61 Farm Road Aboriginal Heritage Due Diligence

Page 1
17 July 2018 Ed Lippman Lippmann Partnership 570 Crown Street Surry Hills NSW 2010 Sydney, Australia Dear Ed,
Re: Aboriginal Heritage Due Diligence Assessment for a proposed development of 61 Farm
Road, Riverstone NSW
This letter report has been prepared by Artefact Heritage at your request in relation to the
Development Application (DA) for a proposed development at 61 Farm Road, Riverstone NSW
(Figure 1). It outlines the results of a preliminary due diligence Aboriginal heritage assessment which
meets the requirements of the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) 2010 Due Diligence Code
of Practice for the Protection of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales, and includes
recommendations as to whether further archaeological investigation may be required in relation to
the current proposal.
This report was written by Alyce Haast (Archaeologist). Claire Rayner (Archaeologist) provided
management input and Sandra Wallace (Principal Archaeologist) reviewed the report.
1.0 Legislative Context
The Due Diligence Code of Practice for the Protection of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales
was introduced in October 2010 by the OEH (formerly the Department of Environment, Climate
Change and Water). The aim of the guidelines is to assist individuals and organisations to exercise
due diligence when carrying out activities that may harm Aboriginal objects and to determine
whether they should apply for consent in the form of an Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit (AHIP).
A due diligence assessment should take reasonable and practicable steps to ascertain whether
there is a likelihood that Aboriginal sites will be disturbed or impacted during the proposed
development. If it is assessed that sites exist or have a likelihood of existing within the development
area and may be impacted by the proposed development, further archaeological investigations may
be required along with an AHIP. If it is found to be unlikely that Aboriginal sites exist within the study
area and the due diligence assessment has been conducted according to the Code of Practice, work
may proceed without an AHIP.
2.0 Study Area
The study area consists of the eastern portion of 61 Farm Road, Riverstone (Lot 90 DP 1224210)
(Figure 1). The study area is bound by Farm Road to the north, the existing Australian Catholic
College to the west and private properties to the east and south. The study area falls within the
parish of Gidley and the City of Blacktown local government area.
61 Farm Road Aboriginal Heritage Due Diligence
Page 2
3.0 The Proposal
It is proposed to develop the property into an extension of the pre-existing school complex located to
the west of the study area. Works will involve land clearance, demolition of existing structures and
subsequent redevelopment works; including the installation of drainage and utilities, to service the
proposed facility (Figure 2).
Page 3
Page 4
An extensive search of the Aboriginal Heritage Information System (AHIMS) database was
undertaken on 5 June 2018 (Client ID: 349362).
An area of approximately 2.1 kilometres (east-west) by 2.2 kilometres (north-south) was included in
the search. The AHIMS search provides archaeological context for the area and identifies whether
any previously recorded Aboriginal sites are located within or near the study area. The parameters
of the search are as follows:
GDA 1994 MGA 56 298567 – 300685 mE
6270290 – 6272562 mN
Buffer 50 m
Number of sites 16
A total of 16 sites were identified by the extensive AHIMS search. The frequency of recorded site
types is summarised in Table 1 below. The distribution of recorded sites within the AHIMS search
area is shown.
The location of Aboriginal sites is considered culturally sensitive information. It is advised that this
information, including the AHIMS data appearing on the heritage map for the proposal is removed
from this report if it is to enter the public domain.
Table 1: Frequency of site features in AHIMS search results
Site Feature Frequency Percentage
Art (Pigment of Engraved), Potential Archaeological Deposit (PAD)
1 6.25%
Artefact, Stone Quarry 1 6.25%
The predominant site feature type located within the AHIMS search area is artefact (n=9,
56.25%).The closest site to the study area is MPWW-6 (45-5-4447) an isolated artefact, which is
located 200 metres from the western boundary of the study area (Figure 3).
Page 5
Page 6
5.0 Background
5.1 Environmental context
The study area is located within the Cumberland Plain, which is typified by an undulating landscape
of rolling hills and prominent rises. The geology of the study area is characterised by the Triassic
Wianamatta Liverpool Sub-Group. The Liverpool Sub-Group comprises Bringelly Shale over
Minchinbury Sandstone and Ashfield Shale and consists of shale and some sandstone beds and
outcrops. Local relief is between ten and fifty metres with undulating slopes to below ten per cent
(Bryan 1966).
Soils across the study area consist of the residual Blacktown soil landscape (Bannerman & Hazelton
1990). The Blacktown soils are shallow (<100 centimetres) hard setting mottled red and brown
podzolic soils on crests and yellow podzolic soils on lower slopes and along drainage lines
(Bannerman & Hazelton 1990). The Blacktown soil landscape is generally associated with gently
undulating rises.
The region has a dense drainage network of north flowing channels. Major watercourses located
near the study area include Eastern Creek which is situated approximately 1.3 kilometres to the
east. A tributary of South Creek is also located 500 metres to the southwest.
5.2 Historical background
Settlement in and around the study area commenced with the opening of Old Windsor Road in 1794.
Initially the region was dominated by the Rooty Hill stock farm, a government enterprise designed to
boost livestock numbers in the early years of colonisation. The stock farm was subsequently broken
up and portions granted to free settlers. One of the first free settlers to acquire a grant in the area
was Maurice O’Connell who in 1810 gained a 2500 acre holding that became known as ‘Riverston’
(Cole 1988:7).
From 1856 ‘Riverston’ was subdivided and put up for public auction. The period between 1850 and
1880 was a period of significant urban growth in the Riverstone, Schofield and The Ponds region.
Transportation and the ability to move both produce and individuals efficiently became a driving
force in the development of the area, and following the opening of the Richmond railway in the mid-
1860s settlement in the area further increased (Cole 1988:7).
The village of Schofields was named after a prominent identity in the early colony John Schofield,
who had lived in the region from c1833. Ex-convict John Schofield leased property from a free settler
Robert Fopp around 1833 on the eastern banks of Eastern Creek and later purchased Fopp’s entire
holding of 600 acres.
John Schofield was instrumental in resurveying the proposed 1865 Richmond railway route so as to
be clear of flood-prone areas. In return he was rewarded permission to construct and flag down
trains at his own rail platform. A small wooden platform was constructed in 1872 near Gillingham
Farm and became known as Schofields Platform. Demand on the rail line increased significantly
following the sale of over 600 allotments of the Riverstone Estate to the east in 1881. The small
timber platform was superseded in September 1881 by a new, larger platform just south of the
original station called Schofields Siding (GML 2011, p 11).
In 1927 the suburbs of Riverstone, Schofield and a portion of Vineyard were absorbed into the
Blacktown Shire. In the late 1940s restrictions were placed on construction within sites of less than
five acres. This restriction was part of the County of Cumberland plan that outlined the creation of a
“green belt” around the urban Sydney centre to actively preserve the region’s rural character. In the
Page 7
1980s the Riverstone area was designated within the development area of the North West Sector,
with the intention to develop it for residential dwellings.
Residential settlement and agricultural activity took place during the late 19th and early 20th century
and varied in regards to geographical locations. The area directly surrounding the current study area
was subdivided and occupied by small farms and large residential blocks from the 1880s onwards.
These subdivisions were associated with poultry farms, fruit growing, grazing, orcharding and small
scale farms and market gardens. Aerial images of the study area suggest that the majority of
structures located within these large subdivisions were built after the mid-20th century.
5.3 Archaeological context
surviving linguistic evidence and are therefore only approximations. Social interaction, tribal
boundaries and linguistic evidence may not always correlate and it is likely boundaries and
interaction levels varied and fluctuated over time. The language group spoken on the Cumberland
Plain is known as Darug (Dharruk – alternative spelling). This term was used for the first time in
1900 by Matthews & Everitt (Mathews & Everitt 1900:265). The Darug language group is thought to
have extended from Appin in the south to the Hawkesbury River, west of the Georges River,
Parramatta, the Lane Cove River and to Berowra Creek (Attenbrow 2010:34). This area was home
to a number of different clan groups throughout the Cumberland Plain.
Aboriginal people have lived in the Sydney region for up to 30,000 years, as indicated by
radiocarbon dating undertaken in Parramatta (Jo McDonald CHM 2005:87-94). Evidence of
Aboriginal occupation has been found dated to 50-60,000 yBP at Lake Mungo in NSW so it is likely
that Aboriginal people have lived in the Sydney region for even longer than indicated by the oldest
recorded dates known at present. The archaeological material record provides evidence of this long
occupation, but also provides evidence of a dynamic culture that has changed through time.
The existing archaeological record is limited to certain materials and objects that were able to
withstand degradation and decay. As a result the most common type of Aboriginal objects remaining
in the archaeological record are stone artefacts. Over 4000 Aboriginal sites are registered across the
Cumberland Plain on the OEH AHIMS database.
5.4 Previous Archaeological Assessments
The study area is located in a region that has been subject to frequent archaeological investigations
and assessments including assessments associated with North West Growth Centre precinct
releases. Early investigations include research conducted by Jim Kohen as part of PhD research
and an investigation of Aboriginal sites for Blacktown City Council (Kohen 1986) and Dallas and
Donlon (1988) who aimed to complete a comprehensive survey of the area.
Kohen, J. L. (1986)
Kohen undertook an assessment of the nature, distribution and significance of archaeological sites
within the City of Blacktown LGA. The assessment looked at all extant archaeological, ethnographic
and historical sources for the area and identified four main areas within the LGA boundaries that
required archaeological survey. Pedestrian survey was undertaken across the entire Marsden Park
precinct, in which the current study area is located. Areas of ground exposure, such as creek banks,
vehicle tracks and other washed-out surfaces were checked thoroughly. Any mature trees identified
during the survey were examined for evidence of cultural modification. It was noted during the
survey that ground surface visibility was generally poor due to the presence of thick pasture grass.
Page 8
During the survey of the Northwest Sector, a total of seven archaeological sites were identified.
Kohen noted that archaeological sites were identified throughout a full range of environments within
the areas surveyed; however he concluded that the density of artefact scatters differed according to
their location within the landscape. He concluded that areas adjacent creeks and on ridges were
most likely to contain high density sites; while areas away from this would contain low density or
isolated artefacts (Kohen 1986: 78). Based on the predictive model, Kohen nominated an area of
high sensitivity for the Northwest Sector (vicinity of current study area); which was based the
location of waterlines and elevated areas. Kohen recommended that consideration should be given
to protect the area nominated as having high sensitivity, if any development should occur in the
future (1986:81).
Dallas, M and D. Donlon (1988)
An archaeological survey and site assessment was undertaken of the area between Garfield Road
and Richmond Road. The aims of the assessment were to relocate sites previously recorded by
Haglund & Stockton (1983) and Kohen (1986), as well as comprehensively survey the study area for
the presence of any previously unrecorded Aboriginal cultural heritage. Previously recorded sites
were assessed in terms of their present content, condition, archaeological and Aboriginal values,
while all new sites were assessed and recorded as per the site recording requirements of the NSW
National Parks & Wildlife Service.
All of the sites were assessed by Dallas & Donlon (1988) as having low archaeological value as they
did not retain any evidence of associated potential archaeological deposits, had suffered vast
amounts of disturbance and had little to no research potential. No further archaeological survey or
investigation was considered warranted.
White and McDonald (2010)
During the last twenty years, Cumberland Plain predictive modelling has been developed and
refined as new data becomes available. Beth White and Jo McDonald have contributed to the
debate over site prediction by discussing the nature of Aboriginal site distribution, interpreted
through lithic analysis of excavated sites in the Rouse Hill Development Area (White & McDonald
2010). The paper provides a spatial and distributive analysis of Aboriginal objects in relation to
freshwater resources and along varying landform units. The findings of this study highlighted the
relationship between proximity to freshwater and landscape with Aboriginal occupation. The
following predictive statements were asserted (White & McDonald 2010:36):
Archaeological evidence of past Aboriginal peoples will be limited and be representative of
background scatter within proximity to first order creek lines;
Within the reaches of second order creek lines, archaeological evidence will again be
representative of background scatter and will likely consist of one-off camp locations and / or
isolated events;
Within the reaches of third order creeks, archaeological evidence will consist of repeated
occupation by small groups of people. Archaeological expressions will likely consist of
knapping floors and evidence of repeated use over time;
Along major fourth order creek lines archaeological expressions will consist of continued and
repeated use by past Aboriginal peoples and may include stratified deposits.
This stream order model identifies that the confluences of creek lines across the Cumberland Plain
will likely have evidence of a foci of activity with stratified deposits (White & McDonald 2010: 33). It
Page 9
was found that artefacts were most likely within 50-100 metres of higher (fourth) order streams,
within 50 metres of second order streams, and that artefact distribution around first order streams
was not significantly affected by distance from the watercourse (White & McDonald 2010: 33).
The study also found that artefact densities were most likely to be greatest on terraces and lower
slopes within 100 metres of freshwater resources (White & McDonald 2010). The predictive model
identified that ridgelines and crests located between drainage lines will contain archaeological
evidence though usually representative of background scatter similar to that identified for first and/or
second order creek lines (White & McDonald 2010). While White & McDonald’s (2010) predictive
model can be seen as indicative of the archaeology of the Cumberland Plain, it is important to note
that conclusions based on simple geographical models are not concrete justifications or criteria for
site distribution and characteristics (AMBS 1997). The existing distribution and characteristics of
sites throughout a landscape is the result of the complex interplay of numerous factors such as
periods of occupation, site type, environmental impacts, erosional events and the impacts of modern
activities.
Artefact Heritage (2015)
In 2015 Artefact Heritage was engaged to conduct an Aboriginal Heritage Assessment for the
Marsden Park North Precinct. This Aboriginal Heritage Assessment was completed to assess the
nature, extent and significance of Aboriginal sites and cultural heritage values within the Marsden
park precinct to inform in planning and development based on an Indicative Layout Plan (ILP) for the
Precinct. Artefact surveyed 25 previously recorded sites within the precinct and determined that the
majority of previously recorded sites consisted of low visibility, poor preservation sites. The survey
identified an additional 39 sites, of which 28 were isolated artefacts. Artefact determined two areas
as having cultural significance in the St Phillips cemetery area and the St Mary’s geological
formation while also developing an archaeological sensitivity map for the region.
The study area is located within the Marsden Park North Precinct and was surveyed as part of this
analysis. Based on the predictive models used as part of that study and the observations recorded
during survey the area was considered to contain moderate archaeological sensitivity.
6.0 Results of the Site Visit
An inspection of the study area was conducted on foot by Alyce Haast (Archaeologist) and Claire
Rayner (Archaeologist) on 1 September 2015. The study area was inspected to determine whether
there were Aboriginal objects located on the ground surface or if there were likely to be intact
subsurface archaeological deposits within the study area.
The study area is situated on a gentle slope rising to the east with several areas of artificial crests
and depressions (Plate 1). Visibility was generally low with heavy grass coverage over the study
area. Exposures existed in areas of disturbance relating to building demolition, vehicle tracks and
mounds associated with previous earthworks.
High levels of disturbance were evident throughout the study area. Earthworks associated with the
excavation and development of dams as well as building construction have occurred over a large
portion of the study area. The subsequent demolition of the structures and removal of trees have
also contributed to the generally disturbed nature of the study area.
The southern end of the property is occupied by mid-late 20th century structures including a
residential property as well as a variety of sheds surrounded by gravel topping (Plate 2). The shed
locations are significantly disturbed, showing evidence of levelling as well as landscaping.
Page 10
Modification is clearest along the north-western boundary of the property with a large dam
constructed (Plate 3). Mounds exist on both the southern and northern sides of the dam created by
the fill excavated as part of dam construction (Plate 4). Inspection of the fill revealed an abundance
of ironstone and shale material with no raw materials appropriate for knapping. An additional two
dams are present in the southern portion of the property.
Significant earth works are also evident in association with the foundations of a large building
located in the central portion of the property (Plate 5). The foundation includes a deep inbuilt
depression suggesting major earthworks as part of the buildings construction.
While the majority of the study area was heavily disturbed a small portion of the area appeared to be
intact and in good condition (Plate 6). No scarred or carved trees were identified within the study
area. No Aboriginal objects were observed within the study area during the survey.
Plate 1: Landscape viewed from southern boundary of property, northern aspect
Plate 2: View of property on northern portion of property, eastern aspect
Plate 3: Northern dam, southern aspect Plate 4: Southern mound relating to dam
construction, southern aspect
Page 11
Plate 5: Central building, foundation depression, south western aspect
Plate 6: Areas of low disturbance, central area of property, northern aspect
7.0 Assessment of Archaeological Potential
Archaeological potential is closely related to the levels of ground disturbance. However, other factors
are also taken into account when assessing archaeological potential, such as whether artefacts
were located on the surface, and whether the area is within a sensitive landform unit according to
the predictive statements.
This due diligence assessment has identified that a large portion of the study area has been subject
to past ground disturbance. The Code of Practice defines disturbed land:
(4) For the purposes of this clause, land is disturbed if it is has been the subject of human
activity that has changed the lands surface, being changes that remain clear and observable.
This includes disturbed land via:
(c) construction of roads, trails and tracks (including fire trails and tracks and walking tracks),
(d) clearing of vegetation,
(e) construction of buildings and the erection of other structures,
(f) construction or installation of utilities and other similar services (such as above or below
ground electrical infrastructure, water or sewerage pipelines, stormwater drainage and other
similar infrastructure),
The majority of the study area has been subject to some form of disturbance. These disturbances
are related to the construction and subsequent demolition of structures on the property, the removal
of trees and the earthworks associated with the construction of multiple dams within the study area.
These factors significantly reduce the archaeological potential within the study area.
The precinct wide assessment of the area (Artefact 2015:67) identified that the current study area
exists within an area of low-moderate archaeological sensitivity. Site assessment revealed
significant disturbance and a lack of visibility limiting the archaeological potential of the area.
Based on this background information, Aboriginal site distributions in the region, and known levels of
disturbance at the site; it is considered that the study area has a low potential to contain Aboriginal
objects or archaeological deposits.
Page 12
8.0 Conclusions and recommendations
Based on the level of disturbance and lack of Aboriginal objects located during the current survey,
61 Farm Road has been determined to have low potential to contain intact archaeological deposits.
The proposed works would impact areas of previously disturbed land where Aboriginal objects are
unlikely to occur beneath the ground surface.
It is therefore recommended that there are no Aboriginal heritage constraints on the proposed
development and works can proceed with caution.
If unforeseen Aboriginal objects are uncovered during construction, work should cease, and an
archaeologist, OEH, and Deerubbin Local Aboriginal Land Council (DLALC) should be informed. If
human remains are found, work should cease, the site should be secured and the NSW Police and
OEH should be notified. It is an offence under the NPW Act 1974 (as amended 2011) to disturb or
destroy an Aboriginal object without an Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit (AHIP).
If changes are made to the project that may result in impacts to areas not covered by this
assessment, further archaeological assessment may be required.
Kind Regards,
Alyce Haast
Page 13
Artefact. 2015. North West Growth Centre: Marsden Park North Precinct. Aboriginal Heritage
Assessment. Report to Marsden Park North Release Group on behalf of Urbis
Attenbrow, V. 2010. Sydney’s Aboriginal Past: Investigating the Archaeological and Historical
Records. University of New South Wales Press Ltd. Sydney.
Australian Museum Business Services (AMBS). 1997. Cumberland Plain Archaeological Study:
Stage 1. Report to NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service. Sydney.
Bannerman, S. M. & Hazelton, P.A. 1990. Soil Landscapes of Penrith 1:100,000 Sheet. Soil
Conservation Service of New South Wales. Sydney.
Bryan, J.H. 1966. Sydney 1:250 000 Geological Sheet SI/56-05. 3rd edition. Geological Survey of
New South Wales. Sydney.
Cole, S. 1988. A History of the Quakers Hill Township. Quakers Hill Public School: Australia’s
Bicentenary 1788-1988.
Dallas, M and D. Donlon (1988) Archaeological Survey and Site Assessment of a Portion of the
Riverstone Meatworks Property near Marden Park NSW. Unpublished Report to the Angliss
Group.
Godden Mackey Logan 2011, Schofield’s Precinct Non Indigenous Heritage Assessment.
Unpublished report prepared to the Department of Planning
eSPADE 2015 http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/Salisapp/resources/spade/reports/9030bt.pdf
Accessed on 1 September 2015.
Kohen, J. L (1986) An Archaeological Study of Aboriginal Sites within the City of Blacktown.
Unpublished report prepared for Blacktown City Council.
Haglund & Stockton (1983) Archaeological Investigation, Riverstone Meatworks Property.
Unpublished report to the National Parks and Wildlife Service.
McDonald, R.C., R.F. Isbell, J.G. Speight, J. Walker and M.S. Hopkins, (1998) Australian Soil and
Land Survey: Field handbook. 2nd Edition. Inkata Press: Melbourne.
Jo McDonald CHM Pty Ltd. 2005. Archaeological Salvage Excavations of Eight Archaeological
Landscapes in the Second Ponds Creek Valley Rouse Hill Development Area, NSW. Report
to RHU and Landcom.
Mathews, R.H & Everitt, M.M. 1900. The Organisation, Language and Initiation Ceremonies of the
Aborigines of the South-East Coast of N. S. Wales. Journal and Proceedings of the Royal
Society of New South Wales. 34: 262–81.
NSW Government. 1974 (amended 2011). National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974: No. 80.
Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) [Previously Department of Environment, Climate Change
& Water]. 2010. Due Diligence Code of Practice for the Protection of Aboriginal Objects in
New South Wales.
White, E. & McDonald, J. 2010. Lithic Artefact Distribution in the Rouse Hill Development Area,
Cumberland Plain, New South Wales. Australian Archaeology. 70: 29-38.

Documents

61 Farm Road Aboriginal Heritage Due Diligence