Royal National PArk Simpson's Hotel Precinct - conservation ...

Conservation Management Plan forSimpson’s Hotel Precinct, Bonnie Vale,

Royal National Park

Prepared for

National Parks and Wildlife ServiceRoyal/Heathcote Sub-District OfficePO Box 44Sutherland, NSW 1499

HLA-Envirosciences Project No W-1181

By

________________________Iain Stuart PhD MEnvSc BA(Hons)Principal Archaeology and Heritage Management

9 May 2001

This document was prepared for the sole use ofNational Parks and Wildlife Service and theregulatory agencies that are directly involved in thisproject, the only intended beneficiaries of our work.No other party should rely on the informationcontained herein without the prior written consent ofHLA-Envirosciences Pty Limited and National Parksand Wildlife Service.

W-1181 i9 May 2001

CONTENTS

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

.1 Scope of the Conservation Management Plan ...............................................................1

.2 Authorship ..................................................................................................................1

.3 Plan limitations and Constraints ....................................................................................1

.4 Acknowledgements.....................................................................................................1

2.0 The Environment of the Simpsons Hotel Precinct .............................................................2

3.0 Aboriginal Heritage .............................................................................................................4

.1 Archaeological Context ...............................................................................................4

.2 Archaeological Research.............................................................................................4

.3 Predictions for sites in local context..............................................................................6

.4 Fieldwork Methodology ...............................................................................................6

.5 Survey Results............................................................................................................6.5.1 Effective survey coverage ...............................................................................7.5.2 Discussion of site NPWS #52-3-0171 ...............................................................7

.6 Conclusions ................................................................................................................8

4.0 Non-Indigenous Heritage ....................................................................................................9

.1 History.......................................................................................................................9.1.1 George Simpson’s Selection .............................................................................9.1.2 William Simpson............................................................................................ 10.1.3 Establishment and Growth of the Royal National Park ..................................... 11.1.4 Simpson’s Hotel............................................................................................ 12.1.5 Decline of the hotel....................................................................................... 13

.2 Historic Themes Related to the Study Area ................................................................ 15

.3 Historical Archaeology .............................................................................................. 18

.4 The current condition of the site ................................................................................. 20

5.0 Assessment of Significance ...............................................................................................22

.1 Curtilage for Assessment........................................................................................... 22

.2 Aboriginal Heritage ................................................................................................... 22

.3 Non-Indigenous Heritage ........................................................................................... 24.3.1 Assessment .................................................................................................. 25

.4 Statement of Cultural Significance.............................................................................. 26

6.0 Conservation Management Context.................................................................................28

.1 Statutory Requirements ............................................................................................. 28

.2 Management Framework........................................................................................... 31

.3 Management Issues .................................................................................................. 33.3.1 Interpretation ................................................................................................ 35

W-1181 ii9 May 2001

7.0 Management Policy ...........................................................................................................36

.1 Objectives of Management ........................................................................................ 36

.2 Conservation Policies for Simpson’s Hotel Precinct..................................................... 36

8.0 Implementation..................................................................................................................39

.1 Implementation Strategies.......................................................................................... 39

.2 Cyclical Maintenance ................................................................................................ 40.2.1 On-going actions ........................................................................................... 40.2.2 Every 3 months ............................................................................................. 40

9.0 References.........................................................................................................................41

Conservation Management Plan for Simpson’s Hotel Precinct,Bonnie Vale, Royal National Park

W-1181 19 May 2001

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Bonnie Vale is an area of pleasant estuarine beach and foreshore area located on the southern side of PortHacking adjacent to the town of Bundeena (Figure 1). It is part of the Royal National Park and is one ofits most heavily used recreational areas.

Two important historical sites exist within the Bonnie Vale area, the Bonnie Vale Cabins and Simpson’sHotel Precinct. The Simpson’s Hotel precinct is located on eastern boundary of the Bonnie Vale area andRoyal National Park it contains the remains of Simpson’s Hotel and associated vegetation, sea wall andvarious archaeological remains (Figure 2).

Currently the Simpson’s Hotel precinct is the site for a proposed boat launching facility. A Review ofEnvironmental Factors for the proposed development has been prepared and this recommended that aConservation Management Plan for the Simpson’s Hotel Precinct be prepared in order to identify, assessand provide management directions for the conservation and management of the Simpson’s Hotel precinct.

.1 Scope of the Conservation Management Plan

This Conservation Management Plan follows the guidelines for the preparation of conservation plansoutlined in the NSW Heritage Manual and is consistent with the NSW Heritage Council’sArchaeological Assessment Guidelines. The assessment of Aboriginal Heritage is consistent with theNPWS Standards and Guidelines Manual.

The study area for the Conservation Management Plan is the Simpson’s Hotel Precinct which is definedby the western boundary of Simpson’s Road reserve, the coast till the western end of the sea wall, a lineroughly south from the sea wall to the wooden barrier fence on the internal Bonnie Vale Track, thencealong this barrier fence roughly east till Simpson’s Road Reserve is reached.

.2 Authorship

This plan was prepared by Dr Iain Stuart of HLA-Envirosciences Pty. Ltd with inputs from Mark Rawsonon Aboriginal Heritage and Pip Rath who undertook historical research.

.3 Plan limitations and Constraints

The Plan is limited to the Simpsons Hotel Precinct and is primarily concerned with cultural heritage issues.In regard to archaeological sites, in particular Aboriginal sites, the assessment is constrained by thepotential for archaeological material to be buried or obscured by dense vegetation. Accordingly, theassessment of sites is made on their surface indications only.

.4 Acknowledgements

David Ingray representing the Dharawal Local Aboriginal Lands Council accompanied Mark Rawson onhis survey and discussed the results with Mark and Iain Stuart.

Cath Snelgrove and Liz Phelps from the NPWS provided assistance and comments on the various draftsof this plan.


W-1181 29 May 2001

2.0 THE ENVIRONMENT OF THE SIMPSONS HOTEL PRECINCT

The Port Hacking estuary is a drowned river valley now filled with Quaternary sediments. The study arealies on Quaternary tidal delta deposits (Qtd) comprised of clean to muddy, shelly, mostly "marine" sand,sometimes with low dunes. This overlies Hawkesbury Sandstone (Rh), which comprises the hill to the east(Wollongong-Port Hacking Geological Series Sheet 9029 -9129 Edition 1, 1985, Sherwin et.al. 1986:70).

The soil landscape mapping of the Wollongong Port Hacking 1:100 000 sheet (Hazelton and Tille 1990)shows the coastal area at Bundeena as a mixture of Quaternary sand deposits of the Kurnell soillandscape and the Bundeena landscape which is described as rolling raises on exposed HawkesburySandstone coastal headlands. Although the map does not show this, the eastern margin of the study areacomprises the Bundeena soil landscape and this abuts the sand deposits of the Kurnell soil landscape. Thesandstone is weathered into vertical rock faces and overhangs further around the foreshore to the northeast of the study area.

The sandstone around Cabbage Tree Point forms a round knoll about 30m above sea level, which is joinedto the main Coastal Heights by a very low ridge at the entrance to the precinct. The Coastal Heights formthe southern boundary of the catchment of Cabbage Tree Creek, but the study area is really a very smallcatchment in its own right.

The mixture of the two soil landscapes would have determined the original vegetation of the study area.The dunes would have supported a coastal heathland merging with thickets of Coastal Banksia and TeaTree. The sandstone would have supported a closed heath merging into an open woodland with largertrees in well-watered areas away from the coast (see Goldstein 1976, Hazelton and Tille 1990).

The landscape in the Simpson’s Hotel precinct can be divided into three general units based on vegetationand topography (following McDonald, 1996). These are

Outcropping hillslopes: Heavily vegetated hillslopes with outcropping Hawkesbury sandstone, located onthe eastern boundary of the precinct.

Sandstone bench: A sandstone outcrop, which has been levelled to form the foundation for the Hotel.Exposed in front of the hotel where the existing access track runs over it. It isgrassed and planted with introduced species.

Sand Deposit: Levelled sand deposit, covered with a mixture of grasses and introduced and local species.

The location of these units are shown on Figure 2.

The site today presents the appearance of a park with a grassed understorey, barbeques and tables andnumerous trees. The trees are a mixture of natives and planted introduced species. The trees roughlyfollow the coastline. The coast is marked by a sea wall along the high water mark. To the western end thewall ceases and a shallow beach with typical low-level dunes commences. The site of Simpson’s Hotel isat the eastern boundary of the precinct and is overlain by a more recent building called the Ranger’sHouse. Vehicular access to the precinct is via the unsealed road into the Bonnie Vale camping area. Atract runs off this road and curves past the Rangers house to reach private residences on the foreshore.This track has a locked gate on it.


W-1181 49 May 2001

3.0 ABORIGINAL HERITAGE

As part of the background studies for the Conservation Management Plan a literature review andAboriginal archaeological survey of the Simpson’s Hotel precinct was carried out by Mark Rawson inconsultation with David Ingray representing the Dharawal Local Aboriginal Lands Council.

.1 Archaeological Context

The Port Hacking estuary is rich in Aboriginal archaeological sites. Most common site types include rockengravings, shell middens, and rock shelters with deposit and/or art. Burials have been found in middensand rock shelters. Axe grinding grooves occur on sandstone exposures at water sources e.g. creek linesand rock pools. J. C. Lough's distribution map of Aboriginal sites around Port Hacking (in Megaw 1966:37)shows that both sides of the estuary include rock shelters with art and /or occupation, rock engravings,midden deposits, and axe grinding grooves. Sites found near the foreshore in sheltered bays similar to thestudy area include midden deposits, with rock shelter and engraving locations determined by favourablegeological formation processes.

The study area is traditionally part of the territory of the Dharawal people (D.Ingray, pers.com. 27.3.01).

A search of the Aboriginal Sites Register held by the NPWS identified 128 Aboriginal archaeological siteswithin a 5km x 5km area centred over the study area, which includes both the northern and southernforeshores of Port Hacking. Of these, the dominant site types are rock shelters of which there are 56recorded, followed by rock engraving sites (34) and midden sites (28). There are nine axe grinding groovesites and one midden site with a burial.

Only one site, a midden, (NPWS #52-3-0171) had been recorded within the study area, next to a recess inthe stone seawall. This was recorded by Megaw (1966: Fig.6) and relocated by Brayshaw (1987:1-5). Hersite card describes a 6x3m scatter of fragmented Anadara (cockles) and Saccostrea spp. (oyster) shell,and one unmodified pink silcrete flake measuring 4.3 x 2.9 x 1.3 cm. Brayshaw (1987:5) suggests that thesite has been destroyed by construction of the sandstone sea wall and steps. This is borne out by thefragmented nature of the shell suggesting extensive disturbance (see below).

This site is located in an area that was reclaimed in the 1920s and is clearly shown by the survey plan to belocated to seaward of the High Water Mark (Figure 8). Clearly the site recorded by Brayshaw must beconsidered to be fill material rather than “in situ” Aboriginal midden.

.2 Archaeological Research

Harper (1899) reports on an investigation of three sandstone rock shelters, all within 2km of the studyarea. Two shelters with art on the eastern side of Cabbage Tree Creek, west of the study area, includedred ochre and black hand prints (Harper 1899:323). The other shelter, overlooking Gunyah Beach to theeast of the study area, contained abundant shell midden material including bone of birds, fish and landmammals, amongst layers of grey ash and black soil. Remains of five incomplete human skeletons werefound (Harper 1899:326-329), along with six small, perforated Nerita sp. shells interpreted as part of anornament, and a macropod fibula bone point (Harper 1899:329-30).

Megaw (1966) excavated a small, disturbed rock shelter with partially stratified midden close to thewater's edge at Gymea Bay, approximately 5km to the north-west of the study area. Skeletal remains oftwo young females were found. The more fragmented skeleton was found near the base of a 1m deep


W-1181 59 May 2001

deposit, and dated to 1220 +-55 B.P.(Megaw 1966:28). A small assemblage of stone artefacts includedcores, backed artefacts, burins, 'burren' adze flakes, elouera, 'fabricators', and some retouched flakes(1966:31). Mean length for whole flakes was 2.1cm (1966:29). 'Fabricators', (probably discarded bipolarcores) were the dominant artefact type (1966:38). Other finds included a ground stone axe fragment,hammerstones, ochre, ground edge flakes and bone, 'fish -hook files', and a fragment of knotted thong ofunknown material (1966:35). Most represented shellfish species included Crassostrea commercialis(Sydney Rock Oyster), Anadara trapezia (Sydney Cockle), Trichomya hirsuta (Hairy Mussel), Chamasp. (Southern Chama), and Ostrea angasi (Mud Oyster) (Megaw, 1966:47) Fragmentary bone includedvarious fish and terrestrial mammal fauna (Megaw1966:48). Megaw (1974) also reports on excavations ofrock shelters at Wattamolla and Curracurrang also in Royal National Park.

In 1982 Koettig surveyed along a proposed sewerage pipeline easement, from Bundeena drive, along thepresent access road into the study area, then to the west along the low dunes of Simpsons Bay to CabbageTree Basin. No Aboriginal sites were located (Koettig 1982:4).

Mills (1998) carried out test auguring at Bonnie Vale and Maianbar, further to Oakley's (1996)recommendations that sub-surface testing be carried out prior to the Bundeena-Maianbar WatercycleManagement Scheme operations commencing. Mills found 25 pits out of 75 contained shell, particularly inareas adjacent to coastal dunes. However, she concluded that these were naturally occurring shelldeposits. Of importance to this study, Mills mentioned the entrance to Bonnie Vale camping ground ashaving high potential for sub-surface archaeological material, especially considering the proximity towetland areas behind the dunes.

Lee (Darwala-Lia:2000) has carried out surveys in and near the study area in connection with theBundeena-Maianbar Watercycle Management Scheme and has recommended monitoring of topsoilremoval for shell and stone artefacts, and barriers to prevent ground disturbance in grassed areas. Thearea of particular concern was seen as being the slightly raised area at the entrance to the campingground.

A critical issue given the coastal setting of the area is the identification of Aboriginal shell middens andtheir distinction from shell beds that may have been formed by natural geomorphic activities. This matterhas been discussed in the literature (Gill 1951, Hughes and Sullivan 1974, Attenbrow 1992 and Bonhommeand Buzer (1994).

Attenbrow’s coverage of the issues seems the most thorough treatment (1992). She listed a number ofcharacteristics that can assist in the separation between the two occurrences. These are:

• Degree of selection (both in terms of size and species selection).• Condition of the shell.• Presence of material other than shell.• Geographic and stratigraphic location.• Non-Aboriginal Activities.

In terms of the geographic location it should be noted that the Kurnell soil landscape is supposedly formedby Aeolian activity (i.e. wind blown sand) and therefore should not have a natural shell component in it.Therefore shell deposits in the precinct most likely are from human activity.


W-1181 69 May 2001

The location of a hotel/boarding house in the study area is also likely to have confused matters as shellfishis most likely to have been an element of the residents’ diets and shells would have been disposed off asrubbish most likely somewhere in the study area.

These considerations point to the need to exercise care in identifying any shell on the site as definitelyindicating an Aboriginal site. It is important that a full assessment using the Attenbrow criterion be made inorder to avoid miss-identifying shells as an Aboriginal site or dismissing an Aboriginal shell midden asrubbish.

.3 Predictions for sites in local context

Based on the sites register search, previous archaeological surveys, landform units and local geology, sitetypes that could be expected in the study area would include:

• Rock engravings - on exposed or partly covered Hawkesbury Sandstone on the OutcroppingHillslopes and Sandstone Bench landscape units. Some may be concealed by turf and topsoil.

• Middens – most likely in the Sand Deposit and Sandstone Bench landscape units. May include

shell, bone, hearth material, stone artefacts.

• Burials - any where within the study area. Potentially within midden material or sandy deposits.

There are no rock overhangs for shelter in the study area. Axe grinding grooves are a possibility, but morelikely to be at a combined sandstone/freshwater source.

.4 Fieldwork Methodology

A site inspection was carried out on Tuesday 27th March , 2001, by Mark Rawson (ConsultantArchaeologist) and David Ingray ( Sites Officer, La Perouse LALC). This involved a complete pedestriansurvey of the study area. Areas of ground surface exposure such as the access road and erosion scoursaround picnic tables were examined for artefacts or midden material, while outcrops of HawkesburySandstone were examined for rock engravings or axe grinding grooves.

.5 Survey Results

No new Aboriginal archaeological sites were identified during the survey.

The site of a midden (NPWS # 52-3-0171) previously recorded by Megaw and relocated by Brayshaw(1987:5 & Figs 3 & 6, Pl.4) was re-examined but no shell or artefacts were observed. A small exposure2m x 2.5 metres at this location (see Figure 3) had poor visibility, with a very disturbed fill of bitumen, bluemetal and sandstone fragments. Its edges were covered by kikuyu and couch grasses, which may beobscuring the midden material seen by Brayshaw.

An attempt was made to relocate a site found (unregistered) by Rod Mason (Cultural Sites Officer,Dharawal Native Title Steering Committee, former sites officer La Perouse LALC) during a survey withLiz Phelps (NPWS) on 14th February, 2001 and mentioned in a letter in the Draft REF for the proposed


W-1181 79 May 2001

boat ramp (Appendix 5 Correspondence). No artefacts or ochre were observed at this location which wascovered in dense leaf litter and Lantana sp.

An attempt was made to relocate "large rocks" at the site of the proposed boat ramp turning circlementioned by Rod Mason as being spiritually important to Aboriginal people. A small area of grass coveredsandstone exposure was observed, but David Ingray stated that he was not aware the site had any specialsignificance. David stated that he would check on whether the site was important. He stated that hewished to monitor topsoil removal at this location, if the proposed boat ramp went ahead, as there was apotential for artefacts or concealed engravings under the turf grass.

.5.1 Effective survey coverage

Effective survey of the study area was significantly reduced by poor ground surface visibility over most ofthe study area. Much of the precinct is covered by exotic turf grasses, while bushland near the easternboundary features a dense understorey of various weed species e.g. Lantana camara, and leaf litter.Narrow tracks with patchy ground exposure were surveyed, but no artefacts or shell material was found.

.5.2 Discussion of site NPWS #52-3-0171

The evidence relating to this site was assessed according to the Attenbrow (1992) criteria

Degree of selection

The shell species are edible and known to occur in other Aboriginal shell middens

Condition of shell

Brayshaw noted that the shell was very fragmented suggesting disturbance of some sort.

Presence of material other than shell.

Brayshaw recorded an unmodified pink silcrete flake on the site.

Geographic and stratigraphic location

The survey plan of the sea wall shows that the high water mark was to the south of the location ofthe shell deposit. The shell deposit is on land created by backfilling and reclamation behind the seawall.

Non-Aboriginal Activities

The owner of Simpson’s Hotel constructed the sea wall in 1921.

It seems from the above that site NPWS #52-3-0171 on the balance of evidence is definitely not “in situ”and most likely not an Aboriginal midden although the presence of the silcrete flake may indicate that thematerial was midden material taken form an in situ site and used to backfill behind the sea wall.


W-1181 89 May 2001

.6 Conclusions

At present the full extent of the Aboriginal archaeological resource within the study area is not known, dueto poor ground surface visibility. Further to recent auguring by Mills (1998) in the Bonnie Vale area it issuggested that the sand deposit landscape unit of the study area could contain potential archaeologicaldeposits e.g. shell midden material. However, there are significant areas of previous disturbance, especiallyaround the hotel site and along the sea wall, which may lessen the chances of finding intact deposit.

The one site definitely recorded as being within the Simpson’s Hotel precinct, the midden relocated andrecorded by Brayshaw must be considered to be fill material as its is clearly located on reclaimed landcreated by backfilling behind the sea wall constructed in 1921.


W-1181 99 May 2001

4.0 NON-INDIGENOUS HERITAGE

.1 History

The history of the Simpson’s Hotel precinct has been organised to include information on the precinct itselfand on the surrounding areas, the development of which was significant for the history of the study area.

.1.1 George Simpson’s Selection

Although Port Hacking was known to settlers from various marine based surveyors (such as Bass andFlinders), the rugged, heavily vegetated southern shore was not settled for some time as post-contactsettlers were looking for land that could be worked economically. Open woodlands and grasslands suitablefor grazing were largely absent and the distance to the market in Sydney would have made cultivationdifficult. Early grants in the area were made to Owen Byrne in 1822 and 1826, George Newcombe in1841, Thomas Lord, 1846, Charles Gogerley, 1854, Marmaduke Constable, 1859 and George Simpson in1863 (SSHSB, February 1985:70-71). Excepting Gorgerley and Simpson, none of the other early granteeson the southern shores settled on their holdings (Cridland, 1950: 11).

Given that Owen Byrne’s land was the first to be surveyed and set out in this area it is interesting to notethat Byrne held the land in two portions with a gap between. It is not clear why this was so but it wouldhave allowed Byrne to effectively control the land between his two portions and by default control a largerarea of land than he owned. Byrne eventually sold his land to William Charles Wentworth who laterestablished a small fishing hut on the site.

The Simpson’s Hotel precinct formed part of a 50-acre lot (Portion 46 in Portion Plan W960-690, seeFigure 4), which was selected for conditional purchase by George Simpson on 5 November 1863 (as CP63/3164). The land was located explicitly between the two portions of freehold land owned by Byrne (seeapplication Folio 63/3559 Lands Department, Parks and Reserves Branch Correspondence Files,40/5721, State Records Ref 13/1454).

Under the Crown Lands Acts, the land should have been surveyed within a year, however it was not untilMay 1867 that Licensed Surveyor Knapp undertook the work. He reported, however, that George Simpsonhad erected his improvements on freehold land (i.e. Byrnes land). Knapp reported:

“Applicant was under the impression that he was building on Crown Land, and went toconsiderable expense in erecting a substantial four-room stone cottage, with necessary out-buildings and cleared a large portion of the swamp (shown on the plan) but unfortunately for him,by mistaking the east boundary line of O Byrnes 60 acres, he has through not building on the landapplied for, not complied with the conditions of the Act.”

Folio 67/3216 Lands Department, Parks and Reserves Branch Correspondence Files,40/5721 (State Records Ref 13/1454)

The value of the improvements was estimated at £150.

This was not the end of the matter. After investigation and some correspondence it was decided thatSurveyor Burnett had made an error in measuring Lord’s grant (to the West of Byrne’s 60 acres) whichthen pushed Byrnes grant too far to the west, as Knapp used Burnett’s marks to position Simpson’s


W-1181 109 May 2001

conditional purchase. Knapp resurveyed all the portions in March 1868. (Folio 68/2316 Lands Department,Parks and Reserves Branch Correspondence Files, 40/5721 (State Records Ref 13/1454).

The survey plan of the portion drawn on 3 May 1868 shows a stone cottage on the land as well as a shed,a pigsty and an area of cultivation (which was mostly still on Byrne’s land). George Simpson wasdescribed in correspondence as a “farmer”.

The form of Simpson’s holding was by Conditional Purchase which was introduced in 1861 by JohnRobinson then Minister of Lands as a means of allowing small farmers access to freehold land ongenerous terms. Any Crown Land could be selected by anyone sane and over 16years old who fulfilledvarious requirements. For a small down payment the land could be secured and the balance of the land’svalue paid off at generous terms (this often took 30 to 40 years). By means of conditional purchase GeorgeSimpson secured a useful piece of land.

It is not clear who occupied the stone cottage or cultivated the land during the period 1863 to the early1870’s. In local histories of the Port Hacking district, George Simpson features only as the purchaser ofthe land for his son William. However under the Crown Land Occupation Act (1861) a conditionalpurchase needed to be resided on for a period of one year by the purchaser and improvements to the valueof £1 per acre were required to be made within five years. It seems clear from the Portion Plan andKnapp’s report that George Simpson was resident beyond the prescribed period and had erected asubstantial amount of improvements probably more that the required value of £50. According to somereports George Simpson had previously worked in market gardens on the northern edge of Port Hackingowned by Thomas Holt and on his retirement Simpson took up the selection (Ashley 1994:36). Thisbackground and experience in market gardening would explain Simpson’s choice of site and the rapiddevelopment of cultivation on the land.

.1.2 William Simpson

The Conditional Purchase Register notes that George Simpson died on the 17th March 1866. GeorgeSimpson’s final declaration was submitted by his son William on 7th January 1867 claiming improvementsof a stone house, dairy, stock yards and pig sty and about eight acres cleared and fenced the value wasclaimed to be £50 (Folio 67/225 Lands Department, Parks and Reserves Branch Correspondence Files,40/5721 (State Records Ref 13/1454). However the Lands Department queried whether William has alegal right to do this and to then complete the Conditional Purchase. Presumably this was an unusual caseat that time as there was no precedent available to direct the Lands Department. The Crown Solicitor’sopinion was asked for and he advised issuing the land grant deed in the name of George Simpson. Then theprovisions of Simpson’s will and the Real Property Amendment Act (1873) would allow the land to go toWilliam Simpson (Folio 74/3183 Lands Department, Parks and Reserves Branch Correspondence Files,40/5721 (State Records Ref 13/1454). Simpson paid the final balance of money owing on the land of £37-10 plus the deed fee of £1 on the 27th February 1874 and the land became his. George Simpson’s title wasregistered on 27 April 1874 and on 5 August 1874 the title was transferred to William (see Certificate ofTitle, Vol. 180 Folio 139).

William Simpson was not a full-time resident of the district until the 1870s (Philpott, 1981:19; SutherlandShire Historical Society Bulletin (“SSHSB”) July, 1974: 68). William Simpson is remembered as engagingin marketing gardening for a short period before leaving the district for a few years (Philpott, 1981:19;SSHSB, July 1974: 68). It is possible that the area shown as cultivation on the 1868 survey reflects


W-1181 119 May 2001

William’s market gardening activities. However it is more likely the cultivation was to support the Simpsonfamily with only the surplus being shipped to market.

.1.3 Establishment and Growth of the Royal National Park

The history of the Simpson’s Hotel precinct is inextricably linked with the development of the larger areaof land immediately behind it, the Royal National Park. Despite being the earliest National Park inAustralia, and one of the earliest in the world, there is surprisingly little historical research on the Park, andnone published that develops the themes of understanding the social processes and cultural attitudesunderpinning the establishment and management of the park. These themes are paramount in the morerecent historical and geographical writing on the environment and would help in understanding the historyof Royal National Park by placing it into a much broader context (eg Bonyhardy 2000 especially thechapters on Cremorne and Tower Hill). The only two historical works of any substance are by H.J.Stanley, who wrote a history of the park largely based on the Trustee’s Records (Stanley n.d.), and GeoffAshley’s report on the Cabins and Hunts in the National Park (1994).

The Park was established under the provisions of the Crown Lands Occupation Act (1861) whereby theCrown could set aside or reserve from sale and occupation, land for the common good. The common goodwas often seen as such things as preserving access to water, preserving access to alluvial mining deposits,preserving access for timber and so on. The concept of these reserves formed part of the land policy fromthe 1788 Instructions to Governors (see Perry 1963:48) and areas such as the “Cowpastures” and the Fieldof Mars were reserves for varying periods of times. However, the underlying concept of these reserveswas largely utilitarian and tied in to the economy. Thus land along a creek might be reserved but thepurpose of the reserve was related to the need to prevent monopolisation of water by those purchasing orleasing land adjacent to the creek. Whether the creek had any virtues such as beauty was irrelevant.

The Royal National Park was conceived in more nebulous environmental but still utilitarian tones. It wasseen as important to the health and vigour of the population that a city possess parks and recreationgrounds to act to improve the health and moral status of the general population. Parks were also seen asthe “Lungs of the City” providing clean air and space to counterbalance the necessary evils of industry andurban living. When the push for these reserves developed in the 1870s there was little land available in theimmediate vicinity of Sydney. The area to the south of Port Hacking was suitable, largely as it was mainlyunalienated with only a few leases which could be revoked or allowed to expire at minimal cost and fuss tothe Government. Thus the then Premier Sir John Robertson acted and an initial area of 18,000 acres wasreserved on the 31st March 1879. This was followed be a second reservation of 17,000 acres on 3rd August1880. The National Park was managed by a group of Trustees headed by Sir John Robertson (Stanley n.d.1-4; see Bonnyhardy 2000, for context).

The Park was located adjacent to Simpson’s 50 acres. When the Trustees made their first visit ofinspection on the 1st November 1879 they sailed from Circular Quay to Jibbon Beach inside Port Hackingwhere the Government steamer Thetis anchored and a small, shallow draught, steam launch was used totake the dignitaries to shore. They “steamed up to the home occupied by Mr W. Simpson, the inspectorand caretaker of the reserve” (report quoted in Stanley n.d.:5). However, it is clear from the report quotedthat the reserve Simpson was caretaking was to the south of Jibbon Beach rather than the land reservedfor the National Park. After inspecting the land and fishing the party slept on the Thetis over night. Thefollowing day they returned to Simpson’s house where some horses were available and the party headedinland for a long day of inspection before eventually returning to Simpson’s (Stanley n.d:5-8). AlthoughSimpson’s role seems mainly to have been that of supplying horses, it can be deduced that there was a


W-1181 129 May 2001

track from Simpson’s into the Park. As well it is clear that at this stage (1879) there was not a hotel atSimpson’s, but merely a house and presumably stables for the horses.

Although the Trustees developed Audley as the centre of the Park, they did develop a network of tracksthrough the Park to encourage visitors. A report from around 1883 noted the construction of a track fromAudley inland and then to the coast, via “Simpson’s Farm” (reported in Stanley n.d.:10). The description ofSimpson’s place as a farm is further evidence that Simpson had not established a hotel as yet.

Ashley notes that the Trustees purchased the land adjacent to Simpson’s, the 60 acre portion granted toByrne, from the Wentworth family in 1884. A cottage was reported as being erected on this land in 1887.Ashley argues that this was due to Simpson leaving the employment of the Trustees to establish his ownguiding business in 1886 (Ashley 1994:37) and a new ranger requiring accommodation, hence theconstruction of the house.

In the period 1884 & 1885 Surveyor Richmond was engaged in preparing a plan of the National Park. Hesurveyed the coast and recorded Simpson’s house (see Figure 5). Richmond’s Plan shows a smallrectangular building and indications of a fence. However, his field book shows a small rectangular stonehouse with a verandah (35.0 by 46.0 ) and a wooden building and yards and fences (see Figure 6). Theshape of the building is similar to that on the 1867 plan and clearly different from the later building (seebelow). The best interpretation is that this is the building erected by 1867 by George Simpson and that itremained mainly the same size until at least early 1885 when Richmond surveyed the area.

.1.4 Simpson’s Hotel

At some point after 1885 (probably around 1886-87), the building known as Tyreal House was erected onthe site of George Simpson’s house. Some authors have suggested that this building replaced the stonecottage but on the plan of the retaining wall, surveyed in 1921 (Figures 8 & 9), the hotel is shown as havinga wooden and a stone section labelled “old building stone”. From this it can be surmised that the originalstone building was expanded by erecting a wooden building to the west. This formed Tyreal house.

Around 1887, William Simpson was granted a liquor licence and Tyreal House was used by he and hiswife, Susannah, as an accommodation house and hotel (SSHSB, July 1974: 68). There is some suggestionthat Tyreal House burnt down and was rebuilt in the 1890s (SSHSB, July 1974 and November 1977). Bythe 1890s the Hotel was a local landmark and very popular destination particularly with honeymooners andfamilies (The Observer, 11 August, 1955; Philpott, 1981: 19; Hutton Neve, 1972; Lawrence, 1997: 114).

The first Official Guide to the National Park of New South Wales noted the popularity of Simpson’s Hotel:

“ Pulpit Rock raises its solitary bulk, commanding a full view of the entrance and the northern coast lineas far as Botany Bay. The water beneath Pulpit Rock is deep and limpid, and the firm bottom of sandmany feet below the surface is the haunt of shoals of fish visible in thousands. This is a favourite resortof visitors to Tyreal House (best known as Simpson’s Hotel) on the rising slope hard by, and of courseit is accessible from the water.” (An Official Guide to the National Park of New South Wales, 1893:59).

Tyreal House was variously known as Simpson’s Hotel and the Port Hacking Hotel. It was a large house,with attics in the roof, built on the waterfront on a grassy knoll overlooking Cabbage-Tree Point (SSHSB,February, 1985: 74; Lawrence, 1997: 114). A photograph showing the Hotel in 1899 is reproduced as


W-1181 139 May 2001

Figure 10. This photo shows the hotel as viewed from the sea. It shows the hotel, the Norfolk pinesadjacent to the hotel and a fence along the coast line. The landscape is notable for showing exotic treesaround the hotel and the absence of understorey species. The slope up the hill in notable for its park-likefeel with selected native tree species retained in situ.

Photographs showing the Hotel in c1900-10 are included as Figure 11&12. The Norfolk Island pine shownin the later photograph is still there. William’s mother was said to be responsible for planting one of theNorfolk pines in the grounds in front of the Government accommodation house at Kurnell in 1845 (Philpott,1981:19; SSHSB, July, 1974: 68).

At one point in the life of Simpson’s Hotel, the first school in Sutherland Shire was held in a room of thehotel. There is no record of the number of children enrolled, but for a number of years Simpson familymembers and a few others were taught there. (SSHSB, April 1970: 88). As well, William Simpson built awharf, described as a “lengthy and substantial wharf with easy access” ( SSHSB, February, 1982: 8).Ferry services from Simpson’s wharf to Tyreel Point (later Turriell) ran from about the 1880s to around1920. Cridland (1950: 13) suggests that ferry services from Simpson’s wharf may have ceased much laterthan 1920. In 1916, the then lessee of Simpson’s Hotel, Mrs. Kingham applied for and was granted by theSutherland Shire Council an extension of ferry services from Simpson’s wharf to Gunnamatta and laterBundeena. In 1920 a new wharf was built by the Council at Bundeena. Simpson’s wharf fell into disusewhen shifting sandbanks made it impossible for any water craft to reach it ( SSHB, February, 1982: 8);Cridland, 1950: 13).

.1.5 Decline of the hotel

Around 1905, Simpson shifted his residence to Wildfell, Little Turriell Point, leasing the hotel to theKinghams. The licensing records indicated that on the 1/1/1906 the Hotel was called the MarlboroughSands Hotel and licensed to Maud A. Mellhuish. The name was changed to the Simpson’s Family Hotel on9th August 1906 (Lists of Publications Licenses from 1/1/1906 SR 3/1899)). On 26 July 1915, Simpsontransferred ownership of the 50-acre lot to Jane Anne Lancey. Thereafter the land was subdivided as partof the Port Hacking Hotel Estate from about 1920 onwards. Harry Harry purchased the hotel property butseems to have lived in Sydney rather than on the property.

Harry was responsible for the stone retaining wall being erected in 1920-21 (Ashley 1994:37, Philpott,1981:22). Surveyor Ainheim surveyed the retaining wall on the 8th March 1921 in connection with HarryHarry’s application to purchase the 21 perches enclosed by the wall. The plan (Figure 8) and the fieldsketch (Figure 9) show details of the wall. The site of the old jetty is noted, as is the site of the abutmentfor a proposed new jetty. On the field sketch remains of an earlier wall are recorded. The wall is reportedto be 8’6” deep and to have cost £985 to construct.

The subdivision of land prompted the surveying of a new road (now Simpson’s Road) to serve theallotments. This was done on 1st September 1913. The surveyed plan of the road shows a boat shed wherethe road meets the coast (Figure 7). The boatshed was not shown on the plan of the stone wall sopresumably it was demolished before 1921. The road was gazetted on the 11th February 1914 but to datehas only partially been constructed.

Ashley argues that the Bonnie Vale area was increasingly used for camping and semi-permanentresidences or Fisherman’s Huts were erected there from as early as 1918. It seems that the Bonnie Valearea was used for camping from the 1920s and that the Trustees arranged for the owners of the Hotel to


W-1181 149 May 2001

manage the camping area. Certainly by 1947 the simple tents had evolved into semi-permanent camps andthen into the cabins that are now at Bonnie Vale (Ashley 1994:37-39).

Although Harry Harry owned the Hotel, his place of residence is listed as 90 Victoria Street, Ashfield. Thelicensees of the Hotel from 1920 are listed in the Licence Termination Files (C-13 SR 14/2529.2) as set outbelow.

Licensee Start Finish

R. Stuart 1/01/20 6/02/20

Wm Short 6/02/20 7/10/20

W.G. McFarlane 7/10/20 27/01/21

A. Kemp 27/01/21 11/08/21

G. Gale 11/08/21 3/11/21

M. Whorlow 3/11/21 6/04/22

Geo Morris 6/04/22 10/08/22

E.H. Carter 10/08/22 12/07/23

W. Brown 12/07/23 1/12/24

Mary M Robinson 1/12/24 31/05/26

T.L. Cumming 31/05/26 5/10/26

B.Sisley 5/10/26 26/03/28

D.J. Mooney 26/03/28 23/04/28

F. Hodge 23/04/28 11/02/29

H.B. Frankland 11/02/29 8/06/32

W. Key 8/06/32 28/06/35

The Hotel over this time was called the Family (Simpson’s) Hotel. On the 26th June 1935 the licence wasterminated apparently because of the failure of the owner to comply with an order from the LicensingCourt (Government Gazette No 122 28th June 1935). This is all the information about the matter containedin the Licence Termination File (although possibly there may be information in other files relating to HotelLicences). Given the high turn over of licensees it may have been that the hotel was just not economical tomaintain as a Licensed Premises.


W-1181 159 May 2001

Around 1935, George Feldwick purchased the hotel and converted it into furnished flats and a store, adecision, which reflected the changing recreational use of the Bonnie Vale area. In 1947, the NationalPark Trust purchased 4ha. (part of portion 46) from Feldwick, including the hotel. The area purchased bythe National Park Trust was dedicated for public recreation on 20 November 1948 and proclaimed as anaddition to the National Park on 7 January 1949. The earliest aerial photograph of the area was flown onthe 25th May 1951 and this shows the Hotel buildings, a large jetty and the location of the site relative tothe Bonnie Vale Cabins.

On 29 July 1955 the hotel was burnt down (see Figure 14). The photograph shows that one wall remainedstanding presumably this was from the stone part of the structure. All that remains of the building is part ofthe foundations (Higginbotham, 1993, Sutherland Heritage Study).

The fibro Rangers Hut has been constructed on the hotel site. This was used as a kiosk until the mid-1970sto serve the camping area but is now semi derelict. Both parts have been used as NPWS residences sincethe mid seventies and the back part was probably used as a residence from the time it was rebuilt. Thekiosk operated in the front part of the building (Liz Phelps pers com.). An aerial photograph of the siteflown in 1961 shows the new building and associated features.

.2 Historic Themes Related to the Study Area

A historic theme is a way of describing a major historical event or process that has contributed to thehistory of NSW. Historic themes provide the background context within which the heritage significance ofan item can be understood. Themes have been developed at the State level, but Regional and Local themescan be developed as well, depending upon the history of the area and/or item.

In considering the history of Simpson’s Hotel there are three broad phases that can be identified.

• Initial farming settlement

• The Hotel and National Park

• The Hotel and Store

Initial Farming Settlement

The initial farming settlement was unexceptional in its form, being a small conditional purchase and amodest farming establishment. This is entirely typical of small farms in NSW within the settled districts.The average size of land taken up as conditional purchases in the County of Cumberland is given in theMorris-Rankin report of 1883 as about 96 acres. The location of the farm on a small strip of coastal landon the southern shore of Port Hacking is what makes the farm a little different. Firstly it seems to be thefirst serious attempt to farm in this area. George Simpson’s neighbours seem to have been merely nameson the Parish Plan, their land remained unimproved and they were not resident.

There are earlier parallels with Simpson’s farm notably in the settlement of the Lane Cove River. In thatcase, the topography of rising Hawkesbury Sandstone along the River with dense closed forests behind leftonly small strips of land along the River that was relatively easy to turn to cultivation. Small farms weredeveloped along the River notably in the area around Fullers Bridge. These were linked to the main marketof Sydney by boat. Simpson’s farm was in a similar position with forests and swamps which obviously


W-1181 169 May 2001

would have been impossible to clear, so he cultivated only a small part of his grant. Simpson would haveused a boat to ship produce out and supplies in.

The other parallel is that settlement in both cases was squeezed in next to larger landholdings, which hadbeen given out by various Governors in a rather arbitrary manner and often merely resulted in land beingconcentrated in the hands of a small group of people. However due to the difference in the time ofsettlement, the Lane Cove River was settled in 1830s (McLoughlin 1985) and George Simpson selected hisland in 1863, had resulted in the development of Selection as a method of breaking the grip of landholdersand squatters on the land and allowing the development of small farmers. Simpson is a typical example ofthe small farmer that selection was supposed to encourage.

The Morris-Rankin Report of 1883 on the State of the Public Lands discusses settlement in the “settledareas” and notes the difficulty of settling the “great stretches of waste” in the district. Later they typifycoastal lands to the south of Sydney as “limited spots of exceptional fertility are interspersed among ruggedand densely timbered ranges”(Morris-Rankin 1883:9). The area of Simpson’s selection was one of thesefertile areas. For all the difficulties of transporting produce to market and the isolation of the area theSimpson family seems to have successfully lived there for a number of years even after George Simpson’sdeath.

Hotel and National Park

The second phase of the study area’s history is its use as a hotel. It should be pointed out that Simpson’sHotel was not the typical corner pub with its emphasis on providing alcohol to a local population but morefocused on providing accommodation to tourists visiting the area. There would have been no passing tradeor locals to use the pub as the Simpson’s were most of the local population. Thus the development ofSimpson’s Hotel was linked with the development of Royal National Park as a tourist destination.

In considering this aspect we run into limitations of the historical research into Royal National Park.Despite the Royal National Park being the first national park in Australia there is remarkably littlepublished on its history apart from it being the first National Park. Broader overviews of attitudes to theenvironment point to changing rationales for the establishment and management of National Parks from1879 to the present day (eg Bolton 1981, Frawley 1994). Frawley cautions “Great care must be taken,however, in interpreting the first declarations in terms of current national park philosophy”(1994:70).

Historical studies of the development of the Lane Cove National Park show how the park developed fromoriginal orchards that their owners developed into tourist destinations leading to the development of thePark. The committee of management of the park “improved” the park by constructing walks, picnic areasand other facilities that were designed to give the visitor a pleasurable visit (McLoughlin 1985, McLoughlinand Wyatt 1983). In Tasmania there is the example of Gustav Weindorfer who established Waldhiemlodge as a form of resort chalet from which the visitors could explore Cradle Mountain. Weindorfer was atireless campaigner for the creation of the Cradle Mountain National Park but also sought someimprovements such as tracks and huts for walkers.

It is this context of improvement that William Simpson’s role must be seen. It is not surprising that WilliamSimpson is recognised by some local historians as one of the “founders” of Royal National Park, as he hada strong commercial interest in its development. However, it would be overly simplistic to see Simpson aspurely focused on developing the Park to serve his own interests. More likely Simpson shared the commonnotion that National Parks should be “improved” to enhance the visitor’s experience. His hotel may have


W-1181 179 May 2001

been developed to function more like a “lodge” from which visitors forayed into the wilderness of theRoyal National Park.

Hotel and Store

Around the turn of the century the role of the Hotel gradually changed. With Simpson’s move to Wildfellin 1905, the Hotel entered a period of gradual decline. This was typified by the large number of Licenseesand the absence of the owner Harry Harry who resided in Ashfield. However, the decline of the Hotelalso seems to parallel a change in recreation patterns in the area. This is marked by the development of“fishing camps” and semi-permanent tents and huts in the Bonnie Vale area. This was a different form ofrecreation than the visits to the hotel/guesthouse and guided tours of the Park that Simpson offered.

No doubt the Hotel served a useful function in supplying drink to the Bonnie Vale campers and otherresidents of Bundeena. In this the Hotel reverted more to the role of the corner pub than the guesthouse. Itis interesting that economically the Hotel did not survive as a viable pub and after 1935 offeredaccommodation and sold stores to the campers.

This function seems to have continued after acquisition by the National Park and after the fire of 1955.The Rangers Hut served a similar function for some years after.


W-1181 189 May 2001

.3 Historical Archaeology

As part of the research for this plan a detailed archaeological survey was undertaken of the Simpson’sHotel Precinct. This involved walking over the entire area as well as preparing a detailed measured siteplan of the Hotel Building.

The Hotel Building

On the basis of the historical evidence the dimensions of the buildings can be established. The surveyorsnotes from 1884/85 show the stone cottage as being 46 links wide and 35 links long, a building some 9.30mwide and 7.04 long (Figure 6).

The 1921 plan has two measured dimensions on the plan, being the verandah depth 11.1 links (2.23m) andthe width of the new building 39.6 links (7.97m). Measuring off the plan (a less accurate method) gives abuilding 24.29m wide (Figure 8 &9).

A detailed survey and measured drawing of the hotel site was undertaken on the 9th April 2001 by theauthor. The plan of the building is shown as Figure . It is understood that the Rangers Hut has beenerected on the foundations of the Hotel. These are exposed on south-west corner of the site. Assumingthis is the same corner as recorded on the 1921 plan then the Hotel building extended some 7m further tothe north than the current building. This is roughly where the present cloths line is.

Certainly in the area immediately east of the edge of the current building there is evidence of a wall linerunning parallel to the northern edge of the building (basically in the current driveway). The area on theother side of the driveway is covered with grass and soil and this may have obscured archaeologicalevidence in this area. It does, however, seem likely that if the buildings did extend into this area then thefoundations at least would have survived. Based on the plan evidence, the building in this area would havebeen the original stone hut erected by George Simpson.

On the western side of the building there is no evidence of the verandah shown on contemporaryphotographs of the hotel. The verandah extended out from the foundation wall 11.1 links (2.23m) and wassupported on post. No evidence of the posts was found.

No access to the area under the present building was possible so it is difficult to establish the extent towhich the Hotel remains survive under the present building. It may have been that the rubble from the sitewas packed under the building to support the concrete slab that forms the floor of the present building.There is also the question of the extent to which remains from the Hotel and possibly George Simpsonhouse may survive as a sub-surface deposit associated with the foundations. Without sub-surface testingof the deposit it is difficult to give a definitive answer but the possibility is that sub-surface deposits mayexist that could be related to the early period of the sites use.

In considering the archaeological research potential of the remains it is apparent that two types of remainsare likely to occur on the site. Firstly there are the remains of the hotel structure itself. The foundations ofthe hotel are evident notably on the western side of the building and on the eastern side adjacent to thepresent concrete verandah floor. Archaeological excavation would be able to define the walls anddetermine whether it is possible to locate remains of George Simpson’s house. In research terms thelocation of Simpson’s hotel is not a particularly important question however in terms of the ability of thewalls to demonstrate the early history and subsequent changes to the hotel and relate these to the historyof the precinct the remains are a powerful interpretative tool.


W-1181 199 May 2001

The second type of remains are the archaeological deposits of material culture possibly located under theRangers Hut and the garden. It is not clear to what extent evidence of the hotel’s use survive particularlyafter the 1955 and presumed post-fire clearing of the site. Relevant research questions would relate to thecontrasts between the three uses of the site, as George Simpson’s selection, William Simpson’s hotel/lodgeand the later use as a hotel as these broadly reflect the three historic themes relating to the precinct. Suchdiffering uses would presumably be reflected in the material culture but whether any archaeologicalanalysis would be able to move beyond generalities to a more specific study is doubtful especially given thedubious integrity of the site.

If material from the period of George Simpson’s occupation were able to be clearly identified then thiswould be of some interest as little is known about this period of the site’s occupation. Again this wouldrequire a degree of stratigraphic integrity that may have been compromised by the fire.

This somewhat pessimistic view of the material culture from the site does not rule out the possibility thatsome artefacts may be particularly evocative of the periods and again help in demonstrating along withhistorical evidence, important aspects of life at Simpson’s Hotel.

The Sea Wall

The sea wall constructed in 1921 is still in situ although suffering from erosion of the sandstone blocks. Thewall has no archaeological potential. There is no evidence of the jetty, however there may be remnantstumps from the jetty piles buried in the sand off shore as it was common practice to cut jetty piles at seabed level rather than try and extract the piles whole. The piles are unlikely to be of any archaeologicalsignificance.

The site of the Boat Shed

On the land side of the sea wall there is a small boat ramp now disused. There are remanent footingsnearby, which may be remains of the boat shed recorded in this location in September 1913. The boatshedseems to be of minor importance, as it does not feature in any of the histories of the precinct. The footingremains are most likely to demonstrate the location of the boatshed. The footings are important in thecontext of the whole precinct as an adjunct to the hotel but have little importance in their own right.

Landscape features

The landscape in the Simpson’s Hotel precinct can be divided into three general units based on vegetationand topography. These are

Outcropping hillslopes: Heavily vegetated hillslopes with outcropping Hawkesbury sandstone, located onthe eastern boundary of the precinct.

Sandstone bench: A sandstone outcrop, which has been levelled to form the foundation for the Hotel.Exposed in front of the hotel where the existing access track runs over it. It isgrassed and planted with introduced species.

Sand Deposit: Levelled sand deposit, covered with a mixture of grasses and introduced and local species.


W-1181 209 May 2001

The steep Outcropping Hillslopes area, between the Hotel area and the line of Simpson’s Road wassurveyed to see if remnant-landscaping features could be found. It was thought that possibly the naturalslope and benching of the sandstone had been modified to provide walks and garden beds for guests of theHotel to enjoy. There is no evidence for this either in the photograph showing the precinct from the sea(Figure 10) or on the ground. It seems from the 1892 photo that the understorey in this area was oncecleared and grassed creating a park-like effect.

The landscape in the remaining units comprises of a grass understorey with a mixture of introduced andnatural species. The photographs of the site are notable for not showing extensive formal gardens andpaths and large amounts of garden furniture which are often found in formal gardens of this period. Thephotographs of the precinct show that this mixture of native trees and introduced species was a part of thelandscape from the 1890s and presumably this was a deliberate decision of Simpson to adapt existing treesand make only minor modifications to the landscape.

There are two Norfolk Pines located in the sand deposit landscape unit adjacent to the Hotel building.These dominate the landscape from all viewpoints except the east where the bulk of the hill obscuresthem. These trees serve as a marker for the precinct and are visible in the 1892 photograph so they mustbe at over 100 years old.

Summary

Overall, the main historical archaeological features located within the Simpson’s Hotel Precinct are:

• The former hotel site

• The sea wall

• The location of the former boatshed

• The Norfolk Island Pines

The location of these features is shown on Figure .

.4 The current condition of the site

The Rangers Hut is an architecturally unpretentious design in fibro-cement sheeting and board. As adesign it parallels the simple form and materials of the Bonnie Vale cabins constructed about the sametime. Architecturally its form could be best described as restrained “beach vernacular”.

The interior of the building is sub-divided into two functional areas. At the front (ie facing the coast) thebuilding is unoccupied and subdivided into several small rooms off a central corridor, a kitchen and intoseveral larger spaces with double doors to the outside. Presumably these rooms were used for stores. Atthe rear of the building is a modern flat, which was occupied until mid-April 2001.

In April 1999 the roof was severely damaged in a hail storm and is about to be repaired. The damage tothe roof has allowed a considerable amount of water into the unoccupied portion of the building. The repairwork to the building will bring it up to standard.


W-1181 219 May 2001

To the south of the present building is an outbuilding now used as a laundry but which was formerly a toiletblock. This building does not appear on either the 1951 or 1961 aerial photography and presumably datesafter this. The western and eastern wall are suffering from sever cracking and require repairs.

The other outbuildings which are galvanised iron sheds are comparatively modern and to a standard sheddesign.


W-1181 229 May 2001

5.0 ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE

Cultural significance is the term used to describe the importance of a particular artefact, place orlandscape. Cultural significance is defined in the Burra Charter as being "aesthetic, historic, scientific orsocial value for past, present or future generations". Cultural significance may be derived from the fabricof a place, association with a place or the research potential of a place. The significance of a place is notfixed for all time. What is of significance to us may change as similar items are located, more historicalresearch is undertaken and community tastes change. Thus what may have been seen as an eyesore andblight on the landscape may now be seen as a magnificent historical site. The changing interpretation ofthe convict remains at Port Arthur is a good example of this process.

The basis for assessing cultural significance is the ICOMOS Australia Burra Charter and associatedguidelines. The application of the Burra Charter and guidelines to the preparation of Conservation Plans isoutlined in J S Kerr's The Conservation Plan (1990). The essential components of significance involveassessing the historical, aesthetic, scientific or social significance of a place.

.1 Curtilage for Assessment

The curtilage for assessment is the Simpson’s Hotel Precinct which is defined by the western boundary ofSimpson’s Road reserve, the coast till the western end of the sea wall, a line roughly south from the seawall to the wooden barrier fence on the internal Bonnie Vale Track, thence along this barrier fence roughlyeast till Simpson’s Road Reserve is reached.

.2 Aboriginal Heritage

For indigenous archaeological sites the methodology for significance assessment differs slightly. The socialvalue is assessed by the Aboriginal community associated with a site. This is referred to as culturalsignificance, although it really only covers a part of the cultural significance defined by the Burra Charter.

The scientific significance within the Burra Charter is generally regarded as the archaeologicalsignificance. Archaeological significance is assessed by a number of criteria. The NSW National Parksand Wildlife Service Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Standards and Guidelines Kit (NPWS 1997)outlines the following:

• Research Potential• Representativeness and the associated criterion of Rarity• Public significance

The value of each of these will be affected by the condition of the site (level of disturbance etc.) and asites comparative context (within its local area, within a broader region and potentially nationally).

As the criteria for judging the cultural and the archaeological significance differ there is always thepossibility that the two assessments may not agree. A site which has little or no archaeological potentialmay still have considerable significance for the local Aboriginal community. The views of the DharwalLocal Aboriginal Land Council have been considered in the process of forming the recommendations forthis report. The cultural significance report from the Dharawal Local Aboriginal Land Council for thisstudy is in Appendix A.


W-1181 239 May 2001

Research Potential

Archaeological significance is assessed in terms of research potential or a particular site's ability to answerrelevant research questions. A document, "Minimum requirements and standards for archaeologicalmethodology and significance assessment to be used for cultural resource impact statements" by DanWitter of the NPWS (Witter, 1995) developed categories of archaeological research so that the varyingresearch approaches to archaeological sites can be conveniently organised. The framework outlined givesa broad approach to understanding a site's ability to answer relevant research questions.

In terms of Witter's categories, most of the archaeological work in the region initially began by looking atestablishing regional pre-histories. More recent work however, has looked at two board themes: 1) that ofreconstructing specific activities on sites through detailed studies of stone knapping techniques, and 2) thatof understanding cultural patterning by placing sites into environmental and cultural contexts.Understanding the research potential of sites located during the course of this project will involveconsidering each site’s potential to add to these research problems.

There are also two aspects that affect the overall significance assessment of archaeological sites. Theseare:

1. Integrity: "The intactness of a site, the quality of its information, and its potential for theinterpretation of activities or symbology depends upon its integrity. Even a typical flaked stoneartefact site of small size takes on special importance if it is in a good state of preservation. Adeposit or a surface may have stratigraphic or spatial integrity. The idea of integrity also includesthe state of preservation, such as stencil shelter or the condition of bones in a burial" (Witter,1995:3).

The categories used in defining levels of integrity are as follows:

Excellent Disturbance, erosion or development are minimal.

Good Relatively undisturbed deposits or partially disturbed with an obvious in situdeposit.

Fair Some disturbance but the degree of disturbance is difficult to assess.

Poor Clearly mostly destroyed or disturbed by erosion or development.

Very poor Sites totally disturbed or clearly not in situ.

Destroyed A known site that is clearly no longer there.

2. Rareness or Representativeness. This is usually based on the regional context. "The regionalcontext indicates what is usually found in the region, and includes explanations for what it means.


W-1181 249 May 2001

It also provides a background for what is rare, outstanding, or surprising for the region” (Witter,1995:3).

It should be noted that archaeological significance comes from bringing together and comparing the workdone and knowledge available for the region. The potential to assess the significance of a site increasesdepending upon the detail of the models, and the amount of integration of information and knowledge forthe region (Witter, 1995:4). Thus for some areas where little archaeological work has been undertaken theability to give a comprehensive assessment of archaeological significance is limited by the nature ofprevious archaeological work undertaken in the area.

Public Significance

This usually takes into account values of the place to the wider community e.g. educational.Sites of high public significance should be readily accessible, with easily identifiable and interpretableelements. Well-known and already impacted sites are particularly suitable for public education (Feary,1986, p.41)

Assessment

The only site located in the study area is the midden relocated by Brayshaw. This is considered to be anAboriginal site because of the presence of edible shellfish species and stone artefacts. However, thecontext of the site on filled ground suggests that the material is redeposited fill.Because the site is redeposited, the research potential of the site must be low as the site lacks the integrityto answer archaeological research questions. In terms of Public Significance the lack of integrity limits theeducational value of the site.

Therefore the significance of this site is seen as low due to the poor integrity of the site.

.3 Non-Indigenous Heritage

The process of linking this assessment with a site's historical context has been developed through theDepartment of Urban Affairs and Planning and the Heritage Council of NSW State Heritage InventoryProgram (SHIP) and is outlined in the Heritage Assessment Guidelines, NSW Heritage Manual. TheHeritage Assessment Guidelines, establish six evaluation criteria (which reflect four categories ofsignificance and whether a place is rare or representative) under which a place can be evaluated in thecontext of State, Regional or Local historical themes.

The criteria used are.

Criterion 1 - historical significance (evolution and association). An item having this value is significantbecause of the importance of its association with, or position in the evolving pattern of our cultural history.

Criterion 2 - aesthetic significance (scenic/architectural qualities/creative accomplishment). An itemhaving this value is significant because it demonstrates positive visual or sensory appeal, landmark qualitiesand/or creative or technical excellence.


W-1181 259 May 2001

Criterion 3 - technical/research significance (archaeological, industrial, educational, research potentialand scientific significance values). Items having this value are significant because of their contribution orpotential contribution, to an understanding of our cultural history or environment.

Criterion 4 - social significance (contemporary community esteem). Items having this value aresignificant through their social, spiritual or cultural association with a recognisable community.

Criterion A - representativeness. Items having this value are significant because they are finerepresentative examples of an important class of significant items or environments.

Criterion B - rarity. An item having this value is significant because it represents a rare, endangered orunusual aspect of our history or cultural environment.

In the Heritage Assessment Guidelines, guidelines for inclusion and exclusion under each significancecategory are presented.

To be assessed as significant an item must:

Qualify under one of the four nature of significance criteria. It must also retain the integrity of its key attributes of significance.

Integrity is the degree to which an item retains fabric related to its cultural significance.

In expressing the level of significance, three levels of significance have been used:

State (including National): items significant in a state-wide historical or geographical context or toan important and identifiable contemporary state-wide community.

Regional: items significant in a regional historical or geographical context or to an important andidentifiable contemporary regional community.

Local: items significant in a local historical or geographic context or to an identifiable contemporarylocal community.

Archaeological assessment, which is considered under Criterion 3, is based on the research potential of asite. This is considered to be the ability of a site and its contents to answer pertinent archaeologicalquestions about the past.

.3.1 Assessment

In this assessment the whole Simpson’s Hotel precinct is considered.

Criterion One- historical significance

The precinct has historical significance as the site of the first permanent post-contact settlement atBundeena by George Simpson.

The precinct has associations with William Simpson who was an important local figure. He was a ranger inthe National Park and later built his hotel and developed a tourist business based from the Hotel.


W-1181 269 May 2001

The precinct was an early entry point to the National Park and until Audley was fully developed as themajor entry point. Even then it still was an important entry point especially for visitors coming by sea.

The precinct has historical associations with the Bonnie Vale Cabins as after Simpson retired the guesthouse business seems to have declined but the Hotel supplied alcohol and supplies to the campers and laterthe cabin owners and residents at Bonnie Vale.

Overall the history of the precinct shows how the patterns of settlement have changed over timeparticularly in relation to the way people used Royal National Park for recreation.

Criterion 2 - aesthetic significance

The precinct has aesthetic significance through the scenic quality of its setting and outlook, and althoughthese may not be the best vistas in the region, the precinct has a low-key charm.

Criterion 3 - technical/research significance

The precinct meets this criterion as it retains elements of the buildings and structures relating to thehistorical development of the precinct notably the remains of Simpson’s Hotel and the location of GeorgeSimpson’s original building. As discussed earlier, these have the potential to demonstrate the early historyand subsequent changes to the hotel and the precinct.

Criterion 4 - social significance

This element has not been specifically addressed but there is clearly a reasonable degree of communityinterest in the Simpson’s Hotel precinct as an important historical site demonstrated by the response to theboat launching facility.

.4 Statement of Cultural Significance

The Simpson’s Hotel precinct is of high regional historical significance for its historical associations withthe history of Bundeena, the Royal National Park and in the history of the human use of the Park forrecreation. This history is expressed through the physical features of the precinct (the Hotel site, the seawall, remains of the boat shed) as well as the introduced plantings on the site and the setting of the precincton sandstone outcrops adjacent to sand deposits.

In considering the cultural significance of precinct in a State context, there are parallels in its history andfabric with other sites such as the Jenkins property at Lane Cove and possibly the development of therecreational use of the Blue Mountains. Thus the elements that make up the significance of the Simpson’sHotel precinct are not unique. Therefore the precinct cannot be assessed as being rare in the context ofthe historical development of New South Wales. However, it terms of the Southern region of Sydney theprecinct is considered rare at a regional level.

The integrity of the Simpson’s hotel precinct has to be seen as fair, largely because the original Hotel hasbeen destroyed although the remaining elements of the precinct are relatively intact.

The cultural significance of a precinct or element within a precinct can be expressed in three ways:


W-1181 279 May 2001

• Through the ability to demonstrate an aspect of the precincts significance. For example the fabricon the site could demonstrate how a site was used.

• Through the association of the precinct with an important event or a particular person. The

association may not require physical evidence of the event.

• Through the ability of archaeological deposits in a precinct to answer relevant research questions.

Simpson’s Hotel site.

The cultural significance of the precinct is expressed primarily on this site through the ability of fabric onthe site (including the Rangers Hut) to demonstrate aspects of the three phases of historical development.Although the emphasis of the historical research has been on the Simpson family the Ranger’s hut also hassignificance as it’s fabric demonstrates the most recent phase of historical development on the precinct.

The sea wall

The sea wall relates to the latest period of the historical development of the precinct. The fabric of the wallitself and the conservation problems relating to the erosion of the sandstone are an eloquent demonstrationof the attitude of Harry Harry to the environment.

The site of the boathouse

The site makes a minor contribution to the significance of the precinct.

The Landscape

The landscape demonstrates more about the way Simpson and others viewed the environment through theabsence of evidence than through the existing plantings. The Norfolk Island pines are key site markers andvisually identify the precinct and are significant as markers. The whole restrained landscape treatment isalso important is establishing the precinct’s aesthetic significance.


W-1181 289 May 2001

6.0 CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT CONTEXT

This section sets out the statutory and policy context in which the conservation policy and management forthe Simpson’s Hotel precinct exists. The conservation policy and management actions obviously mustconform to statutory requirements and be consistent with the Management Plan for Royal National Park.

.1 Statutory Requirements

Indigenous and non-Indigenous Heritage sites are protected by a wide variety of legislation. This is set outbelow.

Commonwealth

Australian Heritage Commission Act (1975)

This is Commonwealth legislation that established the Australian Heritage Commission and the Register ofNational Estate. Commonwealth actions in respect to an item of the Register of National Estate areconstrained by the operation of Section 30 of the Act.

A search of the on-line Register of National Estate established that the Bonnie Vale Cabins were listed onthe Register of National Estate. Although from Ashley’s research (cited in the registration document)Bonnie Vale cabins were historically separate from Simpson’s Hotel the curtilage of the registration clearlyincluded Simpson’s Hotel. It is not clear how much of the Simpson’s Hotel precinct is included in thecurtilage of the National Estate Registration.

Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999)

Under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999) if the Commonwealthwas undertaking an action in respect of the Simpson’s Hotel Precinct then the Commonwealth may berequired to refer the impact of the project on items to the Australian Heritage Commission or toEnvironment Australia. The operation of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity ConservationAct (1999) in this respect is very unclear. Amending legislation was introduced to Parliament on the 7th

December 2000 but to date has not been passed.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act (1984)

This legislation is intended to operate concurrently with similar legislation in NSW. Under Section 9, whichdeals with emergency situations and Sections 10 and 11 the Minister administering the act may onapplication from Aboriginals, and after due consideration of reports, may make a declaration concerning anarea or object and specify means for its protection.

The Commonwealth legislation only effects the management of the Simpson’s Hotel precinct to the extentthat the Commonwealth’s powers under the constitution allow it. The operation of the AustralianHeritage Commission Act effects the actions of Commonwealth Government bodies whereas theAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act has a broader impact.

New South Wales

National Parks and Wildlife Act (1974)


W-1181 299 May 2001

Aboriginal sites in NSW are protected by legislation whether or not they are registered with NSW NationalParks and Wildlife Service and regardless of their level of significance.

Under the provisions of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, Aboriginal archaeological sites aredefined as "relics". A "relic" means any deposit, object or material evidence (not being handicraft made forsale) relating to indigenous and non-European habitation of the area that comprises New South Wales,being habitation both prior to and concurrent with the occupation of that area by persons of Europeanextraction, and includes Aboriginal remains.

Under Section 91 if a relic is found the National Parks and Wildlife Service must be informed.

Under Section 90 of the Act

(1) A person who, without first obtaining the consent of the Director-General,knowingly destroys, defaces or damages, or knowingly causes or permits thedestruction or defacement of or damage to, a relic or Aboriginal place isguilty of an offence against the Act

Under Sections 86 and 90 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act (1974) a person is not allowed todisturb or excavate on any land for the purpose of discovering a relic or knowingly destroy, deface ordamage or cause or permit the destruction, defacement or damage of a relic. Permits can be obtained toallow excavations or destruction of a relic.

There are also provisions under the National Parks and Wildlife (Land Management) Regulation 1995that regulate actions with regard to Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal relics within Parks.

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (1979) (EP&A Act)

The EP&A Act requires that consideration is given to environmental impacts as part of the land useplanning process. In NSW environmental impacts are interpreted as including cultural heritage impact.Three parts of the EP&A Act are most relevant to Heritage. Part III relates to planning instrumentsincluding those at local and regional levels, Part IV controls development assessment processes and Part Vrefers to approvals by determining authorities.

Under State Environmental Planning Policy 4 development on land reserved under the National Parks andWildlife Act (1974) does not need a development consent

Under the provisions of the EP& A Act Local Environmental Plans (LEP) can be made. Typically LEPshave provisions that protect items of environmental heritage. The Simpson’s Hotel Precinct is within theSutherland Shire and comes under the provisions of the Sutherland Local Environmental Plan (2000).Under Section 14 of the Sutherland LEP development consent is required for certain actions such asdemolishing or altering heritage items and relics. Both the Bonnie Vale Cabins and the Simpson’s Hotelsite are listed in Schedule 1 for the Sutherland LEP but as they are within Royal National Park NPWSdoes not need to apply for development consent.

Heritage Act (1977 as amended 1998)


W-1181 309 May 2001

The Heritage Act (1977 as amended 1998) was passed to conserve the environmental heritage of NewSouth Wales. The Heritage Act is binding on all State Government agencies. Items of heritagesignificance are protected by the means of Interim Heritage Orders or by listing on the State HeritageRegister. Short-term orders under Section 130 of the Act, which was abolished in the 1998 amendments,continue for three years after the repeal of Section 130 by the amendments. The Simpson’s Hotel Precinctis not subject to listing on the State Heritage Register or subject to an Interim Heritage Order.

In addition special provisions have been passed to protect "relics". Under Section 139 of the Heritage Act

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

2) A person must not disturb or excavate any land on which the person has discovered or

exposed a relic except in accordance with an excavation permit.

Areas where it is expected that relics might be located are identified in this report (see above Figure ). Apermit under Section 140 of the Heritage Act would be required to disturb or destroy relics.

A “relic” is defined as meaning “any deposit, object or material evidence:

(a) which relates to the settlement of the area that comprises NewSouth Wales, not being Aboriginal settlement, and

(b) which is 50 or more years old.

Under Section 170 the Heritage Act requires that: a government instrumentality shall establish and keep aregister entitled the “Heritage and Conservation Register'' and each item of environmental heritage subjectto certain registrations and listing has to be entered on the Section 170 Register. GovernmentInstrumentalities are required to undertake certain actions under Section 170 and 170A includingappropriate management and compliance with heritage asset management guidelines issued by the NSWHeritage Office.

Advice from the Heritage Office indicates that to date no heritage asset management guidelines or StateOwned Heritage Management Principles have been issued although a working party is said to bedeveloping guidelines.

As the Simpson’s Hotel precinct is owned by NPWS we have checked its status with the NPWS whohave advised that “The NPWS S170 Heritage and Conservation Register is currently being compiled. TheSimpson’s Hotel site may be eligible for listing on the new Register. Bonnie Vale as a whole will almostcertainly be listed”. It should be noted that as Simpson’s Hotel is listed on the Sutherland LEP, it isrequired under Section 170(4) a, ia of the Heritage Act that the site be listed on the NPWS “Heritage andConservation Register''

National Trust of Australia (N.S.W.)

The National Trust is a non-government body, which compiles its own register of heritage items. Listing onthe National Trust Register has no statutory power, however listing is widely regarded as a statement ofthe heritage significance of a place.


W-1181 319 May 2001

It should be noted that because an item is not on a register or that an area has no items registered does notmean that there are no items of heritage significance in an area. This is because an area may not havebeen systematically surveyed for heritage items or that an item has been overlooked or that the heritagesignificance of an item or area has not been realised.

NSW legislation requires that:

Known Aboriginal sites or relics must not be disturbed or destroyed without the appropriate consents undersection 90 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act.

Historical archaeological sites or relics must not be disturbed or destroyed without the appropriate consentsunder Section 140 of the Heritage Act.

The Simpson’s Hotel precinct should be listed on the Heritage and Conservation Register of the NPWSand managed accordingly.

.2 Management Framework

The management framework for the Simpson’s Hotel precinct is set out in the Plan of Management forthe Royal National Park, Heathcote National Park and Garawarra state Recreation Area issued inFebruary 2000. This is a statutory document established under the provisions of the National Parks andWildlife Act (1974) and sets out policies and the framework for management in the areas.

The objects of management of National Parks inter alia require

“the preservation of Aboriginal sites and historic features” as well as

“the encouragement of scientific and educational enquiry into environmental features andprocesses, prehistoric and historic features and park use patterns”.

(Plan of Management 2000:9)

The specific general management objectives relating to cultural heritage within the Royal National Parkare:

• Royal National Park will be used as a primary venue within the southern Sydney Metropolitan areafor the promotion of natural and cultural heritage conservation in NSW generally and for promotingthe work of the Service

• The historic recreational settings and cultural landscapes in Royal National Park will be conserved.

• The three areas (i.e. those covered in the Plan of Management) will be promoted to increase

public awareness (inter alia)

• the history and development of Royal National Park in respect to changes in the philosophy ofrecreation and conservation management

(Plan of Management 2000:9-10)


W-1181 329 May 2001

Specific policies and frameworks for the three areas are set out in the Plan of Management. In respect ofcultural heritage within Royal National Park the following specific policies have been outlined forIndigenous and non-Indigenous Cultural Heritage.

Policies for Cultural Heritage

• The provisions of the Australia ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of Places ofCultural Significance (the Burra Charter) will guide management of historical places inRoyal and Heathcote National Parks and Garawarra State Recreation Area.

• Historic places, historic precincts and cultural landscapes will be assessed for their

significance using the guidelines of the Burra Charter. • Conservation plans will be prepared to guide management of significant historic places,

historic precincts and cultural landscapes. • Where there is no conservation plan, historic places, historic precincts and cultural

landscapes will be protected pending the preparation of a conservation plan. • The significance of historic buildings, precincts and cultural landscapes will be retained:

uses impacting substantially on the cultural values of these places will be modified orremoved.

• Portable objects of cultural significance will be conserved in situ wherever possible. • Portable objects, which are vulnerable and cannot be conserved in situ will be recorded,

then collected and stored in accordance with professional advice and storage procedures. • Fabric from historic structures, which has been removed in accordance with Service

policies and procedures, will be securely stored to enable future research orreconstruction.

• The Service will work towards obtaining a complete inventory of historic buildings,

precincts and cultural landscapes in the three areas. • Historical documents, plans, photographs and drawings relating to the three areas held by

the Service will be curated in accordance with professional procedures. • The sites included in the Sutherland Shire Council’s Heritage Study and the Wollongong

City Council’s Heritage Study will be included on the Service’s historic places register. • The Service will interpret the history of Royal National Park.

Policies for Aboriginal Heritage


W-1181 339 May 2001

• The Provisions of the Australia ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of Places ofCultural Significance (the Burra Charter) will guide management of Aboriginal sites foundin Royal and Heathcote National Park and Garawarra State Recreation Area.

• All Aboriginal heritage and sites in the three areas will be conserved. • The Service shall pursue join management arrangements with the appropriate Land

Council or Aboriginal community group in relation to Aboriginal heritage in the three areas.

.3 Management Issues

In addition to the statutory issues identified above there are a number of management issues identified forthe precinct.

Available funding

There is an ever-increasing demand of the budget of the NPWS, which means that all managementpolicies should be made such that they do not increase the cost of running Royal National Park.

Visitation

The REF for the Boat Launching facility at Bonnie Vale, while noting that no specific visitor studies havebeen undertaken, lists a variety of recreational activities such as Picnicking, Camping, Fishing, Walking andSwimming (2001:47-48). Of these Picnicking Fishing and Walking regularly occur in the Simpson’s HotelPrecinct and the current facilities of tables and small barbecue’s seem adequate to the demand. Theimpact of the visitors on the precinct seems to be slight, largely as the parking is restricted so thatpicnickers and others have to walk a short distance to the facilities.

The access track to the dwellings on the coast runs through the precinct. The track runs between the twoNorfolk Island pines. As the track gradually erodes it will impact onto the roots and has the potential tocause long-term damage to the trees. In the short term this can be minimised by work on the access trackto repair damage.

Vandalism

The REF for the Boat Launching facility at Bonnie Vale makes comment that vandalism and rowdybehaviour is a continuing problems after dark at Bonnie Vale (2001:48). No doubt this is because there isonly one building that is in the area – the Ranger’s Hut. There is obviously a need to ensure that allfeatures within the precinct are protected from vandalism.

Rangers Hut/Simpson’s Hotel Site

The future use of the Ranger’s hut is a long-term management issue. Currently the building is divided intoa flat recently leased to a NPWS employee and a large empty space. The roof of the building was badlydamaged in a hailstorm but recently received insurance money will allow the repair of the roof and interiorto standard suitable for reoccupation. The building itself largely protects the archaeological remains ofSimpson’s Hotel so its on-going use is important in protecting the archaeological remains.


W-1181 349 May 2001

However it is not clear what the future use of the building will be. If a decision is not made in the shortterm, the building will be left vacant with the potential for further deterioration due to neglect andvandalism. Such a decision needs to consider the physical condition of the building, the cost of any worksrequired to bring the building into conformity with regulations, the requirements for on-going maintenance,potential uses and the implications of any works or uses on the archaeological resource.

There is a need to undertake repairs on the western stone wall of the Rangers Hut as the sandstone wall iseroding. The cause of this is not immediately obvious although most of the damage is at the northern(seaward) end so it is likely that some form of salt problems are the main issue. However professionalmaterial conservation advice is required to ensure that the repairs do not mask an on-going problem.

Sea Wall

The sea wall is also a problem as the wall is suffering erosion of its fabric and requires on-goingmaintenance in order to prevent its gradual collapse and the erosion of the deposit behind it. At the momentthe sea wall requires work on it to bring it up to standard and then will require monitoring and occasionalpreventative maintenance to ensure its conservation.

Archaeological Remains

The most significant archaeological remains are those of Simpson’s Hotel. These have been assessed asbeing of high regional significance but the cultural significance is primarily expressed through the ability ofthe site to demonstrate important aspects of the history of the precinct. The conservation of these remainsis of primary importance in retaining the cultural significance of the precinct for without them there wouldbe no fabric relating to the history of the site and the changes to the site left.

In line with the principal that archaeological excavation is primarily destruction large-scale archaeologicalinvestigation of the site is not recommended unless the site is threatened with destruction. Alternatively asmall-scale removal of fill and the garden is supported to fully expose the extent of the surviving walls.This work however would only be justified in the context of interpreting the history of the site.

Any decision on the use of the Rangers Hut will need to consider the remains of the foundations extendingto the east of the Rangers Hut in an area that is now used for a car port, driveway and garden. Use of thisarea by vehicles and other heave items will ultimately destroy the top of the foundations. It is recognisedthat the lack of vehicular access to the front of the Rangers Hut may be a significant limitation to the useof the building and therefore some more suitable alternatives for access should be considered.

The remains of the boat house are not considered to be of sufficient significance to require particularmanagement in their own right. However it should be noted that any disturbance to the site would require apermit unde Section 140 of the Heritage Act.

Aboriginal Heritage

Although the significance of the recorded Aboriginal archaeological site (NPWS #52-3-0171) has beenassessed as being low, nevertheless a permit under Section 90 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act(1974) is required if the site if the site is to be disturbed or destroyed. Such a permit will requireconcurrence from the La Perouse Aboriginal Lands Council.

Vegetation


W-1181 359 May 2001

Much of the vegetation in the precinct is a mixture of introduced and native species. The vegetation on thesandstone bench and sand deposit landscape units while not natural is however of cultural significance.There are large areas of weed and garden escapee species growing to the rear of the Ranger’s Hut andon the outcropping hillslopes. If required for management reasons such as weed control and firemanagement the careful removal of the understorey in this area to restore the open park-like conditions ofthe 1890s would be appropriate.

.3.1 Interpretation

Currently the history of the Simpson’s Hotel precinct is not interpreted.

Given the rich history of the site, the surviving fabric the Simpson’s Hotel Precinct and the site’s location inrelation to Bundeena and the Bonnie Vale Cabins the precinct is well suited to act as an interpretationcentre for understanding the history of Royal National Park relating to changes in the philosophy ofrecreation and the use of National Parks. One of the management objectives for cultural heritage in RoyalNational Park is to promote increased public awareness of the history and development of Royal NationalPark in respect to changes in the philosophy of recreation and conservation management. Because of thehistory and extant fabric, the Simpson’s Hotel precinct readily lends itself to meet these goals.

The remains of Simpson’s Hotel could be carefully exposed and interpreted along with the Rangers Hut toshow the sequence of occupation on the site and how it relates to the philosophy of recreation in vogue ateach phase of the site’s history. As there is a sequence of occupation on the one site this allows theinterpretations to be focused in one discrete area. Naturally the vacant front half of the Rangers Hutspresents the opportunity for displaying maps, plans and photographs that help explain the history of the site.

The next stage in the interpretation of the Simpson’s Hotel precinct is to take these ideas and develop themthrough an interpretation planning process to develop a suitable interpretation plan.


W-1181 369 May 2001

7.0 MANAGEMENT POLICY

.1 Objectives of Management

There are two general objectives for the management of the Simpson’s Hotel precinct

• To maintain and enhance the cultural significance of the Simpson’s Hotel precinct.

• To interpret the cultural heritage of the Simpson’s Hotel Precinct.

.2 Conservation Policies for Simpson’s Hotel Precinct

CP-1 Recognise the regional significance of the Simpson’s Hotel Precinct and manage theprecinct accordingly.

Strategies and Actions

• Submit the CMP to the NSW Heritage Council for endorsement.

• Review and update the CMP every five years, or earlier if new information that affectsconservation policy comes to light.

• Use the CMP in planning decisions.

• Allocate sufficient resources to ensure that critical tasks are carried out within the time frame

identified in this plan.

• Comply with the statutory requirement to list the Simpson’s Hotel site on the NPWS Section 170Register.

• All disturbance and destruction of archaeological remains in the Simpson’s Hotel precinct will

require a permit under either Section 90 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act or Section 140 ofthe Heritage Act or both.

CP-2 Maintain the current low-impact use of the Simpson’s Hotel Precinct.


• Visitation should primarily be on foot and the current limited access to the site by cars is supportedin the short term.

• Visitor facilities such as barbeques and fireplaces should be located away from the Rangers Hut to

minimise possible fire risk and noise impact on the occupants of the hut.

• The access track should be repaired and the impact on the tree roots should be monitored.


W-1181 379 May 2001

• Investigate the need for the access track to continue beyond the rear gate of the Rangers Hut.

• Visitor impact should be monitored by measured by the collection of comparable data such asphotographs from established points.

• In order to deter vandalism the flat at the rear of the Rangers Hut should be reoccupied as soon as

possible.

• Report at regular intervals on the impact of visitation on the precinct.

CP-3 Conserve the archaeological remains of Simpson’s Hotel


• The archaeological remains of Simpson’s Hotel will be conserved “in situ” and not disturbed ordestroyed.

• Limited exposure of foundations of the Hotel could be considered in order to interpret the remains.

• Any decision on the use of the Rangers Hut will need to consider the need to conserve the

remains of the foundations.

• All disturbance or destruction of archaeological remains will require a permit under Section 140 ofthe NSW Heritage Act

• The use of the current driveway and carport for vehicles and other heavy objects should be

discontinued in the short-term.

• Investigate alternative access to the front of the Rangers Hut that is less destructive to thearchaeological remains.

CP-4 Conserve the Rangers Hut


• In order to deter vandalism the flat at the rear of the Rangers Hut should be reoccupied as soon aspossible.

• A decision on the future use of the Rangers Hut needs to be made within 12 months.

• The western wall of the hotel building should be assessed by a suitably qualifed heritage architect

and or person experienced in the conservation of sandstone to determin the cause of thedeterioration of the stone and to recommend short-term action to effect repairs and to recommendappropriate management of the fabric.

CP-5 The sea wall should be retained and maintained.



W-1181 389 May 2001

• The sea wall must be inspected by a suitably qualified stone mason and a suitably qualifiedengineer to develop a long term plan for repairing the wall and long term cyclical maintenancerequirements.

CP-6 The potential for the precinct to contain Aboriginal heritage sites should be recognised. Strategies and Actions

• The National Park should establish a means for on-going consultation with the AboriginalCommunity concerning Aboriginal heritage within Simpson’s Hotel precinct.

• All works likely to substantially disturb below the ground surface must be assessed for their

potential impact on Aboriginal heritage.

CP-7 The landscape character of the precinct should be retained.


• The current mixture of species and understorey should be maintained.

• A qualified arbourist should inspect and report on the health of the two Norfolk Island pines andthe possible impact of the existing track on the tree roots.

• If required for management purposes careful removal of the weeds and garden escapees on the

eastern side of the Rangers Hut is supported.

CP-8 The history of the Simpson’s hotel sites should be interpreted.


• Visitor interpretation will incorporate and convey to users the evidence of the changing attitudes torecreation and use of Royal National Parks and the Simpson’s Hotel precinct.

• An Interpretation Plan for the precinct will be developed

• The use of the Ranger’s Hut for interpretation and the use of the foundations of Simpson’s Hotel

for interpretation is supported.

• Educational programs will be developed and tied into the relevant curricular.

CP-9 All works undertaken will be appropriately documented


• All works should be appropriately documented with before and after photographic records andarchitectural/archaeological drawings of structures, remains, fabrics and finishes.

• Maintain a permanent record of all works with the Royal National Parks and the NSW Historic

Places Register.


W-1181 399 May 2001

8.0 IMPLEMENTATION

This section outlined the approach for the implementations of the conservation policies, guidelines andactions for the Simpson’s Hotel Precinct.

There are four levels of priority, these are based on the importance of the task in maintaining the culturalsignificance of the Simpson’s Hotel Precinct.

Critical Must be undertaken in the recommended time frameEssential Should be undertaken in the recommended time frameDesirable Recommended as an action or strategy. Implementation will produce a

positive effect but is not essential.Optional Recommendation may be waived with no critical effect

.1 Implementation Strategies

Cons.PolicyNumber

Action to be carried out Priority

To Be Carried Out Within 12 Months

CP-2,CP-4

Reoccupy the flat at the rear of the Rangers Hut Critical

CP-4 Decide on the future use of the Ranger’s Hut Essential

CP-3 Discontinue use of the drive and carport at the front ofthe Rangers Hut

Essential

CP-8 Develop an interpretation plan Essential

CP-2 Establish photographic points for on-going visitor impactmonitoring

Desirable

CP-1 Submit the CMP to the NSW Heritage Council forendorsement

Optional

To be carried out within 24 months

CP-4 Assess the western wall of the Rangers Hut and repairas necessary

Critical

CP-5 Assess the sea wall and repair as necessary Critical

CP-7 Report on the condition of the Norfolk Island Pines Essential


W-1181 409 May 2001

CP-2 Repair access track. Essential

CP-3 Investigate and alternative access to the front of theRangers Hut

Essential

CP-2 Prepare first report on monitoring of visitor impact Desirable

To be Carried out in 5 years

CP-1 Revise the CMP Essential

CP-8 Develop educational programs Desirable

CP-2 Summarise data on visitor impact on the precinct for usein the revision of the CMP

Desirable

.2 Cyclical Maintenance

As part of the management strategy it is essential that certain actions be undertaken on a regular basis toensure that significant fabric does not deteriorate and that conservation issues are identified before theybecome major problems.

.2.1 On-going actions

Use the CMP in planning decisionsMaintain a permanent record of worksDocument all works.Establish on-going consultation with the local Aboriginal CommunityObtain the relevant permits for works.

.2.2 Every 3 months

Monitor the impact of visitors by taking photos from established points.Monitor areas of concern such as the sea wall, west wall of the Rangers Hut and the track between theNorfolk Island Pines.


W-1181 419 May 2001

9.0 REFERENCES

Ashley, G. 1994. Royal National Park, Cabins Draft Conservation Plan. Hurstville: NSW NationalParks and Wildlife Service.

Attenbrow V, 1993: “Shell Bed of Shell Midden”, Australian Archaeology 34: 3-21

Bonhomme T, Buzer S, 1994: Holocene Shell Middens of the Central Coast of New South Wales: AnInvestigation of the Management Problems Concerning Coastal Shell Middens. Report toNPWS.

Bonyhardy, T. 2000. The Colonial Earth. Melbourne: The Miegunyah Press.

Bowdler, S. 1984 'Archaeological significance as a mutable quality', in Site Surveys and SignificanceAssessment in Australian Archaeology, eds. Sharon Sullivan and Sandra Bowdler, Departmentof Prehistory, Research School of Pacific Studies, The Australian National University, Canberra,pp.1-9.

Brayshaw H, Dallas M., Byrne D, Baker N, Donlon D, and Ross A. 1992 Sydney Bowdler, S. 1984'Archaeological significance as a mutable quality', in Site Surveys Destination Resort - Excavationof Site BHW (#52-3-724), Bate Bay, Kurnell Peninsula, NSW. Report to Besmaw Pty Limitedthrough Planning Workshop.

Cridland, F. 1950. The Story of Port Hacking, Cronulla and Sutherland Shire, Pub, Angus andRobertson, Sydney.

Darwala-Lia Archaeological Services 2000 Preliminary archaeological assessment for monitoring ofBundeena and Maianbar Watercycle Management Scheme construction. Report to HyderConsulting.

Feary, S. 1986 'Scientific and educational values of sites', in Planning for Aboriginal SiteManagement: A Handbook for Local Government Planners, ed. Annie Ross, National Parksand Wildlife Service, NSW, Sydney, pp.38-42.

Frawley, K. 1994. Evolving visions: environmental management and nature conservation in Australia. InAustralian Environmental History: Essays and Case Studies. (ed.) S. Dovers. Melbourne:Oxford University Press.

Gill G P, 1954: Aboriginal Kitchens Middens and Marine Shell Beds, Mankind 4(6): 249-54

Goldstein, W. 1976. Royal National Park . Government Printers Branch Office.

Harper, W.R. 1899 Results of an exploration of Aboriginal rock-shelters at Port Hacking, Proceedingsof the Linnean Society of New South Wales, Vol 24, pp.322-332.

Hazelton, P.A. & P.J. Tille. 1990. Soil Landscapes of the Wollongong-Port Hacking 1:100,000 Sheet.Soil Conservation Service of NSW.


W-1181 429 May 2001

Higginbotham, E. 1993. Sutherland Heritage Study. Report by Perumal Murphy Wu Pty. Ltd. forSutherland Shire Council and the Department of Planning

Hughes P J, Sullivan M EL, 1974: “The re-deposition of Midden Material by Storm Waves:, Journal andProceedings, Royal Society of NSW 107: 6-10

Hutton-Neve M., June, 1972. Unpublished notes for Port Hacking and the Hacking River, Notes speciallyprepared for the ferry cruise by Local Government Party, Saturday 24 June 1972.

Koettig, M. 1982 A survey for Aboriginal archaeological sites at Maianbar and Bundeena - PortHacking. Unpub. report to the Metropolitan Water Sewerage and Drainage Board, Sydney.

Lawrence, J. 1997. A Pictorial History of Sutherland Shire, Kingsclar Books, Crows Nest, pp. 114-115.

McLoughlin, L. 1985. The Middle Lane Cove River a History and a Future (Centre for Environmentaland Urban Studies, Monograph No 1.: Centre for Environmental and Urban Studies MacquarieUniversity.

McLoughlin, L. & M. Wyatt. 1993. The Upper Lane Cove: History, Heritage, Bibliography: GraduateSchool of the Environment, Macquarie University.

Megaw, J.V.S. 1966 The excavation of an Aboriginal rock-shelter on Gymea Bay, Port Hacking, N.S.W.Archaeology and Physical Anthropology in Oceania , vol.1, no.1, pp23-50.

Megaw, J.V.S. (ed.) 1974 The recent archaeology of the Sydney district - Excavations 1964-1967.Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra, A.C.T.

Mills, R. 1998 Report on sub-surface archaeological testing program at Bonnie Vale Camping Ground andMaianbar, Royal National Park. Unpublished report commissioned by AWT for Sydney WaterCorporation.

Not Stated 1893 An Official Guide to the National Park of New South Wales, Charles Potter,Government Printer, 1893; reprinted 1979.\

Not stated, 2000 Royal National Park, Heathcote National Park and Garawarra State RecreationArea, Plan of Management, New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service.

Not stated 2001 Draft (Preliminary) Review of Environmental Factors, Proposed Boat LaunchingFacility at Bonnie Vale East (Simpsons Hotel Precinct) in Royal National Park . Report toNPWS by Fathom Consulting

Oakley, B. 1998 Survey for Aboriginal archaeological sites - Great Turriel Bay, Dolans Bay and LilliPilli, Port Hacking, NSW- Rehabilitation of sewer main. Report to AWT Pty Ltd EnSight.

Perry, T.M. 1963. Australia's First Frontier: The spread of settlement in New South Wales 1788-1829. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.

Philpott, L. 1981 The Bundeena Book , Bundeena Book Committee, Bundeena


W-1181 439 May 2001

Sherwin, L, Walsh I.L, Roy P.S. and Hann, J. 1986 'Cainozoic Sediments', in L. Sherwin and G.G.Holmes (eds.) Geology of the Wollongong and Port Hacking 1:100,000 Sheets 9029, 9129,pp.61-72.

Stanley, H.J. n.d. History of Royal National Park . Unpublished Report to NPWS by H.J. Stanley.

Witter, D. 1990. The Assessment of Archaeological Resources in the Western Region: A Guide toMinimum Standards for Consultants in Field Methodology. A Report to National Parks andWildlife Service, NSW.

Newspapers

The Observer, 11 August, 1955

Sutherland Shire Historical Bulletins, April, 1970; July 1974; February, 1982; February 1985

The Sydney Morning Herald, 30 July 1955.

Archive Files

Lands Department, Parks and Reserves Branch Correspondence Files, 40/5721 (State Records Ref13/1454)

Lands Department, Surveyors Field Books

Surveyor Richmond FB 2896 Folio 9

Surveyor Ainheim FB 7848 Folio 20-21

Maps and Plans

Plan of the National Park, Parishes of Sutherland, Heathcote, Bulgo and Wattamolla Ms (no date butsurveyed in 1884 and 1885)

Plan of lands to be resumed under the Public Road Act 1902 with the proposed roads within portions 5 &46 County of Cumberland Parish of Wattamolla. R11720 1603.

Plan of an area of 21 per County of Cumberland Parish of Wattamolla, Ms 5477Sy (8th March 1921).

DISTRIBUTION

Conservation Management Plan for Simpson’s Hotel Precinct, Bonnie Vale,Royal National Park

26 March 2001

…. copies National Parks and Wildlife ServiceRoyal/Heathcote Sub-District OfficeP.O. Box 44Sutherland, NSW 1499

Original Project File

Quality Control Reviewer

______________________________________Tony Mitchell BSc MRACI CCHemDirector

Royal National PArk Simpson's Hotel Precinct - conservation ...

Documents

Transcript of Royal National PArk Simpson's Hotel Precinct - conservation ...