amended rocky hill coal project part 12 historic heritage …€¦ · yancoal australia limited to...

Development Application No. SSD 5156

Amended Rocky Hill Coal Project

Prepared by: Richard Lamb & Associates

Part 12Historic Heritage Assessment

June 2016

This page has intentionally been left blank

Richard Lamb & Associates

ABN: 46 114 162 597

Historic Heritage

Assessment Prepared for: R.W. Corkery & Co. Pty Limited 1st Floor, 12 Dangar Road PO Box 239 BROOKLYN NSW 2083

Tel: (02) 9985 8511 Email: [email protected]

On behalf of: Gloucester Resources Limited Level 8 Riverside Centre

128 Eagle Street BRISBANE QLD 4000

Tel: (07) 3006 1830 Fax: (07) 3006 1840 Email: [email protected]

Prepared by: Richard Lamb & Associates 1/134 Military Road

NEUTRAL BAY NSW 2089

Tel: (02) 9953 0922 Fax: (02) 9953 8911 Email: [email protected]

June 2016

GLOUCESTER RESOURCES LIMITED SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES

Amended Rocky Hill Coal Project Part 12: Historic Heritage Assessment

Report No. 806/14

12 - 2 Richard Lamb & Associates

This Copyright is included for the protection of this document

COPYRIGHT

© Richard Lamb & Associates, 2016 and

© Gloucester Resources Limited, 2016

All intellectual property and copyright reserved.

Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study, research, criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright Act, 1968, no part of this report may be reproduced, transmitted, stored in a retrieval system or adapted in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without written permission. Enquiries should be addressed to Richard Lamb & Associates.

SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES GLOUCESTER RESOURCES LIMITED

Part 12: Historic Heritage Assessment Amended Rocky Hill Coal Project

Report No. 806/14

Richard Lamb & Associates 12 - 3

FOREWORD

Since the exhibition of the Environmental Impact Statement for the Rocky Hill Coal

Project in 2013, Gloucester Resources Limited has reached an agreement with

Yancoal Australia Limited to utilise the existing facilities at the nearby Stratford Mining

Complex to process and despatch coal mined from the Rocky Hill Mine Area.

Consequently, Gloucester Resources Limited has amended the Rocky Hill Coal

Project to provide for the transportation of sized coal to the Stratford Mining Complex

via a private haul road and no longer intends to construct or use the previously

proposed Rocky Hill coal handling and preparation plant (CHPP), overland conveyor,

rail loop and train load-out facility. In addition, the amended Project would no longer

involve the development of the formerly proposed Weismantel Pit.

For the purposes of this report, the 2013 Rocky Hill Coal Project is referred to as the

“2013 Project” whilst the amended Rocky Hill Coal Project is referred to as the

“amended Project”. It is noted that Appendix 1 presents an overview of the key

differences between the Historic Heritage Assessment for the 2013 Project and the

amended Project.

This report effectively presents an update of the 2013 Historic Heritage Assessment in

light of these amendments to the Rocky Hill Coal Project.



Report No. 806/14





Report No. 806/14

CONTENTS Page


COMMONLY USED ACRONYMS ........................................................................................................ 12-7

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY....................................................................................................................... 12-9

1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 12-15

1.1 PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT..................................................................................... 12-15

1.2 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................ 12-15

1.3 OVERVIEW OF THE AMENDED PROJECT ............................................................... 12-15

2. HISTORICAL RECORD ............................................................................................................ 12-21

2.1 BRIEF HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ......................................................................... 12-21

2.1.1 First settlement ................................................................................................ 12-21

2.1.2 Post-first settlement themes ............................................................................ 12-23

2.2 SURVEY FINDINGS .................................................................................................... 12-23

2.2.1 National Statutory Framework ......................................................................... 12-23

2.2.2 NSW Statutory Framework .............................................................................. 12-24

2.2.3 Registers of non-statutory items ...................................................................... 12-25

2.3 HERITAGE ITEMS ....................................................................................................... 12-25

2.3.1 Listed, identified but unlisted and other items of potential significance .......... 12-25

2.4 SUMMARY OF RESEARCH ON HERITAGE ITEMS .................................................. 12-27

3. POTENTIAL HERITAGE LANDSCAPE ................................................................................... 12-39

3.1 PHYSICAL AND VISUAL SETTING ............................................................................ 12-39

3.2 THE STROUD-GLOUCESTER VALLEY INCORPORATING THE VALE OF GLOUCESTER LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION AREA ............................................. 12-39

3.3 THE LANDSCAPE INTERPRETED FROM A CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE ............... 12-41

3.4 HERITAGE VIEWS ...................................................................................................... 12-43

4. ASSESSING POTENTIAL HERITAGE IMPACTS ON THE LANDSCAPE ............................. 12-45

4.1 METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................... 12-45

4.1.1 Why the item, place or area is of heritage significance ................................... 12-46

4.1.2 Alternative BGSPA Statement of Heritage Significance ................................. 12-49

4.1.3 RLA Assessment of Heritage Significance ...................................................... 12-51

4.2 REQUIREMENTS OF STATEMENTS OF HERITAGE IMPACT ................................. 12-54

4.2.1 Describing the works, change of use and physical changes to the place ....... 12-54

4.2.2 Identifying the impacts the proposed changes to the heritage item will have on its heritage significance .............................................................................. 12-55

4.2.3 Measures being proposed to lessen negative impacts of the proposed changes ........................................................................................................... 12-56

4.2.4 Why more sympathetic solutions to those being proposed are not viable ...... 12-57

4.3 QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED IN A SOHI ............................................................. 12-57

4.3.1 How is the impact of the new development on the heritage significance of the item or area to be minimised? ................................................................... 12-57

4.3.2 Why is the new development required to be adjacent to the heritage item? .. 12-58



Report No. 806/14

CONTENTS Page


4.3.3 How does the curtilage allowed around the heritage item contribute to the retention of its heritage significance? .............................................................. 12-58

4.3.4 How does the new development affect views to, and from, the heritage item? What has been done to minimise negative effects? ........................................ 12-58

4.3.5 Is the development sited on any known, or potentially significant archaeological deposits? If so, have alternative sites been considered? Why were they rejected? ......................................................................................... 12-58

4.3.6 Is the development sympathetic to the heritage item? In what way (e.g. form, siting, proportions, design)? ............................................................................. 12-58

4.3.7 Will the additions visually dominate the heritage item? How has this been minimised? ....................................................................................................... 12-59

4.3.8 Will the public, and users of the item, still be able to view and appreciate its significance? .................................................................................................... 12-59

5. CONSIDERATION OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE EIS ................................................ 12-60

5.1 REQUIREMENTS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND INFRASTRUCTURE (NOW DPE): ............................................................................... 12-60

5.2 REQUIREMENTS OF THE BARRINGTON-GLOUCESTER-STROUD PRESERVATION ALLIANCE INC. ............................................................................... 12-60

5.3 REQUIREMENTS OF GLOUCESTER SHIRE COUNCIL ........................................... 12-61

5.4 REQUIREMENTS OF NSW HERITAGE COUNCIL .................................................... 12-62

5.5 SUMMARY CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 12-62 APPENDICES

Appendix 1 Key Differences between the 2013 Project and Amended Project ............................ 12-65

Appendix 2 The Archaeological Investigation for Sites of Non-indigenous Heritage Significance ................................................................................................................ 12-69

Appendix 3 Visual Impact Assessment ......................................................................................... 12-97 FIGURES

Figure 1.1 Amended Site Layout ................................................................................................. 12-17

Figure 1.2 Amended Mine Area Layout ...................................................................................... 12-18

Figure 3.1 Landscape Features of the Stroud-Gloucester Valley ............................................... 12-40 TABLES

Table 1.1 Coverage of DGRs and EIS Requirements relating to Historic Heritage.................. 12-19

Table 2.1 Listed and Unlisted Historic Heritage Items .............................................................. 12-27



Report No. 806/14


COMMONLY USED ACRONYMS AACo. Australian Agricultural Company

AECOM The consultancy, technical and management company AECOM

Australia ICOMOS The Australian branch of the International Council on Monuments

and Sites

AHD The Authorised Heritage Discourse

BGSPA The Barrington-Gloucester-Stroud Preservation Alliance Inc.

DotE Commonwealth Department of the Environment

DSEWPaC Commonwealth Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water,

Population and Communities (Now DotE)

DGRs Director-General’s Requirements

DP&I Department of Planning and Infrastructure (Now NSW Department of

Planning and Environment)

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

GLEP 2000 Gloucester Local Environmental Plan 2000

GLEP 2010 Gloucester Local Environmental Plan 2010

GLLEP 2014 Great Lakes Local Environmental Plan 2014

GRL Gloucester Resources Limited

Hunter REP Hunter Regional Environmental Plan

LCA Landscape Conservation Area

LEP Local Environmental Plan

LGA Local Government Area

NHL National Heritage List

NTANSW National Trust of Australia (NSW)

REP Regional Environmental Plan

RLA Richard Lamb and Associates

RNE Register of the National Estate

SHI State Heritage Inventory

SHR State Heritage Register

SHS Statement of Heritage Significance

SoHI Statement of Heritage Impact

VIA Visual Impacts Assessment



Report No. 806/14





Report No. 806/14


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report by Richard Lamb and Associates assesses the potential impacts of the 1.

proposed amended Rocky Hill Coal Project (the amended Project) on historic heritage

values including archaeology.

The report addresses the DGRs listed on Table 1.1. 2.

Appendix 2 contains the Archaeological Investigation for Sites of Non-Indigenous 3.

Heritage Significance by Archaeological Surveys and Reports Pty Ltd dated 2013.

Appendix 3 reproduces the Visual Impact Assessment (Lamb 2016)1, which details the 4.

works proposed, likely visual effects and the mitigation and management measures

proposed, including an evaluation of the effectiveness and reliability of those measures.

The predominant issue for historic heritage is shown to be potential impacts on intangible 5.

aesthetic and cultural values of the landscape, rather than on any listed, classified or

potential individual heritage items, sites or their curtilages.

Brief Historical Background (Section 2.1). Key points are summarised below: 6.

a. Early European occupation of the area that includes the Site in the 19th century has

significant associations with the Australian Agricultural Company (AACo.), an

English investment company.

b. The southern part of the Karuah/Avon River valleys in particular contained

resources identified by the AACo. as complementary to its primary intentions to

increase the quality and quantity of merino wool production and export it via Port

Stephens to England.

c. Other grants made to the AACo. were in the Liverpool Plains (246,600 acres), Peel

River (312,290 acres) and Newcastle (2000 acres plus a number of small individual

parcels of land), totalling 1,029,530 acres.

d. Two early centres were established by the AACo. in 1826-7, one at Carrington on

the northern shore of Port Stephens and the other in the Booral area on the Karuah

River. The Carrington enterprise initially grew rapidly but was short-lived while

Booral and Stroud became the centres of agricultural activity during the 1830s.

e. Robert Dawson, land agent for the AACo. is credited with first describing attributes

of the landscape as reminiscent of the Vale of Gloucester in England.

f. The 1830s, during which Stroud was established, was the time of expansion of the

AACo’s administrative centre and by the 1840s, it had become the company’s

headquarters.

g. Simultaneously, the AACo. experienced the beginning of stagnation and the

eventual decline of its wool growing enterprise, which was moved to Warrah and

Goonoo Goonoo in 1856.

h. The AACo. moved its offices from Stroud to Sydney in 1856 and Carrington was

closed. By about 1860, the colonial period of first European settlement was over.

1 Volume 2, Part 3 of the Specialist Consultant Studies Compendium – This document is included as an appendix to

this report at the request of the NSW Heritage Council.



Report No. 806/14


i. Gloucester, at the north end of the Avon River valley, was surveyed in 1855 but did

not prosper and remained a hamlet with a population as low as 30 in 1866 until the

period following sale and subdivision of the AACo. estates.

j. The built evidence of the AACo. settlements of Booral and Stroud is substantial as

is evident by reference to the heritage registers and schedules discussed in

Section 2.3. Both towns retain a stock of early buildings and sites from the first

settlement period.

k. There is no remaining tangible evidence of the early grazing runs and crop lands

established by the AACo.

l. Later historic themes are readable in the subsequent changes in the historic and

cultural landscape and in the development of Gloucester in the 20th century as an

agricultural service centre influenced by historical themes such as dairying, the

timber industry and tourism.

m. Some smaller settlements such as Booral, Wards River, Stroud Road and

Weismantels experienced firstly growth and then decline periods associated with

the growth and decline in the local timber industry, the arrival of the railway,

changes in rural and forest economics and increasing reliance on the roads.

n. Mining, tourism and cultural development have played a role in creating and

shaping the heritage fabric, whether built or landscape, with the locality attracting

tourists who wish to experience its natural, historic and cultural attributes.

Survey of Heritage Items: Relevant registers, schedules and lists were searched for 7.

entries of statutory and non-statutory items and sites in the entire Stroud-Gloucester

Valley (refer to Sections 2.2 and 2.3 and Table 2.1). The findings are summarised below.

a. There is one item on the National Heritage List in the sub-region shared by the

Site; The Gondwana Rainforests of Australia - Barrington Tops. The Site is not in

the vicinity of this site.

b. There are five items on the NSW State Heritage Register (SHR);

i. St Johns Church Group including Quambi House,

ii. Stroud House,

iii. Stroud Ambulance Station,

iv. Monkerai Bridge over Karuah River,

v. Gundayne House Group at Booral.

c. In the following areas, the numbers of statutory items, items identified as

possessing heritage valued but not registered as yet and contributory items total:

Barrington (7), Booral (7), Copeland (3), Craven (1), Faulkland (1), Gloucester (42),

Monkerai (3) and Stroud (including Stroud Road) (23).

d. There are, as far as can be ascertained, no statutory items, contributory items or

sites that are on or in the vicinity of the Site or its visual catchment.

e. The archaeological investigation has assessed the only identified potential item,

“Aminya”, a cottage on McKinleys Lane and concluded that there are no structures,

objects or items of historic heritage significance on the Site and that there is a low

potential for the Site to yield any items of archaeological significance.



Report No. 806/14


Non Statutory items: 8.

a. The Site is part of an area entered on one non-statutory register, i.e. the Register

of the National Trust of Australia (NSW) (NTANSW) as a Landscape Conservation

Area (LCA) titled “the Stroud-Gloucester Valley incorporating The Vale of

Gloucester”.

b. The Site is part of an area titled “The Vale of Gloucester” on an entry in the

Register of the National Estate Database as an Indicative Place (Place ID 1357).

Assessing the Stroud-Gloucester Valley as a Potential Heritage Landscape (see 9.

Section 4):

a. The Site is in a physically and visually distinctive landscape underlain by the

Gloucester Basin that extends from Stroud Road to north of Gloucester. It is

physically and visually separated from the Booral-Stroud area in which the

statutory items most associated with the AACo., early settlement and 19th century

historical themes are concentrated.

b. The historical associations with the early settlement pattern of development,

however, do not conform to the geological structures or one landscape type and

are not confined to the Stroud-Gloucester Valley.

c. The NTANSW LCA boundary is approximately 60km long north-south, up to 12km

wide near Gloucester and extends into the Booral-Stroud area, the Gloucester-

Barrington River and the Mograni Creek valleys, all of which are outside the

Gloucester Basin.

National Trust of Australia (NSW) Statement of Heritage Significance (SHS): 10.

a. The values of the place stated in the NTANSW SHS are discussed in

Section 4.1.1. The SHS does not adopt the seven-criterion analysis expected

under the NSW Heritage System. The social significance criterion primarily

concerns cultural values to the contemporary local community.

The BGSPA alternative Statement of Heritage Significance: 11.

a. The BGSPA proposes an alternative SHS, which is discussed in Section 4.1.2. The

criteria used do not conform to the current guidelines in the NSW Heritage Manual

or criteria of the NSW Heritage Act. The State and national levels of significance

claimed on the social significance criterion have not been adequately justified.

A SHS has been prepared by RLA (see Section 4.1.3) as required by the Heritage 12.

Manual and the DGRs, notwithstanding the Site is not considered to be a heritage item,

because the impacts of the amended Project would be on values which are not confined

to individual sites.

a. The SHS acknowledges the scenic significance of the landscape of which the Site

is a part and does not contest the local cultural values claimed for it by the

NTANSW or the BGSPA.



Report No. 806/14


Summary Statement of Heritage Significance for the Stroud-Gloucester Valley: 13.

Criterion (a).

a. The Valley is considered to be of moderate local significance on Criterion (a) for is

ability to demonstrate an important period of NSW’s cultural history, in:

the story of rural expansionism and the huge land grants made to

agricultural investment companies such as the AACo;

the importance of the settings for the two company towns of Booral and

Stroud, the expansions of which were assisted by the use of convict

labour;

the influence of the AACo in the first settlement period up to

approximately 1860 in the range and quality of surviving and historically

significant building stock and sites, particularly in Booral and Stroud.

b. It is of moderate historical significance on Criterion (a) because it can demonstrate

in its buildings and landscape the influence of historical themes of development

after first settlement, e.g. the Australian wool industry, private rural exploitation,

agricultural industries such as dairying, the timber industry, mining and tourism.

Criterion (b):

a. It is of high local significance on Criterion (b) because of its association with the

AACo., whose buildings in Booral and Stroud record the application of building

styles, vernacular materials, techniques of construction and use of often unskilled

and convict labour.

b. It is of moderate local significance on Criterion (b) as the place retained by the

AACo. when the Port Stephens Estate at Carrington failed, and was closed, that

part of the grant being exchanged for a grant in the Warrah and Peel River region

on the Liverpool Plains.

c. It is of moderate local significance on Criterion (b) for its associations with the

works of colonial artist Conrad Martens and later Sir Arthur Streeton.

d. The landscape of the Valley is of little significance on Criterion (b) with regard to

demonstrating evidence of the early grazing runs and crop lands established by the

AACo.: its current appearance is now only incidentally related to first settlement

influences.

Criterion (c):

a. The Gloucester Basin section of the Valley is of moderate to high aesthetic quality

as a result of the interaction between the distinctive geological formations and the

cleared, rural lands of the valley floor.

b. The Gloucester Bucketts are of high aesthetic significance and landmark quality on

Criterion (c) and have also been the inspiration for artistic achievement and were

mentioned in historical and commemorative accounts of the values of the place.

They are important to tourism and the image of the setting of Gloucester and of

local significance.

c. The southern section of the Valley between Booral and Stroud Road is of moderate

intrinsic aesthetic value, but is of high local aesthetic heritage value on Criterion (c)

to the settings of Booral and Stroud.



Report No. 806/14


Criterion (d):

a. The Valley is of high significance on Criterion (d) to the social group identified by

the BGSPA at the local level.

Criterion (e):

a. The Valley is of high significance, at least the local level on Criterion (e), for

potential to yield geological information that contributes to an understanding of the

area’s natural history.

Criterion (f):

a. The Valley is of little significance on Criterion (h) as it provides little evidence of the

early landscape. Subsequent changes have created a common pastoral landscape

appearance that is not rare or endangered. It is under threat of change but similar

areas are numerous. It is does not achieve the threshold on this criterion.

Criterion (g):

a. The Valley is of high local significance on Criterion (g) for its ability to demonstrate

in the villages of Booral and Stroud a class of early colonial places granted for

private exploitation to agricultural companies, of which the AACo. was the first in

NSW.

b. Stroud is of high significance at the state level on Criterion (g) as a fine,

representative example of a pioneer settlement based on a private town

constructed using convict labour, featuring adaptation of architectural styles and

the use of and adaptation to local materials and techniques. It has high significance

for the level of integrity of many buildings, its setting and the lack of intrusiveness

of later additions to the fabric.

A Statement of Heritage Impact was prepared using the NSW Heritage Manual 14.

guidelines (see Section 4.2). The findings are summarised below.

a. The amended Project would not make any physical change to identified heritage

items, sites, curtilages or views of or between identified items.

b. It will have impacts on the character and quality of a part of the landscape for a

period of 16-20 years. The details of the visual effects, strategy for impact

mitigation and assessment of the likely success of those measures is in

Appendix 3.

c. The amended Project would not have a negative impact on the historical

associations between the Valley and the AACo. or the record of that association

that is written largely in the buildings and sites that are predominantly but not

exclusively in Booral and Stroud.

d. The Site is of a kind that is widespread in the Gloucester Basin. It does not

demonstrate tangible evidence of the early grazing runs and crop lands established

by the AACo. and its current appearance is considered to be only incidentally

related to first settlement themes.

e. The landscape that would be affected is not rare and although the changes

proposed to be made to it are substantial and could be considered a threat to it, if

considered in isolation, similar areas are numerous. The Site does not exceed the

threshold to qualify under criterion (f) as rare or uncommon.



Report No. 806/14


f. The Site is separated from the Booral Stroud area physically and visually. The

ability of those heritage resources to demonstrate the historical significance of the

Valley and of rural expansionism in the 1830-1860s will not be diminished by the

amended Project.

g. The Site can be interpreted with regard to post-first settlement historical themes

but the effects of these on the landscape are generic and can be seen to have

influenced wide areas of the Valley which have similar visual character and quality.

h. It has been acknowledged that the scenic quality and character of the area is of

importance both in a general sense and to tourism, the interests of which include

heritage sites and places.

i. The scenic quality of the landscape within which the Site exists is acknowledged in

Appendix 3 in which it was assigned a moderate to high scenic quality and high

level of sensitivity to the views affected by the amended Project.

j. The SHS recognises that the Site is in an area of moderate to high aesthetic

significance and that there are historical associations to artistic appreciation of

some scenic resources in the vicinity, such as the Gloucester Bucketts, the

Gloucester township and the Valley more generally.

k. There will be impacts on the aesthetic values of part of the landscape in the

general vicinity of, but not the same view compositions as the Gloucester Bucketts

or the views from Gloucester township.

l. It is not agreed that the Site is a heritage item or that views to it are heritage views.

However since the land is agreed to be of high scenic quality and the Site identified

as of high sensitivity to public views, there is no material difference in the criteria of

assessment of the significance of the impacts.

m. In effect, the only impacts that could be interpreted as heritage impacts, because

there are no tangible items affected, are on the scenic quality and character,

i.e. visual impacts.

n. The proposed mitigation and management measures for heritage impacts are

therefore the same as those proposed for the control and management of visual

impacts, since the issues coincide.

o. The mitigation measures and contingency management procedures are described

in detail in Appendix 3. It is considered that these are appropriate conservation

policies for impact mitigation, since the management of visual impacts and

minimisation of impacts on heritage values are essentially the same in this case.

The report concludes with answers to the questions relevant to a SoHI and summary 15.

consideration of the requirements for the EIS (Section 4.3 and Section5).



Report No. 806/14


1. I N T RO D U C TI ON

1.1 PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

This report by Richard Lamb and Associates (RLA) and authored by Dr Richard Lamb, was

commissioned by Gloucester Resources Limited on instructions for R.W. Corkery and Co. Pty

Limited, which has prepared the Environmental Impact Statement (the EIS) to assess the

potential impacts of the proposed amended Rocky Hill Coal Project (the amended Project) on

historic heritage values.

Dr Lamb is a professional consultant specialising in visual and landscape heritage assessment

and the principal of RLA. He has taught at the University of Sydney and specialised in

environmental impact assessment, visual perception studies and heritage conservation, over a

period of 30 years.

1.2 BACKGROUND

In August 2013, Gloucester Resources Limited (“GRL” or “the Applicant”) submitted a

Development Application (No. SSD 5156) for the Rocky Hill Coal Project (the 2013 Project)

which was supported by an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared by R.W. Corkery

& Co. Pty Limited on behalf of GRL. The 2013 Project comprised the development of an open-

cut coal mine to produce up to 2.5 million tonnes per annum (Mtpa) of run-of-mine (ROM) coal,

a coal handling and preparation plant (CHPP), an overland conveyor and a rail load-out facility.

The 2013 Project also anticipated up to 1.75Mtpa of product coal would be transported by rail

to the Port of Newcastle for export. The Site for the Project is situated 3.5km to 7.0km

southeast of the Gloucester urban area within the former Gloucester Local Government Area,

in New South Wales.

In June 2015, GRL submitted a request that the NSW Department of Planning and

Environment (DPE) place the determination of its development application on hold as it was in

negotiations regarding a potential commercial arrangement with the owner of the Stratford

Mining Complex, namely, Yancoal Australia Limited (Yancoal). In December 2015, GRL and

Yancoal formally advised DPE that a commercial agreement had been reached between the

two companies whereby sized ROM coal would be transported from the Rocky Hill Mine Area

to the Stratford Mining Complex via a private haul road and processed in the Stratford CHPP

before being loaded onto rail for transportation to the Port of Newcastle. Hence the amended

Project will no longer require its own CHPP, overland conveyor, rail loop or train loader.

1.3 OVERVIEW OF THE AMENDED PROJECT

This report relates to the amended Rocky Hill Coal Project (the amended Project) proposed by

Gloucester Resources Limited. The land which the amended Project would occur, if approved,

is referred to as throughout this document as the “Site”.



Report No. 806/14


The proposed amended Rocky Hill Coal Project comprises three principal components (see

Figure 1.1).

1. The “Mine Area” incorporating three contiguous open cut pits, a run-of-mine

(ROM) pad with a breaker station and sized coal bin, amenity barriers,

overburden emplacements and an administration area with site offices,

amenities, workshop, water treatment plant and ancillary facilities.

2. The “private haul road”, i.e. a 4.4km sealed road to be used for the transportation

of sized coal from the Rocky Hill Mine Area to the Stratford Mining Complex for

washing and despatch to the Port of Newcastle. The private haul road extends

from the southern boundary of the Rocky Hill Mine Area to the northern boundary

of the Stratford Mining Complex, owned by Stratford Coal Pty Limited.

3. Two “power line corridors” incorporating a re-located 132kV power line and a new

low voltage (11kV or as nominated by Essential Energy) power line external to

the Rocky Hill Mine Area.

Each of these components are located in an area referred to as “the Site”.

Figure 1.2 displays the conceptual layout of the Mine Area, including the following major

components.

The Mine Area entrance off McKinleys Lane, approximately 50m south of the

intersection with Waukivory Road.

An administration area, incorporating site offices, amenities, workshop, water

treatment plant and ancillary facilities. The administration area is located on

land off McKinleys Lane and would be accessed by a private road, referred to

as the Mine Area access road, which would be aligned generally parallel to

and immediately east of McKinleys Lane.

Three contiguous open cut pits (Avon, Bowen Road and Main) varying in

depth from approximately 80m to 220m. Though based on current planning,

the open cut pit depths nominated are approximate only given the steeply

dipping nature of the coal seams, the extent of geological knowledge, and the

potential effects of changes in controlling economic factors. The ultimate

depths of development in each open cut pit would reflect the optimisation of

coal quality, the outcomes of detailed planning as coal extraction progresses

and market factors.

A series of interim and long term amenity barriers to visually screen areas of

activity and/or to provide for noise mitigation. The upper surfaces of the

barriers would either mimic the existing underlying landform or provide a

variable comparatively natural appearance. The barriers would either be

stand-alone structures (i.e. the western and northern amenity barrier) or

comprise the western faces of the permanent overburden emplacement as it

is progressively developed, i.e. interim amenity barriers.

A consolidated in-pit overburden emplacement and permanent out-of-pit

overburden emplacement extending to the west of the open cut pits. An

interim overburden emplacement which would be located to the north of the

permanent overburden emplacement but would be removed at the cessation

of coal extraction to provide some of the backfill for the final void in the Main

Pit.



Report No. 806/14


Figure 1.1 Amended Site Layout



Report No. 806/14


Figure 1.2 Amended Mine Area Layout



Report No. 806/14


A ROM pad and associated breaker station comprising a feed conveyor,

rotary breaker, a sized coal conveyor and a nominal 500t capacity overhead

sized coal bin from which 60t nominal capacity road-registered trucks would

be loaded. The ROM pad would have a capacity to store approximately

80 000t of coal awaiting processing through the breaker station, i.e. sufficient

capacity for approximately two weeks production at the maximum scheduled

production rate.

A 5km section of re-located 132kV power line and a new 11kV power line

providing power for the on-site operations. The remaining sections of the re-

located 132kV power line and the 11kV power line lie external to the Mine

Area within the defined power line corridors.

This report specifically addresses the Director-General’s Requirements (the DGRs) that are

relevant to historic heritage and are summarised in Table 1.1. The requirements which were

issued in relation to the 2013 project, remain current. The DGRs form the basis of this

assessment in respect of the proposed amended Project.

Table 1.1

Coverage of DGRs and EIS Requirements relating to Historic Heritage Page 1 of 2

Organisation Paraphrased Requirement Relevant

Section(s)

CULTURAL HERITAGE

DP&I (24/04/12)

The EIS must include a historic heritage assessment (including archaeology) which must:

Sections 2 and 3

include a statement of heritage impact (including significance assessment) for any State significant or locally significant historic heritage items; and,

Section 4.1.3

outline any proposed mitigation and management measures (including an evaluation of the effectiveness and reliability of the measures);

Section 4.2., Appendix 3 and Volume 2 Part 3

Barrington-Gloucester-Stroud Preservation Alliance Inc. (26/03/12)

The EIS should provide a full understanding of historical, scenic and social qualities as well as assessing the requirements for social heritage significance under the Australian Heritage Council guidelines for National heritage significance.

Sections 2, 3, 4.1

Gloucester Shire Council (02/04/12)

The EIS should examine any potential Heritage impacts at a number of different scales. The first level is any potential disturbance to artefacts of Aboriginal or European heritage on the site. There should also be an examination on the potential impact this mine might have on the cultural heritage of Gloucester as an agricultural service town.

There is also a potential significant disturbance to the heritage landscape of the valley which has a long history of agricultural activity dating back to the Australian Agricultural Company in 1826.

Sections 2, 3 and 4

NSW Heritage Council (26/03/12)

The EIS should address the heritage significance of the site and any impacts the development may have upon this significance should be assessed. This assessment should include natural areas and places of Aboriginal, historic or archaeological significance. It should also include a consideration of wider heritage impacts in the area surrounding the site.

Sections 2.2, 2.3, 3, 4.1, 4.2

and 4.3



Report No. 806/14


Table 1.1 (Cont’d) Coverage of DGRs and EIS Requirements relating to Historic Heritage

Page 2 of 2

Organisation Paraphrased Requirement Relevant

Section(s)

CULTURAL HERITAGE

NSW Heritage Council (26/03/12) (Cont’d)

The proponent should consult lists maintained by the Office of Environment & Heritage, the National Trust of Australia (NSW), the Australian Government under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and the local council in order to identify any identified items of heritage significance in the area affected by the Proposal.

Sections 2, 2.2, 2.3

Non-Aboriginal heritage items within the area affected by the Proposal should be identified by field survey. This should include any buildings, works, relics (including relics underwater), gardens, landscapes, views, trees or places of non-Aboriginal heritage significance. A statement of significance and an assessment of the impact of the Proposal on the heritage significance of these items should be undertaken. Any policies/measures to conserve their heritage significance should be identified. This assessment should be undertaken in accordance with the guidelines in the NSW Heritage Manual. The field survey and assessment should be undertaken by a qualified practitioner/consultant with historic sites experience.

Sections 4.1, 4.2, 4.3

Take into account the following guidelines (as applicable).

The Burra Charter (The Australia ICOMOS charter for places of cultural significance)

NSW Heritage Manual (NSW Heritage Office)

Throughout

This report is to be read in conjunction with the Visual Impacts Assessment (VIA) prepared by

RLA which is reproduced in Appendix 3 (see also Volume 2, Part 3, of the Specialist

Consultant Studies Compendium). The VIA includes an analysis of views that could potentially

be affected by the amended Project, including those highlighted by the BGSPA in

correspondence with the former Department of Planning and Infrastructure (28 March, 2012)

that are claimed to be of scenic-heritage value or to embody those values and also needing to

be appreciated more widely. The analysis of potential viewing situations in the VIA report

(Section 1.4 of Appendix 3) and of landscape character and quality (Section 3.1) is also of

special relevance to this report. This is because the predominant issue for historic heritage will

be shown in this technical report to be potential impacts on intangible aesthetic and cultural

values of the landscape, rather than on any listed, classified or potential individual heritage

items, sites or their curtilages.



Report No. 806/14


2. H I STO RI C AL R E C O R D

2.1 BRIEF HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

2.1.1 First settlement

Early European occupation of the area that includes the Site in the 19th century has significant

associations with the Australian Agricultural Company (AACo.), then an English investment

company created by an Imperial Act in 18242.The AACo. is still in existence. Under a founding

charter, the AACo. was guaranteed a grant of 1 million acres of land. The land was granted to

the AACo. by a Crown Grant shown in records of the Land and Property Management

Authority in 1847.

The section of the granted land that contains the Site was of 464,640 acres (1,880 km2) and

reached from the north shore of Port Stephens, following the Karuah, Ward, Gloucester and

Avon Rivers north to the Manning River. Other grants made to the AACo. were in the Liverpool

Plains (246,600 acres), Peel River (312,290 acres) and Newcastle (2000 acres plus a number

of small individual parcels of land), totalling 1,029,530 acres.

The southern part of the Karuah/Avon River valleys in particular contained resources identified

by the AACo. as complementary to its primary intentions to increase the quality and quantity of

merino wool production and export it via Port Stephens to England3. It contained the Karuah

River that provided access to Port Stephens and transport for personnel, wool and other

produce, alluvial soils of the river terraces and floodplains, access to the wider and flatter

upper valleys to the north and difficult, but passable, access to the Liverpool Plains.

Robert Dawson, land agent for the AACo., and also sometimes referred to as an estate

manager, assisted in selecting the area that includes the Site in 1826 and is also credited with

first describing attributes of the landscape as reminiscent of the Vale of Gloucester in

England4. The reference is not to the Township of Gloucester. The relevance of the Vale of

Gloucester to potential heritage impacts is considered in more detail later in this report.

Two early centres were established by the AACo. in 1826-7, one at Carrington on the northern

shore of Port Stephens and the other in the Booral area on the Karuah River5. The Carrington

enterprise grew rapidly in population but was short-lived despite the effort invested in it, while

Booral and Stroud further to the north became the centres of agricultural activity6 during the

1830s. However, already it was becoming clear that the humid coastal climate and

interbreeding in the flocks would limit profitability and attempts were made to secure another

selection in the Liverpool Plains which had earlier been recommended by surveyor John Oxley

- the Warrah and Peel River (Goonoo Goonoo) areas.

The 1830s, during which Stroud was established, was thus the time of expansion of the

AACo.’s administrative centre which had been translocated from Port Stephens and, by the

1840s, it had become the company’s headquarters and its growth was supplemented by some

subdivision of land for private settlement by immigrants from Britain. At the same time, the

2Great Lakes Council & NSW Heritage Office, Great Lakes Council Heritage Study, 2007, p21.

3 Phillips, V, 1984, Enterprising Australians, Kensington NSW, Bay Books, p21.

4 Smith, G, 2011, Discussion on heritage significance of the Vale of Gloucester, p1.

5 Engel, B, Win, J & Wark, J, 2000, Tea Gardens – Hawks Nest and Northern Port Stephens, New Lambton, B

Engel, p18. 6 Great Lakes Council & NSW Heritage Office, 2007, Great Lakes Council Heritage Study, p22.



Report No. 806/14


AACo. experienced the beginning of stagnation and the eventual decline of its wool growing

enterprise. After some thirty years, in 1856, all of the flocks of the failed fine wool enterprise

were moved to Warrah and Goonoo Goonoo7, the AACo. moved its offices to Sydney from

Stroud and Carrington was closed8. By about 1860, the colonial period of first European

settlement was over.

The AACo. was still involved in agricultural activities such as livestock breeding in the area but

by the 1860s it had begun substantial subdivision of land in an effort to sell the land off as

small holdings. The selection was offered back to the government but this was refused. The

estates were eventually sold in 1903. Gloucester, at the north end of the Avon River valley,

was surveyed in 1855 but did not prosper and remained a hamlet9 with a population as low as

30 in 1866 until the sale and subdivision of the AACo. estates. It also shows evidence of the

AACo. influence and had a manager’s residence and a church built by the Company in 1860.

The built evidence of the AACo. settlements of Booral and Stroud is substantial as is evident

by reference to the heritage registers and schedules discussed in Section 2.3. Both towns

retain a stock of early buildings and sites from the first settlement period. Later historic themes

are also evident in continued growth of Stroud, and Gloucester in particular, and new

settlements such as Stroud Road which followed introduction of the railway. There is little, if

any tangible evidence of the former grazing runs or areas used for cultivation10 associated

with the AACo. and nothing other than built heritage items and sites to alert an observer to the

associations of the landscape with the first settlement period.

Individual items of historic heritage significance, which are predominantly buildings, structures

and sites, some associated with the AACo. period of early settlement, are concentrated in

Booral, Stroud and Gloucester (see Section 2.2).

The first settlement period is significant, other than for the built heritage that remains, with

regard to a series of underlying and continuing historic themes that were identified in the

BGSPA submission to the DP&I (now Department of Planning and Environment (DPE)) on the

AGL Gloucester Coal Seam Gas Project Environmental Assessment in relation to the Stroud-

Gloucester Valley. These include:

the beginning of free settlement on the New South Wales North Coast;

the use of convict labour;

its association with the AAC as the first of the large scale pastoral companies in

Australia;

its association with the beginnings of Australia’s wool industry;

the growth of later agricultural industries such as dairying; and

the timber industry.

These historic themes are readable to varying extents in the subsequent changes in the

historic and cultural landscape such as changing subdivision and settlement patterns, rural

industries such as timber and dairying, the introduction of the railway and the development of

Gloucester as an agricultural service centre.

7 Chadban, J, 1970, Stroud and the AACo. Great Lakes Shire Council, p17.

8 Chadban, J, 1970, Stroud and the AACo. Great Lakes Shire Council, p4 quoted in Great Lakes Council & NSW

Heritage Office, Great Lakes Council Heritage Study, 2007, p45. 9 Birrell, W, 1987, The Manning Valley: Landscapes and Settlement 1824-1900, Gladesville, Jacaranda Press,

p124. 10

Great Lakes Council & NSW Heritage Office, 2007, Great Lakes Council Heritage Study, p23.



Report No. 806/14


2.1.2 Post-first settlement themes

There are many later individual items whose heritage significance does not arise from direct

associations with the AACo, but which can inform the interpretation of the continued, if

subdued growth of Stroud and the re-vitalisation of Gloucester after the subdivisions and sale

of the original AACo. holding. The initial impetus was given to Gloucester by Gloucester

Estates Ltd which bought up land from the AACo. and was successful in promoting the sale to

new settlers in the area.

The themes above are of relevance to understanding both the built heritage and the

landscape, not only as it once existed, but also as it is today. Other themes are also relevant,

such as mining, tourism and cultural development, all of which have played a role in creating

and shaping the heritage fabric, whether built or landscape.

In the post-first settlement era, the interactions of these themes are seen in the decline of the

growth of Stroud in the southern part of the Valley and the vitalisation of Gloucester in the

north. Some smaller settlements such as Booral, Wards River, Stroud Road and Weismantels

experienced firstly growth and then decline periods associated with the rapid growth and

subsequent decline in the local timber industry, the arrival of the railway, changes in rural and

forest economics and increasing reliance on the roads. Other factors were the changing

emphasis from sheep to cattle grazing, the rise of dairying and the export of the dairying

products out of the area, the subsequent decreasing reliance on the railway and the later

decline of dairying.

Mining is a theme represented by historically significant sites in Gloucester and elsewhere in

the Valley that affected the early growth and development of settlements such as Gloucester

and Copeland and is a feature of the present landscapes of the Valley. Even the AACo. had

some input in this regard, having had a potential railway route to support its coal mining

activities surveyed through part of the Valley in 186011. The railway was not considered viable.

Tourism is a relatively recent industry as are cultural changes that may be occurring as a result

of shift in the demography in immigrants. The latter is the province of social impact

assessment rather than heritage landscape assessment. There is a relationship between

tourism and heritage values however, with the locality attracting tourists who wish to

experience its natural, historic and cultural attributes.

2.2 SURVEY FINDINGS

2.2.1 National Statutory Framework

The Commonwealth Department of the Environment (DotE) develops and implements policies

and programs at the national level to help identify and promote appreciation of Australian

natural and cultural heritage places and objects. The Australian Heritage Council is the

principal adviser to the Australian Government on heritage matters. The Council assesses

nominations for the National Heritage List (NHL) and the Commonwealth Heritage List and

their advice is formulated by State-specific heritage advisory services. Items on the National

Heritage List are required to satisfy one or more of the nine National Heritage List criteria. To

meet the threshold for the NHL, the item is required to be of outstanding natural, indigenous or

historic heritage value to the nation.

11 Webber, J, and Wyllie, R.F., , March 1968, Colliery Railways of the Australian Agricultural Company in Australian, Railway Historical Society Bulletin no.365, vol. XIX (New Series)



Report No. 806/14


The DotE is the now responsible for the National Heritage List and the Commonwealth

Heritage List. This function was previously undertaken by the Department of Sustainability,

Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPaC). Items on these lists are

subject to the provisions of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

(the EPBC Act). The Gondwana Rainforests of Australia – Barrington Tops are the only item in

the region to be listed.

The DotE publishes a ‘Finalised priority assessment list in respect of nominations for the

National Heritage List’ in response to nominations to the list, which can be made by any

person or entity. Nominations must pass a threshold test that they can satisfy one or more of

the nine criteria of outstanding heritage value to the nation before being placed on the finalised

priority assessment list. No item in the region has been included in the priority assessment list

for consideration of assessment for the years reviewed by RLA including 2010 - 2016.

2.2.2 NSW Statutory Framework

The Australian Government website for the DotE lists government organisations in New South

Wales responsible for the listing of Heritage Items. The NSW DPE now provides the

overarching departmental responsibility for the management of natural and cultural heritage

across NSW land and waters, which have previously been managed by other departments or

offices e.g. the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW).

The NSW Heritage Council has been integrated into the NSW Office of Environment and

Heritage (OEH) which is also now part of the DPE and means that heritage matters are now

within DPE’s responsibilities.

Two levels of statutory protection for items of historic cultural heritage value exist in NSW.

Items listed under the NSW Heritage Act (1977) and placed on the State Heritage Register

(SHR) have statutory protection under the Act as administered by the Heritage Council of

NSW, which is the consent authority for applications to make significant changes to items that

have been entered onto the SHR. Items that do not reach the threshold for entry on the SHR

are of local heritage significance and may be listed on other statutory schedules, registers or

lists, such as the NSW Heritage Database, State Heritage Inventory, schedules of items of

cultural heritage in Local Environmental Plans (LEPs) or in Regional Environmental Plans

(REPs).

The following schedules, registers and lists were searched for entries of items with statutory

protection in the Stroud-Gloucester Valley:

State Heritage Register. 1.

Items listed by local government and State agencies (items of local significance 2.

on the State Heritage Inventory, (the SHI).

Items with statutory protection at the local or State level in any related planning 3.

instruments, such as the Hunter Regional Environmental Plan (the Hunter REP).

We note that the Hunter REP 1989 is still current and although various

amendments have occurred, none are relevant to individual heritage items,

conservation areas or to the landscape in the vicinity of the Site.

Schedules of items of cultural heritage significance in the Great Lakes Local 4.

Environmental Plan 2014 (GLLEP) and Gloucester Shire Council Local



Report No. 806/14


Environmental Plan 2010 (GLEP). In the NSW Heritage System, all items other

than those placed on the SHR are now designated as of local significance. The

classification ‘regional significance’ has been abolished. On occasions, items

have been entered on LEP and REP registers as of State significance during

classification, but have not subsequently been placed on the SHR.

The Great Lakes Heritage Study 2009, which contains listed items (with statutory 5.

protection in the GLLEP), identified but as-yet not listed items and contributory

items. No distinction was made in this assessment report between existing listed

items and identified but as yet not listed items on the basis that the latter are

likely to or may satisfy the threshold criteria for listing in the future. Contributory

items may be considered with regard to scenic-heritage values even if they are

not individually listed because of their contribution to aesthetic values or

character of a setting or locality. GLLEP does not contain the regional

significance designation, in line with the provisions of the standard instrument for

preparation of LEPs.

2.2.3 Registers of non-statutory items

Registers of items that do not have statutory protection were also searched such as:

The Register of the National Estate (the RNE). The RNE was established by the 1.

Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975 which was repealed in 2003. The RNE

was closed in 2007 and is no longer a statutory list. All references to the RNE

were removed from the EPBC Act in 2012. The RNE is now an archive. Many of

the items placed on the RNE were nominated by individuals and community

interest groups such as the BGSPA and National Trusts. Nominations accepted

were given the designation of indicative place on the interim list of items with the

potential to be assessed. Many of the nominations on the RNE were never

assessed by the Heritage Commission and remained designated as indicative

places. This does not indicate that the values they were claimed to demonstrate

had been assessed.

The Register of the National Trust of Australia (NSW). The National Trust (NSW) 2.

is a voluntary community organisation that works with the community to

safeguard natural, built and cultural heritage. The National Trust register is the

largest register of non-statutory items in NSW.

Registers compiled by professional bodies such as the Royal Australian Institute 3.

of Architects, Institution of Engineers Australia and others.

2.3 HERITAGE ITEMS

2.3.1 Listed, identified but unlisted and other items of potential

significance

Table 2.1 lists the items under the town, village or locality in which they exist that have

statutory protection, have been identified as having heritage values but are not yet listed, or

are contributory to the reasons for listing of other items. The names of the items and number of

items listed are set out in Table 2.1 and total: Barrington (7), Booral (7), Copeland (3), Craven

(1), Faulkland (1), Gloucester (42), Monkerai (3) and Stroud (including Stroud Road) (22) and

Waukivory (1).



Report No. 806/14


2.4 SUMMARY OF RESEARCH ON HERITAGE ITEMS

To summarise this part of the investigation starting at the National level, there is one item on

the National Heritage List in the sub-region shared by the Site: The Gondwana Rainforests of

Australia - Barrington Tops. The amended Site is not in the vicinity of this item.

At the State level of significance, there are five items entered on the SHR located within the

Gloucester Valley wider context. These are predominantly groups or individual buildings

located in Stroud and Booral. The Site is not in the vicinity of or within the visual catchment of

these places.

The Stroud-Gloucester Valley is not listed as an item on the NSW SHR and is not listed on the

2015-2016 Nominations for the State Heritage Register List. We are advised by the NSW

Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) that the Stroud-Gloucester Valley as “Vale of

Gloucester Valley Landscape” was the subject of a draft nomination, in 2013. At the time, it

was considered by the Heritage Council State Heritage Committee. No further action has

occurred in relation to the draft nomination.

There are two mine sites in the Copeland area of the Gloucester municipality that are listed as

of State significance on the GLEP 2010 heritage schedule (Mountain Maid Gold Mine and

Rainbow Valley Cyanide Treatment Works), but they are not on the State Heritage Register

and are probably more correctly identified as of local significance. The Copeland Tops Forest

Preserve including the Hidden Treasure Gold Mine is listed as of State significance in the

Hunter REP but this is also not on the State Heritage Register. None of these is in the vicinity

of the Site.

There are many individual items with statutory protection on the schedules of items of cultural

heritage significance on the LEPs, as detailed in Section 2.3.1 and Table 2.1, however, these

are concentrated in Booral, Stroud and Gloucester, with others in smaller settlements between.

There are a number listed as of regional significance in GLLEP 2010 but these have reverted

to the correct local significance designation in GLLEP 2014. There are, as far as can be

ascertained, no listed items or sites that have statutory protection on or in the vicinity of the

Site or its visual catchment.

The Site is in the area listed by the National Trust of Australia (NSW) (the NTANSW) on its

Register as the Stroud-Gloucester Valley incorporating The Vale of Gloucester. The listing

does not have statutory force, however it has the support of a large community organisation.

The Valley was nominated to the RNE, on which it remains on what is now a database as an

entry among other indicative places.

There are no entries that are relevant to the amended Project on non-statutory registers of

other professional bodies.



Report No. 806/14


Table 2.1

Listed and Unlisted Historic Heritage Items Page 1 of 6

BARRINGTON:

Item Name Address Lot DP LGA Council Map Ref

Within Town

LEP SHR Other AAC Historic Themes Local State

Free Presbyterian Church Argyle Street Lot 1 DP 568641 Gloucester i2 X X 8. Cultural Life - Religion X

Barrington Pioneer Cemetery Barrington East Road Lot 63 DP 753209 Gloucester i3 X Hunter REP 1989

9. Marking Phases of Life – Birth & Death

X

Original School Residence Barrington East Road Lot 5 DP 1078578 Gloucester i4 X 6. Educating - Education X

Slab House 402 Barrington East Road Lot 11 DP 804895 Gloucester i5 X 4 Settlements – Accommodation X

Barrington Public School early 1900 Kenmore Road Lot 1 DP 798982 Gloucester i6 X X 6. Educating - Education X

Barrington River Bridge / RTA Bridge No. 2082

Thunderbolts Way / Walcha Rd, Gloucester

Gloucester i7 X S. 170 RTA 3. Economy- Technology

3. Economy - Transport

X

No.2 General Cemetery

Possibly same as i3 Barrington Pioneer Cemetery

Copeland Rd Barrington Gloucester Hunter REP 1989

9. Marking Phases of Life – Birth & Death

X

Scenic-heritage Values other than listed Individual Items-

Barrington Tops National Park Artwork – Arthur Streeton , The Gloucester Buckets, 1894, Location west of Gloucester and south of Barrington.

Stroud - Gloucester Heritage Items No. – Number given for mapping purposes Item Name – Name given in LEP, SHI, SHR

Address – Address given in LEP, SHI, SHR Lot DP – the lot and DP number in LEP, SHI, SHR if provided

LGA – The Local Government Area it is within Council Map Ref – number given on Councils Maps

Within Town – If the item is within the confines a town, village, etc. LEP – Marked with X if the item is listed in the LEP

SHR – Marked with X if the item is listed on the State Heritage Register Other – Statutory Heritage Listing on list other than LEP, SHR. List noted.

AAC – Marked with X if the item has strong associations with the Historic Themes – The Historic Themes the item falls within Australian Agricultural Company (AAC)

Local – Marked with X if the item is identified as being of local significance. Marked with R if identified as being of Regional Significance

State - Marked with X if the item is identified as being of state significance

BOORAL


Within Town


Alderley House 2653 The Bucketts Way Lot 100 DP 839447 Great Lakes I1 X X 4 Settlements – Accommodation

3. Economy – Agriculture – Assoc with the AAC

X

Booral House 160 Lowes Lane Lot 1 DP 745831 Great Lakes I2 X X 4 Settlements – Accommodation


X

Gundayne House Group The Bucketts Way Lot 1 DP 47370; Pt L 1 DP 632812; Pt L 370 DP 95044

Great Lakes I3 X X X RNE X 3. Economy – Agriculture

4. Settlement – Accommodation

8. Culture – creative endeavour – Architectural styles – Colonial Homestead

X

Residence, Outhouse and Schoolhouse

(Listed as part of Gundayne Group on SHR)

Lowes Lane Lot 1 DP 632812 Great Lakes X X X RNE X 4 Settlements – Accommodation

6. Educating – Education


X



Report No. 806/14


Table 2.1 (Cont’d) Listed and Unlisted Historic Heritage Items

Page 2 of 6

BOORAL (Cont’d)


Within Town


Booral Wharf Karuah River, about 1 mile south of Booral

Lot 46 DP 95406 Great Lakes i4 X 3. Economics – Industry

3. Economics -Transport

X

St Barnabas Church and Cemetery The Bucketts Way Lot 61 DP 1128606 Great Lakes i5 x X X 8. Cultural Life – Religion 9. Marking Phases of Life – Birth & Death

X

The Gables 25 Lowes Lane Lot 151 DP 761349 Great Lakes i6 X X 4 Settlements – Accommodation


X

Heritage Values other than listed Individual Items-

Unlisted and Contributory items of heritage value

Bo07 Remains of Karri and Jarrah Company Simsville to Allworth railway Allworth wharf site, Al01.’ Great Lakes Council Heritage Study 2007 p61

Newly identified items

Bo08 Booral School group, including former residence, Within town Bo09 Two dwellings, south-eastern cnr Bulahdelah Road and Bucketts Way, Within town

Bo10 Booral Soldiers Memorial Hall, Buckets Way. Within town Bo11 Three concrete bridges, Bucketts Way Great One outside, 2 Within town

(items Courtesy of Great Lakes Council Heritage Study, 2007)

COPELAND


Within Town


Cyanide Treatment Works (Rainbow Valley)

Copeland Road Reserve 210101 Gloucester i9 X 3. Economics – Industry

X X in LEP but not on SHR

Mountain Maid Gold Mine Copeland Road Lot 124 DP 753147 Gloucester i12 X Listed in Hunter REP 1989 as State significant

3. Economics - Mining X X in REP but Not on SHR

Copeland No.2 General Cemetery Scone Road Lot 771 DP 1984 Gloucester i11 X 9. Marking Phases of Life – Birth & Death

X

Heritage Values other than listed Individual Items - Copeland Tops Forest Preserve including Hidden Treasure Gold Mine. Scone Road. Lot 124 DP 753147. Gloucester LEP. Map Ref i10. Outside Town

CRAVEN


Within Town


The Glen, Craven Logging Tramline Glen Road Lots 284, 311 – 314 DP979573

Gloucester i13 X 3. Economics – Industry

3. Economics - Forestry

X

Heritage Values other than listed Individual Items - Nil

FAUKLAND


Within Town


Faukland /Faulkland Faukland Road Lot 310 DP 830780 Gloucester i14 X Hunter REP 1989 4 Settlements – Accommodation

X




Report No. 806/14



Page 3 of 6

GLOUCESTER


Within Town


Gloucester Showground Barrington Road Lot 1 DP 555445 Gloucester i15 X X 8. Cultural – Sport

3. Economics - Agriculture

X

Gloucester Sports Ground Grandstand Barrington Road Lot 1 DP 842441 Gloucester i16 X X 8. Cultural - Sport X

Former Presbyterian Church Manse (in SHI listed in Barrington)

7 Barrington Street Lot 1 DP 513198 Gloucester i17 X X 8. Cultural Life – Religion 4 Settlements – Accommodation

X

Former Timber Workers House Barrington and Cowper Streets Lot 1 DP 34200 Gloucester i18 X X 4 Settlements – Accommodation

3. Economics - Forestry

X

Roma Barrington and Gregson Streets Lot1 DP 743285 Gloucester i19 X X 4 Settlements – Accommodation

X

Former Hillcrest Hospital Barrington and Tyrell Streets Lot 12 DP 1107928 Gloucester i20 X X 3. Economics - Health X

St Andrews Presbyterian Church and Hall

Barrington and Tyrell Streets Lot 4 DP 977288 Gloucester i21 X X 8. Cultural Life - Religion X

War Memorial Clock Tower Bent Street Lot 1 DP 977288 Gloucester i22 X X 3. Economics – Events

4. Settlements - Utilities

X

Australian Agricultural Company Dam Bucketts Road

See note below

Lots 16, 17 DP 193003

Gloucester i23 X X 3. Economy – Agriculture – Assoc with the AAC

X

Thunderbolt’s Cave Via Bucketts Road Lot 4 DP 604711 Gloucester i24 X 9.Phases of life - Persons X

Gloucester Police Station 6/ 8 Church Street Lot 11B DP 977350 Gloucester i25 X X s.170 NSW Police 7. Governing – Law and Order X

Gloucester Court House 10 Church Street Lot 10B DP 977288 Gloucester i26 X X Hunter REP 1989;

S.170 Attorney General Dept.

4.Settlement – Towns Suburbs Villages – Civic Centre

7.Governing – Law and Order – Admin of Justice

9.Phases of life - Persons

X

Original Shire Council Chambers \ Folk Museum

12 Church Street / 12 Tyrell Street

Lot 9 DP 711550 Gloucester i27 X X Hunter REP 1989 4.Settlement – Towns Suburbs Villages – Civic Centre

X

Former ABC Bank Building 23 Church Street Lot 2 DP 515223 Gloucester i28 X X 3. Economics - Commerce X

Sellicks Chambers 42 Church Street Lot 1 DP 194853 Gloucester i29 X X 3. Economics - Commerce X

Westpac Bank 47 Church Street Lot1 DP 212064 Gloucester i30 X X 3. Economics - Commerce X

School of Arts 56 Church Street Lot 1 DP 328783 Gloucester i31 X X 6. Educating- Education

8. Cultural – Social Institutions

X

McRae’s Building 73 Church Street Lot 1 DP 594809 Gloucester i32 X X 3. Economics - Commerce X

Majestic Theatre 78 Church Street Lot 1 DP 738615 Gloucester i33 X X 8. Cultural – Creative X

Avon Valley Inn 82 Church Street Lot 125 DP 864391 Gloucester i34 X X 8. Cultural - leisure X

Payless Building 84 Church Street Lot 1 DP 1103429 Gloucester i35 X X 3. Economics - Commerce X

Masonic Temple Church and Cowper Streets Lot 12 DP 1006343 Gloucester i36 X X 8. Cultural – Social Institutions X

St Clement’s Park Historic Site Church and Oak Streets Lot 290 DP 1102669

Gloucester i37 X X X



Report No. 806/14



Page 4 of 6

GLOUCESTER (Cont’d)


Within Town


Easton’s House 16 Cowper Street Lot 2 DP 192505 Gloucester i38 X X 4 Settlements – Accommodation

X

Former Sisters of St Joseph Convent Denison Street Lot 5 DP 977350 Gloucester i39 X X 8. Cultural Life - Religion X

Gloucester/ s Cottage 61 / 62 Denison Street Lot 9 DP 840777 Gloucester i40 X X 4 Settlements – Accommodation

X

Federation House Gardiners Lane Lot 2 DP 282688 Gloucester i41 X X 4 Settlements – Accommodation

X

John McKenzie’s Grave Gloucester Cemetery Lot 7003 DP 96417 Gloucester i42 X X 9. Marking Phases of Life – Birth & Death

X

Narraweena 10 Gregson Street Lot 1 DP 782859 Gloucester i43 X X 4 Settlements – Accommodation

X

Original Gloucester Public School Building

Hume Street Lot 1 DP 808374 Gloucester i44 X X 6. Educating - Education X

St Paul’s Anglican Church and Rectory Hume and Ravenshaw Streets Lot 910 DP 1102514

Gloucester i45 X X 8. Cultural Life – Religion 4 Settlements – Accommodation

X

Gloucester Main Colliery Site King George Park Road Lot 3 DP 842441 Gloucester i46 X X 3. Economics - Mining X

‘Fairview’ concrete Block house 1 Market Street Lot 10 DP 977288 Gloucester i47 X X 4 Settlements – Accommodation

X

Former Bank of NSW Building 2 Queen Street Lot 1 DP 596408 Gloucester i48 X X 3. Economics - Commerce X

Gloucester Post Office 9 Queen Street Lot 10 DP 776482 Gloucester i49 X X 3. Economics - Communication

X

Former CBC Bank Building 10 Queen Street Lot 1 DP 798136 Gloucester i50 X X 3. Economics - Commerce X

Former Abbots Auctioneer’s Building 16 Queen Street Lot 1 DP 112016 Gloucester i51 X X 3. Economics - Commerce X

Gloucester Co-op Dairy Company Factory

Railway Street Lot 1 DP 851383 Gloucester i52 X X 3. Economy – Agriculture

3. Economy – Industry

X

Australian Agricultural Managers House; Formerly ‘Gloucester Cottage’ and outbuildings

The Bucketts Way Lot 1 DP 782706 Gloucester i53 X X Hunter REP 1989 X 4 Settlements – Accommodation


X

Water Tower Tyrell Street Lot 11B DP 977288 Gloucester i54 X X 4. Settlements – Utilities X

Second Hillcrest Hospital 16 Tyrell Street Lot 3 DP 593953 Gloucester i55 X X 3. Economics - Health X

Disused Upper Avon Road Bridge Upper Avon Road, Avon State Forest

Gloucester i56 X 3. Economy- Technology


X

Note : We have not located i23 AAC Dam. Lot and DP numbers do not return a result on ILP website

Heritage Value indicators other than listed Individual Items - Gloucester Main Street Precinct (Heritage Conservation Area) Gloucester LEP Artwork – Arthur Streeton , The Gloucester Buckets, 1894

MONKERAI


Within Town


Former Weismantels Inn Cnr Weismantels Rd & Bucketts Way (1716 Bucketts Way)

Lot 4 DP 803291 Great Lakes i64 X 8. Cultural -Leisure X

Monkerai Hall Moores Road Lot 1 910544 Great Lakes i63 X 4 Settlements – Accommodation

X



Report No. 806/14



Page 5 of 6

MONKERAI (Cont’d)


Within Town


Monkerai Bridge over Karuah River

Main Road 101 from Weismantels to Dingadee

Great Lakes Mo02 X s.170 RTA; RNE 3. Economy –Transport – road systems

Transport – Bridging Rivers

4. Settlement - utilities – Roadways to inland settlements

4. Settlement – utilities – building bridges

X

Unlisted and Contributory items of heritage value Mo03 Former Monkerai school, Lawlers Creek Road Mo04 Dwelling, first on left Lawlers Creek Road, over Karuah River’ Great Lakes Council Heritage Study 2007 p74

STROUD (INCLUDING STROUD ROAD SD)


Within Town


House Bridge Street Lot 20 DP 1016958 Great Lakes i51 X X 4 Settlements – Accommodation X

Former AA Co Cottages Berkley Street Lot 1 DP 745192; Lot 1 DP 782050

Great Lakes i33 i34 i35 i36

X X X 4 Settlements – Accommodation


X

3 Single Storey Residences Berkeley Street, between Broadway and Collins Street

Great Lakes i53 X X 4 Settlements – Accommodation X

‘Thornleigh’2 storey colonial home Berkeley Street Lot 1 DP 800032 Great Lakes i50 X X 4 Settlements – Accommodation X

St Columbines Church Cnr Broadway and Mallon Streets Lot 1 DP 803474 Great Lakes i49 X X 8. Cultural Life - Religion X

Stroud Ambulance Station 10 Cowper Street Great Lakes X s.170 Dept Health 3. Economy - Health X

Baptist Church 70 Cowper Street Lot 3 DP1137882 Great Lakes i41 X X 8. Cultural Life - Religion X

Former Council Chambers Cowper Street Lot 1 DP 718388 Great Lakes i44 X X 4.Settlement – Towns Suburbs Villages – Civic Centre

X

Former Bank of NSW 44 Cowper Street Lot 1 DP 150877 Great Lakes i39 X X 3. Economics - Commerce X

Post Office Cowper Street Lot 5 Section 2 Lot 1 DP 753193

Great Lakes i42 X X 3. Economics- Communication X

School of Arts Berkeley Street Lot 4 DP 1098616 Great Lakes i53 X X 8. Cultural – Social Institutions X

Former Courthouse Cowper Street Lot 6B DP 709600 Great Lakes i43 X X 7. Governing – Law and Order X

St John the Evangelist Church Group including Quambi House

Cowper Street Lots 91,92 DP 584892; Lots 6 DP 1134158

Great Lakes i45 X X X Hunter REP 1989;

RNE

X 3.Economy – Agriculture – Clearing Land for farming

3. Economy – Agriculture – Pastoralism


8. Culture – Religion – Practising Anglicanism

X

Stroud House 42 Cowper Street Lot 75 DP 1063954 Great Lakes i52 X X X 4 Settlements – Accommodation


X



Report No. 806/14



Page 6 of 6

STROUD (INCLUDING STROUD ROAD SD) (Cont’d)


Within Town


Central Hotel 52 Cowper Street Lot 1 DP 11063954 Great Lakes i54 X X 8. Cultural - Leisure X

Public School and Residence 15 – 21 Erin Street Lots 1-3 DP 794878 Great Lakes i48 X X 6. Educating - Education X

St James Church 25 Erin Street Lot 4 section 1 DP 95874

Great Lakes i47 X X 8. Cultural Life - Religion X

Underground Grain Silos and Cannons Silo Hill Broadway Street Lots 8-11 section 4 DP 75878

Great Lakes i38 X X 3. Economy – Agriculture – Assoc with the AAC

X

Washpool (natural wetland or river category)

Karuah River, 7.5 km south of Stroud

East of lots177 DP 95648

Great Lakes i56 X X 3. Economy – Agriculture – Assoc with the AAC

X

House Mill Creek Road Great Lakes X X 4 Settlements – Accommodation

X

Methodist Church 15 The Bucketts Way Lot 1 DP 770116 Great Lakes i57 X X 8. Cultural Life - Religion X

Stroud Road, Karuah River Underbridge

Stroud Road; 266.155 North Coast Railway

Great Lakes s.170 Aust Rail Track Corp.

3. Economy- Technology


X

Uniting Church and Hall Church Street & Cowper St Lo1 DP 770116 Great Lakes I40 X X 8. Cultural Life - Religion X

Heritage Values other than listed Individual Items-

Artwork – Conrad Martens, Stroud, 1852. Shows St Johns Church and Quambi House. copy in The Stroud- Gloucester Valley Heritage Under Threat

‘The Stroud Urban Conservation Area’

Unlisted and Contributory items of heritage value Stroud -

St29 Dwelling and farm, 2925 Bucketts Way Outside Town

St30 Former brick dairy bails/shed, approximately opposite number 2925. Outside Town

St31 Dwelling, 4 Nicholls Street. Within town

St32 Stroud Showground Within town

St33 Dwelling, Mill Creek Road. Within town

St34 Dwelling 27 Cowper Street. Within town


St36 Dwelling 37 Cowper Street Within town


St38 War Memorial, Memorial Avenue near Gloucester Street Within town

St39 Dwelling, 7 Brighton Court Road Not located

St40 Dwelling, 602 Mill Creek Road Outside Town

St41 Dwelling, North side, Mill Creek Road Outside Town (not located: possibly near St40)

St42 Dwelling, 41 Cowper Street Within town

St43 Dwelling, 28 Cowper Street Within town

St44 Dwelling, 25 Cowper Street’ Within town

Unlisted and Contributory items of heritage value Stroud Road -

SD03 Stroud Road Community Hall, Bucketts Way. Within town

SD04 Stroud Road School, Bucketts Way Within town

SD09 Railway bridge, Stroud Road (Same as ARTC s.170 listing in table). Outside Town

SD10 Mammy Johnson’s grave site, Rannock, 102 Johnsons Creek Road, Stroud Road. Outside Town

SD11 Old brick kiln, off Bucketts Way, Stroud Road. Outside Town

Contributory items.

SD05 Dwelling, ‘Yulgilbar’, Bucketts Way, cnr Karuah Street Within town

SD06 General store and dwelling 20 Bucketts Way Within town

SD07 Former store, 16 Bucketts Way Within town

SD08 Dwelling, ‘Weismantel’, Karuah Street, southern side.’ Within town

(Great Lakes Council Heritage Study 2007)

Wards River:

Newly identified items

WR01 Wards River former school and residence. Outside town

Contributory items

WR02 Wards River Community Hall, St Peters Church Inside town

WR03 Wards River post office/general store and dwelling adjacent Inside town

WR04 Dwelling, 36 Bucketts Way Inside town

WR05 Dwelling, Corner Bucketts Way and Anderson Street Inside town

WR06 Timber bridge, Johnsons Creek Road (Tereel Road on topo. map Craven)

WR07 Former Johnsons Creek School, Johnsons Creek Road ‘

Great Lakes Council Heritage Study 2007 p95

Note: We did not locate WR06 or WR07.

Telegherry:

Newly identified items.

Te01 Dwelling, former Telegherry school site Inside town

Te02 Telegherry former church, western side Bucketts Way Inside town

Items of heritage significance - all items including contributory items

Te03 Dwelling, ‘Telegherry’ , Telegherry Nursery, Pritchard residence, Inside town

Te04 Former Telegherry AACo. shearing shed site. Outside town

WAUKIVORY

No. Item Name Address Lot DP LGA Council Map Ref

Within Town


X Avon Valley Colliery Site Waukivory Road Gloucester i64 X 3. Economics - Mining X




Report No. 806/14


3. P O TE N TI AL H E R I TAG E L AN D S C AP E

3.1 PHYSICAL AND VISUAL SETTING

As described in the Visual Impacts Assessment (VIA) in Appendix 3, the Site is located in a

geographically distinctive area known as the Gloucester Basin, also known by the name of the

underlying geological formation, the Stroud-Gloucester Syncline. Although it has this

geologically defined title, the physical and visual landscape characteristics of the Syncline do

not include the Stroud area. A still wider area than the Stroud-Gloucester Syncline is identified

as the Stroud-Gloucester Valley from a heritage standpoint in the BGSPA correspondence with

the DPE. This conforms to the area most recently classified by the NTANSW as a Landscape

Conservation Area. It includes the Gloucester Basin and also the Booral-Stroud area, the

Barrington and Gloucester River valleys and the Mograni Creek valley, all of which are outside

the Gloucester Basin. The boundaries of each of these areas are displayed in Figure 3.1.

Administratively, the southern part of the Gloucester Basin to about Craven was until recently

within the Great Lakes and the northern part in the Gloucester Local Government Areas,

respectively. The former LGA boundary is defined by the divide between the catchments of the

Karuah River, which flows south east to Port Stephens, and the Avon River which flows north

to the Gloucester River, which then turns east into the Manning River catchment. There is little

evidence of the divide that can be discerned in the landscape.

The Booral-Stroud area is visually different from the Gloucester locality, as is described and

shown pictorially in the BGSPA document “The Stroud-Gloucester Valley: A heritage

landscape under threat”. That document emphasises the fact that the northern part of the

Valley has a consistent character throughout. The Booral area is bounded by wooded hills with

a narrow floodplain in the valley floor in part, while the Stroud area is hilly, without easily

defining walls. Neither has visual access to the north end of the Basin. The characteristic

landscape of the wider northern section including Gloucester begins about Stroud Road, as

stated in the VIA report and as also noted in the BGSPA document cited above, in relation to

defining the Stroud-Gloucester Valley. This is in the general vicinity of the southern closure of

the Gloucester Basin. Thus, as a geologically and visually definable entity, the Basin is the

appropriate setting in which to consider the visual impacts of the amended Project, as was

done in the VIA report.

On the other hand, the historical associations with the early settlement pattern of development

do not conform to the geological pattern. They had their early focus in the Port Stephens and

Booral-Stroud areas and consequently interpretation of the place as a cultural landscape or in

terms of the themes that help to explain it is not confined to the geologically defined Gloucester

Basin area.

3.2 THE STROUD-GLOUCESTER VALLEY INCORPORATING THE VALE

OF GLOUCESTER LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION AREA

One such landscape that has been defined is the Stroud-Gloucester Valley Incorporating The

Vale of Gloucester, which is entered on the Register of the NTANSW as a classified item, a

Landscape Conservation Area (LCA). Part of the area, though the boundaries were not

defined, was nominated for classification in 1975 and classified by the NTANSW in 1976.



Report No. 806/14


Figure 3.1 Landscape Features of the Stroud-Gloucester Valley



Report No. 806/14


The assessment was revised in 1981, with a boundary relating to the Gloucester Basin and to

specifically refer to The Vale of Gloucester. The LCA boundary was expanded again in 2011 to

incorporate the Vale of Gloucester LCA and an area further south of Stroud Road to slightly

south of Booral (Isaac Road), as shown in the NTANSW classification report.

The area covered by the LCA is approximately 60km in length. It is up to 10km wide slightly to

the south of the Site, but it also contains the Booral-Stroud area, the Gloucester/Barrington

River valley that stretches approximately 15km to the west from it and the Mograni Creek

valley of approximately 8km in length in the northeast. These do not appear to share the

geological features that are cited as the reason for the geological significance of the LCA.

The Vale of Gloucester, as indicated above, is attributed as a term to Robert Dawson, land

agent for the AACo. who is credited with first describing attributes of the landscape as

reminiscent of the Vale of Gloucester in Britain. The title is that of a document published by

Eve Keane12 and jointly published by the Gloucester Shire Council in 1952 and illustrated by

well-known photographer Max Dupain. It is a short photographic essay of the emergence of

the contemporary Gloucester Township and contains some delightful descriptions of the

scenery of the area and its painterly qualities.

3.3 THE LANDSCAPE INTERPRETED FROM A CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE

The BGSPA document, “The Stroud-Gloucester Valley: a heritage landscape under threat” is a

document primarily inspired by the perceived threat to the Valley by coal mining and coal seam

gas exploitation. It includes nominations to the State Heritage Register of NSW and the

National Heritage List. It concedes that there is little authentic landscape fabric of the first

settlement period, however it calls for a more inclusive understanding of the scenic, historic,

cultural and geological values of the landscape from a cultural landscape perspective.

It states that the Valley is a cultural landscape of State and of National significance, not so

much because of what it contains, but because of the interactions between all of the things that

give it cultural values. An implication of this holistic approach is that even if there are no items,

sites, curtilages or settings of items affected by the amended Project in a physical sense, it can

be unacceptable because it may have significant effects on equally important non-tangible

values, such as value to a community, place attachment, effects on scenic views, etc. We

discuss the potential issues involved in a more wide-ranging holistic assessment method

favoured by the BGSPA in Section 4.1.1.1 in our review of the Heritage Council of Victoria

Landscapes of Cultural Heritage Significance Assessment Guidelines.

In relation to landscape heritage however, whether the place has a history is not the test of its

heritage values or significance on heritage criteria. Every place has a history and could be

claimed to have some historic value13. The critical step in a determination is whether a place

has a history that can be documented and is shown to be of sufficient significance to satisfy

historic significance criteria. A precursor to answering this question is to put the place in an

appropriate historical context14. There may be more than one historical context, for example,

when considered with regard to different historical themes. However, the fact that a place can

be interpreted relative to an historical theme is also not a proof of its overall significance.

12

Keane, E., 1952. Vale of Gloucester, Gloucester, Gloucester Shire Council – Oswald Ziegler Publications. 13

Pearson, M and Sullivan, S, 1995, Looking After Heritage Places: The basics of Heritage Planning for Managers, Landowners and Administrators, Carlton Vic. Melbourne University Press. 14

Pearson, M and Sullivan, S, 1995, Looking After Heritage Places: The basics of Heritage Planning for Managers, Landowners and Administrators, Carlton Vic. Melbourne University Press, p9



Report No. 806/14


Just as every place has a history, every place can be said to be an historical document15,

i.e. to tell a story and to be evidence of past practices, experiences and so on. The question to

be answered with regard to satisfying the heritage significance criteria is not whether the story

can be documented, but whether the story throws light on an important aspect of the lives of

people in the past, i.e. in Graham Davison’s words, “is a vital piece of evidence”. As is the case

with a history, a story that can be told is of no intrinsic significance in itself. A generic

landscape for example may not provide a vital piece of information about the past and an

association may be incidental.

The conventional process of heritage conservation has been characterised as the Authorised

Heritage Discourse (AHD) by authors such as Laurajane Smith16. A series of essays in Gibson

and Pendlebury (2009)17 concern aspects of the contemporary critique of the kind of heritage

conservation practice that is based on values that are considered to inhere within items and

places. This is the kind of heritage discourse that creates heritage registers and identifies

significant places and sites: it constructs heritage as an object or a place to be conserved and

managed.

A legitimate alternative to that discourse is one that acknowledges that values are not inherent

in items or places, but are given to them18. What makes a place heritage is the symbolic role it

is given (Author’s emphasis) both within and through the processes of remembering and

commemoration19. It is fundamentally different from looking more and more deeply at an item

or place for the values that it contains as suggested by the conventional classifying, listing and

heritage assessment processes of the AHD20.

However, the fact that a place can be interpreted in relation to broad themes, rather than as an

item or individual place, is also not the test of its significance. The theme itself is constructed. It

is created as a means of giving newly created value to the place to people in the present who

will be its consumers and as a cultural process in itself21. The perception that the historic,

social and scenic values of the Valley are under threat can be interpreted as such a construct

and as an alternative point of view to the AHD.

Contemporary interest in social values are less influenced by elitism, expert knowledge and

the processes of the AHD and are legitimate explorations to be made of constructed heritage

values22. It is legitimate in that context for the BGSPA or any other group to propose and reflect

exploration of a social historical criterion of significance. However important issues are what

are the re-created social values of the place, who or what group has created them and who are

their intended consumers? Those questions also remain relevant in the AHD, which is the

primary discourse of bodies such as the Heritage Council of NSW.

15

Davison, G and McConville, C (eds), 1999, A Heritage Handbook. Sydney, Allen & Unwin, Ch19 16

Smith, L, 2009, Deference and Humility: The Social Values of the County House, in Gibson, Lisanne and Pendelbury, John (eds), Valuing Historic Environments, Surrey, Ashgate, p35. 17

Gibson, L and Pendelbury, J (eds), 2009, Valuing Historic Environments, Surrey, Ashgate. 18

Hewison, Robert, 1987, The Heritage Industry: Britain in a Climate of Decline, London, Meltuen London Ltd. 19

Smith, L, 2009, Deference and Humility: The Social Values of the County House, in Gibson, Lisanne and Pendelbury, John (eds), Valuing Historic Environments, Surrey, Ashgate, p35 20

Smith, L, 2006, Uses of Heritage, Oxford, Routledge, p11 21

Smith, L, 2009, Deference and Humility: The Social Values of the County House, in Gibson, Lisanne and Pendelbury, John (eds), Valuing Historic Environments, Surrey, Ashgate, p34 22

Smith, L, 2004, Archaeological Theory and the Politics of Cultural Heritage, Oxford, Routledge



Report No. 806/14


Having acknowledged the legitimacy of a cultural interpretation of the heritage significance of

the Valley, it does not follow that the story about, and the significance of, the place can be read

with equal clarity in any place at all simply because it is a part of a landscape that can be

interpreted under the social value criterion. Neither does it follow that a negative impact on part

of that landscape necessarily leads to the diminution of the values over the entire place, nor, if

the impact occurs, that it will be permanent.

3.4 HERITAGE VIEWS

Our experience indicates there is often confusion as to what constitutes a heritage impact and

whether such an impact, if there is one, is an impact on heritage items, on heritage values, on

heritage views, on the ability to interpret aesthetic heritage significance, or just a general

discomfort about new and novel items in the context of heritage items and places. Each of

these deserves different consideration with regard to strategic planning and assessment of the

merits of applications.

The effect of changing rural economics, settlement and development patterns often leads to

changes to the overlays of culture that occurred during the historical development of the

underlying natural landscape. The vernacular rural cultural landscape is, unintentionally,

changed by these processes while individual items of heritage significance may be retained in

a context that is not authentic to the significance of the items themselves. There may be new

views created between items as a result of the loss of intervening cultural vegetation,

insignificant buildings, economic vegetation such as crops etc., or the loss of existing views as

a result of growth of regenerating, deliberately planted or unplanted, remnant vegetation, or the

addition of later, non-significant buildings.

In this regard, most of the authentic context of the cultural landscape of the first settlement

period of development of the Valley is no longer evident so far as heritage fabric is concerned,

as agreed in the BGSPA document, “The Stroud-Gloucester Valley: a heritage landscape

under threat”. That is to say, there is little material evidence remaining of the grazing land use,

crop land or fabric of the agricultural use of the Valley, other than buildings, sites and

curtilages of the time of most AACo. influence. There have also been additions of later

significant and non-significant buildings and sites that can be interpreted in the context of

other, later historical themes.

The agricultural landscape has also continued to change under the influence of later historical

processes such as subdivision, clearing, changed ownership patterns, more intensive farming

practices on the flood plains and alluvial soil areas, dairying, irrigation, etc. It may appear to be

the same grazed, rural landscape in hindsight, but this is largely an illusion. It is also validly

able to be interpreted as a generic rural cultural landscape. Whether the views are heritage

relates to their authenticity relative to established heritage values. To that extent, the scenic

qualities of the landscape of the Valley are incidental to the historic significance of the

association with the AACo. This is not to say that the settings of the items are not scenic in

quality in some cases, nor that the overall scenic quality is not moderate to high as has been

agreed in the VIA report in Sections 2.1, 3.2 and 4.3 (Appendix 3).

The dramatic changes that have occurred in rural economics post-AACo. are not obvious

today. This is partly because of the homogenisation of the appearance of the rural landscape

of the lower slopes and valley floors by the almost total clearing of woodlands and forests and

the scale and character of agricultural uses that are now not associated with the early private

towns.



Report No. 806/14


Authentic heritage views exist in the context where a view has been deliberately designed to

be appreciated and either contrived to be conserved, or where it has subsequently been

recognised as important and identified as deserving retention/interpretation.

Views of or between heritage items are therefore often incidental. They exist, but they may not

be of heritage significance because they do not pass the inclusion threshold on the relevant

heritage criteria that determine the significance of the item or its setting. The cultural

authenticity of the connection claimed to exist between items is also important. If there is an

authentic, documented and significant relationship between the items, the association between

which would be enriched by the view between them, the view may have or may achieve the

status of a heritage view.

The presence of a new or unique item in the setting of or simply in the same view as a heritage

item is not a heritage impact unless it diminishes the significance of an item, its setting, if that

is significant, or an authentic heritage view, against the criteria for which it was listed as of

significance.

It is considered that the landscape that contains the Site is primarily a generic scenic rural

cultural landscape that has evolved its existing character without any specific design or

formalising influences from the past. There is little material evidence remaining of the grazing

land use, crop land or fabric of the agricultural use of the Valley, other than buildings and sites

of the time of most AACo. The wider Valley contains many individual items of cultural heritage

significance, none in the vicinity of the Site and none in the view of or between which would be

affected by the proposed amended Project.



Report No. 806/14


4. AS S E S SI N G PO T E N TI AL H ER I TAG E I M PAC T S

O N T H E L AN D S C AP E

4.1 METHODOLOGY

The preparation of this statement of heritage impact follows the guidelines outlined in the

Heritage Office of NSW’s publication as part of the Heritage Manual. The Heritage Office no

longer exists in the form it had when the Heritage Manual was produced, however the NSW

Heritage System remains as before and the Heritage Manual is the relevant document in

relation to the preparation of Statements of Heritage Significance and Statement of Heritage

Impact.

A Statement of Heritage Impact (SoHI) identifies the heritage significance of the item, place or

area, the impacts of any changes being proposed to it, and how any impacts arising from the

changes will be mitigated. The required content of a SoHI for an item of state or local

significance that is subject to the provisions of the Heritage Act administered by the Heritage

Council of NSW are the same, as outlined in the Heritage Office Local Government Heritage

Guidelines 200223

A Statement of Heritage Impact must:

identify why the item, place or area is of heritage significance (the statement of

heritage significance);

describe the works, change of use and any physical changes to the place;

identify the impact or impacts the proposed changes to the heritage item will have

on its heritage significance;

identify and describe any measures being proposed to lessen negative impacts of

the proposed changes; and

identify why more sympathetic solutions to those being proposed are not viable.

In circumstances where the proposed changes are likely to have a detrimental effect on the

item, place or area's heritage significance, the Statement of Heritage Impact must:

clearly identify any change or changes that will have a negative impact on the

heritage significance of the item, place or area;

state why the impact or impacts cannot be avoided; and

state the steps being taken to minimise their effect or effects.

A summary document that is a part of the Heritage Manual, entitled Statements of Heritage

Impact, includes a series of questions to be answered in a SoHI24. Most of the categories of

proposed change to a heritage item are not relevant to the amended Project. The category of

most relevance appears to be “New development adjacent to a heritage item”. The relevant

questions are:

How is the impact of the new development on the heritage significance of the

item or area to be minimised?

23

NSW Heritage Office, 2002, Local Government Heritage Guidelines, Parramatta 24

Department of Planning (NSW), jointly with Department of Planning and Housing (Victoria), 1991, Statements of Heritage Impact, Sydney.



Report No. 806/14


Why is the new development required to be adjacent to a heritage item?

How does the curtilage allowed around the heritage item contribute to the

retention of its heritage significance?

How does the new development affect views to, and from, the heritage item?

What has been done to minimise negative effects?

Is the development sited on any known, or potentially significant archaeological

deposits? If so, have alternative sites been considered? Why were they rejected?

Is the new development sympathetic to the heritage item? In what way (e.g. form,

siting, proportions, design)?

Will the additions visually dominate the heritage item? How has this been

minimised?

Will the public, and users of the item, still be able to view and appreciate its

significance?

The methodology adopted attempts to consider each of these issues and answer all of the

relevant questions with respect to the proposed amended Rocky Hill Coal Project.

4.1.1 Why the item, place or area is of heritage significance

The Site and the Stroud-Gloucester Valley have no statutory status. There are, in addition, no

individual items, sites or areas on the Site or in its vicinity that have statutory protection. An

archaeological investigation has assessed the only identified potential item, “Aminya”, a

cottage on McKinleys Lane and concluded that there are no structures, objects or items of

historic heritage significance on the Site and that there is a low potential for the Site to yield

any items of archaeological significance (see Appendix 2). As a consequence, it is

problematic as to whether there is a relevant Statement of Heritage Significance (a SHS)

against which to judge the potential heritage impacts.

The Site is part of the landscape that has been classified by the NTANSW and for which there

is a SHS. The NTANSW listing states in the SHS that the Stroud-Gloucester Valley is a

significant cultural landscape, defined by geological formations, historic settlement by the

AACo. and spectacular scenic qualities. The values of the place are justified under Scenic,

Historic, Social and Geological value criteria. The first three criteria are similar to these values

in the Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter, which are historical, aesthetic, scientific and social

significance. Geological values could be interpreted under the scientific value criterion. The

SHS differs from what is required under the NSW Heritage System, which adopts a seven-

criterion system of assessment of heritage values. The same seven criteria are adopted under

the NSW Heritage Act (as amended in 1998) for items to be placed on the SHR.

In regard to the scenic values criterion in the NTANSW listing, it is agreed that the Valley has

coherent scenic values in the area between Stroud Road and Gloucester. Between Booral and

Stroud Road it has coherent, but different scenic attributes which may also be of scenic value.

It is also agreed that parts of the Valley, in particular the northern part, have been the

inspiration for artistic endeavour in the past. The claim that “the Valley is surrounded by a

series of ranges which dominate the valley floor and provide a spectacular landscape to the

agricultural activity of the Valley”, which is quoted in the NTANSW listing as being from an

AECOM report (which is not referenced) is not supported with regard to the Booral-Stroud



Report No. 806/14


area. The quote is also found in the Indicative Place nomination of the Vale of Gloucester on

the RNE (Place ID.1357) and no reference is given there to an AECOM report.

It is also not agreed that the Valley “retains the features first noted by the Australian

Agricultural Company, “grassy land and grassy forested hills””, the quote attributed to a

notation on the plan of part of the grant to the AACo. This is inconsistent with the likely,

intended and indeed the inevitable transformation of the character of the landscape by clearing

and grazing instituted in the first instance by the activities of the Company itself and also by the

destruction of the Aboriginal culture which was likely to have been instrumental in creating the

landscape that had an appearance of being amenable to grazing. The grassy land and grassy

forested hills to which the plan refers may have been the lower side slopes that are now largely

cleared and grazed. Even if the quote refers to the upper slopes, these are now more heavily

timbered than resembling grassy forests. In both cases, the reference to grassy land or grassy

forest is likely to have been to a past landscape, the result of the traditional land management

of indigenous Australians of the region who may formerly have put the grassy woodlands to

firestick farming practices25 prior to European invasion and created the grassy and grassy

woodland character that is now largely absent in the areas that have not been affected by

clearing for agriculture.

The early description of part of the Valley that may be in the vicinity of present day Gloucester

by Robert Dawson in 1826, cited by Eve Keane in 1952 in the publication “The Vale of

Gloucester”, also indicates that there was less vegetation on the hills than is the case today26,

describing the hills as “an almost naked range of sandstone mountains…Several peaks

towered above the range, like the turrets of a fortified place and on their tops grew a few

stunted evergreens, giving the whole the appearance of ivy-clad ruins….”. The description,

couched as it is in the romantic nuances of the time, suggests that the upper slopes (the

almost naked range of sandstone mountains) were largely bare of tree vegetation at the time.

The park-like appearance of land in what is now western Sydney as an example of similar

historical descriptions of land subjected to Aboriginal land management practices was noted by

Governor Phillip in 178927 and by Peter Cunningham in 182728 . Once Aboriginal people

stopped burning, the underbrush of shrubs and denser trees returned29. Pyne suggests that

the European settlement of Tasmania, because of the intrinsic attractiveness and relative ease

of colonisation of the resulting landscape to Europeans, followed almost exactly the areas

formerly regularly burned by Tasmanian Aborigines30. Thus the interpretations of early

descriptions of the landscape, and making parallels with the contemporary landscape, need to

be undertaken with considerable caution.

It is considered that the Valley is significant for the built evidence of its rural colonial past and

associations with the beginnings of national development of pastoral primary industries,

however this is not a scenic, but primarily an historic value. Almost every pastoral area of NSW

provides some evidence of the same process of development at some historical period. Many

are also scenic landscapes to the eyes of contemporary people. This does not make them

historically scenic landscapes.

25

Jones, R, 1969, Firestick farming. Australian Natural History 16: 224-228. 26

Keane, E., 1952. Vale of Gloucester, Gloucester, Gloucester Shire Council – Oswald Ziegler Publications. 27

Phillip, A, 1789, The voyage of Governor Arthur Phillip to Botany Bay, London. 28

Cunningham, P, 1827, Two Years in New South Wales, London. 29

Benson, D and Howell, J, 1990. Taken for granted. The bushland of Sydney and its suburbs. Sydney, Kangaroo Press in association with the Royal Botanical Gardens. 30

Pyne, S.J., 1991. Burning Bush. A fire history of Australia. New York, Henry Holt and Company.



Report No. 806/14


With regard to historic values, it is considered that there are significant associations of the

Valley with the AACo. and with the settlements of Booral and Stroud in particular, but less so

with Gloucester. It is also agreed that the Valley is an historic landscape that is important to the

story of development of Australian agriculture.

With regard to social values, some social values are claimed in the BGSPA document in these

terms: “cultural traditions of this largely agricultural landscape and strong attachment to the

area have been developed through generational links to the AACo.’s early development of the

district. The strength of this attachment is evidenced in a commitment which sees hundreds of

people attend community meetings”. It is not for this assessment to comment on the strength

or otherwise of the attachment of the community that is claimed to exist or whether those

attachments are the reason that community meetings would be likely to be strongly attended,

as is claimed. However, the generational links to the AACo. would be unlikely to be so

prominent in the Gloucester area, which was a hamlet of a few people when the AACo. moved

its headquarters from the region and began to sell off its land. Gloucester was instead

energised by the AACo. leaving the area and by changing rural economics after that time that

owed nothing to the first settlement period of the AACo.

It is accepted that the social significance of the place to a specific group in the community such

as the BGSPA may be related to its scenic and geographical features and for members to

have emotional and familial attachments to it. The extent to which this is a matter of heritage

significance appears to remain contested, however, as the place has not been recognised as

of significance as a heritage place, even at the local level, by either of the municipalities of

which it is a part.

With regard to geological values in the Statement of Heritage Significance, these are agreed

to. However, whether the Gloucester Wetlands are fragile or not as claimed is not a geological

value, but one that may be relevant to natural heritage value, a criterion not mentioned or

tested. It may be relevant to general concerns about catchments that are shared by members

of the BGSPA and their perceptions that these are under threat.

4.1.1.1 Other Cultural Heritage Significance Assessment Guidelines

Another approach to the assessment of cultural heritage landscapes is found in the “Heritage

Council Victoria Landscapes of Cultural Heritage Significance Assessment Guidelines (the

Victorian guidelines). The Victorian guidelines are operationalised by “The Victorian Heritage

Register Criteria & Threshold Guidelines: Assessing the Cultural Heritage Significance of

Places and Objects for Possible State Heritage Listing.”

The Victorian guidelines are intended for consideration of landscapes which cannot be

specifically identified or classified under more established or acknowledged assessment

criteria, for example aesthetic, archaeological, historical, scientific, social, or architectural

values. This includes landscapes of cultural heritage significance which are more complex and

do not readily fit into established Australian cultural heritage frameworks. These latter types

are described as either ‘organically evolved’ or ‘associative’ landscapes.

An organically evolved landscape results from an initial social, economic, administrative,

and/or religious imperative and has developed its present form by association with and in

response to its natural environment. An organically evolved landscape will display

accumulation of layers of change, without any overt comprehensive design intent (other than



Report No. 806/14


some planning controls, etc.). They are often referred to as ‘vernacular’ landscapes. For

reasons explained above in sections 3.3 and 4.1.1, it is considered that the Stroud-Gloucester

Valley is predominantly a vernacular rural cultural landscape and would therefore fall into the

classification of an organically evolved landscape using the Victorian guidelines.

An associative cultural landscape has powerful religious, artistic or cultural associations of the

natural element rather than material cultural evidence, which may be insignificant or even

absent. These landscapes may or may not exhibit discernible evidence of human influence on

the environment but they often contain a dominant landform feature, such as a mountain, river

or forest, or built form which is important to people in the locality or the wider community.

Social values attributed to the natural and scenic landscape, for example by the BGSPA and

as acknowledged in this assessment, could be argued to also place the Stroud-Gloucester

Valley into the associative cultural landscape category.

Taking an initial holistic approach as recommended, does not obviate the necessity to assess

individual items, places or themes, using conventional heritage assessment criteria. The

guidelines states that one should “consider each cultural heritage value in turn and determine

whether there are locations within the area that have particular aesthetic, social, historical,

scientific or spiritual values to a group or groups of interested people”.

The Victorian guidelines indicate that in the case of an organically evolved landscape the

impact of history can be limited to an initial event, e.g. social, economic, administrative, etc.

from which evolution of the landscape began. Many landscapes could therefore be thought to

have important cultural heritage values associated with different periods of evolution. The

Valley today reflects a process of evolution in its form and includes various components and

layers of change, but the same could be said for many vernacular landscapes which have

been culturally modified.

Notwithstanding taking a more holistic view of the landscape as a beginning position, the

assessment must finally revert to a traditional assessment of separate items, components or

“layers” once it has been determined which theme is appropriate, e.g. historical. Although the

overarching objectives of the guidelines are holistic and inclusive, the eight criteria to assess

significance are the traditional criteria for listing on the Victorian Heritage Register. The criteria

are similar to, but different from, those in the NSW Heritage System.

In the case of The Stroud-Gloucester Valley, in our opinion no additional information regarding

the cultural heritage values of the Valley would be uncovered by taking an initial more inclusive

or ‘catch all’ heritage assessment approach, or using an alternative set of criteria from Victoria.

In the end, the criteria still require individual components to be assessed separately, using a

traditional AHD methodology, as has been carried out in this assessment.

4.1.2 Alternative BGSPA Statement of Heritage Significance

The BGSPA sponsored document “The Stroud-Gloucester Valley: A heritage landscape under

threat” proposes a different SHS from that in the NTANSW listing. It is claimed to follow the

NSW Heritage Manual. The criteria used, however, do not conform to the current criteria in the

NSW Heritage Manual (Update 2 of July 2001), which brought them into line with the criteria

adopted under the NSW Heritage Act. The current guidelines for Assessing Cultural

Significance also require the level of significance under each criterion to be graded, as a



Report No. 806/14


precursor to deciding whether an item is of local or state significance (i.e. as exceptional, high,

moderate, little or intrusive). There is no need for a separate assessment of heritage

significance for an entry on the SHR, but only the requirement that there be proof of the level

of significance being important to the State, i.e. beyond the local level.

The BGSPA SHS does not provide the necessary grading of the level of significance against

the criteria that the Stroud-Gloucester Valley is claimed to satisfy and it is difficult to see how

the claim that the place is of State significance is substantiated. However it does mention

regional significance status, which is not recognised in the NSW heritage system. For each

criterion of heritage significance, the NSW heritage system also provides guidelines for

inclusion and exclusion that are tests of whether the item or place can exceed the threshold for

being considered against that criterion.

As it does not use the current heritage system of assessment of significance, the BGSPA SHS

does not consider whether the item (the Stroud-Gloucester Valley) should be included or

excluded on each criterion and on what basis. The inclusion and exclusion guidelines also

assist with determining whether an item is of local or of state significance, on any individual

criterion. It does not assess the Stroud-Gloucester Valley against the rarity and

representativeness criteria, on the basis that this would require comparative analyses to be

done.

The SHS generally accords with that of the NTANSW listing and most of the comments made

above about that listing are also relevant here. However, the general discussion contains some

statements in particular about scenic value with which issue can be taken. For example, in

relation to historical significance, at page 8 it is stated that “The Stroud-Gloucester Valley

shows evidence of the Australian Agricultural Company’s settlement by way or its extensive

vistas over the cleared grazing lands to the bordering ranges”. The contemporary vistas are

not heritage views; they are views that can be interpreted by way of the explanation of the

early association of the place with the AACo. The historical significance of the association of

the Valley with the AACo. is not in dispute, however other than for its underlying physical

structure, the landscape of today bears very little relationship to what the AACo. found

appealing about it.

In relation to aesthetic significance, there are some unsupported assertions, for example, in

relation to Gloucester and the Bucketts, “it is doubtful that any town in Australia has a more

dramatic backdrop”. This is repeated in the SHS. Any number of other towns may dispute this,

e.g. Katoomba, Bowral, Lithgow, Nelson Bay, Terrigal, The Rock, Eden, Kiama, Stanwell Park,

Wollongong, Blackheath, Murrurundi, Mt Victoria, etc. In regard to the Mograni Lookout, it is

stated that “Observation of people stopping at the Mograni Lookout leads to the conclusion

that this view must be among the most photographed views in New South Wales”. There would

be many other locations with equally or more sought after views, higher visitation rates and

more photographed lookouts, for example tourist roads in the Mt Warning caldera and the

Border Ranges, the Blue Mountains towns and Bells Line of Road, with their many heavily

used and photographed lookouts, the Illawarra region, the Kiama and Kangaroo Valley region,

the Southern Highlands, etc. It is also worth noting that the Site is not visible from the Mograni

Lookout. These statements emphasise the value of the place to the local community

represented by the BGSPA and they support the local social significance of the place to a

contemporary community. They do not provide the kind of comparative analysis that would be

necessary to show that the place is significant at either the state or the national level.



Report No. 806/14


4.1.3 RLA Assessment of Heritage Significance

RLA has prepared a Statement of Heritage Significance (SHS) as a prerequisite to assessing

the potential for impacts on heritage values of the amended Project and wider landscape as

required by the Heritage Manual and the DGRs. However, it has to be remembered that there

are no items of heritage significance affected by the amended Project and that the significance

of the landscape in general remains contested. It is recognised only by the NTANSW’s

classification as an LCA. That classification did not adopt the criteria of the NSW heritage

system and therefore the RLA assessment of heritage significance of the Valley below is not

directly comparable to it.

Criterion (a):

An item is important in the course, or pattern, of NSW’s cultural or natural history

The Stroud-Gloucester Valley is of historical significance because it can demonstrate an

important period of NSW’s cultural history in the formative years of the wool industry at a time

of colonialism in Australia and the industrialisation of the British woollen mills. It is of high

significance through its ability to tell the story of rural expansionism and the huge land grants

made to agricultural investment companies such as the AACo., the first in Australia. It is of

significance as the setting for the two company towns of Booral and Stroud, the expansions of

which were assisted by the use of convict labour and given impetus by the failure of the Port

Stephens Estate at Carrington on the northern shore of Port Stephens and the subsequent

transfer of its resources to the Valley.

The Stroud-Gloucester Valley is of high historical significance because of the range and quality

of surviving and historically significant building stock and sites, particularly in Booral and

Stroud, including those constructed by or for the AACo in the first settlement period up to

approximately 1860. Stroud and Booral include buildings and groups of buildings of State

significance such as the St Johns Church group including Quambi House at Stroud, Stroud

Ambulance Station and the Gundayne House Group at Booral, including the residence

associated with the schoolhouse.

The Valley is of moderate historical significance because it can demonstrate in its buildings

and landscape the influence of historical themes of development after first settlement,

including its association with the birth of the Australian wool industry, private rural exploitation,

agricultural industries such as dairying, the timber industry, mining and tourism.

Criterion (b):

An item has a 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.

The Stroud-Gloucester Valley is of high significance because of its association with the AACo.,

whose buildings in Booral and Stroud record the application of building styles, vernacular

materials, techniques of construction and use of often unskilled and convict labour. The Valley

is of moderate significance as the place retained by the AACo. when the Port Stephens Estate

at Carrington failed and was closed, that part of the grant being exchanged for a grant in the

Warrah and Peel River region on the Liverpool Plains.



Report No. 806/14


The Valley is of moderate significance for its associations with the works of the colonial artist

Conrad Martens and later artists such as Sir Arthur Streeton.

The landscape of the Valley is of little significance with regard to demonstrating evidence of

the early grazing runs and crop lands established by the AACo. and its current appearance is

now only incidentally related to first settlement influences.

Criterion (c):

An item is important in demonstrating aesthetic characteristics and/or high degree of creative

or technical achievement in the area.

The northern section of the Stroud-Gloucester Valley between Stroud Road and

Barrington/Tugrabakh is of moderate to high aesthetic quality as a result of the interaction

between the distinctive geological formations of the Stroud-Gloucester Syncline, exposed

areas of the Alum Mountain volcanic intrusions, compression and block faulting and the

contrasts of form, line, texture and colour between the walls and the cleared, rural lands of the

valley floor. The early character of the place was mentioned in historical accounts by first

settlement figures such as Robert Dawson in 182631 and described as “painters’ country” by

Eve Kene in a commemorative pictorial essay32. This character of the northern section of the

Valley is common throughout.

The southern section of the Stroud-Gloucester Valley between Booral and Stroud Road is of

moderate intrinsic aesthetic value, but is of high aesthetic heritage value to the settings of

Booral and Stroud. The setting of Booral retains visual clues to the importance of this small

valley floor and the Karuah River to the cropping aspirations and critical transport link to Port

Stephens of the fledgling AACo. as it advanced into the upper valley. The setting of Stroud

retains the early grid pattern of subdivision in a hilly landscape that accentuates the small

scale of the town and intimacy of settings of building groups.

The Gloucester Bucketts are of high aesthetic significance and landmark quality and have

been the inspiration for artistic achievement, including works by Sir Arthur Streeton in the late

19th century. They are renowned for the perception of changing colours and moods and are

integral to the identity and the representations of the visual setting of Gloucester Township.

The scenic values and views outward are important to tourism as an industrial theme.

Criterion (d)

An item has strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group in the

area for social, cultural or spiritual reasons.

The Guidelines for Inclusion are:

Is important for its associations with an identifiable group.

Is important to a community’s sense of place.

31

Dawson, R, The Present State of Australia, 1831, quoted in Keane, E., 1952. Vale of Gloucester, Gloucester,

Gloucester Shire Council – Oswald Ziegler Publications. 32

Keane, E., 1952. Vale of Gloucester, Gloucester, Gloucester Shire Council – Oswald Ziegler Publications.



Report No. 806/14


The Guidelines for Exclusion are:

Is only important to the community for amenity reasons.

Is retained only in preference to a proposed alternative.

The BGSPA claim that: “An assessment of the social significance of the valley’s historical and

scenic qualities does more than acknowledge that those qualities exist to the impartial

observer. It considers the degree to which they shape the values and attitudes of the

community and from that, contribute to the community’s identity and sense of place. The

Gloucester Valley’s scenic and historical qualities and the community association with them,

can be seen to meet this criterion”33

Later in the same document it is stated: “It is doubtful that any town in Australia has a stronger

association with its natural setting than Gloucester has with the Bucketts Ranges and the

adjacent valley and this association goes beyond a mere appreciation of the valley’s amenity –

it forms an important element in the community’s identity and sense of place34.

There is no evidence presented other than these assertions that this strong or special

association exists, nor how the “community” was identified. However, in this case it is not for

this assessment to comment. The BGSPA is an identifiable group and it is for it to show that

the assertions are supported and to rate and justify the level of significance that is claimed to

exist.

For the purpose of this assessment it is accepted that there is locally significant social value of

the Valley, at the least to the BGSPA, and possibly to a wider, but as yet undefined,

community.

Criterion (e)

An item has potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of the area’s

cultural or natural history.

(The NTANSW and the BGSPA SHSs do not mention this criterion, however the general

discussion before the BGSPA SHS mentions the potential for archaeological and socially

significant information to be discovered with regard to indigenous people’s use of the land and

interactions with the first settlers.)

It is considered that the northern section of the valley from Stroud Road to Gloucester has high

potential to yield geological information that contributes to an understanding of the area’s

natural history.

The record of the use/occupation of the land by indigenous people is separately addressed by

Archaeological Surveys & Reports (2016), i.e. in Volume 5, Part 11A and Part 11B of the

Specialist Consultant Studies Compendium for the amended Project.

33

Barrington-Gloucester-Stroud Preservation Alliance Inc, 2012, Attached Documents to Correspondence Dated 28 March, 2012 to Department of Planning and Infrastructure, concerning DGRs for Rocky Hill Coal Project, The Stroud-Gloucester Valley & The Vale of Gloucester, A heritage landscape under threat, p11 34

Barrington-Gloucester-Stroud Preservation Alliance Inc, 2012, Attached Documents to Correspondence Dated 28 March, 2012 to Department of Planning and Infrastructure, concerning DGRs for Rocky Hill Coal Project, The Stroud-Gloucester Valley & The Vale of Gloucester, A heritage landscape under threat, p13.



Report No. 806/14


Criterion (f)

An item possesses uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of the area’s cultural or nature

history.

(The NTANSW listing does not mention this criterion because it has adopted a different

framework. The BGSPA SHS mentions the criterion but does not deal with it on the basis that

it requires comparative analysis that has not yet been done.)

The Valley in general provides little evidence of the first settlement landscape, grazing runs

and land modified for the production of food and other products in the AACo. period of

influence. The subsequent changes to the landscape have created a common type of pastoral

landscape and, while it can be interpreted in relation to subsequent historical themes of

development, the consequent landscape is not rare or endangered.

The landscape surrounding the proposed Rocky Hill Coal Project is common throughout the

northern section of the Valley. It is under threat of change but similar areas are numerous. It is

considered that the area does not achieve the threshold on this criterion and should be

excluded under the Guidelines.

Criterion (g)

An item is important in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a class of NSW’s cultural

or natural places; or cultural or natural environments.

(The NTANSW listing does not mention this criterion because it has adopted a different

framework. The BGSPA SHS mentions the criterion but does not deal with it on the basis that

it requires comparative analysis that has not yet been done.)

The Valley is of high significance in its ability to demonstrate a class of early colonial

landscapes granted for private exploitation to agricultural companies, of which the AACo. was

the first in NSW. The evidence remains in the villages of Booral and Stroud which retain

significant stock of early buildings and sites but little evidence of the modified landscape of the

first settlement period.

Stroud is of high significance as a fine, representative example of a pioneer settlement based

on a private town constructed using convict labour, featuring adaptation of architectural styles

and the use of and adaptation to local materials and techniques. It has high significance for the

level of integrity of many buildings, its setting and the lack of intrusiveness of later additions to

the fabric.

4.2 REQUIREMENTS OF STATEMENTS OF HERITAGE IMPACT

4.2.1 Describing the works, change of use and physical changes to the

place

The RLA VIA (Appendix 3) report should be consulted for a full description of the works,

change of land use and physical changes proposed to the Site. It should also be consulted for

a description of the viewing places and situations that were analysed and assessed with

regard to the visibility and visual effects of the amended Project, including the effects on

scenic-heritage views identified by the BGSPA and in the DGRs for the amended Project.



Report No. 806/14


4.2.2 Identifying the impacts the proposed changes to the heritage item

will have on its heritage significance

The proposed amended Project would not make any physical change to identified heritage

items, sites, curtilages or views of or between identified items. The impacts that it will have are

on intangible aspects of the landscape. That is, it will have impacts on the character and

quality of a part of the landscape for a period of 16-21 years. The landscape is intended to be

returned to the same land use as at present and to a character that is compatible with its

surroundings.

The proposed amended Project would not have a negative impact on the historical

associations between the Valley and the AACo. or the record of that association that is written

largely in the buildings and sites that are predominantly but not exclusively in Booral and

Stroud.

The historical records in paintings of Martens and Streeton recall first settlement and

appreciation for the sublime and picturesque respectively and demonstrate the part played by

painters in presenting the authorised version of the landscapes at the times of their production.

The proposed amended Project would not have a significant impact on the focus of those art

works.

The part of the landscape that would be affected by the proposed amended Project is of a kind

that is widespread throughout the northern section of the Valley between Stroud Road and

Gloucester/Barrington. It does not uniquely demonstrate tangible evidence of the early grazing

runs and crop lands established by the AACo. and its current appearance is considered to be

only incidentally related to first settlement themes. The landscape that would be affected is not

rare and although the changes proposed to be made to it are substantial and could be

considered a threat to it, if considered in isolation, similar areas are numerous. The Site does

not exceed the threshold to qualify under criterion (f) as rare or uncommon.

The Site is separated from the Booral-Stroud area physically and visually. The ability of those

heritage resources to demonstrate the historical significance of the Valley and of rural

expansionism in the 1830-1860s will not be diminished by the Mine Area. The range and

quality of surviving building stock, the villages, their settings and places of State significance

will not be affected by the amended Project. Although the Site can be interpreted with regard to

post-first settlement historical themes, the effects of these on the landscape and the Site are

generic and can be seen to have influenced wide areas of the Valley which have similar visual

character and quality.

The scenic quality of the landscape within which the Site exists is acknowledged. In a different

form (in regard to scenic quality and character) it has been recognised in the RLA VIA

(Appendix 3) report by the assigning of a moderate or high level of sensitivity to the views

affected by the amended Project (see Section 4.3 of Appendix 3). It has been acknowledged

that the scenic quality and character of the area is of importance both in a general sense and

to tourism, the interests of which include heritage sites and places.

The statement of heritage significance above recognises that the Site is in an area of moderate

to high aesthetic significance and that there are historical associations to artistic appreciation

of some scenic resources in the vicinity, such as the Gloucester Bucketts, the Gloucester

Township and the Valley more generally. The predominant views of the Gloucester Bucketts

from Gloucester do not contain the Site, but the Site is visible from a lookout on them at a



Report No. 806/14


distance of 4.5 km to 6.5km. The Gloucester Bucketts are not a heritage item and neither is the

Site. While there is a view between them from The Bucketts walking track, it is not a heritage

view, but it is one that deserves close consideration with regards to visual impacts and on the

scenic character and quality of the view.

There will be impacts on the aesthetic values of part of the landscape in the general vicinity of,

but not the same view compositions as the Gloucester Bucketts in the views from Gloucester

Township. The amended Project would not negatively affect views of the Bucketts from the

public domain or the setting of Gloucester Township in relation to known heritage-scenic views

and will have no effect on the settings of the townships of Booral and Stroud. The importance

to be placed on the sensitivity to impacts on views affected has also been acknowledged in the

RLA VIA report in Sections 4.3 and 4.4 (Appendix 3).

It is agreed that there can be different reasons for the sensitivity to effects on views (i.e. in this

report; impacts on heritage values and in the VIA; impacts on scenic quality and view

composition). However, in regard to the parameters of assessment of visual impacts in the VIA

report in Section 4, there would not be any material difference in the assessment if the values

identified as causing increased sensitivity to the visual effects of the amended Project were

scenic-heritage values, rather than impacts on scenic quality and view composition.

This sensitivity issue that was identified in the VIA report is also in acknowledgement of the

social significance of attachment to the views that is claimed for its community by the BGSPA.

The RLA SHS also acknowledges the legitimacy of the social significance that is claimed for

the Valley by the BGPSA.

There will be some negative impacts on the scenic values and character of the Site and on

views from its visual catchment over a period of approximately 16-21 years. In the context of a

historical view of the area going back to at the least the 1820s, that time frame is a short term

one. At the end of that time, the landscape will be returned, albeit modified, to its existing land

use and with a character which while not identical to the existing landscape, is considered to

be compatible with the scenic quality and character of the Valley.

Those with a close, personal attachment to the area and detailed knowledge of the Site will be

aware of the permanent changes to it. Most viewers would be unlikely to recognise the Site as

a former mine and some may find the return of a large proportion of it to woodland to be an

aesthetic improvement in the rural landscape.

4.2.3 Measures being proposed to lessen negative impacts of the proposed changes

The main strategy for limiting negative impacts of the proposed changes has, from the start,

been to recognise that the Mine Area and amended Project is in a location that has to be

returned to the highest scenic quality and most compatible character possible, beginning as

soon as this is achievable. The second objective of the strategy is to minimise the visibility of

the mining operations as is appropriate in the context of the scenic quality and visual exposure

of the Site. The strategy acknowledges the moderate to high scenic quality of the area and the

exposure to view from the important tourist route of The Bucketts Way, as well as from private

residences. It also recognises the interest in the community represented by the BGSPA, in

scenic-heritage views, even though it is not accepted that the two concepts of scenic

landscape and heritage values are necessarily equivalent as is being suggested.



Report No. 806/14


The strategy for impact mitigation is described in detail in the RLA VIA report. There are no

specific items of heritage significance to address, such as individual buildings, sites, settings or

curtilages of individual items, nor are there spatial constraints to be addressed such as limiting

development in view lines to and from items that affect the Site. As a result, the overall

strategy can be applied to the whole Site as is proposed.

4.2.4 Why more sympathetic solutions to those being proposed are not

viable

The coal-bearing strata are potentially present in an accessible form throughout the Valley

along the lower side slopes of the bounding hills as a result of the synclinal folding of the

underlying strata and compression faulting which makes them most accessible in these

situations. The consistency of the physical form of the landscape is such that the resources are

most likely to be found in similar locations to the Site.

The resource needs to be mined where it exists. It is not possible to choose to mine in places

that are of lower visibility as they do not have proven resources. In any event, even if there

were more choices, the Valley provides little in the way of natural capacity to absorb mining

developments with no visual effects.

The strategy that is proposed to mitigate impacts is considered to be a far more sympathetic

solution than traditional approaches, such as are evident particularly in the earlier parts of the

Stratford Coal Mine. The strategy is to sequentially rehabilitate the Site to a topography that

retains the existing drainage patterns and follows the underlying topography, with significant

areas complete within 7 years. The less sympathetic solutions pursued in the area in the past

include retaining water filled voids surrounded by steep sided out-of-pit overburden

emplacements graded to simple, linear side slopes that have little relationship to the character

and quality of the underlying landscape.

4.3 QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED IN A SOHI

The following is a brief response to the questions to be answered in a SoHI. Many have

already been answered in other places in this report. The questions are generic, in that they

are intended to be able to be interpreted to suit built or landscape contexts, i.e. the ‘item’ to

which they refer is interpreted to be the landscape.

4.3.1 How is the impact of the new development on the heritage

significance of the item or area to be minimised?

The strategy to minimise impacts is found in the RLA VIA report in Section 2.3 where it is

described in detail. The strategy is considered to be appropriate to producing the best possible

result for the landscape of the Valley in the context of the mining activity proposed. This is the

case whether the Site is considered to be part of a heritage cultural landscape that is scenic or

alternatively a site that is constrained by its visual exposure and the moderate to high scenic

quality.

The landscape is agreed to be of aesthetic significance, but the views affected are not agreed

to be heritage views. This is not of great importance, since the need to return the Site to the

highest quality possible and with a landform and use compatible with the existing use and

adjacent development pattern is required in either case.



Report No. 806/14


4.3.2 Why is the new development required to be adjacent to the heritage

item?

There is a coincidence of the natural and scenic values of the Stroud-Gloucester Valley with

the underlying geological structures of the Stroud-Gloucester Syncline. It is the syncline that

contains the coal-bearing strata and determines where they exist and are accessible. It is also

responsible for creating the scenic backdrop to many of the landscapes and views, including

those of the Site.

4.3.3 How does the curtilage allowed around the heritage item contribute

to the retention of its heritage significance?

The question is not relevant to the proposed amended Project. As the Site is not considered to

be a heritage item, the concept of curtilage does not have any practical application.

4.3.4 How does the new development affect views to, and from, the

heritage item? What has been done to minimise negative effects?

This question has been answered in various places in this report and in detail in the RLA VIA

report in Sections 2, 3 and 4. The Site is not considered to be a heritage item, but it is in a

landscape that can be interpreted both thematically and in relation to discrete heritage values,

as a coherent vernacular cultural landscape. The Site is visible in the context of scenic

landscape values of moderate to high quality. The strategy intended to mitigate impacts on

those values is described in detail in the RLA VIA report in Section 2.4 and Section 5 and

evaluated for effectiveness in Sections 3 and Section 4. It is considered that the strategy is

appropriate to both the aesthetic heritage values and the intrinsic scenic quality and visual

exposure of the Site.

4.3.5 Is the development sited on any known, or potentially significant

archaeological deposits? If so, have alternative sites been

considered? Why were they rejected?

The Aboriginal cultural heritage considerations are addressed in the assessment by

Archaeological Surveys & Reports (2016), i.e. in Volume 5, Part 11A and Part 11B of the

Specialist Consultant Studies Compendium.

4.3.6 Is the development sympathetic to the heritage item? In what way

(e.g. form, siting, proportions, design)?

The amended Project is sympathetic in the sense of being a small change to a large landscape

in which there are many other similar settings. The overall scenic resources of the Valley will

not be significantly altered by the amended Project. The dominant features of the setting, the

bounding hills, are not affected by the amended Project and the intended final landform is

sympathetic to the underlying topography, drainage patterns and land use of the side slopes.



Report No. 806/14


4.3.7 Will the additions visually dominate the heritage item? How has this

been minimised?

This has been partly answered in Section 4.3.6 of this report. The moderate to high aesthetic

significance of the setting of the amended Project results from of interaction between the

distinctive geological formations of the Stroud-Gloucester Syncline, exposed areas of the Alum

Mountain volcanic intrusions, compression and block faulting and the contrasts of form, line,

texture and colour between the walls and the cleared, rural lands of the valley floors. The

amended Project is subordinate in scale to the dominating features both in relation to the

whole Valley and also in relation to its immediate setting. The overall scenic significance of the

Valley and the dominance of it by its geological and landform structures will not be

substantially diminished by the amended Project.

4.3.8 Will the public, and users of the item, still be able to view and

appreciate its significance?

Considered in isolation and only over the life span of the amended Project that include the final

rehabilitation of the Main Pit after mining operations cease, the effects on one part of the

composition of the views that are affected from a localised area would be significant. It is worth

noting in this regard however, that the final landform and rehabilitation would have been

established over a large proportion of the Mine Area before mining is confined to the Main Pit

at the end of approximately Year 8.

The landscape affected does not show any tangible evidence of the historical associations with

first settlement and the influence of the AACo. and is otherwise a generic rural cultural

landscape of a kind that can be interpreted in relation to historical themes that are also

widespread in evidence throughout the Valley. The overall moderate-high level of scenic

quality and scenic significance of the Valley is not considered to be likely to be substantially

diminished as a result of the amended Project and will be fully restored to an appearance

compatible with the existing scenic values.

It is considered, taking into account the localised effects of the amended Project and its short

life span in the historical sense, that the overall significance of the Valley will not be

substantially diminished in the long-term.



Report No. 806/14


5. C O N SI DE R AT I O N O F T HE RE Q UI REM E N TS FO R

T H E E I S

5.1 REQUIREMENTS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND

INFRASTRUCTURE (NOW DPE):

The EIS must include a historic heritage assessment (including archaeology) which must:

include a statement of heritage impact (including significance assessment) for

any State significant or locally significant historic heritage items; and

outline any proposed mitigation and management measures (including an

evaluation of the effectiveness and reliability of the measures).

Comment:

This technical report is intended to fulfil the requirement for a historic heritage assessment,

other than archaeology. It includes a statement of heritage impact.

There are no State significant or locally significant historic heritage items that are on or in the

vicinity of the Site that would be affected by the amended Project. Notwithstanding it has no

statutory force, the heritage impacts of the amended Project have been assessed against the

NTANSW listing of the entire Stroud-Gloucester Valley incorporating The Vale of Gloucester. It

has also considered the values proposed in a separate SHS prepared for the BGSPA.

Because it is a requirement of preparing a Statement of Heritage Impact in the NSW Heritage

Manual, this report has also prepared a draft SHS for the Stroud-Gloucester Valley, against

which the impacts have been assessed.

The proposed mitigation and management measures for heritage impacts are the same as

those proposed for the control and management of visual impacts, since the issues coincide.

They can be found in the EIS, in the Visual Impacts Assessment included in Volume 2, Part 3

of the Specialist Consultant Studies Compendium for the proposed Amended Rocky Hill Coal

Project and in Appendix 3 to this assessment.

5.2 REQUIREMENTS OF THE BARRINGTON-GLOUCESTER-STROUD

PRESERVATION ALLIANCE INC.

The EIS should provide a full understanding of historical, scenic and social qualities as well as

assessing the requirements for social heritage significance under the Australian Heritage

Council guidelines for National heritage significance.

Comment:

This report has addressed the historical and scenic qualities and acknowledges the evidence

presented for social significance of the Stroud-Gloucester Valley by the BGPSA. These

considerations have informed the assessment of views set out in the RLA VIA report, the

analysis of landscape heritage significance, the SHS and the Statement of Heritage Impact.

The matter of social significance has been considered to the extent that is considered

appropriate.



Report No. 806/14


It is recognised that the BGSPA sponsored document “The Stroud-Gloucester Valley: a

heritage landscape under threat” gives substantial weight to cultural values. The claims that

such values exist are not disputed, however the claim that the social values are of national

significance is not considered to have been sufficiently justified.

This assessment has not been undertaken using the requirements of the Australia Heritage

Council for the assessment of social significance. These are not relevant to assessment of

heritage impacts in NSW, other than in the circumstance that the item has the values

necessary for its placement on the National Heritage List. It is noted that the BGPSA is of the

opinion that the Stroud-Gloucester Valley is of national significance. We understand that

although the Stroud-Gloucester Valley has been nominated to the National Heritage List that

no action has been taken on the nomination by the DotE.

5.3 REQUIREMENTS OF GLOUCESTER SHIRE COUNCIL

The EIS should examine any potential Heritage impacts at a number of different scales. The

first level is any potential disturbance to artefacts of Aboriginal or European heritage on the

site. There should also be an examination on the potential impact this mine might have on the

cultural heritage of Gloucester as an agricultural service town.

There is also a potential significant disturbance to the heritage landscape of the valley which

has a long history of agricultural activity dating back to the Australian Agricultural Company

in 1826.

Comment:

The potential impact on Aboriginal heritage is separately addressed in the Aboriginal Cultural

Heritage Assessment prepared by Archaeological Surveys & Reports included in Volume 5,

Part 11A and Part 11B of the Specialist Consultant Studies Compendium for the amended

Project.

This assessment has examined the remaining three levels of this requirement. There is no

significant European heritage on the Site. The assessment has considered the historical

themes associated with the Stroud-Gloucester Valley and acknowledged the influences on the

development of Gloucester, predominantly post-1890s as a revitalised rural centre associated

with the timber, dairying and tourism industries. It is concluded that the amended Project will

not have any tangible impacts on cultural heritage items, sites or places that have been

entered on statutory registers.

The assessment has also considered the associations of the landscape of the Valley with the

AACo. and concluded, as also noted by the BGASPA and the Great Lakes Heritage Study,

that there is little if any tangible evidence of the changes occasioned to the landscape by the

AACo. The amended Project would not cause any significant impacts on this aspect of the

heritage of the place.



Report No. 806/14


5.4 REQUIREMENTS OF NSW HERITAGE COUNCIL

The EIS should address the heritage significance of the site and any impacts the development

may have upon this significance should be assessed. This assessment should include natural

areas and places of Aboriginal, historic or archaeological significance. It should also include a

consideration of wider heritage impacts in the area surrounding the site.

The Applicant should consult lists maintained by the Office of Environment & Heritage, the

National Trust of Australia (NSW), the Australian Government under the Environment

Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and the local council in order to identify any

identified items of heritage significance in the area affected by the proposal.

Non-Aboriginal heritage items within the area affected by the proposal should be identified by

field survey. This should include any buildings, works, relics (including relics underwater),

gardens, landscapes, views, trees or places of non-Aboriginal heritage significance. A

statement of significance and an assessment of the impact of the proposal on the heritage

significance of these items should be undertaken. Any policies/measures to conserve their

heritage significance should be identified. This assessment should be undertaken in

accordance with the guidelines in the NSW Heritage Manual. The field survey and assessment

should be undertaken by a qualified practitioner/consultant with historic sites experience.

Take into account the following guidelines (as applicable).

The Burra Charter (The Australia ICOMOS charter for places of cultural

significance).

NSW Heritage Manual (NSW Heritage Office).

Comment:

It is considered that this report has addressed each of the parts of these requirements that are

within the expertise of RLA. Matters pertaining to Aboriginal heritage significance are

addressed in the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment prepared by Archaeological Surveys

& Reports included in Volume 5, Part 11A and Part 11B of the Specialist Consultant Studies

Compendium for the amended Project.

5.5 SUMMARY CONCLUSION

Search of the schedules, registers and lists of items with statutory protection showed that there

are none on or in the vicinity of the Site, or any that have a view of or from it. An archaeological

investigation of the only identified potential item, “Aminya” cottage, concluded that there are no

structures, objects or items of historic heritage significance on the Site and that there is a low

potential for the Site to yield any items of archaeological significance. The area is not

recognised as of heritage significance by either Gloucester or the Great Lakes Council, the

relevant municipal authorities.

The Site is in a geographically and visually distinctive area, the Gloucester Basin, which is

smaller than an area classified by the NTANSW titled “The Stroud-Gloucester Valley,

Incorporating the Vale of Gloucester”. The character and qualities of the Site are common

features throughout the Basin. Its scenic quality is rated as moderate-high in the RLA VIA



Report No. 806/14


report, which is entirely compatible with it being recognised as having aesthetic heritage

values.

The BGSPA considers that assessment of the impacts of development on individual buildings,

sites and historic places in the Valley does not give sufficient weight to the landscape as a total

item of cultural value. It believes the Valley classified by the NTANSW is of State and National

heritage significance and to be under threat from coal mining.

This report prepared a SHS for the whole Valley as required for a SoHI because the impacts of

the amended Project would solely be on intangible values which are not confined to individual

sites. The SHS acknowledges the scenic significance of the landscape of which the Site is a

part and does not contest the cultural values claimed for it by the BGSPA.

It is not agreed that the Site itself is a heritage item, or that views of it are heritage views.

However, this is not of any real consequence to the assessment of the impacts, which in effect

are visual impacts. That assessment has already been carried out on a specific site by site and

view by view basis. The mitigation measures and contingency management procedures are

described in detail in the RLA VIA report. It is not considered necessary to write separate

conservation policies for mitigation, since this would be repetitive.

Dr Richard Lamb

Richard Lamb & Associates



Report No. 806/14





Report No. 806/14


Appendix 1

Key Differences between the 2013 Project and Amended Project

Prepared By:

Richard Lamb and Associates



Report No. 806/14





Report No. 806/14


2013 Project Amended Project

Comments on potential impacts of the amended Projects

No statutorily listed historic heritage items or landscapes are affected.

Listings reviewed and documentation updated: no new statutorily listed items potentially affected.

No change with regard to items with statutory historic heritage status.

The 2013 Project included a coal handling plant (CHPP), Rail Load-Out Facility (RLOF) and Overland Conveyor system.

No CHPP, RLOF or Overland Conveyor system.

Reduced visual impacts over smaller area of disturbance and total Project Site, reduced visual catchment, reduced cumulative impacts, minimization of lighting impacts.

The 2013 Project assessed against the NSW Heritage System criteria.

The amended Project assessed against the NSW Heritage System criteria.

The amended Project does not give rise to significant impacts on historic heritage values.

Project also assessed under Heritage Council Victoria: Landscapes of Cultural Heritage Significance Assessment Guidelines.

The overarching objectives of the guidelines are holistic and inclusive. The eight criteria to assess significance once an item is defined, as either an organically evolved or associative landscape, are criteria for listing on the Victorian Heritage Register. The criteria are similar to, but different from, those in the NSW Heritage System. No additional information regarding the cultural heritage values of the Valley would be uncovered by taking an initial more inclusive or ‘holistic’ heritage assessment approach using the Victorian heritage criteria.

Project does not give rise to significant impacts on historic heritage values.



Report No. 806/14





Report No. 806/14


Appendix 2

The Archaeological Investigation for Sites of Non-indigenous Heritage

Significance

Prepared By:

Archaeological Surveys & Reports Pty Ltd

(Total number of pages including blank pages = 28)



Report No. 806/14





Report No. 806/14

ASR 12 - 71

The archaeological investigation for sites of

Non-indigenous Heritage Significance

Rocky Hill Coal Project

Gloucester, North Hunter Region, NSW

John Appleton

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEYS & REPORTS PTY LTD

FEBRUARY 2013

Report No. 548/13

For

R.W. Corkery & Co. Pty Limited On behalf of

Gloucester Resources Limited



Report No. 806/14

12 - 72 ASR

FOREWORD Since the exhibition of the Environmental Impact Statement for the Rocky Hill Coal

Project in 2013, Gloucester Resources Limited has reached an agreement with

Yancoal Australia Limited to utilise the existing facilities at the nearby Stratford Mining

Complex to process and despatch coal mined from the Rocky Hill Mine Area.

Consequently, Gloucester Resources Limited has amended the Rocky Hill Coal

Project to provide for the transportation of sized coal to the Stratford Mining Complex

via a private haul road and no longer intends to construct or use the previously

proposed Rocky Hill coal handling and preparation plant (CHPP), overland conveyor,

rail loop and train load-out facility. In addition, the amended Project would no longer

involve the development of the formerly proposed Weismantel Pit.

This report was prepared to accompany the 2013 Environmental Impact Statement for

the Rocky Hill Coal Project. Given the amendments that have been made to the 2013

Project, this report has been adjusted to remove reference to all material and data

relevant to the areas of the rail Load-out facility, rail loop and overland conveyor that

are no longer relevant to the amended Rocky Hill Coal Project.

This report retains all other material compiled in the 2013 report.



Report No. 806/14

ASR 12 - 73

AASSRR

This report has been compiled in ‘Plain English’,

but presented in a format suitable for developing policies for the management of the cultural resources,

and as a basis for scientific reference in future research studies.

Project No. 548/13

COPYRIGHT

All intellectual property and copyright reserved.

Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study, research, criticism or review, as permitted under the

Copyright Act, 1968, no part of this report may be reproduced, transmitted, stored in a retrieval system or adapted in

any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without written permission.

Enquiries should be addressed to Archaeological Surveys & Reports Pty Ltd.



Report No. 806/14

12 - 74 ASR




Report No. 806/14

ASR 12 - 75

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................................................................................................... 12-79

1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 12-81

1.1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................ 12-81

1.2 SCOPE, OBJECTIVES AND REPORT FORMAT ....................................................... 12-81

2. THE PROPOSAL ...................................................................................................................... 12-83

3. THE SITE INVESTIGATION ..................................................................................................... 12-83

4. SEARCHES OF REGISTERS OF SITE LISTINGS .................................................................. 12-83

4.1 GLOUCESTER LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2010 ............................................ 12-87

4.2 NSW HERITAGE BRANCH ......................................................................................... 12-87

4.3 NATIONAL TRUST OF NSW ....................................................................................... 12-87

4.4 WEB SEARCH ............................................................................................................. 12-87

5. STRUCTURAL FEATURES OF THE COTTAGE .................................................................... 12-87

6. THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT .................................................................................................. 12-91

6.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 12-91

6.2 A BRIEF HISTORY OF “AMINYA” ............................................................................... 12-91

7. ASSESSING HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE ............................................................................... 12-91

7.1 CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE ........................................ 12-91

8. THE HERITAGE ASSESSMENT OF “AMINYA” ..................................................................... 12-92

9. STATEMENT OF HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE ........................................................................ 12-93

10. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................... 12-93

11. MONITORING OF SITE WORKS ............................................................................................. 12-93

GLOSSARY ........................................................................................................................................ 12-94

BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................................. 12-95



Report No. 806/14

12 - 76 ASR

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page FIGURES

Figure 1 Topographical Map of the General Area ...................................................................... 12-84

Figure 2 Aerial Photograph of “Aminya” ..................................................................................... 12-85

Figure 3 Conceptual Plan of the Proposed Mine Area ............................................................... 12-86

DIGITAL IMAGES

Image 1 Entry to the cottage with McKinleys Lane on the left. .................................................. 12-88

Image 3 The south-western corner showing the carport and southern façade. ......................... 12-88

Image 4 The north-western corner and entrance porch. ............................................................ 12-89

Image 5 The northern façade showing the main entrance and western extension. ................... 12-89

Image 6 The north-eastern corner showing the extension and the two entrances. ................... 12-90

Image 7 The south-eastern corner. Note the central chimney. ................................................. 12-90



Report No. 806/14

ASR 12 - 77

Client:

R.W. Corkery & Co. Pty Limited

1st Floor, 12 Dangar Road

PO Box 239

BROOKLYN NSW 2083

Tel. 02 9985 8511

On behalf of

Gloucester Resources Limited

Level 37 Riverside Centre

123 Eagle Street

BRISBANE QLD 4000

Tel. 07 3006 1830

All enquiries in regard to this report should be addressed to:

John Appleton

Archaeological Surveys & Reports Pty Ltd

16 Curtis Street

ARMIDALE NSW 2350

Tel. 02 6772 6512 Fax. 02 6772 4567

Mobile: 0428 651 789

Email. [email protected]



Report No. 806/14

12 - 78 ASR




Report No. 806/14

ASR 12 - 79

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Gloucester Resources Limited (GRL) is proposing to develop a coal mine within Exploration

Licence (EL) 6523, between 3.5km and 7km southeast of the Gloucester urban area. GRL

intends to apply for development consent for the proposed coal mine under Part 4 (Division

4.1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) as the project is

recognised to be a ‘State significant development’.

R.W. Corkery & Co. Pty Limited (RWC) engaged Archaeological Surveys & Reports Pty Ltd

(ASR) to undertake a Non-indigenous Heritage Assessment to identify any archaeological sites

of heritage significance that might represent a potential constraint to the extraction of coal

within the Site.

The scope of works was for ASR to undertake an investigation of the Site for any structures,

objects or items of heritage significance that might represent a potential constraint to the

proposed coal mine.

The only item of potential heritage significance observed on the Site was a single storey,

weatherboard and corrugated-iron roofed cottage, “Aminya”, to the east of McKinleys Lane i.e.

on Lot 301, DP 864518. Until recently, the cottage was occupied by Edward John McKinley

and Shirley June McKinley. Originally there had been a timber shack on the property, possibly

built and used by a timber-getter, but when it was acquired by the McKinleys in the 1970s, it

was riddled with white ants. Having removed the affected timber, the McKinleys built a new

cottage over and around the remains of the shack.

An assessment of the heritage significance of the cottage was undertaken using criteria set out

in “Assessing Significance for Historical Archaeological Sites and Relics” (Heritage Branch

2009). ASR has assessed the cottage “Aminya” to be of no heritage significance, having

neither the attributes nor the history that would fulfil the criteria for State or local listing.

Statement of Significance

As a result of the site inspection of the Site of the proposed coal mine to identify any structures

or items of potential heritage significance, and having considered the results of searches of

listings maintained by Heritage Council of NSW; Gloucester Local Environment Plan 2010, and

NSW National Trust of NSW, and undertaken a broad internet search for anyone, anything or

any place connected to the McKinleys or to “Aminya”, ASR concludes that there are no

structures, objects or items of State or local heritage significance in the Site of the proposed

Rocky Hill Coal Project.



Report No. 806/14

12 - 80 ASR




Report No. 806/14

ASR 12 - 81

1. I N T RO D U C TI ON

Gloucester Resources Limited (GRL) is proposing to develop a coal mine within Exploration

Licence (EL) 6523, between 3.5km and 7km southeast of the Gloucester urban area.

GRL intends to apply for development consent for a proposed coal mine (the Rocky Hill Coal

Project) under Part 4 (Division 4.1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

(EPA Act) as the project is recognised to be of a ‘State significant development’.

RWC engaged Archaeological Surveys & Reports Pty Ltd (ASR) to undertake a Heritage

Assessment to identify any archaeological sites of heritage significance that might present a

potential constraint to the Proposal. Hereafter, reference to the proposed coal mine site will be

referred to as the “Site”.

1.1 BACKGROUND

In October 2011, the State Government repealed Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and

Assessment Act 1979 No 203, and replaced it with Part 4 (Division 4.1). In order to fulfil the

consultation requirements for Part 4 (Division 4.1), RWC engaged ASR to investigate the Site

and to report on any structures, items or objects of “European” heritage significance.

Part 4, division 4.1, section 89J lists the various Acts that do not apply where development

consent has been granted (the following details are those relevant to European heritage)

“Section 89J - Approvals etc., legislation that does not apply”

1. “The following authorisations are not required for State significant development

that is authorised by a development consent granted after the commencement of

this Division (and accordingly the provisions of any Act that prohibit an activity

without such an authority do not apply)

(c) an approval under Part 4, or an excavation permit under section 139, of the

Heritage Act 1977,

(2) Division 8 of Part 6 of the Heritage Act 1977 does not apply to prevent or

interfere with the carrying out of State significant development that is authorised

by a development consent granted after the commencement of this Division.”

1.2 SCOPE, OBJECTIVES AND REPORT FORMAT

Scope

The scope of works was for ASR to undertake an investigation of the Site for any structures,

objects or items of heritage significance that might represent a potential constraint to the

development and operation of the proposed coal mine.



Report No. 806/14

12 - 82 ASR

Report Objectives

The objectives of this report are to record the investigative process; to assess the heritage

significance of any structures, objects or items, and to recommend the appropriate

management strategy in accordance with “Assessing Significance for Historical Archaeological

Sites and Relics” (Heritage Branch, NSW Department of Planning 2009).

Report Format

The report is presented in the following format:

Contents.

Executive summary.

1. Introduction.

2. The Proposal.

3. The Site Investigation.

4. McKinleys Cottage.

5. The historical context.

6. Registers of Heritage Places.

7. Assessing Heritage significance.

8. The heritage assessment of McKinleys Cottage.

9. Recommendations.

10. Conclusions.



Report No. 806/14

ASR 12 - 83

2. T H E P RO PO SAL

Gloucester Resources Limited (GRL) is proposing to develop a coal mine incorporating the

following two components originally proposed in the 2013 Project (Figure 1), namely:

1. The Mine Area incorporating three contiguous open cut pits, a run-of-mine (ROM)

pad with a breaker station and sized coal bin, amenity barriers, overburden

emplacements and an administration area with site offices, amenities, workshop,

water treatment plant and ancillary facilities.

2. Two power line corridors incorporating a re-located 132kV power line and a

potential new low voltage (11kV or as nominated by Essential Energy) power line

external to the Rocky Hill Mine Area.

A further component has been added for the amended Project involving a private haul road to

enable sized coal to be transported from the Rocky Hill Mine Area to the Stratford Mining

Complex for processing and despatch to the Port of Newcastle. Consideration of this

component is not relevant to this assessment.

3. T H E S I TE I NVE S TI G AT I O N

Appleton (ASR) undertook the investigation of the Site over several days in April 2012. There

were several residences and other structures such as barns, outhouses, sheds and pump-

sheds within the footprint of the proposed open cut mine but the only structure of potential

heritage interest was a single storey weatherboard cottage on the “Aminya” property (Lot 301,

DP 864518) towards the southern end of McKinleys Lane (Figure 1) owned by Edward John

and Shirley June McKinley, but is unoccupied. Hereafter, the cottage is referred to as

“Aminya”.

“Aminya” is located to the east of McKinleys Lane and lies directly inside the footprint of the

proposed Weismantel Pit within the Mine Area.

Figure 2 shows an aerial photograph of “Aminya”, the McKinleys’ cottage, and Figure 3 shows

the footprint of impact of the proposed open cut mine and component activity areas.

4. S E AR C H E S OF RE GI S T E R S O F S I TE L I S T I N G S

Following the field visit, ASR undertook internet searches to establish whether or not “Aminya”,

and McKinleys Lane, were listed on heritage registers or Local Environment Plans either as

listed and protected structures, or whether as a “places of heritage interest”; and search of the

web to see whether the McKinleys were people associated with some event, group or activity

that was of local importance.



Report No. 806/14

12 - 84 ASR

Figure 1 Topographical Map of the General Area



Report No. 806/14

ASR 12 - 85

Figure 2 Aerial Photograph of “Aminya”



Report No. 806/14

12 - 86 ASR

Figure 3 Conceptual Plan of the Proposed Mine Area



Report No. 806/14

ASR 12 - 87

4.1 GLOUCESTER LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 2010

A search was made of the Gloucester Local Environment Plan (LEP) 2010, for places of

heritage interest on 13th February 2013. Neither McKinleys Lane nor “Aminya” was listed as a

place of heritage interest in the LEP.

4.2 NSW HERITAGE BRANCH

A search was made of the NSW Heritage Branch, State Heritage Inventory listing of places of

heritage significance on 13th February 2013. Neither “Aminya” nor McKinleys Lane was listed.

4.3 NATIONAL TRUST OF NSW

A search was made of the National Trust listing of places of heritage interest on 13th February

2013. Neither “Aminya” nor McKinleys Lane was listed.

4.4 WEB SEARCH

The web search failed to find any reference to the McKinleys other than as property owners.

5. S T R U C T U R AL F E AT U R E S O F T HE C O T TAG E

The cottage is a simple single-storey rectangular structure, built of weatherboard timber-

framed walls and corrugated-iron sheet roofing.

The gable-roofed cottage is constructed with the gable ridge aligned north/south to minimise

direct heat to the roof from the sun, and with the smallest window on the southern side,

shielded by a simple carport. The main structure of the cottage is founded on timber bearers

and joists on brick piers, but the eastern extension is built on a concrete pad.

The rear (or eastern) section of the corrugated iron roof is pitched at approximately 35°; and

similarly the upper section of the ‘broken-back’ front (or western) section of the roof is also

pitched at approximately 35°; and the lower section is pitched at approximately 20°.

The following images 2 to 6 show a few aspects of the cottage.



Report No. 806/14

12 - 88 ASR

Image 1 Entry to the cottage with McKinleys Lane on the left.

Image 2 The south-western corner showing the carport and southern façade.



Report No. 806/14

ASR 12 - 89

Image 3 The north-western corner and entrance porch.

Image 4 The northern façade showing the main entrance and western extension.



Report No. 806/14

12 - 90 ASR

Image 5 The north-eastern corner showing the extension and the two entrances.

Image 6 The south-eastern corner. Note the central chimney.

The aluminium structure on the left is a shed and not part of the house.

Elsewhere, there are features that have been added in more recent times. While wooden-

framed casement windows on the northern side of the cottage are the original frames; sliding

aluminium framed windows have replaced the wooden frames on the western and southern

sides. Presumably there were once windows on the eastern side that would have been

removed when the extension was added.



Report No. 806/14

ASR 12 - 91

The entry porch is a simple half-enclosed weatherboard structure with a corrugated-iron

skillion roof with a 10° fall from inside to outside.

The carport on the southern end of the cottage would have been added when the owners

acquired a car, but the corrugated fibreglass awning attached to the eastern section was

probably only constructed in the latter half of the twentieth century.

In summary, the cottage is the product of numerous additions, alterations and repairs. At best

the cottage is functional but it has few redeeming heritage or aesthetic attributes.

An inspection of the surrounds found no evidence that there might be any subsurface

structural remains or other occupation deposits associated with the cottage.

6. T H E H I S TO RI CAL C O N T E X T

6.1 INTRODUCTION

“Aminya” is located in the heart of the “Vale of Gloucester”, which is itself the subject of the

body of this Non-indigenous Heritage Assessment and is not addressed in this particular

assessment. This history has been obtained through direct consultation with Mr McKinley who

owns and occupied the cottage until the latter part of 2011.

6.2 A BRIEF HISTORY OF “AMINYA”

Mr McKinley recalled that when he bought the property in the 1970s the house was what

appeared to be an old timber-getters shack - riddled with white ants. He knew nothing of the

previous owners or occupants of the shack, when it was built or when it was last used.

Having treated the timber for white-ant infection, Mr McKinley built a new house over and

around those old parts of the shack that were useful to him.

7. AS S E S SI N G HE R I TAG E S I GN I F I C AN C E

The Heritage Branch (2009) defines “significance’ as “an expression of the cultural value

afforded a place, site or item”. The definition is in accord with the Burra Charter (the ‘Australia

ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of Places of Significance’) that defines ‘cultural

significance’ as;

“Aesthetic, historic, scientific and social value for past, present and future generations”.

7.1 CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE

The NSW Heritage Council has adopted specific criteria for heritage assessment. These are:

Criterion (a) an item is important in the course, or pattern, of NSW’s Cultural or

natural history (or 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 local area);



Report No. 806/14

12 - 92 ASR

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 for social, cultural or spiritual reasons (or the

local area);

Criterion (e) an item has potential to yield information that will contribute to an

understanding of NSW’s cultural or natural history (or the local area);

Criterion (f) an item possesses uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of

NSW’s cultural or natural history (or the local area); and

Criterion (g) an item is important in demonstrating the principal characteristics of

a class of NSW’s cultural or natural places or cultural or natural environments (or

the local area).

The guidelines for Assessing Heritage Significance provide the following table for establishing

the grading of significance.

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.


Little 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.

It should be noted that heritage significance is relative to the presence of an attribute which

fulfils a criterion and not by the absence of an attribute, that is, it is not listed as being of

significance if it does not fulfil one or more of the criteria for state or local listing.

8. T H E H E RI TAG E AS S E S SM E NT O F “ AM I N YA”

As a consequence of applying the assessment criteria above to the cottage, ASR concluded

that the cottage:

has no association with anyone or group of importance (locally or State wide);

has no connection with any event or activity of significance (locally or State wide);

is neither aesthetically pleasing;



Report No. 806/14

ASR 12 - 93

is not representative of a particular technology or achievement (locally or State

wide);

is neither unique nor rare (locally or State wide);

is not a good example of its kind (it is beyond restoration);

does not hold any potential for it to be of education value (locally or State

wide); and

does not have any value to tourism (locally or state wide).

In the absence of any feature that might identify it as being of heritage significance, the cottage

is assessed to be of no heritage significance.

9. S TAT EM E N T OF HE RI TAG E S I GN I F I C AN C E

As a consequence of appraising the construction and physical features of the cottage, and

after having considered the history of the cottage, and searched registers of listed structures of

heritage interest, ASR has concluded that the “Aminya” cottage does not fulfil the criteria for

State or local significance.

The cottage, “Aminya”, is not a heritage item, nor are there any items of non-indigenous

heritage significance in the Project Site.

10. C O N C L U SI O N

As a result of the investigation to identify any structures or items of potential heritage

significance within the Site of the proposed Rocky Hill Coal Project, and having considered the

results of searches of listings maintained by Heritage Council of NSW; Gloucester Local

Environment Plan 2010, and NSW National Trust of NSW, and undertaken a broad internet

search for anyone, anything or anyplace connected to McKinleys Lane or to “Aminya”, ASR

concludes that there are no structures, objects or items of State or local heritage significance

within the Site.

11. M ONI TOR I N G O F S I TE W O RK S

Notwithstanding that this assessment has concluded that there is very little chance of finding

anything of heritage significance, it is recommended that a suitably qualified archaeologist

should be on site to observe the demolition and removal of the cottage, “Aminya”, and the

stripping of turf within thirty metres radius of the cottage, to record that the demolition has been

undertaken with due diligence to satisfy the commitment to non-indigenous archaeological

heritage.



Report No. 806/14

12 - 94 ASR

GLOSSARY

Broken-back: The term applied to a roof which changes from a steeper pitch to a lower

(Apperly et al, 1994).

Casement window: Window hinged at the side (Alcock et al, 2002).

Façade: The exterior face of a building (Jackson & Day, 1998).

Joist: A member directly supporting a floor, roof or ceiling, usually laid horizontally (Apperly et

al, 1994). One of a series of horizontal timbers supporting a floor or carrying a

ceiling (Alcock et al, 2002).

Pier: A solid masonry support (Apperly et al, 1994).

Pitch: The slope of a roof measured either in degrees above the horizontal or as a ration of the

vertical rise of the roof to its span (Apperly et al, 1994).

Ridge: The horizontal joint line at the apex of a pitched roof (Jackson & Day, 1998).

Timber-framed: Walls composed of structural wooden components, sheathed on both sides or

infilled with masonry or wattle and daub (Jackson & Day, 1998).



Report No. 806/14

ASR 12 - 95

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alcock, N.W., Barley, M.W., Dixon, P.W., & Meeson, R.A. 2002. Recording Timber-framed

Buildings. Council for British Archaeology, York.

Apperly, R., Irving, R. & Reynolds, P. 1994. A Pictorial Guide to Identifying Australian

Architecture. Angus & Robertson, Pymble.

Gloucester Local Environment Plan 2010. Web site accessed 13th February 2013.

Heritage Branch (of Department of Planning) (2009) Assessing Significance for Historical

Archaeological Sites and “Relics” – endorsed by the Heritage Council of NSW in

December 2009.

Heritage Council of New South Wales. Web site accessed 13th February 2013.

Jackson, A., & Day, D. 1998. Care & Repair of Period Houses. Harper Collins Publishers,

London.

National Trust NSW. Web site accessed 13th February 2013.

Office of Environment & Heritage. Web site accessed 13th February 2013.



Report No. 806/14

12 - 96 ASR




Report No. 806/14


Appendix 3

Visual Impact Assessment

Prepared By:

Richard Lamb and Associates

This appendix is only available on the digital version of this document or can be viewed in the

Specialist Consultant Studies Compendium Volume 2, Part 3



Report No. 806/14

