposal, the previously recorded PAD (PAD 1 on the eastern side of Little Bay Road) will not be affected by the project. However, if the current route is varied so that the cable is required to be laid on the eastern side of Little Bay Road then this PAD will be


impacted. If this occurs then the (above) recommendations for K PAD 1 should be followed for PAD 1.

3. The entire study area is located within landscapes that are considered to be sensitive in terms of their potential to contain Aboriginal sites. To mitigate potential impacts in these sensitive areas, monitoring of cable excavations should be conducted for the whole cable route. Monitoring should be undertaken by a qualified archaeologist and a representative from the La Perouse Local Aboriginal Land Council.

• This proposed action should form part of the statement of commitments for the project and should follow the protocols for the location of new Aboriginal sites (Appendix 3). The protocols should also be included in the statement of commitments for the project.

4. Two European historic sites, Prince Charles Parade and Captain Cook Drive, Kurnell, will be impacted in a minor way as part of this project by the installation of cable in the road reserve of these roads which area both listed on the Kurnell REP.

It is considered that the heritage significance of neither site will be significantly affected by the proposed 132kV electricity cable route.

5. Three copies of the final report should be forwarded to the NSW DEC at the following address:

Cultural Heritage Officer Conservation Planning Unit Metro EPRD NSW Department of Environment and Conservation PO Box 1967 HURSTVILLE NSW 2220

6. One copy of this draft report should be forwarded to the following Aboriginal group for their consideration and comment:

Mr David Ingrey Sites Officer La Perouse Local Aboriginal Land Council PO Box 365 LA PEROUSE NSW 2036

~ o0o ~


11. REFERENCES

Albani, A. D. Rickwood, P. C. Johnson, B. D.& Tayton, J.W. 1976 The Ancient River Systems of Botany Bay. Sutherland Shire Studies # 8. The Council of the Sutherland Shire.

Anderson, G. F. 1955 Fifty Years of Electricity Supply: The Story of Sydney’s Electricity Undertaking. The Sydney County Council.

Anon n.d. History of Randwick Manuscript held at Maroubra Library.

Anon 1979 Environmental Control Study of Botany Bay: Water and Wading Birds of the Botany Bay Estuary. State Pollution Control Commission. Sydney March 1979.

Australia ICOMOS 1987 The Australia Icomos Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance (The Burra Charter), Guidelines to the Burra Charter: Cultural Significance and Conservation Policy. Pamphlet, Australia Icomos (Inc).

Beaglehole, J.C. 1969 (ed) The Endeavour Journal of Joseph Banks 1768-1771.

Bradley, W. 1786-92 A voyage to New South Wales; the journal of L.T. William Bradley RN of HMS Sirius. Ms. A3631, Mitchell Library Sydney. Published 1969 by William Dixon Foundation, Publication, Publication No. 11, Ure Smith Pty Ltd.

Butlin, N. G. 1983 Our Original Aggression: Aboriginal populations of southeastern Australia, 1788-1850. Allen & Unwin, Sydney.

Byrne, D 1987a Test Excavation of Quibray Bay #1: Midden Site on the Kurnell Peninsula, NSW. Report prepared for Monier Ltd.

Byrne, D 1987b Test Excavation and Assemblage Analysis at Quibray Bay # 2: An Open Site at Kurnell, NSW. Report prepared for Monier Ltd and Pioneer Concrete Pty Ltd.

Campbell, W. D, 1899 Aboriginal Carvings of Port Jackson and Broken Bay. Government Press, Sydney.

Capell, A. 1970 “Aboriginal Languages in the South Central Coast, New South Wales: Fresh Discoveries” in Oceania 41(1) pp 20-27.

Chapman, G. A. & C. L. Murphy 1989 Soil Landscapes of Sydney. 1:100 000 sheet. Soil Conservation service of NSW, Sydney.

Collins, D. 1798 An Account of the English Colony in New South Wales: With Remarks on the Dispositions, Customs, Manners, etc of the Native Inhabitants of that Country. Volume 1. Reprinted in 1975 by AH and AW Reed. Sydney.

Collins, D. 1798 An Account of the English Colony in New South Wales. Whitcombe and Tombs Ltd Melbourne (1910).

Collins, D 1804 [1910] An Account of the English colony in New South Wales. Edited with an introduction by James Collier. Whitcombe & Tombs, Christchurch.

Dallas, M. 1996 Coast Golf Club – Archaeological Inspection. Letter report to Barry Kerr, Architects, Planners and Interior Design.

Dallas, M 1999 Aboriginal Sites at Long Bay, Malabar. Letter report to Godden Mackay Logan Heritage Consultants.


Dallas, M. 2002 Aboriginal Heritage Assessment, Kurnell Sand Extraction Proposal, Lot 8, DP 586986 Captain Cook Drive, Kurnell, NSW. Report to Rocla Limited. EIS Specialist Consultant Studies, Vol.3 [17].

Dallas, M & P. Irish 2004 Aboriginal Heritage Assessment. Breen Holdings Pty Limited and Consolidated Development Pty Limited Lands at the Kurnell Peninsula, NSW. Report to Aitken McLachlan Thorpe.

Donlon, D 1991 The LA Perouse skeletons; Report on 32 skeletons from within the boundaries of the La Perouse Local Aboriginal Land Council, NSW. RESTRICTED.

Eades, D.K. 1976 The Dharawal and Dhurga Languages of the New South Wales South Coast. AIAS Canberra.

Fitzhardinge, L.F. 1961 Notes to Expedition to Botany Bay (in) Sydney's First Four Years. Angus and Robertson.

Gibbons, G. S. 1979 Sources of Lime Mortar from Colonial Sydney. Industrial and Historical Archaeology seminar 1979. The National Trust of Australia.

Godden Mackay & Austral Archaeology 1997 Prince of Wales Project 1995 Randwick Destitute Children’s Asylum Cemetery. Archaeological Investigation. Volume 2. Report to the South Eastern Sydney Area Health Service, Heritage Council and NSW Department of Health.

Gojak, D. 1992 La Perouse Headland Conservation Plan. Prepared for the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service.

Haglund, L. 1989 Assessment of the Prehistoric Heritage of Bare Island and La Perouse Headland. Report to NSW NPWS.

Higginbotham, A. 1989 La Perouse and Bare Island Historic Sites, La Perouse Conservation Plan Historical Archaeology. Report to the NSW Department of Public Works.

Hunter, J. 1968 An Historical Journal of the Transactions at Port Jackson and Norfolk Island. Angus and Robertson, Sydney.

Jervis, J. 1938 A Jubilee History of the Municipality of Botany. W. C. Penfold and Co. Printers Sydney.

Kass, T. 1989 The Bare Island and La Perouse Monuments Historic Sites, La Perouse. An Historical Investigation. Report to NSW NPWS.

Kohen, J. 1986 Prehistoric Settlement in the Western Cumberland Plain: Resources, Environment and Technology. Unpublished PhD Thesis Macquarie University.

Kohen, J. 1988 “The Dharug of the western Cumberland Plain: Ethnography and Demography” in Meehan B. and R. Jones (eds) Archaeology with Ethnography: An Australian Perspective. Department of Prehistory, RSPacS, ANU Canberra.

Larcombe, F. A. n.d. The History of Botany 1788-1963. Council of the Municipality of Botany.

Maritime Services Board (MSB) 1976. ‘Submission to Botany Bay Port and Environment Inquiry’. MSB, Sydney, July 1976.

Mathews, R. H. 1898 Gravures & peintures sur rochers par les Aborigines D'Australie in Extrait des Bulletins de la Societe d'Anthropologie de Paris, tome 9, series 4.

Mathews, R.H. 1901a “The Thurrawal Language” in Journal and Proceedings of the Royal Society of NSW 35:127-160.


Mathews, R.H. 1901b “Thurrawal Grammar Part 1" in Languages No. 3. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.

McIntyre, S. 1985 A Report on Protection Works Carried out by the Randwick Municipal Council on an Eroded Campsite/Midden at La Perouse. Report to Randwick Municipal Council.

McGuigan, A. n.d. Aboriginal Reserves in NSW. A Land Rights Research Aid. Occasional Paper #4, NSW Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs.

(MLPAC) Members of the La Perouse Aboriginal Community 1988 La Perouse the place, the people and the sea. A collection of writing by the Aboriginal community. Aboriginal Studies Press, Canberra.

MUSEcape Pty Ltd 1997 Historic La Perouse Management Plan. Report to Randwick City Council and National Parks & Wildlife Service.

Navin Officer Heritage Consultants 2000 The Cultural Heritage of Frenchmans Bay, LA Perouse, NSW. Information and management recommendations contributed toward the development of a Plan of Management. Report to GHD.

Navin Officer Heritage Consultants 2003 Cultural Heritage Assessment of the Proposed Prot Botany Expansion. An assessment of maritime and terrestrial archaeological potential. Report to Sydney Ports Corporation.

Navin Officer Heritage Consultants 2005 Planning for Desalination. Environmental Assessment; Aboriginal Heritage Component. Report to GHD.

Percival, B. 1995 Talking Lapa. A Local Community History of La Perouse. Board of Studies NSW.

Phillip, A. 1789 The Voyage of Governor Phillip to Botany Bay: with Contributions from other Officers of the First Fleet and Observations on Affairs of the Time by Lord Auckland. John Stockdale, London. Reprinted 1970, Angus and Robertson.

Philip, G. M. 1973 The Geology of the Botany Bay region. In D. J. Anderson (ed) A Handbook fo the Botany Bay Region. Botany Bay Project Committee, Sydney.

(PWD) Public Works Department 1990 Landscape Analysis for La Perouse and Bare Island Historic Site. Conservation Plan. Report by Environmental Design Section Public Works Department to the NSW NPWS.

Pringle, G. 1979 La Perouse Precinct Planing Report – A review. June 1979. Randwick Municipal Council.

Randwick and District Historical Society 1989 A Randwick Ramble, Randwick and District Historical Society, Sydney.

Randwick Municipal Council 1985. Randwick A Social History. NSWU Press.Reed, A.W. 1969 (ed) Captain Cook in Australia: Extracts from the Journals of Captain James Cook.

Rich, E. 1986 Yarra Point Site #5-6-292: Archaeological Investigation. Report to the Randwick Municipal Council.

Ross, B. 1979 Archaeological Resource Assessment – Botany Bay Submarine Pipeline. Report to Dames & Moore.

Ross, A. 1988 “Tribal and Linguistic Boundaries: A Reassessment of the Evidence” in Aplin G (ed) (1988) A Difficult Infant: Sydney before Macquarie. NSW Press Australia pp42-53.

Silva, E. J 1978 A history of the Sir Joseph Banks Hotel, Botany. Unpublished report.


Simmons 1977 Hume Freeway - Seymour to Avenel Section; Archaeological Survey Report. Victoria Archaeological Survey, Ministry of Conservation, Melbourne.

Smith, L., E. Rich and P. Hesp 1990 Aboriginal Sites on Kurnell Peninsula: A Management Study Volumes 1 & 2. Report to the NSW NPWS and the Australian Heritage Commission.

Sullivan, K. 1992a Archaeological Survey of Borrow Area at Hill 60, Phillip Bay, La Perouse. Report by Mary Dallas Consulting Archaeologists to Lyle Marshall and Associates.

Sullivan, K. 1992b Archaeological Survey of department of Housing Project 12933 Leichhardt Street Chiefly near La Perouse. Report by Mary Dallas Consulting Archaeologists to Cassidy and Partners Pty Ltd.

Surmon, A.V. 1965 The Aboriginal Reserve at La Perouse. Unpublished BA Hons Thesis, Sydney University.

Tench, W. 1789 A Narrative of the Expedition to Botany Bay... London: Debrett.

Tench, W. 1793 A Complete Account of the Settlement at Port Jackson (in) Sydney's First Four Years. Angus and Robertson.

Tench, W. 1961 1789-1793 Sydney's First Four Years: being a reprint of A Narrative of the Expedition to Botany Bay and A Complete Account of the Settlement at Port Jackson. Reprinted in 1961 by Angus and Robertson. Sydney.

Thorpe, W. 1990 Third Runway Proposal; Draft Environmental Impact Statement; Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport: European Heritage Component – Working paper.’ Prepared for Kinhill Engineers Pty Ltd.

Tindale, N.B. 1974 Aboriginal Tribes of Australia, Australian National University Press. Canberra.

Turbet, 1989 The Aborigines of the Sydney District Before 1788. Kangaroo Press. Kenthurst.

Williams, I. 1988 La Perouse the place, the people and the sea. A collection of writing by the Aboriginal community. Aboriginal Studies Press, Canberra.

Wilkenfeld, G. and P. Spearritt, 2004 Electrifying Sydney: 100 Years of EnergyAustralia. EnergyAustralia, Sydney.

~ o0o ~


APPENDIX 1 RECORD OF ABORIGINAL PARTICIPATION


APPENDIX 2 HISTORIC HERITAGE LISTINGS


A. National Heritage List

Kurnell Peninsula Headland, Cape Solander Dr, Kurnell, NSW

Photographs: None List: National Heritage List Class: Historic Legal Status: Listed Place (28/02/2005) Place ID: 105812 Place File No: 1/16/035/0005 Summary Statement of Significance: Kurnell Headland (comprising Botany Bay National Park and the Sydney Water land at Potter Point), Kurnell Peninsula, is of outstanding heritage value to the nation as the site of first recorded contact between Indigenous people and Britain in eastern Australia. The place symbolically represents the birthplace of a nation, and the dispossession of Indigenous people. The first landing at Kurnell Peninsula in April 1770 by Lt James Cook has been commemorated since 1822. The Meeting Place Precinct, including Captain Cook’s Landing Place, features memorials and landscape plantings celebrating the events. Attributes specifically associated with its Indigenous values include the watering point and immediate surrounds, and the physical evidence of Indigenous occupation in the area broadly encompassed by the watering place and the landing stage. The story of Cook’s first landing on the east coast of Australia is nationally important and an integral part of Australian recorded history and folklore. Cooks’ running-survey of the east coast of Australia in 1770 and his survey of Botany Bay as a safe harbour was an outstanding technical achievement, enabling the continental characteristics of Terra Australis to be defined for the first time, with the exception of Bass Strait, building on the work of earlier maritime explorers. Cook’s first landfall in Australia at Botany Bay in 1770 informed the subsequent British declaration of terra nullius and began the process which led to British possession of the Australian continent by 1830. The headland area of Kurnell Peninsula, comprising most of Botany Bay National Park, and described by Cook in his Journal as a significant coastal landmark at the entrance to Botany Bay, is significant to the nation as the destination of the First Fleet under Captain Arthur Phillip in 1787. On this, Cook’s first of three voyages to the Pacific, Joseph Banks was botanist, assisted by Daniel Solander and the artists Sydney Parkinson, Alexander Buchan and Herman Sporing, were to produce botanical, zoological and ethnographic drawings. Banks and Solander collected 83 specimens whilst at Botany Bay, many of which are now the type specimens of species and genera, including Banksia, named after Joseph Banks. Kurnell Headland, was the first site on the eastern coast of the Australian continent to be explored by scientist from Britain, with many of the first type-specimens of flora collected at the Kurnell Peninsula landing site by both Banks and Solander. Cape Banks and Point Solander have defined the entrance to Botany Bay since 1770. Cook’s naming of ‘Botany Bay’ in 1770 would result in its adoption as an emotive term for a distant destination, which came to be associated with convictism for much of the nineteenth century. PAHT themes: 1.3 Assessing scientifically diverse environments 2.1 Living as Australia’s earliest inhabitants 2.3 Coming to Australia as a punishment 2.6 Fighting for the land 3.1 Exploring the Coastline 7.1 Governing Australia as a province of the British Empire 8.7 Honouring achievement 8.11 Making Australian folklore Official Values: Criteria Values A Events, Processes The Meeting Place Precinct, Kurnell Peninsula, was the site of first recorded

contact between Indigenous people and Britain in eastern Australia, and symbolically represents the birthplace of a nation, and the dispossession of Indigenous people. This symbolism is reinforced by its proximity to Sydney, the site of the first British settlement, as well as its accessibility. The discovery of Botany Bay, including Kurnell Peninsula, in April 1770 by Lt. James Cook, Commander of the Endeavour, was a precursor to the colonization of Australia by Britain. The association of Cook’s visit with the


place is clear and well substantiated and has been celebrated since 1822. The Meeting Place Precinct, including Captain Cook’s Landing Place, includes memorials and landscape plantings commemorating the events of 1770. Place names such as Inscription Point and Point Solander, the remnant watercourse, the memorials to explorers and Indigenous inhabitants, and Cook’s maps of the Peninsula, in conjunction with Cooks Journal, and those of officers and scientists, clearly illustrate the events of 1770. Attributes specifically associated with its Indigenous values include the watering point and immediate surrounds, and the physical evidence of Aboriginal occupation in the area broadly encompassed by the watering place and the landing stage. Kurnell Peninsula, Botany Bay, was the first site on the east coast of the Australian continent explored by scientists from Britain, with many of the first type-specimens of flora and fauna collected near the landing site by both Banks and Solander. Of particular note in 1770 was the naming of the Banksia genus after Joseph Banks. Cook’s naming of ‘Botany Bay’ in 1770 would result in its adoption as an emotive term for a destination, which came to be associated with convictism for much of the nineteenth century. Although Cooks’ mapping of the east coast of Australia in 1770 did not appreciate the extent and importance of Port Jackson, nor the existence of Bass Strait, his running surveys were an outstanding achievement, which enabled the continental characteristics of Terra Australis, and its relationship to Papua New Guinea and New Zealand, to be defined fully for the first time. Cook’s survey of Botany Bay in 1770, and clear description of the headlands at its entrance, provided information about a safe harbour with fresh water for British ships which followed. The headland area of Kurnell Peninsula, in its landmark role bounding the entrance to Botany Bay, is significant to the nation as the destination for the First Fleet under Captain Arthur Phillip in 1787. Although first settlement occurred at Sydney Cove in January 1788, Cook’s first voyage, with his first landfall in Australia at Kurnell Peninsula, Botany Bay, informed the subsequent British declaration of terra nullius through his reports, and, as the destination of the First Fleet, began the process that would lead to British possession of the Australian continent by 1830.

B Rarity Kurnell Peninsula was the first landfall made by Cook on continental Australia during his successful mapping of the eastern coastline, and is the point of first recorded contact between the British and Indigenous Australians in eastern Australia. The impact of the event and the events themselves are well described. The association of the events with the place is clear and well substantiated. The place possesses rare aspects of Australia’s cultural heritage and is of outstanding heritage value to the nation. For Attributes refer to the first entry for Criterion (a).

G Social value ‘Captain Cook’s Landing Place’ at Kurnell Peninsula is considered by many to be of outstanding heritage value to the nation for its association with the ‘the birth of the nation’. The events hold a different meaning for Indigenous Australians, marking the commencement of colonization of Australia, and dispossession, underpinned by the doctrine of terra nullius. The story of Cook’s first landing on the east coast of Australia is nationally important, and Captain Cook’s Landing Place has become a symbolic place representing an important national story. The story of Cook’s voyage, including Cook’s landing place at Kurnell and first contact between the British and Indigenous Australians on the eastern seaboard, has become an integral part of Australian folk-lore and our collective psyche. There are ‘Captain Cook’ stories in many parts of Aboriginal Australia, including remote areas such as Central Australia and the Victoria River Downs, Northern Territory. The events have been well documented by many authors, acknowledging the place’s important association with Indigenous Australian’s at a national level. Captain Cook’s Landing Place is within the Meeting Place Precinct and part of the reserve set aside in 1899. For Attributes refer to the first entry for Criterion (a).


H Significant people The Meeting Place Precinct, Kurnell Peninsula, is significant to the nation as

the first landfall of Captain James Cook during his successful mapping of Australia’s eastern coastline in 1770. This event has been celebrated by the placing of memorials since 1822 and through commemorations such as the bicentenary in 1970. On this, Cook’s first of three voyages in the Pacific, Joseph Banks was botanist, assisted by Daniel Solander and the artists Sydney Parkinson, Alexander Buchan and Herman Sporing. The artists were to produce botanical, zoological and ethnographic drawings. Banks and Solander collected 83 specimens, many of which are now the type specimens of species and genera, including Banksia. Both Banks and Solander as scientists on Cook’s crew are remembered by local geographical place names; Cape Banks and Point Solander have defined the entrance to Botany Bay since 1770. Attributes clearly associated with the landing are included within the Meeting Place Precinct. Although the location of botanical specimens collected by Banks and Solander was referred to generically as ‘Botany Bay’, the landing place, as the site of first exposure to the environment, was a key source of botanical specimens and species types. A number of species, including Angophora costata woodland on the adjacent headland areas and a native violet at the watering place, named after Banks, occur in close proximity to the landing site.

Description: The place occupies an area of approximately 325 hectares on the southern headland at the entrance to Botany Bay. It includes the Meeting Place Precinct, including Captain Cook’s Landing Place, the coastal, landmark, sandstone, areas of Kurnell Headland between Sutherland Point in the north and Doughboy Head in the south, Endeavour Heights and sand dunes, including Botany Cone, in the south-west. The boundaries are defined by Botany Bay National Park (Kurnell Section) and a small Sydney Water inholding at Potter Point. Natural features Kurnell Headland is an island of outcropping Triassic Hawkesbury sandstone that is fringed by exposed cliffs rising up to 40 m above sea level. During the early Tertiary period, basalt dykes intruded into the sedimentary rocks. Since then, the basalt has been eroded, leaving narrow gorges in the sandstone cliffs, for example at Yena and Tabbigai (NSW NPWS 2001c). White Pleistocene aeolian and alluvial sands overlay the sandstone in most of the park, while younger yellow Holocene dunes are found near the coast. The sand ranges in depth from a thin veneer in the east to 20 m in the higher areas. At the southern end of the reserve near Potter Point, there are big sand deposits including Botany Cone, one of the largest coastal dunes remaining in Sydney. The parabolic dunes in this area are generally oriented north-south and, as part of the Botany sandbeds, contain a large unconfined aquifer. Several freshwater springs occur on the margins of the aquifer, supporting a number of small wetlands. The park contains several intermittent watercourses and one small permanent stream that runs into Botany Bay near Alpha Farm (NSW NPWS 2001c). Although much of the headland has been cleared over the last 100 years, a few Bangalays (Eucalyptus botryoides) survive as remnants of the original woodland and small groves of Swamp Oak (Casuarina glauca), Cabbage Tree Palms (Livistona australis) and Broad-leaved Paperbark (Melaleuca quinquinervia) still grow along the creeks (NSW NPWS 2001c). Of particular note are stands of mature Smooth-barked Apple (Angophora costata) on the sandstone areas of the headland, close to the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) Discovery Centre above Cook’s Landing Place. Most of the southern section of the park consists of low to medium heathland dominated by Old Man Banksia (Banksia serrata), Scrub She-oak (Allocasuarina distyla) and a Grass Tree (Xanthorrhoea resinosa). Near Inscription Point are dense thickets of the Fine-leaved Paperbark (Melaleuca armillaris). Where aeolian dunes cover the sandstone, there is low scrub dominated by Old Man Banksia, Coastal Banksia (B. integrifolia) and coastal Tea-tree (Leptospermum laevigatum). Swamps occur in small pockets and support vegetation dominated by sedges such as Gahnia sieberana and contain shrubs such as Lemon-scented Bottlebrush (Callistemon citrinus), Swamp Banksia (B. robur) and Heath Banksia (B. ericifolia) (NSW NPWS 2001c; 2002). Plant communities are representative of vegetation types that were once more common but are now severely depleted in the Sydney region. They include:


- Kurnell Dune Forest, listed as endangered in NSW (NSW NPWS 2004a); - small patches of Sydney Freshwater Wetlands, listed as endangered in NSW (NSW NPWS 2001b, 2004b); and - Sutherland Shire Littoral Rainforest, listed as endangered in NSW, and present at the northern tip of the park (NSW NPWS 2001c). The nationally endangered Botany Bay Greenhood orchid (Pterostylis sp. Botany Bay) is only known from a single population of about 300 plants within the Kurnell section of Botany Bay National Park (NSW NPWS 2001b; NSW NPWS 2002; DEH 2004). Cultural features The historic coastal landmark, Kurnell Headland, which guided the First Fleet in 1788, is linked via a series of tracks with Captain Cook’s Landing Place, an area of approximately 100 hectares set aside in 1899. The original vegetation of the sandstone headland areas is represented by tree cover, which consists predominantly of Angophora costata, in particular dense stands immediately behind the now culturally modified landscape of the landing site. Specimens of this tree and a native violet, found near the stream Cook used as his primary water supply (Captain Cook’s Watering Hole), were collected by Banks and Solander in 1770. Today, sand dunes to the immediate southwest of the landing site feature Banksia integrifolia, another species collected by Banks and Solander, suggesting that the peninsula areas associated with the landing site were therefore the initial if not the source of many of the 83 botanical specimens collected at Botany Bay. However, there is little evidence of the original shoreline vegetation associated with the landing site, which included xanthorrhoeas (grass trees), banksias and casuarinas. Commemoration of Cook’s visit in 1770 has been limited historically to recognition of those areas associated with the landing and first contact near the entrance to Botany Bay, at the junction between the sandstone headland and the dune system linking the headland to the mainland. The Sutherland Shire Heritage Study (PMW 1993) identified the following Historical Archaeological Sites associated with Captain Cook’s landing: 81 Captain Cook Landing Place Historic Site (includes 82-92) 82 Captain Cook Landing Site 83 Buoy marking the mooring position of HMS Endeavour 84 Banks memorial 85 Solander monument 86 Captain Cook monument 87 Forby Sutherland monument 88 Landing Place abutment 89 Alpha Farm site 90 Captain Cook’s Watering Hole 91 Captain Cook Well 92 Flagpole The above sites (82-92) are set out along the Botany Bay shoreline, beginning with the Cook Monument (86) and ending with a memorial (87) at the supposed site of Forby Sutherland’s grave, to the northeast. Captain Cook’s Well (91) is located a few metres to the west of Cook’s Monument. Adjacent to the Cook Monument, a memorial has been erected to Aboriginal resistance; this features an abstract from Cook’s Journal, detailing the events associated with first contact. A track along the shoreline connects the monuments and features, the surrounding, modified landscapes including over 300 commemorative trees planted by visitors over the years, mainly Norfolk Island and other related pines. The Trust, which has managed Captain Cook’s Landing Place since the early 1900s, has also been responsible for the planting of over 9,000 trees, with additional plantings made east of the Alpha Farm site (89) in 1954. Specimens included Norfolk Island, Hoop and Cook Island Pines as well as Port Jackson Fig, Olive and Tallowood trees (PMW 1993). A major feature of the site, identified as early as 1910, is the stream (90) where Cook’s men obtained water. An Aboriginal midden and burial site are located in close proximity to this watering hole. The area also includes the sandstone abutments (88) of the second jetty, erected c. 1905, which allowed ferry passengers to embark/disembark, as well as a shelter shed erected c. 1912. The construction of a sandstone ashlar retaining wall (88) along parts of the shoreline associated with the jetty has resulted in new ground, which now features a memorial avenue of trees, and which enclose the Banks memorial (84) and Captain Cook’s Watering Hole (90). Aboriginal artefacts were located at the Banks memorial. The Flagpole (92) is associated with the Solander monument (85). Further to the east of this monument at Inscription Point is a rockshelter containing evidence of Aboriginal burials, stone, shell and bone.


The site of Alpha Farm (89) is represented by a weatherboard, Federation style cottage erected c. 1905 by the Trust, as a caretaker’s cottage. An Aboriginal burial site (Cundlemong’s grave) is located to the rear of Alpha Farm. Associated with the cottage, and the adjacent Discovery Centre, is an open, cleared area with introduced specimens of native trees, which has been developed as a recreational and barbecue area. To the southwest of this area is an Aboriginal rock engraving site, situated amongst bushland. In April 2003 the Department of Environment and Conservation, formerly NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, presented a Masterplan for the ‘Meeting Place’, which sets out interpretation principles for the whole site. The Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) is also developing a conservation management plan for the Captain Cook’s Landing Place Historic Site, which will confirm the details and extent of historic and Aboriginal heritage items and features. In particular, changes in shoreline characteristics will be reviewed and the historical accuracy of specific site locations, such as Forby Sutherland’s grave (87) and the rock (82) on which Cook is supposed to have first stepped ashore, evaluated and their locations confirmed. In the central part of the area, three Aboriginal sites have been recorded – a midden and two open campsites. The Gwegal elders have advised that ochre pits are located at Tabbagai, and that other natural resources in the area were utilized by Aboriginal people in the past. In the southern part of the area, seven Aboriginal sites have been recorded – five open campsites and two midden sites (one containing stone artefacts). History: The Aboriginal landscape prior to European arrival This landscape falls within the boundary of the Tharawal people (Tindale, 1974:198). The general name for the bay was “Kamay” (pers. com. Dave Ingrey). The landscape contains evidence of Aboriginal use prior to and possibly during and after European contact, including shell middens, open artefact scatters, a rock shelter with cultural material, human burials, hearths, shell and bone implements, animal bone and a single rock engraving site. The evidence from archaeological investigations and excavations suggests that Aboriginal people were utilizing a range of resources, including shellfish (estuarine and rocky reef species), fish (ocean and estuarine species), mammals (such as wallaby, possum, seal) and birds (species unidentified). Although no wood or plant materials have been recovered from excavations, it is probable that people were also using the plant resources that occur across the peninsula. Stone tools have been recorded, with raw materials including silcrete, chert, mudstone and sandstone, the former three of which do not naturally occur on the peninsula. Evidence from archaeological excavations suggests that Aboriginal people were using this landscape for at least the last 5,000 years. Over seven radiocarbon dates have been obtained from sites at Captain Cook’s Landing Place, Boat Harbour and Quibray Bay (middens and a burial), ranging in date from 3,680+ 110BP to 500 years ago. Artefact typologies from these sites also conform to those recorded within the mid-late Holocene period in the Sydney region. One site (Doughboy Head 1) has been dated to 12,190 + 110 years BP. However, protocols and verifiable documented evidence on the stratigraphy and sample retrieval make this date tenuous (Dallas, 2002). No sites have been dated from the transgressive dune fields. Historical Period Terra Nullius It was perhaps inevitable that the European discovery of Tahiti in 1766 by Samuel Wallis, who had been instructed by his peers in Britain to concentrate on the southern Pacific, would result in further voyages. Bougainville and Carteret were to follow Wallis to Tahiti with Surville and Marion Dufresne extending French exploration in the Pacific. Marion Dufresne in particular was anxious to discover ‘Terra Australis’, sailing from Mauritius in 1771. On 6 March 1772, he and his crew visited Tasmania, 130 years after Tasman, sighting New Zealand in the same month. Marion Dufresne’s expedition was the first to encounter the Tasmanian Aborigines and was a precursor of the great voyages of La Pérouse, d'Entrecasteaux, Baudin and d'Urville. However, British voyages of exploration were the first to reach the east coast of Australia, prompted by Wallis’s report of a continental coastline south of Tahiti (Frost 1998). The story of the British colonization of Australia took place at a time of great imperial rivalry between France and Britain, which extended to the Pacific. Cook’s first voyage, begun in 1768, was to record the Transit of Venus at Tahiti, with the additional aim of promoting exploration in the Pacific; Cook’s secret instructions were to take possession of ‘a Continent or Land of great extent’. If he found the continent, Cook was to chart it carefully and record the nature of its soils, animals and plants. He was to ‘observe the Genius, Temper, Disposition and Number of the Natives, if there be any, and endeavour, by all proper means, to cultivate a Friendship and Alliance with them…….and Shewing


them every kind of Civility and Regard’. Cook was, ‘with the Consent of the natives to take possession of Convenient Situations in the Country in the name of the King of Great Britain; or if [he] you find the Country uninhabited take Possession for his Majesty by setting up Proper Marks and Inscriptions, as first discoverers and possessors’. If Cook failed to locate Terra Australis, he was to chart New Zealand and then return (Frost 1998). Sailing from New Zealand in early 1770, Cook’s ship, HMS Endeavour, met the Australian coast at Point Hicks, at the continent’s south-eastern corner. Cook was assisted by Charles Green, as they made a running survey of the east coast. Point Hicks, Ram Head, Cape Howe, Mount Dromedary, Bateman Bay, Point Upright, Pigeon House, Long Nose and Red Point were identified. Prevailing weather and water conditions prevented the ship from making landfall until beyond the coastal ranges, which petered out near the edge of Sydney Basin. The arrival on 28 April 1770 at Botany Bay of Lieutenant James Cook would lead to the provision of information, which became the basis for the mapping and colonization of Australia by the British (PMW 1993). Cook claimed eastern Australia, at Possession Island, Torres Strait/Cape York, for Britain in 1770, after mapping the eastern coastline. As the first European discoverer, and carrying a regular commission to do so, Cook was able to claim this terra nullius for his sovereign (Frost 1994). Frost (1992) has discussed the issues relating to the doctrine of terra nullius. By the mid-eighteenth century, if a region was not already possessed by a rival, then a state might acquire it in one of three ways: by persuading the Indigenous inhabitants to submit themselves to its over-lordship; by purchasing from those inhabitants the right to settle part or parts of it; and by unilateral possession, on the basis of first discovery and effective occupation. As Cook wrote, ‘We are to Consider that we see this Country in the pure State of Nature, the industry of man has had nothing to do with any part of it’ (Frost, 1992). At Botany Bay, the Endeavour ‘came to an anchor abreast of a small village consisting of about 6 or 8 houses’ (Banks’ Journal 28 April 1770) at Kurnell Peninsula and attempted to obtain water on shore, unsuccessfully, with some resistance from the Aboriginal people. Diary and journal entries for the 28 April 1770 present slightly different versions of events. Cook recorded in his Journal that a musket fired close to two Aboriginal men had little effect; a second musket loaded with ‘small shot’ likewise had little effect, the two men taking up shields to prevent being hit again. Parkinson’s Journal (pp.179-181) recorded that ‘we attempted to frighten them off by firing off a gun loaded with small shot; but attempted it in vain. One of them repaired to a house immediately, and brought out a shield with two holes in it to see through, and also a wooden sword, and then they advanced boldly, gathering up stones, which they threw at us. After we had landed they threw two of their lances at us; one of which fell between my feet. Our people fired again, and wounded one of them; at which they took up the alarm and were frantic and furious, shouting for assistance’. Small gifts of beads and nails were left amongst the ‘few small huts made of the bark of trees’ (Cook’s Journal 29 April 1770). Re-embarking, they sailed across to the north point of the bay (Cape Banks), (Barrow 1993) where they found some fresh water, which was difficult to access (Cook’s Journal 29 April 1770). However, Kurnell Peninsula became the main shore-base for the expedition. Botany Bay, as it was named in Cook’s Journal, was initially named ‘Stingray Bay’ in the Endeavour log on account of the large number of rays caught by the crew. The first person ashore at Kurnell Peninsula was Isaac Smith (an able seaman, also Cook’s nephew, later midshipman (1796) and finally Admiral). However, it may well be that an ordinary seaman, before Isaac Smith and Cook, was first ashore to steady the longboat (Hough 1994). The ships log for 26 August 1767, recording the crew, placed Smith immediately after the officers, reinforcing this connection and his relative importance. Described by the Lords of the Admiralty as a ‘gentleman of large fortune’, with money and estates, Joseph Banks was able to pursue his botanical interests on the voyage, in what has come to be known as the Age of Enlightenment. On this, Cook’s first of three voyages to the Pacific, Joseph Banks was botanist, assisted by Daniel Solander (Plomley, 1993) and the artists Sydney Parkinson, Alexander Buchan and Herman Sporing, all employed by Banks. The artists were to produce botanical, zoological and ethnographic drawings (Frost 1998). Banks and Solander collected 83 specimens, many of which are now the type specimens of species and genera, including Banksia, for which Towra Point is the type site for some Banksia species (AHDB Place report Kurnell Peninsula Towra Point Area Place ID 3337, File No 1/16/035/0005). Banksia species collected at Botany Bay included B. integrifolia, serrata and ericifolia. On 29 April 1770 Banks noted in his journal that ‘Dr Solander and myself went a little way into the woods and found many plants’. Subsequently, on 3 May 1770, Banks noted that ‘our collection of plants was now grown so immensely that it was necessary that some extraordinary care should be taken of them…’ and on 4 May Banks noted ‘myself in the woods botanizing as usual’ and later that day on the north side of the bay went a ‘good way into the countrey …..and [which] resembles something of our Moors in England, as no trees grow upon it but everything is covered with a thin brush of plants about as high as the knees’ (Banks’ Journal 1770).


Cook recorded in his Journal the activities of himself and also of the scientists. On Tuesday 1 May 1770, an Excursion into the Country was made by Cook himself and Banks and Solander, the men walking till they were completely tired (no mention is made of their direction or the time involved). On Thursday 3 May Cook made a little excursion along the Sea Coast to the Southward, accompanied by Mr Banks and Dr Solander. On the same day Cook had also travelled some distance inland from the head of the bay (Georges River), finding the land much richer than on the Peninsula. On the 6 May, Cook named the bay Botany Bay, after the great number of plants found by Banks and Solander. In his description of the place, Cook described the bay as ‘capacious, safe, and Commodius; it may be known by the land on the Sea Coast, which is of a pretty even and moderate height, Rather higher than inland, with steep rocky Cliffs next the Sea, and looks like a long Island lying close under the Shore. The entrance of the Bay lies about the Middle of this land. In coming from the Southward, it is discovered before you are abreast of it’ (Cook’s Journal 1-6 May 1770). Cook, Banks and Parkinson also recorded the Aboriginal people they observed during their stay at Botany Bay. They encountered men, women and children, of up to 17 people in a group. Their huts were bark shelters (refer sketch by Parkinson, 1770), and were located “… not far from the watering place where some of the natives are daily seen” and “here we left several articles such as Cloth, Looking glasses, Combs, Beeds, Nails &Ca”, (Cook’s Journal 29 April 1770). Huts and places where people had slept upon the grass were also seen during excursions into the country (exact location of sightings unclear) (Banks’ Journal 1 May 1770). On a number of occasions people were seen in their canoes gathering shellfish and fishing with ‘gigs’ and hooks and line; and cooking fish and shellfish over fires Cook, for example, describes landing in a place where several ‘natives’ had just left and found “small fires and fresh muscles broiling upon them – here likewise lay vast heaps of the largest oyster shells I ever saw” (Cook’s Journal 29 April 1770). There is also evidence of the use of plant resources, with trees cut down using “ … some sort of a blunt instrument and several trees that were barked, the bark of which had been cut by the same Instrument, in many of the trees, especialy the palms, were cut steps about 3 or 4 feet asunder for the convenience of Climeing them (Cook’s Journal, 1 May 1770). Observations were made of their canoes and implements, with ‘weapons’ including ‘…a kind of chisel fixed at their ends….” (Parkinson, 1770; also refer Cook’s Journal 29 April 1770). People were observed carrying spears, ’wooden swords’ and darts with ‘four prongs and pointed with fish bones’ (Cook’s Journal 30 April 1770). Banks described a wooden ‘weapon’ of about 2 feet long, and resembling a scymeter in shape, and recorded the collection of spears by his party “….no improper measure to take away with us all the lances which we could find about the houses, amounting in number to forty or fifty. They were of various lengths, from 15 to 6 feet in length; both those which were thrown at us and all we found except one had 4 prongs headed with very sharp fish bones, which were besmeard with a greenish colourd gum that at first gave me some suspicions of Poison” (Banks’ Journal 28 April 1770). Various features of the peninsula were named by/after the party, such as Cape Banks and Point Solander. The south point of the bay, between Point Inscription and Point Solander, was named Sutherland Point, after one of the seamen (Forby Sutherland) who died on Tuesday 1 May 1770, and who was buried ashore (Barrow 1993). In the official log, Cook made the following record: ‘Tuesday May 1, 1770. At 6pm departed this life, Forby Sutherland, seaman. A.M. sent the body ashore to be buried’ (Royal Australian Historical Society Journal, 1923:281-298). In his Journal, Cook, following an excursion into the country, remarked on its diversity, with woodlands, grasslands and marshes: ‘The woods are free from undergrowth of every kind and the trees are such a distance from one another that the whole country or at least a great part of it might be cultivated’. On the last day of April Cook made a tour of the entire bay. Before leaving the bay, where the Union Jack had been flown every day, Cook ordered an inscription to be cut on a tree close to where they had watered, setting forth the ships’ name and date, 6 May 1770. Almost at once after they had departed they sighted safe anchorage, naming it Port Jackson (Hough, 1994). The Endeavour sailed from Botany Bay on 6 May 1770, and subsequently, but not without mishap, successfully mapped the eastern coastline of Australia before returning to England. It is interesting to note that in a brief report sent to the Admiralty in London, from Batavia, where the Endeavour was under repair before returning to England, Cook stressed that he had been unable to locate ‘the so much talked of Southern Continent’- how wrong he was (Adams, 1986). In 1779 Banks was examined by a committee of the House of Commons, which was looking into the issue of where to place convicts. Some 6 years earlier Britain had lost America as a convict colony as a result of the War of Independence. Asked what he thought about establishing a colony of convicts in a distant part, and which place did he think was most suitable, Banks answered – Botany Bay! (Hough, 1994). Banks’ report also allowed the British to consider Botany Bay as a base for whaling ships. Hughes (2003) and other authors have discussed the importance of Britain maintaining its geo-political presence in the Pacific in the face of French exploration. Sir James Harris reported to Pitt in 1786 that no time should be lost in augmenting British Naval and Land Force


in the south-west quarter of the Pacific. According to historians such as Frost and Blainey, such strategic outlier arguments led to Botany Bay. Pine trees and flax were the mainstay of shipping, providing sails, masts and spars (Hughes, 2003). In 1786 a proposal was put to Pitt to colonise Botany Bay for the purpose of ‘effectively disposing of convicts’. The First Fleet, which arrived in Australia in 1788, was designed to serve both official purposes. However, two London Aldermen sent the ‘Lady Penrhyn’ to Botany Bay with the First Fleet with secret orders to note the whaling prospects. Among the strategic purposes of the First Fleet was the need to develop naval resources including flax and timber for British ships (The Blackheath Connection, Dan Byrnes, 1996-2000). On 20 March 1788 the ‘Supply’, part of the First Fleet, arrived at Sydney Cove from Norfolk Island with news of the absence of New Zealand flax and the [poor] quality of the pine trees (Watkins Tench diary; www.Gutenberg.net.au). The First Fleet, under Captain Arthur Phillip, arrived at Botany Bay on 18 January 1788, anchoring off Bare Island (near today’s La Perouse). A French expedition, led by La Perouse, anchored in Botany Bay on 24 January 1788, where Captain Phillip was in the process of transferring his settlement to Sydney Cove in Port Jackson. La Perouse sailed from Botany Bay on 10 March 1788 (Plomley, 1993). La Perouse established his camp on the northern shore of Botany Bay, as had Phillip, near Cape Banks; this appears to have been to avoid hostilities with the Indigenous people on Kurnell Peninsula (Berzins, 1988). In a letter of 3 July 1788 Arthur Phillip informed the Marquis of Lansdowne in England of the reasons for the move to Sydney Cove. In addition to the poor quality of the land for agriculture it was particularly noted that Botany Bay offered ‘no security for large ships’ while Port Jackson offered room for ‘a thousand Sail of the Line… in perfect security’ (PICMAN database State Library of NSW MLMSS 7241: filed at safe 1/234). Lt William Bradley recorded in his journal entry for Sunday 20 January 1788, that ‘At 2pm saw the white cliffs mentioned by Cap.n Cook to be 10 miles to the S.oward of Botany Bay; I do not altogether think it a certain mark for knowing when you are near Botany Bay, there being many white Sand Hills that shew like cliffs coming up the coast;’ (Nelson Meers Foundation, State Library of NSW). Another First Fleet diarist, marine Watkins Tench, spoke of the First Fleet’s 6 days at Botany Bay as not uneventful. Governor Phillip proceeded to land on the north shore in order to ‘take possession and to have communication’. Some 3 days later Tench went ashore on the south side, describing the country as invariably sandy and unsuitable for cultivation. The spring where Cook watered was considered to be of poor quality. Of interest, Tench reported that some 40 persons appeared on the south shore but only some 6 persons on the north shore of Botany Bay. During this visit he obtained a large club ‘with a head almost sufficient to fell an ox’, in exchange for a looking glass. According to Tench, the French officers took pains to survey Botany Bay, including Cooks River some 20 miles inland. (Diary of Watkin Tench, Gutenberg website). In contrast, George Worgan, First Fleet Surgeon, reported that Governor Phillip first stepped ashore on the south shore of Botany Bay on 20 January 1788. Phillip also sent an officer and sailors to clear land and dig sawpits at Kurnell Peninsula, near Point Sutherland, on 21 January 1788, according to Worgan’s diary and letters (University of Sydney Library 2003). By 24 January 1788, at Point Sutherland, Governor Phillip had raised the British flag (Bradley’s map 1788, State Library NSW; Bradley Botany Bay 1788, a 127080). It is not known whether Phillip provisionally claimed the country at Botany Bay. In addition, raising the flag may have been prompted by the arrival of the French ships, commanded by La Perouse, in Botany Bay on the morning of 24 January 1788, although any shore base would have raised the flag if Cook’s actions in doing so in 1770 can be taken as a precedent. Phillip began to transfer his fleet to Port Jackson on 25 January 1788, raising the British flag at Sydney Cove on 26 January 1788 before formally taking possession. Although the original and final sailing instructions to Arthur Phillip have not been found in any archive, an earlier edited version has survived (Public Records Office London 20 April 1787 Co 201/1 ff 29-45v). The instructions, composed by Lord Sydney, were from George 111, with the advice of the Privy Council. The instructions designated Phillip as Captain General and Governor in Chief of NSW. An amended instruction dated 25 April 1787 designated the territory of NSW as including ‘all the islands adjacent in the Pacific Ocean’ and running westward to the 135th meridian, the line established by Cook in 1770. The instructions advised Phillip about managing the convicts, granting and cultivating the land and exploring the country. The Aborigines’ lives and livelihoods were to be protected and friendly relations with them encouraged, but the instructions made no mention of protecting or even recognizing their lands. It was assumed from the time of Cook that Australia was terra nullius; that is land belonging to no one (Historical Records of NSW, Vol 2 Part 2, for more detail).


Settlement at Kurnell Peninsula Located close to Sydney, Botany Bay was settled as a land grant under Governor Macquarie. James Birnie, the first recorded landowner at Kurnell, called his Botany Bay property ‘Alpha Farm’. According to Byrnes (1996-2000), among the families engaged in whaling and sealing in the ‘South Seas Trade’ was that of James Birnie, who, with his brother Alexander, was established in the shipping trade in London. James Birnie was to become part of a successful group which exploited whaling in Australasian waters, reaching its peak by 1820-1822 (Dan Byrnes, 1996-2000). James Birnie, merchant and ship-owner, arrived in NSW in 1807. Birnie engaged in local sealing and whaling. As early as 1814 the Birnie family appears to have speculated in buying and selling wool. A philanthropist, Birnie received a primary land grant from Governor Macquarie in 1814, with a promise of another 500 acres. Being in ‘affluent circumstances’ Birnie took possession of land on the margin of Botany Bay in 1815 (Australian Dictionary of Biography, MUP, 1966). Accessible by boat from La Perouse, Kurnell was acquired in 1828 by John Connell and his family. In the early 1860s most of what was to become Sutherland Shire, including Kurnell Peninsula, was bought at auction by politician Thomas Holt, preventing free selection by small farmers. Holt resorted to timber extraction when pastoral activity failed and later developed an oyster industry. In 1864 the peninsula was connected more firmly to Sydney by a ferry service at Tom Ugly’s [Bridge], enabling better access to metropolitan markets by what is now the Princes Highway (PMW 1993). Thomas Holt was responsible in 1870 for the erection of a sandstone obelisk, to James Cook. In 1899 ‘Captain Cook’s Landing Place’ was resumed as a public park/reserve by the State Government, and in 1900 the Holt-Sutherland Estate Act was passed. Under this Act, the debts incurred by tenants during the depression of the 1890s were written off. After the Act was passed some 8,732 acres were converted to freehold. Livestock and poultry became the mainstay of the district for the next 50 years. ‘Alpha Farm’, in its present form, was redeveloped between 1906-1910 as a Federation style ‘Trustee’s cottage, for the new reserve, formally proclaimed a public park in 1902, with a typical ‘gabletted’ roof on the foundations and cellar of the earlier rubble-stone farmhouse (PMW 1993). Kurnell Village, on the Eastern extremity of the Peninsula, appears to have begun to be built in the 1850s as a fishing village. The majority of the inhabitants were of Aboriginal origin. On 9 October 1882, Richardson & Wrench began the first subdivision of the Sutherland Estate, which was the first land sale in Kurnell. In the 1880s many of the Aboriginal people displaced from the South Coast and Sydney area went to live at La Perouse. In 1895 the camp was officially recognised as an Aboriginal Reserve, and it is possible that people formerly living in the Kurnell area moved across to La Perouse. A ferry service connected Kurnell with La Perouse by 1912, although a weather shed was in place by 1910. By 1930, the village on the northern side of the peninsula had evolved intoa depression period village, contemporary with similar settlements at Bundeena and other sites in the Sydney region. The ferry service from La Perouse brought day-trippers from the southern areas of Sydney to Kurnell to see the landing site, the dunes and the beaches. From there the day-trippers walked over the dunes to Cronulla (PMW 1993). Aboriginal people from La Perouse also used to catch the ferry from the wharf over to Kurnell Peninsula to collect shells for shellwork, to go fishing, gather pippies, get mutton fish (abalone) and collect tree limbs for making boomerangs (Gloria Ardler, NSW Board of Studies, 1995). The remoteness of the peninsula was impacted in 1955 when the Kurnell Oil refinery commenced operation. The Peninsula has been mined for sand during the twentieth century, with some mining leases still extant and in use. Since the 1930s, it has been mined continuously to provide sand to the construction industry in New South Wales. The Cronulla Sewage Treatment Plant, numerous pipelines and the ocean outfall were also established. Development at Cronulla has now extended to the narrow peninsula neck at Woolooware Bay, with some infill development proposed for former sand mining areas. Parts of the Peninsula are already listed as sites of significance under various treaties and agreements. The Towra Point Nature Reserve was listed as a RAMSAR site in the 1980’s and the NSW Government placed part of the Kurnell Peninsula on the NSW Heritage Register in 2003. Captain Cook’s Landing Place The ‘Endeavour’ anchored on the south side of Botany Bay, with the first party ashore landing on the northern side of Kurnell Peninsula, on the northern side of Point Sutherland. A monument, a brass plate, was first erected in 1822 near Solander Point. On 22 March 1822 members of the Philosophical Society of Australasia were accompanied to Kurnell by an old Aboriginal person (who had witnessed Cook’s landing), at which time a brass plate was fixed to the cliff-face (Inscription Point, as the nearest available place) near the spot a little to the north-east of the Landing Place. Cook had landed somewhere in front of Alpha Farm. The brass plate was later moved nearer to Cape Solander.


In the 1840s, shells were dug from a shell bank located close to the watering hole. A skeleton was also uncovered, and then reburied (Rich, 1988). In 1861, Kurnell Peninsula was visited by Australian poet Henry Kendall. Thomas Holt informed him that he had found the skeleton of a ‘white man’. Presumably this was Forby Sutherland (died at Kurnell in 1770), if correct (later Kendall wrote a poem to ‘the sailor buried ninety years before’). It is unclear whether there is any connection between this skeleton and that uncovered in the 1840s (Smith et al. 1990:44). The location of the grave has been subject to some dispute but appears to have been closely related to the waterfront areas near Cook’s watering point at Kurnell (Macdonald, 1928:281-298). It is interesting to note that memory of the location of this grave and Captain Cook’s presence in Botany Bay was held by at least one member of the Aboriginal community in the early 1920s (op cit). At some time during the late 1800s / early 1900s (date uncertain) Cundlemong, reportedly the last ‘chief’ of the Aboriginal clan from this area, died under the most western of the two pine trees, and was buried in the vicinity of the Trust Cottage, in a grave marked by four wooden posts (Rich, 1988:8). Captain Cook’s Landing Place on Kurnell Peninsula, where Cook is believed to have stepped ashore, is today commemorated by a series of monuments to the events and to Cook (the first erected in 1870 by Holt) and his companions. There are monuments to Isaac Smith (first to land), Forby Sutherland, Joseph Banks (erected 1947), Carl Solander (1918), Aboriginal resistance and to Cook’s Well and a watercourse, where Cook’s crew obtained water. It is interesting to note that ten Aboriginal artefacts were found during excavation of the foundations of the Joseph Banks Memorial (Smith et al. 1990:44). Trees were also planted as memorials to events, and a Register of Trees dated 1905 indicates that Norfolk Island, Hoop and Cook Island Pines surrounding the landing place were in place by that time. The register indicates that other tree plantings, including Port Jackson Fig, Olive and Tallowood trees were also in place (PMW 1993). Historical images confirm that Pine trees were well established by 1906, with one large mature pair of Norfolk Island pines in front of the remains of Alpha Farm, predating the formation of the reserve in 1899 by some years. The visit in 1881 by Prince Albert and Prince George, Queen Victoria’s sons, resulted in the planting of four pine trees, one of which was an Araucaria cookii, brought by Thomas Holt from New Caledonia. Later plantings were made by other important visitors, such as the Duke of Gloucester, Duke of Clarence, Sir H. Rawson and a Miss Lawson. In 1906 the attending state premiers at the Premiers Conference in Sydney visited Kurnell, reinforcing the symbolic importance of the place. Commemoration of Cook’s landing has also been through re-enactments of the landing at various times, such as in 1951 as part of the Commonwealth Jubilee celebrations and in 1970 for the Captain Cook Bicentenary. Queen Elizabeth, Governor Cutler and Premier Askin attended the re-enactment (PICMAN database, Mitchell Library, State Library NSW). In 1961 midden material and two adult inhumation burials were uncovered during construction of the PMG inspection vaults, and were reburied in another nearby area. A new museum building was erected on the reserve at Kurnell in 1967, to enable the original events and subsequent commemoration to be interpreted to visitors. Also in this year trial archaeological excavations were undertaken both at Skeleton Cave, Inscription Point and along the foreshore west of the watering place (Megaw, 1969b). In 2003 the name of Captain Cook’s Landing Place was changed to the ‘Meeting Place Precinct’. Earlier changes resulted in the place being extended, with most of Kurnell Headland being included in Botany Bay NP. This is now known as the Kurnell Section, the smaller section being located on the northern side of the bay at La Perouse. Condition and Integrity: Landscapes have been subject to severe and large-scale erosion in many areas, particularly in the dunefields where vegetation has been removed. The largest blow-out, covering an area of more than 25 hectares east of Potter Point, has been stablilised since the 1980s. Recreational use by four-wheel drivers, trail bikers and horse riders has damaged the largest dune in the reserve, Botany Cone (NSW NPWS 2002). Highly invasive weeds such as Lantana, Bitous Bush, Blackberry, Prickly Pear, Pampas Grass, African Olive, African Box-thorn and Asparagus Fern present serious management problems in the Kurnell section of Botany Bay National Park (NSW NPWS 2002). In general the historic attributes of the place appear to be in good condition. The foreshore areas of the Meeting Place Precinct have been subject to storm and wave activity, with the loss of the jetty. Indigenous sites have been subjected to varying levels of disturbance as a result of post contact landuses. A detailed survey of the condition and integrity of the historic and Indigenous attributes of Botany Bay NP was not available at the time of the assessment. These aspects of the place will be detailed by the Department of Environment and Conservation in the Contextual History of Botany Bay National Park, Kurnell Section. It is anticipated that this will be completed in July 2005.


Location: About 400ha, at Kurnell, comprising Botany Bay National Park, Lot 1 DP91704, the road reserve extending from Cape Baily Lighthouse in the east to the Park boundary in the west and the area between the seaward boundaries of the National Park and Lot 1 DP91704 and the Low Water Mark. Bibliography: Adam, P. (1995). Saltmarsh, 10pp, in State of the Marine Environment Report for Australia: The Marine Environment – Technical Annex: 1, compiled by L.P. Zann for Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories, Canberra 1995. At http://www.deh.gov.au/coasts/publications/somer/annex1/index.html, accessed 24 December 2004. Adams, B. 1986 The Flowering of the Pacific, British Museum (Natural History), Collins, Sydney. Attenbrow, V. 2002 Sydney's Aboriginal Past: Investigating the archaeological and historical records, UNSW Press. Bamford, M., Watkins, D., Bancroft, W., Tischler, G. and Wahl, J. in prep. Migratory Shorebirds of the East Asian-Australasian Flyway; Population estimates and Important Sites. Wetlands International - Oceania, Canberra, Australia. Wetlands International Global Series. International Wader Studies. Banks Journal, Daily Entries, 1770, National Library of Australia Southseas Collection. Barrow, J. 1993 Captain Cook, Voyages of Discovery, Academy Chicago Publishers, Chicago. Berzins, B. 1988 The Coming of the Strangers, Collins Australia in Association with the State Library of New South Wales, Sydney. Bird Rose, D. 1991 Hidden Histories: Black stories from Victoria River Downs, Humbert River and Wave Hill Stations, Aboriginal Studies Press, Canberra. Bonhomme, T. and Buzer, S. 1994. Holocene shell middens of the Central Coast of New South Wales: An investigation of the management problems concerning coastal shell midden, Report to NSW NPWS funded in part by the NEG scheme. Bridgewater, P.B. & Cresswell, I.D. 1999. Biogeography of mangrove and saltmarsh vegetation: implications for conservation and management in Australia. in Mangroves and Salt Marshes 3: 117 – 125. Kluwer Academic Publications. Netherlands. Brocklehurst, P. and Edmeades, B. 1996. The Mangrove Communities of Darwin Harbour, Technical Memorandum 96/9, Department of Lands, Planning and Environment, Darwin, 206pp. At http://www.lpe.nt.gov.au/dlpe/advis/LAND/mangrove/communities/mangroves.pdf., accessed 5 January 2005. British Museum and Library. Carolin, R. & Clarke, P. 1991. Beach Plants of South Eastern Australia, Sainty & Associates, Potts Point, NSW, 119pp. Cridland, F. 1950 [1924] The story of Port Hacking, Cronulla and Sutherland Shire, Angus and Robertson, Sydney. Corkery, R.W. & Co. Pty Limited 2002. Kurnell Sand Extraction Proposal Species Impact Statement. Report prepared for Rocla Limited. CSIRO 2001. Coasts and Oceans Theme Report in Australia State of the Environment Report 2001 at http://www.deh.gov.au/soe/2001/coasts/coasts01-1.html. Accessed 5 January 2005. Dallas, M. 2002 Aboriginal heritage assessment, Kurnell Sand Extraction Proposal, Lot 8, DP 586986 Captain Cook Drive, Kurnell, Rocla Limited. Specialist Consultant Studies, Vol. 3 (17). Dames & Moore 1996. Environmental Impact Statement, Creation of Little Tern and Wading Bird Habitat Towra Spit Island, Botany Bay. Report for Sydney Port Corporation, pp1-174. Dept of the Environment and Heritage (DEH) 2004a. Species Profile and Threats Database, profile for Pterostylis sp. Botany Bay. Dept of the Environment and Heritage (DEH) 2004b. Species Profile and Threats Database, profile for Litorea aurea. Dept of the Environment and Heritage (DEH) 2004c. A Directory of wetlands of International Importance – Towra Point. Ramsar Sites Database. Accessed 21/6/2004, http://wetlands.org/RDB/Ramsar_Dir/Australia/AU023D02.htm. Dept of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources (DIPNR) 2004. Towards a Strategy for Botany Bay, Discussion Paper, pp 1-59. Accessed 26/10/2004, http://www.savebotanybeach.com/docs/Botany%20Bay%20Strategy%20-%20Discussion%20Paper%20May%202004.pdf. Eby, P. Richards, G., Collins, L. and Parry-Jones, K. 1999. The distribution, abundance and vulnerability to population reduction of a nomadic necatrivore, the Grey-headed Flying-fox Pteropus poliocephalus in New South Wales during a period of resource concentration. Australian Zoologist 31:240-253. Environment Australia (EA) 2001. A Directory of Important Wetlands in Australia, Towra Point Estuarine Wetlands – NSW092. Accessed 21/10/2004, http://www.deh.gov.au/cgi-

http://www.deh.gov.au/coasts/publications/somer/annex1/index.html

http://www.lpe.nt.gov.au/dlpe/advis/LAND/mangrove/communities/mangroves.pdf

http://www.deh.gov.au/soe/2001/coasts/coasts01-1.html

http://wetlands.org/RDB/Ramsar_Dir/Australia/AU023D02.htm

http://www.savebotanybeach.com/docs/Botany Bay Strategy - Discussion Paper May 2004.pdf

http://www.savebotanybeach.com/docs/Botany Bay Strategy - Discussion Paper May 2004.pdf


bin/wetlands/report.pl. Fairley, A. & Moore, P. 1989. Native Plants of the Sydney District – An Identification Guide, Kangaroo Press and the Society for Growing Australian Plants NSW, 431pp. Frost, A. 1998 The Voyage of the Endeavour, Allen and Unwin, St Leonards. Frost, A. 1992 Old Colonisations and Modern Discontents: Legacies and Concerns, Chapter 11 in Proceedings of the Inaugural Conference of the Samuel Griffiths Society. Frost, A 1994 Botany Bay Mirages, Illusions of Australia’s Convict Beginnings, MUP, Carlton, Victoria. http://www.Gutenberg.net.au (various reports including Captain of Marines Watkins Tench diary) Historical Records of NSW Hough, R. 1994 Captain James Cook, Coronet Books, Hodder and Stoughton, London. Hughes, R. 2003 The Fatal Shore, Vintage. Ingrey, D. Sites Officer, La Perouse Local Aboriginal Land Council, September 2004, personal communication. Macdonald, W. A. 1928 ‘Forby Sutherlands grave at Kurnell’, Royal Australian Historical Society Journal – journal and proceedings, 14(5), 281-298. Megaw, J. V. S. 1969a 'Captain Cook and bone barbs at Botany Bay', Antiquity, 43(171), p. 213-215. Megaw, J. V. S. 1969b 'Trial excavations in Captain Cook's Landing Place reserve, Kurnell, NSW', The Artefact, 13, p.3-6. Megaw, J. V. S. 1969c 'Captain Cook and the Australian Aborigine', Australian Natural History, 16(8), p.255-260. New South Wales, Board of Studies. 1995 Talking Lapa: A local community history of La Perouse. NSW Department of Land and Water Conservation (2005). Caring for our Natural Resources - Sydney South Coast Region, Towra Point Estuarine Wetlands. At http://www.dlwc.nsw.gov.au/care/wetlands/activities/ssc/, accessed 5 January 2005. NSW Heritage Office 2004. Submission to Australian Heritage Council on emergency listing of Kurnell Peninsula, received 24 November 2004 (see Attachment B14). NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (NSW NPWS) 2001a. Towra Point Nature Reserve Plan of Management, pp1-32. NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (NSW NPWS) 2001b. Botany Bay Bearded Greenhood Recovery Plan. NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (NSW NPWS) 2002. Botany Bay National Park Plan of Management, pp 1-49. NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (NSW NPWS) 2004a. Kurnell dune forest in the Sutherland Shire and the City of Rockdale - endangered ecological community listing. Accessed 26/10/2004,. NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (NSW NPWS) 2004b. Sydney Freshwater Wetlands in the Sydney Basin Bioregion - endangered ecological community listing. Accessed 26/10/2004,. NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (NSW NPWS) 2004c. Sydney Coastal Estuary Swamp Forest Complex in the Sydney Basin Bioregion - endangered ecological community listing. Accessed 26/10/2004,. NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (NSW NPWS) 2004d. Coastal saltmarsh in the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner bioregions - endangered Ecological community listing. Accessed 26/10/2004, http://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/npws.nsf/Content/Coastal_Saltmarsh_endangered. ecological community listing. Accessed 26/10/2004. NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service 2004e. Atlas of NSW Wildlife - search for species recorded in Towra Point Nature Reserve and Botany Bay National Park. At http://wildlifeatlas.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/wildlifeatlas/watlas.jsp, accessed 24 December 2004. Pearson, M. 2004 Mapping the Coastline, a thematic research study for DEH. Perumal Murphy Wu (PMW), 1993 Sutherland Shire Heritage Study. PICMAN database, State Library of New South Wales. Pike, D. (ed) 1966 Australian Dictionary of Biography, MUP. Plomley, B. and J. Piard-Bernier 1993 The General, the visits of the expedition led by Bruny d’Entrecasteaux to Tasmanian waters in 1792 and 1793, Queen Victoria Museum, Tasmania. Public Records Office London. Rich, E. 1988 Skeletal material (archival material), Captain Cooks Landing Place, Botany Bay National Park. Report to NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service. Rolfe, J. S. 1931 'Archaeology at Quibray Bay', Mankind, 1, p. 36-37; 61-62. Roy, P. S. and Crawford, E. A. 1979 ‘Holocene geological evolution of the southern Botany Bay – Kurnell Region Central NSW Coast’, Records of the Geological Survey of NSW, 20(2), p. 159-250 Royal Australian Historical Society Journal Vol X 1923

http://www.deh.gov.au/cgi-bin/wetlands/report.pl

http://www.deh.gov.au/cgi-bin/wetlands/report.pl

http://www.gutenberg.net.au/

http://www.dlwc.nsw.gov.au/care/wetlands/activities/ssc/

http://wildlifeatlas.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/wildlifeatlas/watlas.jsp


Smith, L.J., E. Rich, and P. Hesp, 1990 Aboriginal sites on Kurnell Peninsula: A management study, Vol. 1-2, Report prepared for the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service and the Australian Heritage Commission. Smith, M. A. and N. D. Sharp 1993 'Pleistocene sites in Australia, New Guinea and Island Melanesia: Geographic and temporal structure of the archaeological record', in Sahul in Review: Pleistocene archaeology in Australia, New Guinea and Island Melanesia, ed. M. A. Smith, M. Spriggs and B. Frankhauser, Department of Prehistory, Research School of Pacific Studies, the Australian National University, Canberra, p. 37-59. Stanbury, P., J. Clegg and D. Campbell 1990 A field guide to Aboriginal rock engravings, with specific reference to those around Sydney, Sydney University Press in association with Oxford University Press, Australia. State Library of New South Wales Sutherland Shire Environment Centre 2004. The Kurnell Peninsula , An overview of environment and current issues. Accessed 26/10/2004, http://www.ssec.org.au/our_environment/our_bioregion/kurnell/index.htm. Tindale, N. B. 1974 Aboriginal tribes of Australia: their terrain, environmental controls, distribution, limits and proper names, University of California Press. University of Sydney Library 2003 George Worgan First Fleet Surgeon. Watkins, D. 2004. Review of the Potential Impacts of the Proposed Port Botany Expansion on Shorebirds. Report prepared for the Sydney Ports Corporation, NSW Dept of Environment & Conservation, Commonwealth Dept of the Environment & Heritage and NSW Dept of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment, October 2004, pp 1-68. Watkins, D., Director, Wetlands International, October 2004, personal communication. White. A., environmental consultant, September 2004, personal communication. Williams, S. representative of the Gweagal elders, 14 September 2004, correspondence. Williams, S. representative of the Gweagal elders, 29 October 2004, pers. comm. (meeting).


B. Register of the National Estate

Botany Bay Entrance, Anzac Parade, La Perouse, NSW

Photographs: None List: Register of the National Estate Class: Historic Legal Status: Indicative Place Place ID: 1734 Place File No: 1/12/030/0001 Nominator's Statement of Significance: Botany Bay entrance is considered of supreme importance for its coastal landscape and historical significance. Kurnell Peninsula is where Lieutenant Cook landed on 27 April 1770. La Perouse is named after the French navigator who arrived in Botany Bay in January 1788 while Captain Phillip was there with the First Fleet. Official Values: Not Available Description: The area consists of sections of the La Perouse and Kurnell Peninsulas forming the headlands on the entrance to Botany Bay. They are bordered generally by rugged bluffs capped with coastal heath. The area has considerable historical associations with Bare Island Fort (1885), the watch tower octagonal (1820), memorial to La Perouse (1825), the tomb of Pere Receveur (1825) and the Salvation Army Women's Hostel (1881) on La Perouse Peninsula. On Kurnell there is a plaque to Captain Cook and Joseph Banks (1821), a memorial to Cook (1870), Isaac Smith the first European to land and Forby Sutherland the first to die, to Banks and Solander. The area also contains the Cape Baily Lighthouse. The landscape also contains rugged cliffs topped by open scenery and some native heathland vegetation. History: Not Available Condition and Integrity: Much of this landscape is already under the control of the National Parks and Wildlife Service and is therefore the subject of management planning. The watch tower has been damaged, but restoration is possible. Location: About 300ha, comprising the La Perouse Peninsula east of Anzac Parade, La Perouse, and south of Jennifer Street, Little Bay; and the north-eastern section of the Kurnell Peninsula within Botany Bay National Park and north of Cape Bailey. Bibliography: Percival, I. G. The Geological Heritage of New South Wales, Vol. 1, 1985, NSW Government, National Parks and Wildlife Service, Sydney.


La Perouse Memorial Group, Anzac Parade, La Perouse, NSW

Photographs:

List: Register of the National Estate Class: Historic Legal Status: Registered (21/03/1978) Place ID: 1736 Place File No: 1/12/030/0003 Statement of Significance: Two historically important structures that were early forms of recognition of the tragic yet intrepid last expedition of Admiral de La Perouse and his party. One of the very few remaining works of the early colonial architect George Cookney. (The Commission is in the process of developing and/or upgrading official statements for places listed prior to 1991. The above data was mainly provided by the nominator and has not yet been revised nor reconsidered by the Commission.) Official Values: Not Available Description: Memorial: Designed by the colonial architect George Cookney and erected in 1825 at the instigation of the Baron de Bougainville when members of his expedition paid homage at the grave of Pere le Receveur. It is in the form of a Doric column set on a traditional pedestal and base also of stone, the globe surmounting the column is a metal map of the world in outline and is memorial to the La Perouse expedition which remained in Botany Bay from 26 January to 10 March, 1788, later to perish in the Santa Cruz Islands. Tomb: This is the grave of the French priest, Pere le Receveur, who served as naturalist and Chaplain during the La Perouse expedition but was speared by natives in Samoa and died on reaching Australia. He was the first known Frenchman to be buried on the Australian continent and certainly the first to be buried in the new colony of New South Wales. It is marked by a large sandstone tomb, probably also designed by George Cookney in 1825. In 1876 the New South Wales Government erected iron pike and rail fences around it and the Memorial, which were renewed in 1906 by the French Government. Both structures are shrines for visiting Frenchmen and services are held there each Bastille Day. History: Not Available Condition and Integrity: Not Available Location: Comprising: Memorial to La Perouse and the tomb of Pere le Recevuer, Anzac Parade, La Perouse Peninsula. Bibliography: Not Available

http://www.deh.gov.au/cgi-bin/heritage/photodb/imagesearch.pl?proc=detail;barcode_no=rt48803



The Watch Tower, Anzac Parade, La Perouse, NSW

Photographs:

List: Register of the National Estate Class: Historic Legal Status: Registered (21/03/1978) Place ID: 1737 Place File No: 1/12/030/0004 Statement of Significance: One of the earliest Colonial structures remaining on the New South Wales coast and possibly the oldest customs house in Australia. (The Commission is in the process of developing and/or upgrading official statements for places listed prior to 1991. The above data was mainly provided by the nominator and has not yet been revised by the Commission.) Official Values: Not Available Description: Two storey octagonal sandstone tower with castellated turret top possibly built in 1811, as a military guardhouse and lookout station. In 1831 a customs house was established at Botany Bay and extensions were made. Remained in use as a customs house until 1904. New South Wales Government attempted to restore it in 1962. All windows presently bricked up. History: Not Available Condition and Integrity: Not Available Location: Anzac Parade, La Perouse. Bibliography: National Trust of Australia (NSW) Classified Trust Classification Sheet.



Bare Island Fort, Anzac Parade, La Perouse, NSW

Photographs:

List: Register of the National Estate Class: Historic Legal Status: Registered (21/10/1980) Place ID: 1758 Place File No: 1/12/030/0025 Statement of Significance: Bare Island Fort is one of only two examples of an enclosed fortification in New South Wales, the other being Fort Scratchley at Newcastle. It was recommended by Sir W Jervois in 1877 when he advised the Colony on a coordinated defence scheme and its erection was soon after the colonies first became responsible for their own defence. Situated on a small island, it is a good example of late nineteenth century defence technology. All supervised by James Barnet, colonial architect. (The Commission is in the process of developing and/or upgrading official statements for places listed prior to 1991. The above data was mainly provided by the nominator and has not yet been revised by the Commission.) Official Values: Not Available Description: Bare Island Fort was designed by Colonel Scratchley, plans prepared by Mr Morell, CE and supervised by James Barnet. The fortifications were completed in 1885 and the barracks by 1890. The fortifications consist of five gun emplacements arranged symmetrically in an arc and linked by underground bomb proof passages. The whole fort is excavated into the sandstone of the Island. The barracks are two storey, of sandstone with cast iron columns to the upper verandah. History: Not Available Condition and Integrity: Good condition. Location: About 1.4ha, off Anzac Parade, La Perouse, in the entrance to Botany Bay. Comprises whole of Island including causeway to mainland. Bibliography: National Trust of Australia (NSW) Classified 05.3902 Trust Listing Data



La Perouse Monuments Historic Site, Anzac Parade, La Perouse, NSW

Photographs:

List: Register of the National Estate Class: Historic Legal Status: Registered (21/03/1978) Place ID: 1765 Place File No: 1/12/030/0027 Statement of Significance: The site has several unconnected significant elements: it is the site of the stockade set up by la Perouse, the French explorer, in 1788 at the time when the First Fleet arrived in New South Wales. The site has a memorial to la Perouse built in 1825 which has continued historical significance as each French visiting warship has attached a plaque to the base of the memorial; the grave of le Receveur, one of la Perouse's priests, is also marked by a 1825 gravestone and is one of the earliest European graves in Australia; an 1811 watchtower is one of the few remaining examples of early customs control in Australia; the 1882 cable station was the Australian end of the Pacific cable and is a good and intact example of a nineteenth century cable station. Official Values: Not Available Description: The reserve contains the La Perouse Monument, an obelisk which was erected here by Captain B H de Bougainville in 1825 to commemorate the visit of La Perouse to Australia. The monument was built by the colonial architect, Mr George Cookney, on the orders of the then Governor of New South Wales, Sir Thomas Brisbane. The globe surmounting the column is a metal map of the world in outline. Pere le Receveur's tomb lies close by, he was the Chaplain and naturalist with the La Perouse expedition. He was speared by natives in Samoa and died on reaching Australia. He was the first known Frenchman to be buried in the colony of New South Wales. The Macquarie Watchtower erected between 1820 and 1822 is the oldest existing building on the shores of Botany Bay. The original purpose of the tower was to prevent smugglers entering Botany Bay. The following years saw it used as a customs tower and it housed the first school in the area. The cable station, The Eastern Extension Australasian and China Telegraph Company was contracted to lay a submarine cable between La Perouse and Wakapuaka in New Zealand, which was completed in 1879. It was not possible to directly connect submarine cable to land line as the cables had different properties. As a result, the submarine cable at La Perouse had to be terminated at a cable station and re-transmitted over land line to the Sydney Telegraph Office. The Cable Station was designed and built between 1880 and 1881 by the noted colonial architect, James Barnet. It provided accommodation, office space and telegraph facilities for the officers of the telegraph company and the Post Master General. The Cable Station became redundant in 1917. In 1920 it became a Nurses Home for Prince Henry Hospital until 1933. It was eventually leased to the Salvation Army as a refuge for women and children from 1944 and now houses the La Perouse Museum. There are also some interesting artefacts including a replica of the anchor from L'Astrolobe at the site. History: Not Available Condition and Integrity: Not Available Location: Approximately 7.689ha, Anzac Parade, La Perouse, comprising generally the peninsula between Frenchmans and Congwong Bays. Bibliography: Not Available




C. NSW Heritage Register

Bare Island Fort

Item Name of Item: Bare Island Fort Type of Item: Built Group/Collection: Defence Category: Gun Emplacement Primary Address: La Perouse, NSW 2036 Local Govt. Area: Randwick Property Description: Lot/Volume Code Lot/Volume Number Section Number Plan/Folio Code Plan/Folio Number

- - - - - All Addresses

Street Address Suburb/Town LGA Parish County Type La Perouse Randwick Botany Cumberland Primary

Owner/s Organisation Name Owner Category Date Ownership Updated Department of Environment and Conservation State Government 26 Nov 98

Statement of Significance

Bare Island is nationally significant as an almost completely intact example of late nineteenth century coastal defence technology. Designed by Sir Peter Scratchley to a specification by William Jervoise, it represents one of the more substantial and impressive of the many fortifications built around Australasia. The Fort reflects the evolution of the relationship between New South Wales as an increasingly independent colony and Britain. It shows the way that strategic defence policy was operating in Australia on the eve of Federation. The Fort is also nationally significant as the site of the first War Veterans Home founded in Australia. This reflects the social and moral obligations felt by Australians early this century to the veterans of wars fought across the British Empire. It is an early major construction from mass concrete, at a time when the use of this material was still uncommon and not well understood. The Fort is of State significance for its pivotal role in the closure of the career of James Barnet, NSW Colonial Architect. It has significant impacts on the way publicly funded construction was carried out in New South Wales after that time. The Fort is regionally significant as the only island in Botany Bay. The form of the island has been changed by the construction of the Fort, to present a functional structure which nonetheless is of high aesthetic value. It is an important example of fortification design which demonstrates the evolution of the theory of coastal defence, the technology of defence and coastal fortification design. The Fort is regionally significant to the general community as part of the recreational and historic landscape of Botany Bay. Bare Island has particular local significance to the La Perouse community as an item of local heritage value. (NPWS Bare Island CMP 1997: 95-96) Date Significance Updated: 27 Jul 99 Note: There are incomplete details for a number of items listed on the State Heritage Register. The Heritage Office intends to develop or upgrade statements of significance for these items as resources become available.

Designer: Sir Peter Scratchley, Gustave Morell, James Barnet (Colonial Architect) Builder: John McLeod (NSW Department of Public Works) Construction Years: 1881 - 1889 Physical Description: Bare Island is a low sandstone island about 30 metres from the shore of the

southern end of La Perouse Headland, near the entrance to Botany Bay. The


island has been completely altered from its natural profile. The fortification complex comprises the battery, barracks buildings, parade and courtyard, access bridge and laboratory room/guards quarters. The fabric of the complex is best described in relation to the 6 phases of occupation identified by Gojak: Phase I 1880 - 1890 Original fortification works by McLeod Includes all major concrete work and earthworks, the bridge, original space functions and finishes. Characteristic materials are mass concrete with sandstone aggregate, cement render, cream fired brick, checker pattern salt-glazed tiles under asphalt, some reinforcing, armour plate, use of vaulting to span tunnels and much of the timber detailing. See endorsed conservation plan, 1997 Phase II 1890 - 1912 Second phase fortification works by de Wolski and others, primarily before 1895. Includes mainly the Barracks and the installation of a hydro-pneumatic gun and stores. Characteristic materials include concrete with finer bluestone aggregate, reinforcing beams to span voids, some conduit, red tuckpoint brickwork with dressed sandstone quoins and lintels, some paint finishes. Phase III 1912 - 1963 War Veterans Home, primarily around 1912, then a second phase of activity in 1939. Includes minor modifications in all areas of the Fort. Characteristic materials include paint finishes, timber flooring inside store rooms, some conduits and cabling, alterations to original use of spaces and installation or removal of internal walls. Changes also made to Barracks with opening up of new access passages, and circulation routes. Phase IV 1941 - 1945 World War II military usage. No definite evidence of this period beyond possible painted signage. Phase V 1963 - c. 1975 Randwick Historical Society Museum. Includes the period when Museum was in operation, both before and after NPWS ownership. Characteristic evidence includes reinstatement and reproduction of original features by removal of later material, mainly War Veterans period, or addition of material to a presumed original form, also some repairs, paint finishes, resurfacing of floors, especially in Caretakers area in the lower floor of the Barracks building. Phase VI 1975 - present NPWS administration. All changes made since Randwick Historical Society vacated island. Mainly constitutes large scale repair and conservation work to retaining walls, Barracks verandah, roof of casemate, drainage system, removal of more recent additions and provision of safety works.

Physical Condition and/or Archaeological Potential:

The archaeological potential to reveal information not available from other sources about the construction and use of the Fort is high, as is the potential to derive information that cannot be found on other sites. Date Condition Updated: 14 Dec 00

Modifications and Dates:

1985 to 1987 - Bridge repair 1993 - Structural repairs 1997 - Major conservation works including waterproofing

Current Use: Historic site Former Use: Fortification. War Veterans Home. Museum History Historical Notes: At European contact the Gweagal and Kameygal Aboriginal groups were

associated with Bare Island. It is mentioned in the journals of both Banks and Cook. Banks collected shell specimens there, while Cook noted that the island described as ‘a small bare island’ provided a convenient navigational marker. The name stuck from this first usage. As such the name is one of the first European names for a part of the east coast. Phillip and La Perouse


were the next to enter Botany Bay in 1788, but neither group is known to have visited Bare Island. The French built a stockade and garden nearby and buried their dead. The area was considered remote from Sydney and as the nineteenth century progressed became the focus of noxious trades such as tanneries and fell-mongering as well as the development of a unique Aboriginal community at La Perouse which serviced the diverse tastes of urban Sydney. The removal of all remaining garrison troops from Australian colonies excepting those retained and paid for by colonial governments as a result of the Cardwell reforms in the late 1860s forced a rethink of local defence preparedness, especially with the outbreak of hostilities between Russia and Britain in 1876. As a result, the Australian colonies requested the services of an Imperial Engineer to advise them on defence matters. Military engineers Scratchley and Jervois were sent. Jervois recommended a small work in Botany Bay as protection from small squadrons of hostile cruisers making lightning raids on Sydney and holding it to ransom for its gold reserves. Scratchley was responsible for turning Jervois's strategic vision into a detailed design and specification of the works. This he did with the aid of civil engineer Gustavus Morell. The specifications were also developed with the aid of the Colonial Architect James Barnet who was responsible for its construction. Bare Island Fort reflects the development of coastal fortifications design by the British Army, from locations around the world over more than a century. This was combined with a newly generated understanding of ballistics and materials science that was a product of the late nineteenth century Industrial Revolution. Bare Island, in comparison to earlier coastal defences constructed in Australia, such as Fort Denison or the Middle Head Batteries, shows the impact of new materials such as concrete, as well as the ever increasing power of guns. The design and construction of the fort was complex. The basis of the design was a symmetrical crescent, with the heaviest gun in the centre, which faced the likely line of attack. The various stages in the design of Bare Island took from mid 1877 to early 1880 when the final design was specified and contracted out. Even then, Scratchley still did not consider the design complete and regularly made alterations and suggestions, some verbally and some in writing. John McLeod won the tender in 1881 and commenced work on 7 April. His work was supervised by Public Works Department Clerk of Works Henry Purkis who was responsible for many other projects which called him away from Bare Island for extended periods. Following Scratchley’s death in 1885 overall supervision of the project was delegated to Major Penrose. Construction was completed in 1886, but by 1887 problems began to emerge as a result of poor construction. Between 1888 and 1889 barracks were constructed using the same contractor. The job did not go to tender. Lieutenant Colonel De Wolski raised questions as to the appropriateness of the barracks design and location, as well as the fact that tenders had not been called for its construction. A Board of Inquiry was established to investigate his concerns, but work continued. De Wolski complained and the work and contract were suspended. At the same time, a Royal Commission of Inquiry was established into the contract and construction of Bare Island. This inquiry found that the Colonial Architect Barnet was responsible for the mismanagement of works at Bare Island. This finding and the controversy surrounding it lead to Barnet’s premature retirement from public life. Bare Island was transferred to the Commonwealth in 1901. The garrison was reduced in 1902 and by 1908 it does not appear that any substantial military activity was occurring there. Between 1912 and 1963 Bare Island was used as Australia’s first War Veterans Home except during World War 2 when it was again used for military purposes. The island was notified as a Reserve for Public Recreation on 12 March 1965. Between 1963 and 1967 Randwick Historical Society controlled Bare Island and carried out works. They also involved other groups such as the Fort Artillery Society who wore period costumes and conducted live firings of


the 9 inch gun. These were very popular and became established as a regular attraction. Bare Island Historic Site was gazetted 1 October 1967 under the care of National Parks and Wildlife, although the Randwick Historical Society continued to maintain their museum and its associated activities. The live firings were stopped in 1974. The fort was closed to public in 1991. The current use of the island by NPWS is for interpretation through guided tours. See endorsed conservation plan, 1997

Historic Themes

Australian Theme (abbrev) New South Wales Theme Local

Theme 2. Peopling - Peopling the continent

Aboriginal cultures and interactions with other cultures - Activities associated with maintaining, developing, experiencing and remembering Aboriginal cultural identities and practices, past and present.

(none) -

3. Economy - 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

(none) -

3. Economy - Exploration - Activities associated with making places previously unknown to a cultural group known to them.

(none) -

3. Economy - Fishing - Activities associated with gathering, producing, distributing, and consuming resources from aquatic environments useful to humans.

(none) -

3. Economy - Technology - Activities and processes associated with the knowledge or use of mechanical arts and applied sciences

(none) -

4. Settlement - Building settlements, towns and cities

Accommodation - Activities associated with the provision of accommodation, and particular types of accommodation – does not include architectural styles – use the theme of Creative Endeavour for such activities.

(none) -

5. Working - Working Labour - Activities associated with work practises and organised and unorganised labour

(none) -

7. Governing - Governing

Defence - Activities associated with defending places from hostile takeover and occupation

(none) -

7. Governing - Government and Administration - Activities associated with the governance of local areas, regions, the State and the nation, and the administration of public programs - includes both principled and corrupt activities.

(none) -

7. Governing - Welfare - Activities and process associated with the provision of social services by the state or philanthropic organisations

(none) -

8. Culture - Developing cultural institutions and ways of life

Creative endeavour - Activities associated with the production and performance of literary, artistic, architectural and other imaginative, interpretive or inventive works; and/or associated with the production and expression of cultural phenomena; and/or environments that have inspired such creative activities.

(none) -

8. Culture - Leisure - Activities associated with recreation and relaxation (none) - 9. Phases of Life - Marking the phases of life

Persons - Activities of, and associations with, identifiable individuals, families and communal groups

(none) -

Assessment of Significance SHR Criteria a) [Historical Significance]

Bare Island Fort is historically significant at national and state levels. It represents processes of national development and strategic defence policy that helped to shape the modern Australian nation; it played a pivotal role in the career of the last Colonial Architect and affected the nature of public


administration in New South Wales. It was the site for the first War Veterans Home in Australia (NPWS 1997: 90-91)

SHR Criteria c) [Aesthetic Significance]

Bare Island can be characterised as a low monolith extending along the line of La Perouse Headland. The scale of the works, their colouring and placement emphasises the rounded shape of the island, and is within the scale of the island’s original size. The concrete works increase in density with elevation, presenting an impression of organic growth from natural bedrock at the bottom to solid concrete at the highest point. This also serves to enhance the feeling of solidity of the construction. The earliest views of Bare Island emphasised it as a small rugged island, and the current form of the island still permits an understanding of the island’s original size and shape. Once it became fortified and connected by a bridge to the mainland it remained a popular object for photography, with most photographs of the island either emphasising the western face with large expanses of concrete and loopholed walls, or the view down the bridge towards the jumble of concrete, rocks and grass. As a coastal fortification the design and organisation of the Fort is typical of others built around the British Empire in the 1870s and 1880s. It uses the flexibility of mass concrete to create massive but sinuous curved shapes, and a complex juxtaposition of straight lines and curved forms on differing levels. These are functional spaces and lines, linking the circular gun emplacements, and the curving gun passage with the regularity of the Barracks and loopholed rear walls. In plan the Fort is essentially symmetrical, in two main levels, accessed by ramps and stairs. The view from seaward, to the east, is primarily of natural surfaces and contouring, with few hard lines except for the casemate gun shield. The predominant features that create Bare Island are low relief, a juxtaposition of natural and concrete surfaces, scale and mass .Bare Island is significant as the only island in Botany Bay. The construction of the form is aesthetically pleasing for its close relationship and integration with the natural island landform with the built form. The visible built work provides an indication of the massiveness of the concealed construction. It is a nationally representative example of the corpus of significant designers of fortifications - Jervois and Scratchley, a regionally representative example that demonstrates fortification design in the late 19th century, and regionally representative as an example in the evolution of the design of coastal fortifications (NPWS 1997: 90-91)

SHR Criteria d) [Social Significance]

Bare Island is significant to a number of well-defined groups either as a discrete entity or as part of a broader social setting. Bare Island has significance as part of the land used and exploited by members of the La Perouse Aboriginal community over the past century. This includes the use of the beaches and surrounding waters for food gathering, work and recreation, the relationships formed with soldiers stationed on the island and with the veterans, and as part of the social landscape of the community. It also has an added association with Cook, Banks, Phillip and La Perouse and therefore represents for the wider Aboriginal community a significant contact point in the history of European - Aboriginal relationships. For the mainstream Australian community the prevailing importance of Bare Island is its identification as a nineteenth century fortification. This includes associations with the British Empire, the fear of attack by foreign powers and Australian insularity. The Fort is seen as a reminder that the world was different in the past and that there has been palpable change in the relationships between Australia and the rest of the world.


These are an outgrowth of feelings in the community earlier this century and last century relating to the ambivalent relationship over ties with England, and to what extent Australians were part of the Empire or separate people. The perceived continuity is demonstrated by the use of the Fort as a War Veterans Home, strengthening the ties to the imperial bond. The Sydney community and particularly residents of Randwick Municipality and the Randwick and District Historical Society take an active interest in the management and future of the Fort. Summary Bare Island is an important place for the local and regional community, as a landscape item, as part of the remembered recreational landscape of Botany Bay and La Perouse and for its recognised historical importance. It has particular importance to the residents of La Perouse, including the local Aboriginal community. (NPWS 1997: 90-91)

SHR Criteria e) [Research Potential]

Bare Island Fort is nationally rare as an early example of concrete construction, regionally representative as a demonstration of the technology of coastal artillery, fortification design and military tactics in the late 19th century, of high archaeological potential to reveal information not available from other sources about the construction and use of the Fort, of high significance for its potential to derive information that cannot be found on other sites, of medium to high significance for its ability to address pertinent research questions, and of low significance for the potential of its subsurface archaeological remains. (NPWS 1997: 90-91)

SHR Criteria f) [Rarity]

Bare Island is an example of early major construction from mass concrete at a time when use of this material was still uncommon and not well understood. Rare - Regional.

SHR Criteria g) [Representativeness]

This is a representative example of fortification design which demonstrates the evolution of theory of coastal defence, the technology of defence and coastal fortification design.

Integrity/Intactness: Intactness is high. The structure retains enough of the original fabric to

enable their form, function and interrelationship to be easily established. Integrity of the complex is high. Most facets of the structure and its functions survive.

Assessment Criteria Items are assessed against the State Heritage Register (SHR) Criteria to determine the level of significance. Refer to the Listings below for the level of statutory protection.

Recommended Management

Implement conservation and interpretation recommendations in Conservation Plan.

Procedures /Exemptions

Section of Act Description Title Comments Action

Date 21(1)(b) Conservation

Plan submitted for endorsement

Conservation Plan

CMP endorsed by Heritage Council 28 July 1999 for a period of five years, expires 28 July 2004.

Jul 28 1999

57(2) Exemption to allow work

Standard Exemptions

I, the Minister for Planning, pursuant to section 57(2) of the Heritage Act 1977 on recommendation of the Heritage Council of New South Wales grant standard exemptions from section 57(1) of the Heritage Act, 1977 described in the schedule gazetted on 7 March

Mar 7 2003


2003, Gazette No. 59 pages 4066-4070. To view the schedule click on the link below.

Standard Exemptions for Works Requiring Heritage Council Approval

Listings

Heritage Listing Listing Title

Listing Number

Gazette Date

Gazette Number

Gazette Page

Heritage Act - State Heritage Register

00978 02 Apr 99 27 1546

Heritage Act - s.170 NSW State agency heritage register

Study Details

Title Year Number Author Inspected by

Guidelines Used

National Parks & Wildlife Service Section 170 Register

National Parks & Wildlife Service

No

References, Internet links & Images

Type Author Year Title InternetLinks

Management Plan

NPWS Cultural Heritage Services Division

1997 Bare Island Conservation Plan, Volumes 1 & 2

Written ARUP Façade Engineering

1998 Bare Island Fortification, La Perouse

Written Higginbotham, E. 1989 La Perouse and Bare Island Historic Sites, La Perouse. Conservation Plan. Historical Archaeology

Written Kass, T. 1989 The Bare Island and La Perouse Monuments Historic Sites, La Perouse. An Historical Investigation - Final Report

Written McBean & Crisp Pty Limited

1989 Structural Condition and Cultural Significance of the Bare Island and La Perouse

Written NPWS 1997 Bare Island Conservation Plan 2 volumes: Conservation Plan

Written Public Works Dept NSW

1990 La Perouse Headland and Bare Island Conservation Plan: Landscape Analysis

Source of information for this entry Name: NSW Heritage Office Administration Database Number: 5045621 File Number: S92/00980


Chinese Market Gardens Item Name of Item: Chinese Market Gardens Type of Item: Landscape Group/Collection: Farming and Grazing Category: Market Garden Primary Address: Bunnerong Road, La Perouse, NSW 2036 Local Govt. Area: Randwick Property Description: Lot/Volume Code Lot/Volume Number Section Number Plan/Folio Code Plan/Folio Number

LOT 1077 - DP 752015 DP 752015LOT 1078 - DP 752015 LOT 1079 - DP 752015

All Addresses

Street Address Suburb/Town LGA Parish County Type Bunnerong Road La Perouse Randwick Botany Cumberland Primary

Owner/s Organisation Name Owner Category Date Ownership Updated Department of Planning State Government

Statement of Significance

The market gardens are of historical, agricultural and social significance to NSW and to Sydney Metropolitan area in particular. The place was supposed to be used as market gardens for more than 150 years, firstly used by Europeans and then by Chinese. In terms of historical significance, the area is seen to have the importance in the evolution of the area from a landscape occupied and modified by the area’s Aboriginal population, to an area adapted to the settlement and food production needs of the European colony. The area also has great social significance for its association with the Chinese immigrants who became predominant in the Market Gardens of this area for about 100 years. In terms of aesthetic significance, the area has some scenic value, giving it a somewhat rural character which can be perceived from the surrounding area. The place has representative and rarity value. The remaining Market Gardens have the representative value as surviving examples of the Market Gardens which were originally fairly widespread in the area. The Market Gardens also have rarity value as they provide the last remaining evidence in the Randwick area of these early agricultural uses, many former Market Gardens having already been redeveloped for residential use. The Market Garden sites are remnants of earlier and more widespread agricultural uses in the area. Date Significance Updated: 16 Sep 99 Note: There are incomplete details for a number of items listed on the State Heritage Register. The Heritage Office intends to develop or upgrade statements of significance for these items as resources become available.

Description Physical Description:

The market gardens are surrounded by Bunnerong Road to the east, Botany Cemetery to the north, Yarra Recreation reserve to the west (300 metres from Yarra Bay) and La Perouse Public School to the south with a block of unused land in between. Entrance to Robert Tang's market garden is on Bunnerong Road and the entrances to Tiy War & Co and Io Wun Leong's are on Koorooera Road. The site is of low lying land, growing all kinds of vegetables, including Choy Sum, Chinese Broccoli, English Spinach, Baby Buk Choy, Flower Choy Sum, White Radish, Green Radish, Watercress, Shallot, Coriander, Leek, Australian Parsley, Continental Parsley, Dill, Gay Choy, Spring Onion and Onchoy. Most of the vegetables were introduced from


China by Chinese market gardeners. The gardens are equipped with a pipe irrigation system. An unnamed creek flows in the middle of the gardens and has been used for irrigation. An unnamed creek flows between the market gardens and Botany Cemetery. The two creeks flow from Little Bay area and meet at the west end of Leong's market garden and flow to Yarra Bay through a concrete tunnel. In each market garden, there is a group of buildings. The vegetables are washed in a large central shed, and some workers live in corrugate iron huts. Some other huts are used as storerooms for agricultural machinery, fertilizer and tools.

Physical Condition and/or Archaeological Potential:

The market gardens function well, providing fresh vegetables on daily basis. However, the market gardens suffer damages from hailstorms and flood each year. The physical conditions of the buildings are poor. Date Condition Updated: 01 Jul 99

Further Information: The tunnel leading to Yarra Bay is not capable to drain the water from two creeks when there is heavy rain. The creek between the market gardens and Botany Cemetery is not maintained properly by the local council. When there is heavy rain, water pours over the bank and washes vegetables away, leaving rubbish on the site. Sometimes, the sea water pours back to the market garden through the tunnel.

Current Use: Market gardens Former Use: Market gardens History Historical Notes: Early market gardens were established in Randwick, Coogee and La

Perouse, with the first farms in the La Perouse area recorded in 1830 on land granted to John Brown. John Brown's land grant on the shores of Botany Bay and adjacent to Bunnerong Creek was the site of Bunnerong House. Land reclamation in this area has relocated the shoreline and the site of Gardens. The Surveyor General's Map of 1889 indicates the Wassell Street Market Garden area, to the east of Bunnerong Road, in the vicinity of the Bunnerong Road Market Garden. According to the Perumal Murphy Study, market gardens were established at Phillip Bay in the 1860s in the wake of the Gold Rushes. The market gardens at Randwick and Coogee were overtaken by housing in the late nineteenth century, but due to the areas isolation and low-lying terrain, the market gardens in the south of the Municipality survived into more recent times. According to Glen Blaxland, a local historian and once a member of the local historical society in the Municipality, Count de La Perouse cleared a piece of land and established a vegetable garden in Phillip Bay to prepare vegetables for his return journey back to France. The first known name of this suburb area was the Frenchman's Gardens. It is believed that this vegetable garden was Australia's first primary industry site and the site was more or less the same site as the Chinese Market Gardens. According to Randwick - A Social History, published by Randwick Council in 1985, the Market Gardens in the south of the city were established to capitalise on the fertile soil and abundant water from the swampy Botany Bay hinterland, and at one time vegetables were among the chief products of the region. Because of the reliable water supply, produce from the area could command high prices when other areas were affected by drought. The Social History notes that until 1859, the market gardens were owned and tended by Europeans, some being attached to the wealthiest homes in Randwick. Following the end of the 1850s gold rushes, many Chinese came into the area and became involved in market gardening. According to recollections of local residents, the gardeners took the vegetables to market around 4:00am, although many set up as hawkers on Sydney streets. The gardens were fertilised with straw manure carried on the return cart trip, and by human waste (nightsoil), transported under cover of darkness. The related health issues led to the appointment (Randwick being the first municipality to do so) of an Inspector of Nuisances, later to become the Health Inspector.


The gardens survived well into this century, many falling into the hands of large merchants in Dixon and Hay Streets. Recollections are that the men who worked on the gardens were very poor, being paid low wages on top of board and food. The vegetables were washed in a large central shed, and the men lived in corrugated iron huts, cooking over open fires. According to the Social History, the gardeners were much respected in the area and image of 'Old Chow' (as the gardeners were termed) was a vivid one for many older residents. A search of the Sands Directories by Council's Local History Librarian indicates that the first Chinese occupiers in the Bunnerong Road and Franklin Street area date from the late 1920s and early 1930. In 1961, there were nine market garden leases, confined to two areas in the Municipality. Four in the Franklin Street, Wassell Street, Knowles Avenue area, and five in the Little Bay Road, Bunnerong Road area. During the 1960s Council made considerable efforts to prevent long-term extensions of these leases by the Crown, in order to facilitate the future use of these areas for residential purpose. The title search shows Portion 1077 was used by current market gardener, Robert Tang, Portion was used by current market gardener, Tiy War & Co, since 1957 and Portion 1079 was used by Bing Sun Ng and Io Wun Leong since 1968. The leases for these market gardens have expired and the gardens are presently held under Permissive Occupancy.

Historic Themes

Australian Theme (abbrev) New South Wales Theme Local Theme

2. Peopling - Peopling the continent

Ethnic influences - Activities associated with common cultural traditions and peoples of shared descent, and with exchanges between such traditions and peoples.

(none) -


Agriculture - Activities relating to the cultivation and rearing of plant and animal species, usually for commercial purposes, can include aquaculture

(none) -


Environment - cultural landscape - Activities associated with the interactions between humans, human societies and the shaping of their physical surroundings

(none) -

4. Settlement - Building settlements, towns and cities

Land tenure - Activities and processes for identifying forms of ownership and occupancy of land and water, both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal

(none) -

Assessment of Significance SHR Criteria a) [Historical Significance]

The area is seen to have the importance in the evolution of the area from a landscape occupied and modified by the area’s Aboriginal population, to an area adapted to the settlement and food production needs of the European colony. Further research of historic maps is necessary to obtain greater detail on the development of agriculture in the area. The area is seen to be the earliest agricultural area and this site was regarded as one of the oldest market gardens in Australia. The market gardens have played very important roles in the development of Sydney Metropolitan area. The vegetables provided by the market gardeners helped people to survive from the diseases such as scurvy. The Chinese market gardeners have introduced Chinese vegetables to Australia to make it marketing prosperous.

SHR Criteria c) [Aesthetic Significance]

The market gardens have some scenic value, giving it a somewhat rural character, which can be perceived, from the surrounding area. Remaining buildings on the sites are utilitarian shed structures, which would require further investigation in order to determine whether they contributed to the significance of the place.

SHR Criteria d) [Social Significance]

The market gardens have great social significance for their association with the Chinese immigrants who became predominant in the Market Gardens of this area. Members of the Chinese community have managed the land for 90


or 100 years at least, without a break, passing from one generation to another generation and from one Chinese owner to another. Many Chinese immigrants started in market gardens and then developed their business such as restaurants, groceries, foreign trade on the basis of market gardens. Therefore, market gardens helped many Chinese immigrants to survive in Australia. It is felt that these two factors, long, ethnic attachment to the land and the fact that it is used for a purpose found nowhere else so close to the city centre, give these Chinese market gardens a special significance. The market gardens add variety, interest and charm to what might otherwise become a monotonous, suburban landscape. Many market gardeners are closely associated with long term established Chinese organisations that look after these market gardeners for their financial assistance, accommodation, legal assistance, funerals and other social welfare. Wally Har of Tiy War & Co was the Chairman of Australian Chinese Growers’ Association of NSW and the Director of Yiu Ming Society. Further research into sources of information on the Chinese community and oral histories would be necessary to determine the nature and importance of their association. In 1979, local residents launched a campaign to oppose residential redevelopment and required the government to conserve the site as long-term market garden. It indicates that these market gardens have some social significance for the wider community.

SHR Criteria e) [Research Potential]

The archaeological significance is to be determined with further investigation. Since aboriginal lived in this area before Englishmen arrived, there must be some archaeological potential for the study of aboriginal history. The area is also the place that Count de La Perouse landed, therefore there must be some archaeological potential for the study. Further research is necessary to determine whether this site is the place where La Perouse developed as a garden and grew vegetables on it. China is an agricultural country with 5,000 years civilised history. Most of the immigrants from Guangdong, China were skilled farmers. Their skills have contributed greatly to the development of agriculture. Most of the work is done in these market gardens by manual labour with simple tools. There are only one tractor and one rotary hoe in each market garden. The technical significance of agricultural technology used in these market gardens is to be determined by further detailed research.

SHR Criteria f) [Rarity]

The Market Gardens have the rarity value as they provide the last remaining evidence in the Randwick area of these early agricultural uses, many former Market Gardens having already been redeveloped for residential use.

SHR Criteria g) [Representativeness]

The remaining Market Gardens have the representative value as surviving examples of the Market Gardens which were originally fairly widespread in the area. It is one of the oldest sites of market garden in NSW and has maintained features of almost all the Chinese market gardens.

Assessment Criteria Items are assessed against the State Heritage Criteria to determine the level

of significance. Refer to the Listings below for the level of statutory protection. Procedures /Exemptions

Section of Act Description Title Comments Action

Date 57(2) Exemption to

allow work Standard Exemptions

I, the Minister for Planning, pursuant to section 57(2) of the Heritage Act 1977 on recommendation of the Heritage Council of New South Wales grant standard exemptions from section 57(1) of the Heritage Act, 1977 described in the schedule gazetted on 7 March 2003, Gazette No. 59 pages 4066-4070. To view the schedule click on the link below.

Mar 7 2003

Standard Exemptions for Works Requiring Heritage Council Approval


Listings

Heritage Listing Listing Title Listing Number

Gazette Date

Gazette Number

Gazette Page

Heritage Act - State Heritage Register

01299 13 Aug 99

92 5797

Local Environmental Plan

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 -

Sch3

30 Apr 99

References, Internet links & Images

Type Author Year Title InternetLinks

Written Karl Zhao 1999 NSW State Heritage Inventory form Written Randwick City Council 1998 Chinese Market Gardens - La Perouse

Source of information for this entry Name: NSW Heritage Office Administration Database Number: 5044696

http://www.heritage.nsw.gov.au/07_subnav_01_3.cfm?itemid=5044696&imageid=5000466




D. National Shipwreck Database

Eileen (NSW)

Ship Information Ship Name: Eileen Type: Fishing Boat Construction: Wood Primary Industry: Fishing Sub-Industry: fishing Gross Tonnage: Unknown Net Tonnage: Unknown Length (mtrs): Unknown Beam (mtrs): Unknown Draft (mtrs): Unknown Cargo: Fish Engine: Unknown Country Built: Unknown State Built: Unknown Port Built: Unknown Builder: Unknown Port Registered: Unknown When Built: Unknown Registration Number: Unknown Official Number: Unknown Sources: SMH 26/12/34 Comments: Salvaged?

Wreck Event When Lost: 1934/12/25 Where Lost: Sydney, Kurnell Sunk Code: Wrecked Sinking: Beached - sinking From Port: Sydney To Port: Jervis Bay Master: Unknown Owner: Unknown Crew: 5 Passengers: Unknown Crew Deaths: Unknown Passenger Deaths: Unknown Total Deaths: Unknown Location Maximum Latitude: Unknown Minimum Latitude: Unknown Maximum Longitude: Unknown Minimum Longitude: Unknown Location Datum: Not available Management Found: No Inspected: No Protected: No Jurisdiction: Unknown Protection Notes: Unknown Water Depth: Unknown Web Address: Unknown


Minnie Wamsley (NSW)

Ship Information Ship Name: Minnie Wamsley Type: Steamer screw Construction: Wood carvel Primary Industry: Unknown Sub-Industry: Unknown Gross Tonnage: 17 Net Tonnage: 12 Length (mtrs): 15.0 Beam (mtrs): 3.6 Draft (mtrs): 1.2 Cargo: Unknown Engine: 1 High Press Inv Country Built: AUSTRALIA State Built: New South Wales Port Built: Balmain Builder: Unknown Port Registered: Sydney When Built: 1884 Registration Number: 37/1884 Official Number: 89252 Sources: RBS Comments: Unknown

Wreck Event When Lost: 1903 Where Lost: Sydney, Botany Bay Sunk Code: Wrecked Sinking: Storm From Port: Unknown To Port: Unknown Master: Unknown Owner: Unknown Crew: Unknown Passengers: Unknown Crew Deaths: Unknown Passenger Deaths: Unknown Total Deaths: Unknown Location Maximum Latitude: Unknown Minimum Latitude: Unknown Maximum Longitude: Unknown Minimum Longitude: Unknown Location Datum: Not available Management Found: No Inspected: No Protected: Yes Jurisdiction: Unknown Protection Notes: Unknown Water Depth: Unknown Web Address: Unknown


Olive (NSW)

Ship Information Ship Name: Olive Type: Yawl Construction: Wood Primary Industry: Fishing Sub-Industry: fishing Gross Tonnage: Unknown Net Tonnage: Unknown Length (mtrs): Unknown Beam (mtrs): Unknown Draft (mtrs): Unknown Cargo: Unknown Engine: Unknown Country Built: Unknown State Built: Unknown Port Built: Unknown Builder: Unknown Port Registered: Unknown When Built: Unknown Registration Number: Unknown Official Number: Unknown Sources: SMH 2/6/, 3/6/1930 Comments: Possibly salvaged.

Wreck Event When Lost: 1930/06/01 Where Lost: Sydney, Botany Bay, Frenchman's Bch Sunk Code: Wrecked Sinking: Anchor dragged From Port: Unknown To Port: Unknown Master: Unknown Owner: Unknown Crew: 3 Passengers: Unknown Crew Deaths: Unknown Passenger Deaths: Unknown Total Deaths: Unknown Location Maximum Latitude: Unknown Minimum Latitude: Unknown Maximum Longitude: Unknown Minimum Longitude: Unknown Location Datum: Not available Management Found: No Inspected: No Protected: No Jurisdiction: State Protection Notes: Unknown Water Depth: Unknown Web Address: Unknown


APPENDIX 3 PROTOCOL FOR THE DISCOVERY OF NEW ABORIGINAL SITES


The following would be included in the statement of commitments in the Part 3A approval for the project.

In the event that a new Aboriginal site is found during the monitoring of the excavation for the Botany Bay cable route the following is to be undertaken:

1. If artefacts are discovered their location is recorded using a hand held GPS and mapped, the artefacts are to be collected, bagged and given a sequential location number.

If midden material is discovered its location is recorded using a hand held GPS and mapped, a sample of the material is collected, bagged and given a sequential location number.

2. The collected material is then to be examined in detail by a suitably qualified lithic specialist and the midden material examined and recorded. A report is to be written detailing the findings of this examination.

3. Following completion of the analysis of the assemblage, all the lithic items will be lodged with the Australian Museum, or will be subject to a Care and Control Permit granted to the La Perouse LALC.

The potential for human skeletal remains to be uncovered when excavating in sand deposits in relative proximity to water sources and known areas of Aboriginal occupation cannot be discounted. These actions would be followed if human skeletal material is detected during development activities:

1. If the remains are detected within or during the excavation of the trench, then no further excavation that involves the removal of in situ bones is to occur until the local Aboriginal community and DEC representatives have been contacted and consensus is reached regarding the continuation of the excavation.

2. If there is substantial doubt regarding a human origin for the bones, then evaluate if it is possible to gain a qualified opinion from an archaeologist within a short period of time. If feasible within a short period of time, seek an informed opinion (this can circumvent proceeding further along the protocol for non-human remains). If a quick opinion cannot be gained, or the identification is positive, then proceed to the next step.

3. Notify immediately the following people of the discovery:

• The local Police (required by law);

• A DEC archaeologist or Aboriginal Heritage Officer from Metro EPRD, Hurstville ( );

• A representative from the La Perouse LALC; and

• The project archaeologist (if not already present).

4. Facilitate, in co-operation with the appropriate authorities and Aboriginal representatives, the definitive identification of the skeletal material by a qualified person (if not already completed). This must be done with as little further disturbance to any remaining in situ material as possible.

If the skeletal material is identified as human, but not Aboriginal, then all further decisions and responsibilities regarding the remains rest with the NSW Police.

If the skeletal material is identified as Aboriginal then:

4.1 Ascertain the requirements of the local Aboriginal organisation, the DEC and the project archaeologist.

4.2 Based on the above, determine and conduct an appropriate course of action. Possible strategies could include:


• Avoiding further disturbance to the find and conserving the burial in situ, (this option may require relocating the mining activity and this may not be possible in some contexts);

• Conduct (or continue) archaeological salvage of the finds;

• Scientific description of the remains prior to reburial;

• Recovery of samples for dating and other analyses; and

• Subsequent reburial at another place and in an appropriate manner determined by local Aboriginal organisations.

5. Following the removal of the skeletal and associated burial material to the satisfaction of the project archaeologist and local Aboriginal organisation representatives, recommence previous activities.