40 Trinity Point Marina and Mixed Use Development May 2015 Insite … · 2015. 11. 26. · Date...

40

Trinity Point Marina and Mixed Use Development May 2015 Insite Heritage Pty Ltd

41


42


Appendix C - Statements from Registered Aboriginal Parties of the

Cultural Significance of Trinity Point Area

43


Statement of Cultural Significance of the area to the Awabakal and Guringai

Traditional Owners

The Trinity Point Region is an iconic landmark that features prominently within its surrounding

landscape. This regions mythology, mystery and organic presence that are quite simply, uniquely

Awabakal and Guringai still to this day has an undeniable amount of fascination and attention

regarding its cultural value and purpose.

The Awabakal and Guringai Traditional Owners have a personalised and ever-revitalised bond with

our ancestors’ culture, tradition & heritage. This inexplicable connection is reverberated within the

surrounding landscape of the region.

Additionally, we appreciate our unique role and responsibility for the care and protection of the

integrity of this landscape, for and on behalf of its original First Peoples and their descendants.

We would like to take this opportunity to assert our focus on the critical flow of intergenerational

equity and aim to ultimately safeguard the immeasurable life-changing impact to this and future

generations. Intergenerational equity lays the foundation for identifying, assessing, protecting and

maintaining the important cultural and heritage values of landscapes, resources, places, objects,

customs and traditions so that we, and generations to come, can enjoy, learn from them, and

appropriately manage these values.

The Region is organically and historically imbedded into the Awabakal and Guringai landscape

and is romanticised, photographed, talked about, visited, fought over, and all the time having its

substructure relentlessly undermined for its natural resources. And yet, this landscape still hums a

very distinctive ‘human story’ that still reverberates today.

We believe that the principles of the Awabakal and Guringai tradition and culture still exist today

to keep intact the moral and spiritual fibre of this land. Equally, we also believe it is essential to

nurture new visions that are inspired by the cultural integrity of our ancestral family and we are

encouraged that so many people in this town are focused on gaining an ever growing respect and

understanding for the Awabakal Peoples, this land and environment.

This land has had a wealth of knowledge walk over it, with each one of us deepening the footprints of

our ancestral family, the Awabakal and Guringai People (Awabakal Traditional Owners Aboriginal

Corporation, Awabakal Descendants Traditional Owners Aboriginal Corporation & Guringai Tribal

Link Aboriginal Corporation March 2014) © 2014 .

44


Statement of Cultural Significance Lower Hunter Aboriginal Incorporation The area was mostly dominated by the Kurungbong clan who ruled the region from Toronto

to Wyee.

There were stories elders have passed down about the Kurungbong clan and the many

fierce battles with Inland clans coming down the Sugarloaf ranges competing for access to

the lake for food and stealing many of the Kurungbong clan’s women.

The area is culturally significant to the Aboriginal descendants of the Kurungbong tribe and

they wish to recover as much cultural heritage history as possible for future generations.

The area is rich in Aboriginal culture with many sacred sites including ceremonial sites, and

areas near the Lake were a great food source and many camps were around there as well.

I David Ahoy have lived in Newcastle most of my life, always identified as Aboriginal and has

been trained in Aboriginal culture past down from Awabakal elders from a young age.

I David Ahoy is a direct descendant from the Pambalong tribe but we are all different clans

made up as one known as the Awabakal people from Newcastle to Lake Macquarie. I have

always identified as Aboriginal and has been trained in Aboriginal culture past down from

Awabakal elders from a young age.

45


PART B2 – CONSULTATION LOG AND AAC MINUTES

Date Action Insite Staff

24/01/2014 Created Consultation Log Taryn Gooley

24/01/2014 Logged Sent letters Taryn Gooley

11/07/2014

Project Update letters emailed to all RAPs

for the project E Wyatt

20/08/2014 Sent by email draft CHMP & HIP A Besant

15/09/2014

Called RAP's to remind them of CHMP

Review close date. T Gooley

15/09/2014

Review of CHMP & HIP received from

Ilearning AB

18/09/2015 ATOAC submit comments on CHMP &HIP AB

24/10/2014

Emailed RAPs with invitation to CHMP

and HIP meeting 6/11/14

additional meeting scheduled for the

7/11/14 due to some RAPs being unable

to attend the 6th

11/11/2014

ATOAC supply a CHMP from another job

with the okay to cut and paste as desired. AB

12/11/2014

Email RAPs to invite them to next TPM

meeting 5th December AB

27.11.14

Email RAPs to remind them of next TPM

meeting 5th December EW

28/11/2014

Minutes of previous meeting emailed to

all RAPs EW

5/12/2014

AAC meeting held at Bonnells Bay

community hall AB

5/12/2014 Kerrie Brauer rang AB

Kerrie rang to say that she found the

meeting constructive.

6/12/2014

draft minutes from AAC meeting

circulated to RAPs AB

8/12/2014

Kerrie Brauer requested a link to the

TPMU approval or copy of AB

9/12/2014

Notice regarding Remuneration emailed

out to RAP's EW

9/12/2014 Kerrie replied with thanks for above offer AB

10/12/2014

Statement of significance emailed out to

RAP's AB

12/12/2015

Mick Green emailed that he would try to

attend meeting but may not make it AB

16/12/2014

Emailed final docs to all RAPs- any

additional SoS will be added to the HIP AB

16/12/2015

LHAI raised issues with ATOAC SoS. AB

advised that there would be no editing of

SoS's

16/12/2015

Kerrie replied asking when the review of

the final will be closing AB

18/12/2015

AB replied that the docs had been subject

to several reviews and were now finals AB

18/12/2015

Sandra Hutton replied to Kerrie and

requested that if there are issues with the

documents if she could point those out

they could be considered SH

5/01/2015

Comments on CHMP & HIP received from

Biriban LALC AB

commented that BLALc does not agree

that Guringai should be included in

documents as occupying Lake

Macquarie

15/01/2015

Logo for reports received from Biriban

LALC AB

30/03/2015

Invitation / reminder of meeting 17th

April LW13/04/2015 Draft ACHAR circulated to all RAPs AB

17/04/2015

AAC meeting held at Bonnells Bay

community hall

24/04/2015

Comments on CHMP & HIP received from

ATOAC AB

29/04/2015

Confirmation email sent re next AAC 7th

Aug 2015 LW

6/05/2015

Reminder that comments on draft ACHAR

sent to all RAPs AB

15/05/2015

draft minutes from AAC meeting 17th

April circulated to RAPs LW

15/05/2015

Closure of comments on ACHAR stage 1 -

no comments received

1/06/2015

Draft ACHAR (sales office) circulated to all

RAPs

1/07/2015

Close of ACHAR (sales office) - no

comments received

19/08/2015 Draft POM categories sent out to all RAPS AB

21/08/2015

word document of interpretation ideas

incorporating ideas from last meeting

sent out for discussion

7/09/2015

ACC meeting held at Bonnells Bay CH.

Community collection report circulated.

9/09/2015

Attend POM hearing at Council - Peter

Leven Arthur Fletcher and Kerrie Brauer

also attended.

15/09/2015

reminder sent out for interpretation ideas

feedback ideas and comments - feedback

by the 8th September 2015

9/10/2015

TPM meeting at BB hall. Apologies

received prior from Cacatua, Kerrie

Brauer and Tracey Howie.

9/10/2015

after meeting apologies received from

Arthur Fletcher (sick) Ashlee Hudson

(couldn’t get a sitter) Peter Leven (forgot)

Trinity Point Marina and Mixed Use Development RAP Meeting 6th and 7th November, 2014

Minutes

6th November, 2014 Attendees: Ashlee Hudson - ILearning Arthur Fletcher - Wonn1 Craig Foreshew - Biraban LALC David Ahoy - LHAI Jacinta Green LHAI Sandra Hutton - ADWJohnson Bryan Garland – JPG Angela Besant - Insite Heritage 10am start One Minutes silence led by Arthur Fletcher Sandra Hutton (SH) – provided an overview of the current project development. The submission of DA’s for stages 1 and 2 and the pending stage 3 DA. Proposing regular RAP meetings every four months with additional meetings called in response to DA submissions or other matters that require discussion. Pointed out the locations chosen to date for heritage interpretation opportunities. Mentioned the opportunity for an artefact display in a central area. Ashley Hudson (AH) - concerned for the security of the display. Interpretation opportunity rather than artefact display. SH – the area will be secure by the design of the display and centre management security. The community will determine what content will be in the interpretation opportunity. Artefacts only if that is supported by the RAPs. Craig Foreshew (CF) - not keen on an artefact display. What employment opportunities and apprenticeships could be offered Traineeships in tourism ?? SH - there will be an opportunity to put forward ideas to the team as JPG will not be the operators of the businesses.

AF - Coal and Allied have developed partnership opportunities CF – artefact long term storage. AB – all agreed that the long term storage of the artefacts from the TP residential development needs to be addressed asap. A closed door RAP meeting prior to our next meeting to discuss. AB- overview of salvage plans. AB – overview of the comments received from all RAPs, with discussion. AH – view to Pulbah is an interpretation opportunity. Responsibility for the sites on the foreshore?? SH – that responsibility lies with council. JPG are responsible for ensuring that their activities do not impact on the sites within the council foreshore. The construction zones will be fenced prior to commencement. CF - sites are the responsibility of the entire community. Opportunity to inspect sites for example after extreme weather events. SH - we are not able to place conditions applicable to council owned land in the CHMP however the land is publicly owned and is accessible to the Aboriginal community. Will think about this and perhaps discuss with Council ???? AH – interpretation information to identify the vicinity of sites rather than specific locations (all agree) AF – employment opportunities – contractors need to be identified early so the opportunities can be identified. CF – maximise opportunity for economic development. Need commitment to get indigenous people into employment SH – JPG open to opportuntiies for landscaping Bryan Garland (BG) - place that on the agenda AF – fairness of work distribution AB – work will be rostered amongst all RAPs David Ahoy – field work participants need to be qualified. Those who are not need to be trained and paid at a trainee rate?? AB & BG - Next meeting 2nd of December Bonnellls Bay. Note – Later changed to the 5th December due to the number of prior commitments.

Meeting 7th November, 2014 Attendees: Peter Leven - Awabakal Descendants Traditional Owners Aboriginal Corp Kerrie Brauer - Awabakal Traditional Owners Aboriginal Corp Tracey Howie - Guringai Tribal Link Corp 10 am start SH – presented overview of the project as per previous meeting AB – presented salvage methodology Then discussed the comments received from all RAPs as per previous meeting. PL - concern of placement of view platform particularly proposed platform at southern end. SH - design concepts of the platforms should be available next meeting and we will be able to discuss further then. AB - each stage will require and AHIP and the detail of impact will be addressed in each ACHAR application post discussion with the RAPs AB – Meetings to be held every four months with extraordinary meetings called as required. The Meetings will be called the Aboriginal Advisory Committee (AAC) and all RAPs will be invited to attend. PL & KB – some suggested rules such as one representative per registered party. Others may attend but may not vote on motions. If a Rap cannot attend a proxy may attend. KB and TH - discussion of Awabakal – Guringai Trinity Point is a shared area. AB - I am concerned that to reference in all cases Awabakal – Guringai could cause some confusion. If on the central coast I would use Guringai – lake mac – Awabakal TH – understands where AB is coming from KB – no our history has been rewritten enough – it is a shared area and should be called A& G AB - suggested that the sharing of this area could be developed further in the interpretation of the site ? AB - Will consider how to approach the issue KB - has worked on the CHMP and shall provide material for AB to incorporate where appropriate. Next meeting 5th December 2014

Trinity Point Marina and Mixed Use Development

RAP Meeting 5th

December, 2014

Minutes 5th December, 2014

Attendees:

Ashley Hudson (AH) - ILearning

Arthur Fletcher (AF) - Wonn1

Suzie Worth (SW) - Wonn1

Craig Foreshew (CF) - Biraban LALC

Kerrie Brauer (KB) – ATOAC

Peter Leven (PL) - ADTOAC

Sandra Hutton (SH) - ADWJohnson

Bryan Garland (BG) - JPG

Angela Besant (AB) - Insite Heritage

Taryn Gooley (TG) - Insite Heritage

Apologies

David Ahoy - Lower Hunter Aboriginal Incorporated

Tracey Howie – Guringai Tribal Link

Jill Green (late registrant – interested party).

11:15am start

Welcome to country by Kerrie Bauer

AH - Update on decisions made between RAP’s present at pre-meeting gathering:

• All RAP’s present have agreed that they would like to have artefacts from TPM &MUD

and Trinity point housing development reburied on site in an agreed upon location.

• The reburial location should be capped with locally sourced sandstone.

• RAP’s would like a plaque on a sandstone block or something similar close by in order to

recognise the site however NOT to identify the site.

• The reburial location will be logged with AHIMS as a site.

• All RAP’s are to be present for reburial.

• Discussions regarding remuneration for AAC

AF - How will the artefacts be reburied? Has worked on salvages where artefacts were reburied in

plastic bags – not appropriate.

PL – Has spoken to Nicole from OEH who has informed him that wrapping artefacts in paperbark and

reburying them is an appropriate method.

General Discussion about reburial techniques.

AB – May need to get new permits for artefacts salvaged from Trinity Point housing development as

the AHIP specified that the artefacts would go to LALC. – Will need RAP’s to send through email or

letter showing support of getting new permits to rebury the housing development artefacts with the

TPM & MUD artefacts.

CF – 200 or so artefacts were excavated from Trinity Point housing development. Need to work out

who they were given to and where they are.

AB – Approximately 170 artefacts were salvaged. Will be in a small box. Artefacts were sent away for

analysis and then AB took them to LALC at Fennel Bay.

CF – RAP’s present have decided that they do not want artefacts salvaged put on display. RAP’s

present are agreed that stone tools and wooden tools made by Aboriginal people from the Awabakal

area can be put on display. JPG can organise particulars with Peter Leven.

AH – Doesn’t want artefacts on display due to security issues. But still wants to utilise the

opportunity to educate the public about Aboriginal culture. Thinks that modern Aboriginal stone

tools and wooden tools made in the traditional manner is a good way to educate public without

having the security issues of having artefacts on display.

General discussion on artefact display and ways to make stone tools/wooden tools

CF- is there the possibility of employment for young Aboriginal people to work within marina/mixed

use development? i.e in reception etc? Could there be a recommendation for this to be put in place?

Also wanted the opportunity for Aboriginal groups/businesses to tender for land management/

clearance/ maintenance works within the development.

BG – Happy to suggest this idea/ support the idea

AB – to action and include employment introductions into the CHMP

AH – Gardeners/ Land management workers need to be aware of Aboriginal sites in the area, and

take due care to make sure they aren’t impacted.

CF – When will scrapes be taking place?

AB - Scrapes will be undertaken during stage 1

SH – DA’s and AHIPS need to be approved before works begin

AB – Length of time it will take to get an AHIP will depend on how busy OEH is. The next step is to

prepare a draft ACHAR for review.

CHMP /HIP

AB –

• Drafts were sent out for review.

• 2 meetings held to discuss CHMP

• AB went through responses and put into table

• Statements of Cultural Heritage Interpretation incorporated into report as per KB’s

suggestion.

• Logos of all RAP’s added – (Confirmed everyone was happy with this)

• Incorporated acknowledgements

• Complete statements of Cultural Heritage Interpretation have been included in

Appendix C.

• JPG commitments to RAP’s added

• Topsoil section added

• Draft induction added. This is not final it has been added for review by RAP’s

AB – CHMP will be finalised and sent to RAP’s. Cultural Heritage Induction section will be draft and

will be worked on with RAP’s.

AF – Newcastle Herald has been reporting about contamination and imported soil.

SH – JPG is aware of issues of contamination. Full contamination study has been undertaken in the

past and full site audit given over the site.

AB – Statement of Significance – Have received statements of significance from Awabakal and

Guringai, and David Ahoy (will confirm David is happy for this to be used in CHMP). Would like

statements of significance from other RAP’s if they are able to provide it, or if they support Kerrie’s

Statement of significance they can write stating they support it.

AB – CHMP and HIP are not static documents, will be reassessed and reviewed regularly.

KB – Yes they need to be reviewed. Would like a statement put in the CHMP specifying when they

will be reviewed.

KB – discussion was had this morning about remuneration for RAP’s to attend meetings.

CF – RAP’s run as businesses, must pay insurances, wages, etc. RAP’s have agreed that each group

would like to charge $300 to attend meetings.

SH – for RAP’s who attend or for everyone regardless if they attend?

RAP’s – only if they attend meeting.

General discussion about meeting attendance

CF – money charged to attend meetings gets put back into the community, sports teams, education

etc.

SH – I think Bryan was expecting to discuss remuneration today?

BG – Yes

SH – we recognise that our meeting extend beyond community consultation in order to get the

cultural interpretation right.

BG – No fixed idea of remuneration – would like time to work out time frame i.e how many meetings

will be taking place in the next few years etc.

AB – Payments are not tied to the end point for meetings but with the end point of discussions ON

Cultural heritage management. Field work will be separate.

AH – not all RAP’s have to be present every day during field work, usually work on a roster system.

SH – Expects meetings will be useful and productive for the next 2 years provided nothing drastic

happens (i.e GFC)

AH – Meetings have been very productive. Today we have worked out what to do with the artefacts

etc.

AB – yes they have. Example of this is the artefact reburial and educational display discussed today,

now the designers can come up with ideas of appropriate designs for RAP’s to look at and approve.

CF – I would be comfortable doing the stage 1 scrapes for $300/day

SH – Will discuss closer to field work, would like to keep it as it is at the moment.

BG – Decision makers must attend meetings. Doesn’t want a situation where representatives are

being sent where they are unable to contribute or make decisions about cultural heritage.

BG – Will write up policy regarding meetings and remuneration by Tuesday 9th Dec 2014 to circulate.

SH – DA update

PL- Concerned about platforms toward the lake. What impacts will construction have on sites?

SH – Showed concept plans of platforms

AH – What depth are the poles going to?

SH – not sure will have to confirm

AB – AHIP will include platform area. AB would recommend that the locations of each of the poles

be tested/ archaeologically cleared. Could be midden material or artefacts there, area has been

historically well vegetated and surface visibility is therefore very low.

PL – OEH AHIP stance on midden?

AB – same as every AHIP – areas of potential will be identified and types of sites expected to be

found will be identified in document.

General discussion on testing/ salvage of areas where poles will be going.

SH – trying to make the Platforms as lightweight as possible in order to minimise impact, will look in

to exact specifications.

PL – Impact is still impact. This is a concern for us.

PL – Concern about the growth of the marina. Can you give assurances that the marina will not be

extended?

SH – Series of environmental/ ecological issues would make it difficult to get approval so extension

of marina seems unlikely. Advised that the loations of the viewing platforms are linked back to the

adjoining residential layout.

CF –Pelicans – will the helicopter impact on them?

SH – Before approval for the helipad will be given there must be numerous environmental studies

done to determine the impact helicopters will have on the area.

AH – Cultural heritage interpretation on platforms – would be a good way to educate the public

about Aboriginal culture without telling them exactly where sites are.

AB – meetings from now on will hopefully focus on Cultural Heritage Interpretation

General discussion about foreshore

AH – there is a large midden site near the grotto isn’t there?

AB – have had Phillip Hughes out to look at it and it looks like natural shell build up in that area.

There are definitely middens around the foreshore in other locations though.

PL- What is the final project boundary? Is the boundary on the plans shown today the final

boundary?

PL- will impact to sites, especially midden, be avoided.

SH – The vegetation management plan will extend over Council land. The intention is to maintain the

foreshore, other than the link to the marina and restaurant, as a natural area and retain trees.

PL – How will you stop public from accessing/damaging sites? Grassy areas are very inviting, they

also make it easier to access the foreshore.

SH – Public pathway up and away from the foreshore edge, was one idea to try and keep people

from accessing sites and allows for keeping the fringing vegetation.

PL – Concerns that the viewing platforms could give easier access to the sites and foreshore,

especially at high tide.

SH – we could look at some concept ideas of planting natural (native) barriers to try and deter

people from accessing the foreshore from the viewing platforms at sensitive locations.

AH – if the people are locals they probably already go there anyway

PL – What about the local influx, tourists etc?

AB – the landscape is fairly discouraging for people to go to the foreshore edge and around the

eastern margin to Bluff Point.

KB – heavily planted/ vegetated areas are not as easy to access.

AH – The natural barrier/ garden at the platforms is a good idea.

SH – Will look further into the natural barriers at key locations

AH – Can we consider the length of the platform and the plant life barrier? Perhaps the platform

could be slightly shorter so it doesn’t go all the way out to the water.

SH – confirmed that they are not intended to go to the waters edge, and will stop before the

vegetation edge.

General discussion about Platforms and vegetation barrier.

CF – Was there a previous agreement about a cultural centre?

SH – There is a reference to a cultural centre but exact details are not certain

AB – There may have been discussions about it in the very early stages

KB – It was discussed, but we never got confirmation

12:35pm - CF left meeting

AB – Is there anything further anyone would like to discuss?

PL – Lease of marina and native title.

• Non claimant application was lodged by JPG

• Will the application be withdrawn once JPG enters into lease agreement with the crown?

BH – Not certain, will have to investigate and confirm.

AB – Meetings will be held every 4 months, next one should be held in April. What date suits

everyone?

AH – Won’t be available until 12th April. Happy for the meeting to go ahead without her if it needs to

be before the 12th.

SH – Does anyone have an issue with mid April?

ALL – No

AB – How about the 17th April 2015?

AH – Should RAP’s meet early for pre meeting again?

RAP’s – probably don’t need to

Meeting Set for 17th April 2015 at 10am

AB – Will send around confirmation email.

1:10pm – Close of Meeting

1

MINUTES OF THE TRINITY POINT MARINA & MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT

ABORIGINAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (AAC)

FRIDAY 17th APRIL 2015

ATTENDEES: Suzie Worth (SW) - Wonn1/Kauwul

Kerrie Brauer (KB) - Awabakal Traditional Owner Aboriginal Corporation

Tracey Howie (TH) - Guringai Tribal Link Aboriginal Corporation

Bryan Garland (BG) - Johnson Property Group

Angela Besant (AB) - Insite Heritage Pty Ltd

Liz Wyatt (LW) - Insite Heritage Pty Ltd

Craig Foreshew (CF) - Biraban Local Aboriginal Land Council (late arrival)

David Ahoy (DA) - Lower Hunter Aboriginal Incorporated (late arrival)

APOLOGIES

Peter Leven - Awabakal Descendants Traditional Owner Aboriginal Corporation

Sandra Hutton – ADW Johnson

Meeting commenced 10.15am.

AGENDA ITEM 1 - WELCOME TO COUNTRY

(AB) Invitation for a Welcome to Country. Welcome to Country undertaken by Kerrie Brauer. AGENDA ITEM 2 - PREVIOUS MINUTES

Meeting attendees asked if there are any issues with previous minutes (AB) Review of main points of previous minutes (AB): - Need to progress further with reburial of artefacts - Changes to the CHMP & HIP document as a result of review process. Summary of issues raised provided by (AB) and what had been able to be added into the documentation. - Discussion of remuneration for AAC - DA Update - General discussion regarding the need for AHIPs for each stage of development. - Landscaping aspects to discourage people going to close to areas of midden. - No actions from December meeting, but have picked up points to discuss in this meeting.

2

(TH) advised attendees of error in attendance list of draft minutes. TH listed as an apology but was present. (AB) apologised, document will be amended to record GTLAC attendance. Attendees given a few minutes to read over draft minutes (previously circulated). AGENDA ITEM 3 - OVERVIEW OF STAGE 1 AHIP APPLICATION

(AB) - Outlined that the CHMP will be supporting documentation for the AHIP application

which will also include a consultation log. (AB) Request for any queries if anyone has had a

chance to review draft ACHAR ,which was recently circulated.

(KB) Has concerns over the ACHMP. Has a lot of issues with the document. Issues of

document being the final draft, didn't get opportunity to meet / meeting dates.

(KB) & (TH) Raised issues with the Interpretation Policy. Aspects of their Statements of

Significance interrupted by other paragraphs not written by them which is contradictory to

what they are saying.

(AB) Will review and amend if necessary, will also forward to Nicole (OEH). (AB) asked (KB)

if she could please write the issues down, AB will then review and send amended CHMP to

Nicole outlining that this is the amended final document.

(KB) Normal practice the CHMP should inform the AHIP

(AB) in this case it is an unusual set up as Part3A application normally just have the CHMP,

but the project is Part 3A and DA. Management plan triggered by condition of application

then approved by OEH. Have developed a process with OEH (Nicole) where AHIP

application will be attached to CHMP and lodge for each stage, but the CHMP is a document

for the whole site.

Concern CHMP does not cover unknown/in-situ artefacts

(KB) Issues with the two sentences in Statement of Significance and also concerned CHMP

supporting in situ artefacts only, not unknown artefacts

(AB) Explained registered sites cover landform units, two sites cover two soil landscapes

across the project area.

(KB) Not clarified in CHMP, needs clarification.

(AB) Provided explanation of the two registered AHIMS sites across the project area with

PAD, subsurface deposits with exception of the footprints of previous buildings.

(KB) In IP, CHMP and ACHAR only identified two sites, doesn't cover sites which may be

uncovered by a grader scrape.

(TH) Like Norah Head what if something more significant is uncovered.

(KB) Does not encompass any other artefacts.

(AB) Two site boundaries cover the whole area. This is why we are going for an AHIP with

that will cover previously unknown artefacts.

3

(KB) Needs to be clarified, not in CHMP and will not be picked up in AHIP

(AB) Site description states there is likely to be more artefacts.

(KB) Haven't explained that in documents and OEH won't see that.

(AB) Have always said there is potential for more artefacts and reason why we are doing

grader scrapes, committed to test pits, and grader scrapes plus using overlays of previous

development to target areas that haven't been developed previously in anticipation that there

will be artefacts.

(AB) Will make this clearer in the documents

(KB) Will send list of amendments to (AB)

(AB) The ACHAR that was recently circulated has a 28 day review period. Of you have any

questions /queries please just give me a call.

AGENDA ITEM 4 - ONGOING MODIFICATIONS, DAs & OTHER PLANNING ASPECTS

(BG) provided a summary of the current projects:

- Part 3A Modification and DA relating to the marina component

- Part 3A Modification & DA for some land based components

- Part #A Modification & DA for the heli pad.

Modification for the marina approved by the PAC (Planning Assessment Commission) this

week. LMCC doing their review. Report to Joint Regional Planning Panel next month which

will make decision if the DA approved. Next month, end of June. For the first 94 marina

berths.

The modification for the land based component is with the Department of Planning (DoPI).

JPG responded to community submissions on 31/3/15. Department considering, JPG feel

may go to the PAC (Nov??). Once that is determined Council will make a decision on the

hotel which will be reported to Joint Regional Planning Panel.

31/1/15 JPG lodged DA for four apartment buildings. The DA cannot be determined until a

determination is made on the land based Part 3A component. JPG will also be lodging an

application for a sales office.

(AB) Need to assess location of proposed sales office and previous development footprint to

assess if Due Diligence or AHIP required.

(BG) This has only come in, in the last fortnight.

(AB) Yes, will review. Most of the previous buildings were substantial (2-3 storey buildings,

classrooms, accommodations, swimming pool). Will look at this and DA and assess. If the

sales office is outside of previous development footprint will trigger an AHIP.

(AB) queried (BG) if the modification for the hotel is part of current Stage 1 DA

(BG) DA for the marina includes the marina's operating space which is on the first floor of

the hotel. Will build the hotel up and around.

(AB) This is why AHIP boundary around outer footprint of development area. We can

salvage over entire area rather than the DA footprint. Keep AHIP boundary large to capture

4

(KB) AHIP boundary / review map of AHIP boundary in draft ACHA report.

(AB) Need to cover development, access road and works compound.

(KB) Agree these would all need to be included.

(AB) Yes, it's why we are including works compound in AHIP boundary. The rest will be

cordoned off. Later modifications will have addressed salvage in these locations. The next

AHIP may be for the sales office and car park.

(BG) DA next to marina, function centre, has to have overflow car park which is up near

Apartment Building C.

(AB) might be better to associate overflow car park in sales office DA. Car park may be

underneath building, but need to ensure we have covered in some process.

(AB) When you get time to read, any issues just call. In ACHAR have to nominate how

artefacts are handled. Nominate temporary storage then reburial. If you have any preferred

option for temporary storage let me know.

(TH) Is there are care and control requirement with temporary storage?

(AB) OEH will write those conditions into the AHIP.

General discussion about temporary storage.

(TH) mentioned that GTLAC have a safe available, but not sticking hand up any saying that

they want the artefacts. Would only consent to storing the artefacts if all RAPs agreed that

this is where they wanted to artefacts to go till reburial.

AGENDA ITEM 5 - DISCUSSION OF ARTEFACT REPATRIATION - TEMPORARY &

PERMANENT STORAGE

General discussion about locations suitable for artefact reburial. JPG site plan consulted.

(KB) & (TH) Discuss location on top of bluff, in open space, with a visual plaque and

sandstone boulders over location of buried artefacts for protection so that they cannot be

dug up.

(AB) Educational plaque. Will need AHIP for footpath and area for artefact reburial in case

artefacts are identified during reburial. Will include in AHIP for footpath.

(AB) Give it some thought does not have to be resolved today. Maybe put response in with

response to draft ACHAR.

(TH) Will there be an option for interpretive signage?

(BG) Yes.

(TH) What other locations can we have these things?

(AB) Being incorporated into DAs. Need to get together to talk about the big picture,

locations for Interpretive Devices.

(TH) For us the development is an intrusion on our cultural heritage and significance to us.

The 'consolation prize' is the interpretive signage.

(BG) Content will all be in RAPs hands.

(AB) Need to get together and talk about what content/themes RAPs would like to see in

interpretive devices and then work out where these interpretive devices will be placed.

5

(TH) Devices need cultural perspective so people can experience, even for one second.

(AB) If we give the architect a theme, they will be able to come up with innovative devices to

present these. Present in relevant context and method. Need to make this a priority in the

meantime have a think. (AB) can send through a list of ideas just to start to stimulate the

discussion.

(KB) Important for the plaque not to disclose location of the artefacts

(BG) Totally agree

(TH) Agree, even if plaque is more of an acknowledgement of country.

(KB) Can be simple.

(AB) Provided copies of DA plan showing location of reburial site to attendees.

AGENDA ITEM 6 - DISCUSSION OF DRAFT CULTURAL HERITAGE INDUCTIONS

Cultural Heritage Inductions

(AB) Document has been out for a little while. Maybe tie in with Interpretation Plan. Would be

nice if it was finalised before any works start on site. Have been through experience

previously where project completed before RAPs could agree on final document.

(KB) ADTAOC have been involved with one that involved a PowerPoint presentation with a

short film. It worked out really well.

(AB) Will need different presentation forms for different types of contractors i.e. those that

require a full induction, those that need a visitor induction. For visitors develop package.

(BG) JPG will give package to the lead contractor

(KB) PowerPoint presentation ensures we don't have to be onsite all the time. Something we

could consider for here.

(AB) OH&S Coordinator on project could be the person to have a specific cultural induction.

Late arrival of CF. CF expressed his apologies as was out on site. Brief recap of meeting

provided to CF.

Interpretation Plan

(AB) Need to get together soon for interpretation plan. Develop broad information of what

everyone would like see conveyed and the locations of where you would like these

presented. Then we can present these to the architects and they can come back to us with

ideas on how these can be presented. Can send out document with some suggestions.

(KB) Scarred tree in induction document, please remove and replace with an image of a

scarred tree from Trinity Point.

(KB) In induction document and all the other documents please remove and last two

paragraphs from Statement of Significance and insert copyright marker and date.

Late arrival David Ahoy Lower Hunter Aboriginal Incorporation

General discussion to recap David Ahoy

(KB) recap to (CF) and (DA) suggestions temporary storage locations

Temporary Storage Locations

6

(AB) Asked (CF) and (DA) if there are temporary storage locations other than Insite offices

that the community would like.

(CF) What do you guys think?

(TH) Explained possible option of safe but only at the request of all RAPs.

(CF) Need to find somewhere neutral. Not comfortable with Insite offices. Possibility of using

National Parks office (new one at Lake Munmorah, not the Gosford office).

(AB) Does JPG have locked facilities (BG) No.

(AB) We could approach Nicole (OEH)

(TH) Will have a chat with Brad (National Parks) next week, but does know that National

Parks not keen to do this anymore.

(CF) Query about where artefacts are currently kept at Insite.

(AB) In a room, the 2005/7 collection onwards

(CF) They should all sit together

(AB) Agree

2001 Artefacts

(CF) Need to find the KLALC person to whom the earlier artefacts were deposited with. Have

spoken with the board of NSW LALC, need to find who the person was.

(BG) Asked (AB) if she could get the name to Craig before the end of next week.

(KB) Hunter Water may have a name as work was done with KLALC at Fennell Bay.

(AB) This was in the Teralba office, 2001, will go back to 2001 file to AHIP application.

(TH) Jody Benton and Ben Church did Hunter Water job for Fennel Bay.

(AB) Would be more than happy to see artefacts go somewhere.

(TH) You have existing care and control?

(AB) Yes , but made out to KLALC which is why we still have them after they were dissolved.

(CF) Would have gone to state LALC and back to BLALC.

Artefact Reburial

(CF) General consensus that reburial is done with anything uncovered

(AB) What element of risk doing beforehand

(KB) Don't want to be in breach of application

(CF) Woods Pt in National Park area protected by NP, history of repatriations for years

(AB) Where?

(CF) Near hospital, on the water reasonably close. Worried development may impact on

reburial.

(AB) Reburial will be a registered site. In JPG interest not to impact.

(AB) Educational value to plaque, content agreed to by everyone

(CF) Reburial already discussed?

(KB) Discussed this morning. Proposed location out of the way from everything else. Garden

location other locations possible but more activity near marina

(AB) The suggested location, more natural less disturbed.

(CF) As long as the location is not at risk of future impact. What is the walkway going to be

made of?

7

General discussion of footpath

(AB) Proposed location is relatively undisturbed, need to include in AHIP to cover reburial of

artefacts in area which may have potential. Consider reburial outside of footprint of previous

disturbance.

AGENDA ITEM 7 & 8 - DISCUSSION ON PROGRESSION OF CULTURAL HERITAGE

INTERPRETATION & GENERAL DISCUSSION

(AB) Any other matters?

Aboriginal Employment Opportunities

(CF) Would like to keep flow of discussion with JPG about employment opportunities for

young Aboriginal people and include Bahtabah LALC in dialogue to put in tender for

landscaping works

(BG) Yes

(CF) To generate employment for Aboriginal people

(AB) In minutes of first meeting.

(BG) Agree, tender process agreed.

Interpretation Devices

(CF) Would like Peter Leven considered to make display artefacts

(BG) Agree

(CF) Identify local person, story of local person for the interpretation, to consider who that

person is. Aspect of the storyline and interpretation

(TH) Good idea to acknowledge

(CF) Important to recognise not just the past. Will send through examples.

(TH) e.g - Bungaree at Norah Head.

(CF) Have example, contemporary, will send through. Regarding the discussion about a

cultural centre (with Lois from KLALC) have moved away from this?

(BG) Yes. Set cabinet aside for display of artefacts

Interpretation in the Function Centre

(KB) With the hotel, function centre any opportunities for photos, interpretation?

(AB) Have not got to that part. Need to discuss what themes want interpreted. Some

examples in the interpretation plan. Can include some nice examples of workmanship. We

have a site we can put a date of occupation on (1800 years old) but as (CF) mentioned the

need to draw into the present. Rare opportunity to have a dateable site

(SW) Agree, the photo of the hearth blown up on a wall would look great

(KB) Took mould of hearth, can recreate it

(AB) will put some suggestions together to send out to get everyone thinking. Once it has all

be finetuned will forward to architects (eg these themes wanted in this area with this aspect

etc) and see what they come up with.

Interpretation Devices

8

(CF) Possibility of taking moulds of the grinding grooves?

(KB) Down in the water

(AB) Some exposed at low tide in the public reserve.

(CF) Could work in with story line - mould of grinding grooves and what they are used for

(AB) Good sets at sugarloaf (need to depict straightforward example)

(TH) Kilkenny Road, complex of 600 odd

(KB) Dora Creek, some at Cooranbong, close example

(AB) This is an example of the ideas to give to architects for their ideas on interpretation

(CF) Yes, would be good to see their ideas

(KB) The Sanctuary Estate is a good example, example grinding grooves, stories and

interaction for children

(TH) It's not a site, recreated for children / educational purposes

(KB) At sanctuary planted bush tucker, medicine plants etc, doesn't take up much space,

great feature, great for young families

(AB) Sanctuary perfect location with lots of young families.

(BG) TPM is a tourist location

(KB) Interactive with community, seating and bubbler with bush tucker and information

panels explaining food types etc. Our own footprints are imprinted in the pathway. Could do

this with cockle shell.

(TH) Option of stencilling in pathway

(BG) JPG open minded about options

Employment Opportunities

(CF) Would like to raise issue of continuing discussion about employment opportunities.

Bahtabah LALC and Biraban LAL both agree. Opportunities which support Aboriginal kids

within the school system. Don't want a wishy washy discussion. Need to consider what can

be incorporated, don't want the issue to get lost. Needs to be a serious consideration.

(KB) Its mentioned in the CHMP, commitment by JPG in there

(CF) Just want to be mindful of it, is it written in as KLALC in original EIS?

(KB) CHMP doesn't mention KLALC

(BG) All we can give is opportunities, we don't operate the hotel or restaurant but can open

doors.

(KB) In the CHMP. If don't do, its in breach of the CHMP

(TH) I get what CF is saying, have to be careful

(AB) Have seen it happen both way. With the successful one it put pressure on surrounding

mines to do the same.

(CF) Platform for other areas, 'these things have come out of the Trinity Point project'

(TH) Yes, set a precedence

(KB) Those opportunities are there

(BG) Yes

(KB) That's good

(TH) In construction phase large opportunity for employment or traineeship

(AB) Then in operations later on too. With references from undertaking salvage works may

help young people get across the line with a job.

(CF) School based traineeships

(AB) Many slightly older kinds doing TAFE

(CF) Need to start younger. Year 11/12 and also allow opportunity for the next age bracket

(KB) Helps with direction

9

(CF) Land management works, younger people and have a gender balance.

Artefact Reburial

(CF) With the artefacts 2005/7 is it possible to look at doing reburial prior till waiting to end of

salvage works

(AB) Need an AHIP to dig the hole for reburial. Also want to avoid having to dig up reburied

artefacts. Look at alternative temporary location.

(CF) Concern is si that they are stored. It has been a long time and would like them reburied

(AB) Stored double bag and tagged as required by law

(CF) Is it possible to dig another hole next to reburied for salvaged artefacts

(BG) Don't have enough design detail at the moment to define footpath, don't want to have

to re dig them up. Other though was to be reburied near the sundial.

(AB) That area has heritage restrictions on it. No development can happen in that area.

(CF) There has been talk of people feeling uneasy when doing a walk around, Lois, Daniela,

could be contemporary.

(AB) Provided summary of Bert Bailey family and history of former homestead, property

eventually bequeathed to Little Company of Mary. There was also European graveyard with

a few priest and 16 year old boy late 60s, 70s.

(CF) 12 months ago Aunty Daniela felt uneasy in that area, so maybe go back to original

location. Timeframe 18 months importance of considering artefacts which are stored over at

the office

(KB) They are safe

(CF) Sitting there, not in the ground where they should be

(AB) Would like reburial of whole or keep some for education

(CF) Would like all to go back

(KB) Also our preference

All agree all artefacts go back and are reburied and photographed

(CF) Look at getting those in now

(TH) Therefore suggest the heritage area

(CF) Aunty Daniela felt uneasy on slope, but on top with view may be OK.

(KB) Are there heritage issues to consider

(AB) Yes, curtilage to sundial and heritage need to consider. Will talk to OEH about AHIP for

reburial

(CF) asked (DA) how do you feel about it?

(DA) Happy with it

(AB) Artefact reburied wrapped in paperbark

(KB) & (TH) Already cleared with Nicole (OEH)

(AB) Other Matters

(BG) Confirm attendance for today's meeting

List of attendees read out by (LW)

(KB) Also no logo on documents (induction documents etc)

10

(BG) Next meeting Friday 7th August

(AB) will set up ideas document for interpretation to stimulate discussion

(TH) When it gets to interpretive device stage, her husband is a graphic designer with one of

the oldest central coast companies.

Meeting Closed 11.55am ACTION ITEMS ITEM Due Date December meeting minutes to be adjusted

to reflect TH - GTLAC attendance

ASAP

ACHMP & IP ADTOAC Statements of

Significance to be amended and ADTOAC

© marker and date

ASAP

Clarification in CHMP, IP & ACHAR

regarding sites include previously unknown

artefacts

ASAP

KB to forward AB list of modifications for

CHMP

Progress discussion/planning for

interpretation devices

AB to send through a list of ideas just to generate / stimulate the discussion

Replace image of scarred tree in induction

document with one from the Trinity Point

site. Place logo Insite/JPG on documents

and include GTLAC logo in CHMP.

AB to supply CF with name of KLALC

representative

AB to talk to OEH about AHIP for reburying

artefacts

EW to email RAPs about availability for the

7th August next AAC

1

MINUTES OF THE TRINITY POINT MARINA & MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT

ABORIGINAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (AAC)

FRIDAY 7 AUGUST 2015

ATTENDEES: Trevor Powell (TP) - Awabakal Traditional Owner Aboriginal Corporation

Tracey Howie (TH) - Guringai Tribal Link Aboriginal Corporation

Peter Leven - Awabakal Descendants Traditional Owner Aboriginal Corporation

David Ahoy (DA) - Lower Hunter Aboriginal Incorporated

Ashley Williams (AW) - Indigenous Learning

Suzie Worth (SW) - Wonn 1 T/A Kauwul Pty Ltd

Bryan Garland (BG) - Johnson Property Group

Angela Besant (AB) - Insite Heritage Pty Ltd

Liz Wyatt (LW) - Insite Heritage Pty Ltd

APOLOGIES

Kerrie Brauer - Awabakal Traditional Owner Aboriginal Corporation

Sandra Hutton – ADW Johnson

George Sampson - Cacatua Culture Consultants

Craig Foreshew - Biraban Local Aboriginal Land Council

Arthur Fletcher - Wonn 1/Kauwul Pty Ltd

Meeting commenced 10.15am.

AGENDA ITEM 1 - WELCOME TO COUNTRY

(AB) Invitation for a Welcome to Country. Welcome to Country undertaken by Tracey Howie AGENDA ITEM 2 - PREVIOUS MINUTES

Review of main points of previous minutes (AB): Attendees given a few minutes to read over draft minutes (previously circulated). AB review of Action Items. All action items have been completed - Ideas for interpretation included on bottom of today's agenda - AB explained that the Trinity Point Housing Development artefacts found in a box within a larger box of Trinity Point artefacts.

2

- Reburial AHIP need to decide on location to determine if an AHIP required. AB explained possibility of including the shell recovered from the midden deposit, would therefore need a larger hole. General agreement to include shell in reburial. (AB) The previous suggested location near the walkway would not need an AHIP as within former building footprint. Area near the sundial would need an AHIP as less disturbed. (BG) Advised the design of the pathway has not been completed. (AB) Invitation to attendees to raise any questions or points regarding previous minutes. Request for motion to move minutes (AB). Seconded (TH) Motion passed. AGENDA ITEM 3 - OVERVIEW OF STAGE 1 & SALES CENTRE AHIP WORKS

Review of Community Collection report supplied to RAPs (AB). Total of 5 artefacts recovered from 9 grader scrapes. 4 artefacts recovered from two test pits undertaken at Stage 1 AHIP. Sales Centre AHIP salvage works indentified footprint of previous building disturbance larger. Only one scrape located in a natural profile, other scrapes identified demolition rubble. No artefacts recovered.

AGENDA ITEM 4 - ONGOING MODIFICATIONS, DAs & OTHER PLANNING ASPECTS

(BG) provided a summary of the current projects:

- Marina DA approval and sales centre granted since last meeting.

- PAC for the Modification to the Part 3A expecting to occur in September

- The first DA for the hotel/function centre and second DA for the first four apartment

buildings LMCC are looking to report to the joint regional planning panel before Christmas.

- (AB) AHIP to be prepared to join the two existing AHIP areas for the restaurant DA. This

AHIP area has more potential. Will be looking to locate suitable area for the 25msq Open

Area. ACHAR for the 4 residential apartments will follow after. Next ACHAR to be sent

around for review will be for the hotel to join up AHIPs over larger area.

AGENDA ITEM 5 - DISCUSSION OF ARTEFACT REPATRIATION - TEMPORARY &

PERMANENT STORAGE

(AB) explained artefacts still in temporary storage at the office, keen to rebury onsite but

need to determine reburial location, as Bryan mentioned earlier need to wait for the footpath

design.

AGENDA ITEM 6 - DISCUSSION OF DRAFT CULTURAL HERITAGE INDUCTIONS

(AB) Still need more feedback. Main works will be commencing soon. Could possibly send out again for confirmation. (TH) Commented likes the usual induction document Insite has. Query from BG if there is different scales of induction for different contractors? (AB) Will give this document to the principal contractor who will add it into their induction. Will need to work with them. (BG) They don't have anyone appointed yet.

3

(TH) Have undertaken inductions for Wyong and Gosford councils and the Green Army if that's an option. Have found inductions have more of an impact when can talk through on site. (BG) Can understand for the principal contractor, but for subcontractors who may just be coming onsite to do electrical work ect may not be appropriate (TH) They would just get the document. Dependant on scale of works. (EW) Ground disturbance works. (TH) if not undertaking earthworks then not really relevant, usually only earthworks/surface disturbance works. (AB) Can manage with the principal contractor. AGENDA ITEM 7 - DISCUSSION ON PROGRESSION OF CULTURAL HERITAGE

INTERPRETATION

(AB) Not much movement. Speaking with Bryan we think it would be a good idea to meet with the architects. (BG) Special meeting with RAPs and architects, a focused discussion before next AAC. (AB) If everyone cold have a think about ideas. (TH) Query about the scar tree, potential of picture or being in lobby, Kerrie's idea will confirm with her, although it isn't a scar good example of what one looks like. (AB) Still standing (TH) But going, (BG) not sure what we are doing yet. (AW) Any ideas on the platform/focal points? (BG) DA approval for Marina has two sites on facing east and one west. Next two DAs have additional. (AW) If have meeting with artefacts can determine. (AB) HIP has gone to council and LMCC uses the HIP recommendations in assessing DAs. (BG) HIP is approved part of Marina DA which gives it certainty it will be carried through. AGENDA ITEM 8 - GENERAL DISCUSSION

(AW) With the induction document if it is re-sent out, will go through it, apologies for not reviewing. (TH) The Statement of Significance? (AB) Was added in (PL) Kerrie sent through Statement of Significance on behalf of us, to go into HIP, IP and brief induction (AB) Have also moved my text out and put copyright in. General discussion on interpretation themes (AB) Viewing platform west some suggestion as looking toward salvage area for the housing development could include some information from the salvage. Looking further afield Sugarloaf, looking toward the Watagans. Great resource Threlkeld's language (TP) Definitely. Street Signage (TH) Street signage - opportunity to name streets?? (BG) No streets, access driveways to basement car parks.

4

(AB) With the viewing platform to the east - the lake, resources ect. The legend in Threlkeld of the creature that lives in the deep channel near Pulbah Is, story of the couple attacked by a shark in their canoe. Could be incorporated into something. Cockles, midden 95% cockle. Place name resources. Really need everyone's input, words, what would like to see incorporated, aim to come up with ideas before meeting with the architects. AB will send out word doc for everyone to throw some ideas into, incorporated ideas together and send to architects prior to meeting. Will do in the next fortnight. (AB) Any other matters/questions?? (PL) No shortage of ideas, the challenge will be to choose which ones to use. (TH) Suggested idea of small sign at entry to development. There is one at Norah Head Lighthouse. Just a few lines acknowledging that there is a lot of Aboriginal an historic history in the area, just a reminder to be respectful. Have noticed it has made an impact, decrease in foot traffic off paths ect. No specific information given out, just text to be mindful and respectful area also contains historical features. Its subtle, not offensive, very light material. (AW) To be just mindful to stick to the tracks (TH) Will ask light house if we can use their text. (AW) Good to have wording, can then edit and make it site specific. (BG) Good (TH) Sign before entering site, National Parks starting to put up in parks as well. We have noticed a reduced amount of vandalism. (AW) Suggestion - at Sugarloaf there is sundial type arrows to different features in the landscape. Could have something similar here with arrow to Pulbah Is ect to give visitors a general idea e.g 30km to Sugarloaf ect. General agreement (AW) Changes interpretation a little, not just all signs. (EW) Kerrie mentioned previously about endemic bush tucker plantings at Fletcher, interactive, tactile. (PL) Numerous layers for looking east Pulbah Is, Swansea ect. (AB) Walking track may have opportunity for things to be incorporated. (TH) Yes have done stencilling, cockle, prawn on pathways, has been done before natural resources ect. (AW) Can add in language in footpath like John Hunter, random, really effective. (TH) Yes really effective at John Hunter, gain awareness. (AW) Want to be the main outcome share knowledge where we can (TH) If it is incorporated into everyday life, there is acceptance (AB) Does anyone have a copy of Threlkeds Dictionary have been going through Gunson's Reminiscences (PL) Yes have a lot of language information. Hard part is making it unique within this development. No shortage of language resources. (AW) Wollotuka is a good resource. (TH) Opportunity for naming buildings? (BG) Not sure

5

(AW) Also possibility of including the replica of the hearth somewhere? (BG) Yes we have plans to do exactly that. (AB) Next meeting Friday 10am 27th November. December gets busy for everybody. (BG) Will be in touch with details about meeting with the architects. Liz will send out meeting invite for next AAC. (AB) To recap, aim to meet landscape architects end of September. Will circulate word doc. of ideas, won't be a locked document so everyone can add in ideas, photos ect. Meeting Closed 10.55am

ACTION ITEMS

ITEM Due Date

AB to circulate word doc of ideas for

interpretation

ASAP

BG to organise meeting with RAPs and

architects end of September

EW to email invite for the November AAC ASAP

PART B3 – OVERLAY SHOWING APPROX LOCATIONS FOR SALVAGE EXCAVATIONS

PART B4 – ACHAR, AHIP AND COMMUNITY COLLECTION

1 IH_380APacificHwy_ACHAR

Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report

Trinity Point Marina and Mixed Use Development

Trinity Point, NSW

Prepared on behalf of Johnson Property Group

Supporting information for OEH for an AHIP application

To be read in conjunction with the Trinity Point Marina and Mixed Use

Development CHMP

Impact #45-7-0228

Lake Macquarie City Council Local Government Area

May 2015

Project Coordinators

Johnson Property Group Bryan Garland

ADW Johnson Sandra Hutton

Insite Heritage Pty Ltd Angela Besant

Authors Angela Besant

Our Reference IH_TPMU_Stage1_ACHAR

Document Status Final

Report Version Final _29.05.2015

CONTENT WARNING: SENSITIVE & PERSONAL INFORMATION Please note that sections of this document contain information regarding the location of Aboriginal objects / sites. Appendices A and B also contains personal contact information of the Registered Aboriginal Parties for the project. This information is included to satisfy the assessment and consultation requirements for the project and should not be circulated in the public domain.

DISCLAIMER

This technical report has been prepared under commission and is intended for use for

the purposes of the client in accordance with the specific project outlined in the

Executive Summary. Written permission must be sought from Insite Heritage prior to

the copying or use of this document.

Report Author

Angela Besant B.A (Hons)

Table of Contents

TABLE OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................................... 4

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................................ 4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................... 5

AHIP REQUIREMENTS ...................................................................................................................................... 6

1. RESTRICTED INFORMATION ............................................................................................................................... 6

2. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION ........................................................................................................................... 6

3. COPYRIGHT ................................................................................................................................................... 6

4. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY ............................................................................................................ 6

5. INDICATE THE PROPOSED TERM OF THE AHIP ....................................................................................................... 6

6. DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA WHERE THE PROPOSED ACTIVITIES ARE TO BE UNDERTAKEN, THE SUBJECT OF THIS AHIP

APPLICATION INCLUDING EXCLUSION AREAS AND MAPS. ................................................................................................ 10

7. DESCRIPTION AND IDENTIFICATION OF THE ABORIGINAL OBJECTS AND AHIMS SITES .................................................. 12

8. DETAIL OF OTHER APPLICATION FOR AHIPS WITHIN THE AREA WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS AHIP APPLICATION ........... 12

9. DETAILS OF THE CONSULTATION PROCESS .......................................................................................................... 14

9.1 REGISTERED ABORIGINAL PARTIES ............................................................................................................... 14

10. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUES .................................................................... 15

11. DESCRIPTION OF ACTUAL OR LIKELY HARM ..................................................................................................... 16

12. DESCRIPTION OF MEASURES TO AVOID HARM ................................................................................................. 16

13. DESCRIPTION OF MEASURES TO MINIMISE HARM ............................................................................................ 18

14. INFORMATION REGARDING THE MANAGEMENT OF SALVAGED ARTEFACTS ............................................................ 18

15 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION DETAILS .............................................................................................................. 18

APPENDIX A CONSULTATION LOG .................................................................................................................. 19

Table of Figures

FIGURE 1 THE AREA OF THE COMPLETE STAGED DEVELOPMENT. ........................................................................................... 7

FIGURE 2 GENERAL CONTEXT OF STAGE 1. ........................................................................................................................ 8

FIGURE 3 STAGE 1 LAND AREA DETAIL ............................................................................................................................. 9

FIGURE 4 INDICATIVE AHIP BOUNDARY ........................................................................................................................ 11

FIGURE 5 THE LOCATION OF 2002 TEST PROBES. ............................................................................................................ 13

FIGURE 6 THE AREA OF 45-7-0228 (SJOG2) AND SITES IN THE VICINITY. ........................................................................... 17

List of Tables

TABLE 1 REGISTERED ABORIGINAL PARTIES .................................................................................................................... 15

Attached Trinity Point Marina and Mixed Use Development Cultural Heritage

Management Plan

Executive Summary

Insite Heritage Pty Ltd were commissioned by Johnson Property Group Pty Ltd to prepare

an Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report (ACHAR) to support an AHIP application

for Stage 1 of the Trinity Point Marina and Mixed Use Development, Trinity Point, NSW.

The project has been subject to approval as a concept plan by the Department of Planning

and Environment, and each stage of development requires Development Application

approval from Lake Macquarie City Council. A Cultural Heritage Management Plan has

been prepared for the entire development in consultation with Aboriginal stakeholders.

The Stage 1 of the development is located on the northern end of Lot 31 DP117408. The

first stage of development is located within the boundaries of AHIMS site 45-7-0228, which

comprises sub-surface artefacts located by sub-surface testing in 2001. The low density

artefacts present were found not to be in-situ as evidence of deposition of water-worn

artefacts interspersed with artefacts that were not water-worn. The location is a sand spur

where test probes found ground water at approximately 1-1.5 metres below the surface.

As each stage of development is approved by Lake Macquarie City Council there will be a

Condition that an Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit (AHIP) be sought from Office of

Environment and Heritage (OEH). This report provides information for the assessment of the

AHIP for Stage 1 of the project.0


AHIP Requirements

1. Restricted Information

Consultation with the Aboriginal community, via the Registered Aboriginal Parties for the

project, has not identified any restricted information regarding the study area.

2. Confidential Information

Consultation with the Aboriginal community via the Registered Aboriginal Parties for the

project, has not identified any confidential information regarding the study area. It has been

agreed that within the Interpretation of the cultural heritage of the site, the specific locations

of sites within the foreshore reserve will not be made public.

3. Copyright

Insite Heritage Pty Ltd was commissioned by Johnson Property Group Pty Ltd to prepare an

ACHAR for Stage 1 Trinity Point Marina and Mixed Use Development (Figure 1 and 2). The

property is located within the Lake Macquarie City Council Local Government Area, and

described as part Lot 31 DP 117408, part Lot 32 DP1117408 and part Crown Land, Parish of

Wallarah, County of Northumberland. No copyright agreement was included in the

commission, therefore Copyright of the report is retained by Insite Heritage Pty Ltd.

This assessment report has been prepared by Angela Besant, Director and Archaeologist

Insite Heritage Pty Ltd B.Arts (Archaeology & Human Ecology), Hons (Archaeology), ANU.

The report will be submitted to AHIMS with a signed AHIMS Heritage Report Cover Sheet.

4. Description of the proposed activity

The approved development comprises of the construction of a 94 berth marina, hardstand

parking areas, sewage pump-out and fuel facility and a marina building.

The study area is located at Trinity Point, east of Morisset Park NSW.

The area subject to this AHIP application comprises stage 1 of the total Trinity Point Marina

and Mixed Use Development.

5. Indicate the proposed term of the AHIP

The proposed term of the AHIP is five (5) years.

Figure 1 The area of the complete staged development.


Figure 2 General context of Stage 1.

Figure 3 Stage 1 land area detail


6. Description of the area where the proposed activities are to be

undertaken, the subject of this AHIP application including exclusion

areas and maps.

The entire footprint of the stage 1 development area is to be the subject of this AHIP

application, including the associated works compound on the southern boundary.

The property is located within the Lake Macquarie City Council Local Government Area, and

described as part Lot 31 DP 117408, part Lot 32 DP1117408 and part Crown Land, Parish of

Morisset, County of Northumberland.

The AHIP is to provide to impact to site 45-7-0228 which comprises low density subsurface

artefacts.

The proposed AHIP boundary is shown in Figure 4 and the GDA points are in Table 1.

Table 1 GDA points for the AHIP boundary

Order Easting Northing

1 363853.9 6334022

2 363866.4 6334053

3 363866.1 6334069

4 363865.7 6334082

5 363867.1 6334096

6 363895.7 6334108

7 363909.1 6334101

8 363956.9 6334056

9 363994 6334083

10 363990.1 6334094

11 363938 6334123


Figure 4 Indicative AHIP Boundary


7. Description and identification of the Aboriginal objects and AHIMS

sites

The stage 1 development will impact on AHIMS site 45-7-0228. This site was identified by

test probes into the sand dune landform that forms the northern spur of the peninsula. The

area is described as context 1 in the CHMP for the site.

Context 1 (northern end of site) – the Wyee Soil Landscape – site 45-7-0228.

This area comprises redeposited sands and the water table is located at 400mm under the

surface. Test excavation in this area found low density scatter (2.8 artefacts per square

metre), of which almost 50% were water worn (6 of 14 artefacts). The artefact scatters in

this area are not in-situ (or at least partially not in-situ).

The original cultural heritage assessment for the Part 3A application recommended

monitoring of earthworks in the stage 1 development area. To comply with contemporary

OH& S standards grader scrapes will be used in-lieu of monitoring. Grader scrapes allow for

a more controlled removal / inspection of topsoil process.

8. Detail of other application for AHIPs within the area which is the

subject of this AHIP application

The study area has been subject to a Section 87 test excavation AHIP – SZ359. The area

tested in the Stage 1 development area is known as L2. A total of 14 artefacts were located

in 5 sqm of excavation.

The results of the five 2m x 0.5 metre trenches can be seen in the graph below.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 2 3 4 5

Nu

mb

er

Trench

Volcanic

Silcrete

Quartzite

FGS

Chert

Graph 1 Artefact densities and types from Location 2 (within stage 1) Insite Heritage 2008


Figure 5 The location of 2002 test probes.


9. Details of the consultation process

Due to a hold in the progress of the project the consultation process was recommenced in

early 2014. The process conformed to NPW Regulation 80C. The Aboriginal community are

represented by the Registered Aboriginal Parties on the project. A consultation log and full

details of the consultation process are located in Appendix A of this report. The ACHAR

was circulated for review for a 28 day period ending 15th May 2015. No comments were

received.

The CHMP is the supporting document for the mitigation methodology, which has been

developed over a process commencing in 2000.

9.1 Registered Aboriginal Parties

The project has the following Registered Aboriginal Parties (RAPs) who were involved in the

2008 assessment of the site:

Awabakal Traditional Owners Aboriginal Corporation (Ms Kerrie Brauer)

Awabakal Descendants Traditional Owners Aboriginal Corporation (Mr Shane Frost)

Koompahtoo Local Aboriginal Land Council (over the land component) (Ms Lois Towney)

Bahtabah Local Aboriginal Land Council (over the water component) (Mr Michael Green)

Guringai Tribal Link Aboriginal Corporation (Ms Tracey Howie) and

Wonn1 (Mr Arthur Fletcher).

As a result of the 2014 consultation process the following added their expression of interest

in the project:

Cacatua Cultural Consultants (Mr George Sampson)

The Lower Hunter Aboriginal Incorporated (Mr David Ahoy)

Indigenous Learning (Ms Ashley Hudson)

Koompahtoo LALC has been replaced by Biraban LALC (Mr Craig Foreshew). Awabakal

Descendants Traditional Owners Aboriginal Corporation are now represented by Mr Peter

Leven.

Kauma Pondee (Jill Green) – expressed interest after the close of registrations.

The project has been subject to the consultation process outlined in NP&W Regulation 80C

to allow for an AHIP application (OEH 2010:25).

A detailed log and copies of documentation relevant to the consultation activities undertaken

for the project are provided in Appendix A of the CHMP.

The Registered Aboriginal Parties (RAPs) for the project are outlined in Table 2 below.

Table 2 Registered Aboriginal Parties

Awabakal Descendants Traditional Owners Aboriginal Corporation (ADTOAC)

Bahtabah Local Aboriginal Land Council

Biraban Local Aboriginal Land Council

Lower Hunter Aboriginal Incorporated

Awabakal Traditional Owners Aboriginal Corporation (ATOAC)

Guringai Tribal Link

Wonn 1

Cacatua Cultural Consultants

I Learning

Consultation is maintained by means of AAC meetings the details of which are outlined in

Section 3.3 of the CHMP.

10. Statement of significance of the cultural heritage values

The ATOAC, ADTOAC, Guringai TL, Bahtahbah and Biriban LALC’s and I Learning have

clearly stated that the Trinity Point area is of high cultural significance.

The following introduction to the cultural significance of the Trinity Point area has been

provided by the ATOAC on behalf of the Awabakal / Guringai Native Title Registrants.

The Awabakal and Guringai is one of the 600 or more language groups or ‘nations’ that

existed across Australia at the time of European contact and are part of the oldest and

continuous living culture in human history. The Awabakal and Guringai presence within the

Trinity Point area extends from the present day back many thousands of years and is

reflected in both tangible and intangible aspects of Aboriginal culture and history. Past

survey and assessment in the Trinity Point has identified Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Sites

(the tangible evidence of occupation) and landscape features of cultural value embedded

within a landscape that provided physical and spiritual sustenance (often intangible aspects)

to the Awabakal and Guringai and those Aboriginal People they invited into their Country.

The Awabakal and Guringai people also have a continuing, contemporary history of trying to

protect and preserve the Trinity Point area. They maintain concerns over Development

licences being approved in the area and the adverse impacts this has on their cultural values

and landscape features and footprints of their ancestors which are being impacted through

cumulative and overlapping development activity and unmonitored and unmanaged human

recreational activity.

Although the impact of European invasion dramatically changed Aboriginal life in Australia

forever, the recent history of the Lake Macquarie area is also characterised by the cultural

resilience of Aboriginal Peoples, for both those who have retained connection to Country and

those that are reconnecting to Country. Recent history is also characterised by the

movement of other Aboriginal Peoples into the Country of the Awabakal and Guringai and

the development of their own more recent attachments to the area. Whilst a diversity of

attachment and experience is recognised, it is also recognised that the landscape,

vegetation and watercourses of the Trinity Point Project Area form part of an Aboriginal

cultural landscape of traditional and contemporary cultural and spiritual value to many

Aboriginal People.

Aboriginal lore requires that the Aboriginal cultural landscape (which includes Aboriginal

heritage sites, landscape features of cultural value, the plants, animals and water) of the

Trinity Point Project Area is cared for so that it will survive for future generations of

Aboriginal Peoples.

The custodial rights and obligations of Aboriginal people for Caring for Country underpin the

principles of this HIP. It is highlighted, however, that the Registered Aboriginal Parties in no

way support any impact to Aboriginal sites, landscape features of Aboriginal cultural value or

any aspect of the natural environment of the Trinity Point Project Area. Aboriginal people

inherit the right and obligation to Care for Country, and endorsing any form of harm is

assessed as culturally and ethically inappropriate1.

As indicated by the statements provided by the registered Aboriginal parties (refer Appendix

C), the mental, physical and spiritual wellbeing of the Awabakal People and those Aboriginal

Peoples that feel a connection to this landscape is a contemporary phenomenon and not just

‘a thing of the past’.

The Trinity Point Project Area contains 2 registered Aboriginal cultural heritage sites

identified as having significant Aboriginal cultural value. Additional registered cultural

heritage sites are located on adjoining property. The sites and landscape features of Lake

Macquarie link contemporary Awabakal and Guringai People with generations of their

ancestors and are extremely important teaching places and places of spiritual renewal.

11. Description of actual or likely harm

The construction of the stage 1 development will impact on all of the cultural site located

within the footprint of the development. If there are sub-surface artefacts outside the

footprint of Stage 1 these will remain in-situ and will not be impacted by this project.

12. Description of measures to avoid harm

The measures to be taken to confine harm to the footprint of the stage 1 development area

include fencing to ensure construction contractors are contained within the AHIP area.

Inductions of all site contractors will include a cultural heritage component appropriate to the

scale of the construction acitivity.

1 © 2012 ATOAC

Figure 6 The area of 45-7-0228 (SJOG2) and Sites in the vicinity.

13. Description of measures to minimise harm

The measures to minimise harm is by means of mitigation. The original EIS process

concluded that the stage 1 area was best suited to monitoring of topsoil stripping as it was

demonstrated in the 2001 test pits that the sub-surface artefacts were not in-situ. This was

demonstrated by the interspersion of water worn artefacts with non-waterworn artefacts. As

a result of consultation during the ongoing assessment period monitoring of topsoil stripping

was accepted by the RAPs.

With consideration of contemporary OH&S issues and as prescribed in the CHMP it is

proposed to conduct grader scrapes to facilitate the community collection of any subsurface

artefacts in lieu of monitoring of topsoil stripping.

It is proposed to undertake the grader scrapes, that is removal of the central area, with a

grader in 50mm spits until such times groundwater prohibits the use of the grader.

The area shall be inspected by a minimum of two RAPs between scrapes, artefacts

collected, their position recorded by handheld GPS. The artefacts will be recorded on site

and then stored in the temporary storage facility determined by the RAPs.

As per the CHMP the contractors will endeavour to retain the maximum possible of topsoil

on-site.

Principles of ecological sustainable development and cumulative impact have been

considered in the Part 3a concept approval process and were considered addressed.

Intergenerational equity – the site has been disturbed by previous occupations and natural

forces therefore the salvage of otherwise unknown cultural resources will add to the

communities understanding of the history of occupation of the site.

Precautionary principle- the precautionary principle is being applied by the securing of an

AHIP to allow the collection of any subsurface objects that are likely to be present.

Social equity – the heritage interpretation of the site will enhance the public’s access to

relevant information regarding the Aboriginal occupation of the site.

Cumulative impact – the cumulative impact of the development has been considered in the

Part 3a and DA process.

14. Information regarding the management of salvaged artefacts

Recent AAC meetings have identified that the long term plan for the artefacts retrieved and

those excavated from the adjacent residential development should be repatriated and buried

on site. The location for reburial will be determined by the AAC in consultation with Johnson

Property Group and landscape architects.

In the short term the artefacts will be stored at the Insite Heritage offices. AAC members are

exploring alternative short term storage and should this arrangement be changed OEH will

be notified.

15 Development Application Details

The approval of the DA for stage 1 is anticipated about the 18th June 2015. A full copy of the

Conditions of Consent will be forwarded to OEH upon receipt.

Appendix A Consultation Log


Date Stakeholder/organisation Action Taken Response

24/01/2014 Biraban LALC Mailed letter outlining project and requesting

contact details for Aboriginal people who may

have an interest in the project. Also inviting

LALC to register interest in project. Given until

7/2/2014 to reply

24/01/2014 National native title tribunal

(NNTT)

Mailed letter outlining project and requesting

contact details for registered native title

claimants, native title holders and registered

Indigenous Land Use Agreements located

within the project area

24/01/2014 Lake Macquarie City Council

(LMCC)



have an interest in the project

28/01/2014 Reply to

Letter requesting

contact details.

Supplied Insite with a

list of 4 "Groups that

would be relevant for

the Belmont area"

24/01/2014 Hunter - Central Rivers

Catchment Management

Authority (HCR CMA)




24/01/2014 Office of the Registrar (OoR) Mailed letter outlining project and requesting





29/02/2014 Reply to

Letter requesting

contact details. "The

project area does not

appear to have

registered Aboriginal

Owners persuant to

division 3 of the

Aboriginal Land Rights

Act 1983"

Date Stakeholder/organisation Action Taken Response

24/01/2014 Biraban LALC Mailed letter outlining project and requesting


have an interest in the project. Also inviting

LALC to register interest in project. Given until

7/2/2014 to reply

24/01/2014 National native title tribunal

(NNTT)






24/01/2014 Lake Macquarie City Council

(LMCC)




28/01/2014 Reply to

Letter requesting

contact details.

Supplied Insite with a

list of 4 "Groups that

would be relevant for

the Belmont area"

24/01/2014 Hunter - Central Rivers

Catchment Management

Authority (HCR CMA)




24/01/2014 Office of the Registrar (OoR) Mailed letter outlining project and requesting





29/02/2014 Reply to

Letter requesting

contact details. "The

project area does not

appear to have

registered Aboriginal

Owners persuant to

division 3 of the

Aboriginal Land Rights

Act 1983"

24/01/2014 Native Title Services Corp Ltd

(NTS Corp)






17/02/2014 Reply to

letter requesting

information regarding

native title claimants

etc.

24/01/2014 OEH Mailed letter outlining project and requesting



18/02/2014 Reply to

letter received from

Nicole Davis with list of

potentially interested

parties.

24/01/2014 Biraban LALC EW from Insite called and left a message with

BLALC re TPM arranging a meeting with B

Garland to go over proposal and project to

date as well as provide copy of the 2008 arch

assessment. Email also sent advising advert to

be placed in media next week

24/01/2014 Bahtabah LAC Courtesy email sent to BTLALC to advise work

on the CHMP will commence shortly and an ad

appearing on the media next week calling for

registrations BTLALC do not need to re-register

28/01/2014 response

back from Mick Green

BTLALC thanking for

the notification and to

please advise when

work commences

24/01/2014 ADTOAC Courtesy email sent to ADTOC to advise work



registrations ADTOC do not need to re-register

24/01/2014 Awabakal Traditional Owners

Aboriginal Corporation (ATOAC)

Courtesy email sent to ADTOC to advise work



registrations ADTOC do not need to re-register

30/01/2014 Advertisement in The Herald calling for

interested parties to register for the project.

11/02/2014 Awabakal Newcastle Aboriginal

Co-op, Gimbay Gatigaan

Aboriginal Corporation,

Yamuloong Group Initiatives

LTD

Letters Sent to invite registrations of interest

in the project.

11/02/2014 Cacatua Emailed to register interest in Project

11/02/2014 Awabakal Traditional Owners

Aboriginal Corporation

Emailed to register interest in Project

11/02/2014 The Lower Hunter Aboriginal

Incorporated (LHAI)


13/02/2014 Indigenous Learning Emailed to register interest in Project

15/02/2014 Guringai Tribal Link Aboriginal

Corporation


25/02/2014 Kauma Pondee - Jill Green Emailed to register interest in Project,

Registered as late registrant

11/07/2014 Cacatua Culture Consultants

Project update letter sent by email

11/07/2014 Kauma Pondee


11/07/2014 Guringai Tribal Link


11/07/2014 Indigenous Learning

Project update letter sent by email 11/07/2014 response

received from A

Williams thank you for

the update

11/07/2014 ADTOAC


11/07/2014 ATOAC Project update letter sent by email

11/07/2014

BLALC


11/07/2014 BahtanahLALC


11/07/2014 Lower Hunter Aboriginal Inc.


17/07/2014 Wonn1 T/A Kawul

Project update letter sent by email. Wonn1

early registrant from 2008/9

15/09/2014 Biraban LALC Phoned to remind RAP's of end of review

period (Thursday 18/9/2014)

15/09/2014 Bahtabah LAC Phoned to remind RAP's of end of review

period (Thursday 18/9/2014). Left message

with Reception.

15/09/2014 Kerrie Brauer Phoned to remind RAP's of end of review


15/09/2014 Peter Leven Phoned to remind RAP's of end of review


15/09/2014 Cacatua Culture Consultants Phoned to remind RAP's of end of review

period (Thursday 18/9/2014). No answer, left

message

15/09/2014 Indigenous Learning Phoned to remind RAP's of end of review

period (Thursday 18/9/2014). Ashley informed

us that Indigenous Learning was happy with

the CHMP, no major issues etc.

15/09/2014 Guringai Tribal Link Phoned to remind RAP's of end of review


15/09/2014 Lower Hunter Aboriginal Inc. Phoned to remind RAP's of end of review



Invitation to CHMP and HIP Meeting

6/11/2014



6/11/2014



6/11/2014



6/11/2014

24/10/2014 ADTOAC


6/11/2014

24/10/2014 ATOAC Invitation to CHMP and HIP Meeting

6/11/2014

24/10/2014

BLALC


6/11/2014

24/10/2014 BahtabahLALC


6/11/2014



6/11/2014



6/11/2014

6/11/14 &

7/11/14

CHMP & HIP meetings



meeting 5th December







12/11/2014 ADTOAC



12/11/2014 ATOAC Email RAPs to invite them to next TPM


12/11/2014

BLALC










,







reminder of meeting (5/12/2014) emailed





27/11/2014 ADTOAC


27/11/2014 ATOAC reminder of meeting (5/12/2014) emailed

27/11/2014

BLALC




27/11/2014 Lower Hunter Aboriginal Inc







Minutes of previous meeting emailed to all

RAPs

28/11/2014 Guringai Tribal Link Minutes of previous meeting emailed to all

RAPs



RAPs

28/11/2014 ADTOAC


RAPs

28/11/2014 ATOAC Minutes of previous meeting emailed to all

RAPs

28/11/2014

BLALC


RAPs



RAPs



RAPs



RAPs



RAPs

5/12/2014 AAC meeting held at Bonnells Bay community

hall

6/12/2014 emailed draft minutes to all

RAPS


Notice regarding Remuneration emailed out to

on time RAP's



on time RAP's

9/12/2014 Indigenous Learning Notice regarding Remuneration emailed out to

on time RAP's

9/12/2014 ADTOAC


on time RAP's

9/12/2014 ATOAC Notice regarding Remuneration emailed out to

on time RAP's

9/12/2014

BLALC


on time RAP's



on time RAP's



on time RAP's



on time RAP's


Statement of significance emailed out to RAP's





10/12/2014 ADTOAC


10/12/2014 ATOAC Statement of significance emailed out to RAP's

10/12/2014

BLALC





Statement of significance emailed out to RAP's Email response from

David Ahoy stating: "I

think Kerrie’s

statement of

significance to area is

well done with lots of

thought.

But I as a Awabakal

descendant I also find it

offensive to have

added the Guringai

people as traditional

owners in Awabakal

country, the Guringai

tribe is in the lower

central coast and has

no affiliation with this

area."

Email response from Angela to

David Ahoy regarding

Statement of significance:

"Thanks for your comments

I am not going to edit Kerrie’s

statement as I think that

everyone's statement should

be included in their own

words. I guess there will

always be some differences of

opinion.

Re who is included etc,

unfortunately we are tied by

OEH process."




draft minutes from AAC meeting held on

5/12/2014 circulated to RAPs







11/12/2014 ADTOAC



11/12/2014 ATOAC draft minutes from AAC meeting held on


11/12/2014

BLALC






12/12/2014 Email from

Mick Green stating he

will try to be at the

next meeting








Emailed final CHMP and HIP docs to all RAPs





16/12/2014 ADTOAC


16/12/2014 ATOAC Emailed final CHMP and HIP docs to all RAPs 17/12/2014 Email from

Kerrie requesting

response deadline for

CHMP. Advised by

Angela that this was

the final document and

it would be up for

review within the next

12 months.

16/12/2014

BLALC








17/12/2014 ATOAC Email response from Angela to Kerrie advising

that as the documents have been finalised

they require no responses. The will be up for

review in 12 months’ time.

17/12/2014 ATOAC Email response from Kerrie regarding

finalisation of the CHMP and HIP: "I would

have thought that we would have had at least

a chance to go though both documents before

the final was agreed upon, and find this most

disappointing as it was discussed at the last

meeting that we would be able to look

through the documents before they were

finalised.

I have already found some errors within the

ACHMP which could have been corrected.

If we are to have an inclusive consultation

then please consult, lets not rush the process

as this does not give me the confidence that

we are all working together for a satisfying

outcome."

17/12/2014 ATOAC Response to Kerrie from Angela regarding the

finalisation of the CHMP: "Hi Kerrie

I remember you raised the issue of another

review of the documents at the meeting and

as per the minutes I ran through the process

that the Plans had been through and said I

would be finalising them at the end of the

week. The plans have been subject to review

since August. My apologies for any

misunderstanding."

18/12/2014 ATOAC Email Response to Kerrie from Sandra Hutton

regarding finalisation of CHMP and HIP: "Hi all,

My recollection aligns with Angela’s as per

below. I apologise as Bryan is on leave at

present and I cannot speak for him. I am

reasonably confident however that Kerrie, if

you or Peter or Tracey have outstanding issues

on either of the two documents that are

causing you stress, then we would be pleased

to be advised of them, notwithstanding they

have been issued as ‘finals’. They are yet to be

approved. I genuinely believe JPG do want to

work together and they believed that all the

right things for the right reasons had been

incorporated into the issued documents to

provide the right platform for 2015 for all

RAPs, following Angela’s review process. If

you disagree, please advise the specific issues

you have and we will liaise and resolve early in

the New Year when we are all back on deck.

My apologies as I am out of the office this

afternoon, offline tomorrow and our offices

are closed then until 5 January.

Regards,

Sandra"

18/12/2014 ATOAC Email Response to Sandra from Kerrie RE:

CHMP and HIP Finalisation: "Hi Sandra,

Thank you for your email.

As mentioned below we are disappointed that

we were not given the opportunity to view the

documents before they were finalised when

requested, and I have already found some

errors within the CHMP and Interpretation

Policy which could have been corrected.

I also remember in the workshop meeting that

Angela was getting them finalised by the end

of the week, and we were assured that we

could give the documents the once over. Now

I am of the opinion that the process to have a

finalised ACHMP and Interpretation Policy may

have been rushed, and if there was a

timeframe for submitting the documents, then

we also should have been reminded if there

was a cut-off date.

We would also like to enquire as to where and

who are the approvals being sort from

regarding the finalised ACHMP and

Interpretation Policy. If indeed that both

documents have been passed on to whoever

has to approve them, then how are we to

resolve our issues??

At this stage I am concerned regarding the

content of both the CHMP and Interpretation

Policy, and it does not give me the confidence

that is needed for a satisfactory outcome, and

it is becoming stressful for me to say the least.

Regards,

Kerrie"

5/01/2015 Biraban LALC Reply from Biraban LALC RE: Finalisation of

CHMP and HIP: "In relation to the above our

LALC do not agree with the comments of

Guringai being part of the Lake Macquarie

catchment area. I am yet to be privileged to

any written material that will inform/educate

us that the group was?"


Emailed all RAP's invitation to AAC Meeting to

be held on the 17/4/2015







30/03/2015 ADTOAC



30/03/2015 ATOAC Emailed all RAP's invitation to AAC Meeting to


30/03/2015 Reply from

Kerrie, thanking Angela

for the update

30/03/2015

BLALC













Email Sent to all RAP's reminding them of the

AAC Meeting to be held on the 17/4/2015

with draft ACHAR for stage 1 attached for

review. A copy of the CHMP was also attached

for RAP information.













13/04/2015 ADTOAC






13/04/2015 ATOAC Email Sent to all RAP's reminding them of the





13/04/2015

BLALC
























17/04/2015 Meeting attended by ATOAC,

Biriban LALC, LHAI, Suzie Worth

for Wonn1, GTLAC

AAC held at Bonnells Bay Community Centre

10am

24/04/2015 ATOAC Comments on CHMP and HIP received

from Kerrie Brauer * (see below)

29/04/2015 All RAPs – Wonn1, ADTOAC,

ATOAC, GTLAC, Cacatua

Bahtahbah LALC, Biriban LALC,

LHAI

Email confirming next AAC meeting 7th

August 2015




LHAI

Reminder email sent to all RAPs regarding

closing date of review of ACHAR for stage

1 closes 15/05/2015

07/05/2015 Tracey Howie Guringai TLAC Sent request to Tracey for her logo for

inclusion in the report by email




LHAI

Draft minutes from the AAC 17/05/2015

sent by email to all RAPs

15/05/2015 Stage 1 ACHAR review period closes – no

comments received.

20/05/2015 Tracey Howie Guringai TLAC Sent request to Tracey for her logo for

inclusion in the report by email

28/05/2015 ATOAC Marked up CHMP and HIP sent to Kerrie

with comments addressing issues that

could not be changed. Requested Kerrie’s

approval to circulate to all RAPs.

*ATOAC comments at end of next section– Marked up with Insite Heritage response


Comments received and responses to 28/5/2015

Table 3 Responses to December 2014

ATOAC Interpretation policy

Change Aboriginal community to Registered Stakeholders

Can do however the Condition 22 refers to Aboriginal community. Changed reference to RAPs in documents

Monitoring of top soil stripping The SoC was written in 2008 and since that time OEH have changed their view on the monitoring of topsoil. Monitoring is also an OH&S issue. It is proposed to do grader scrapes within Stage 1 in lieu of monitoring. The remaining stages will be subject to salvage and monitoring will not be required.

Topsoil to remain on site JPG agree to retain as much topsoil as possible

HIP table 1 – definition of ‘ingredient’ Ingredient is the term used by the heritage office The term essentially means that each item is a component of a mixture to produce the required result. Discussed at meetings 6

th & 7

th Nov 2014.

HIP Section 2 change to Awabakal and Guringai Awabakal has been the usual term for the area. Discussion with ATOAC (Kerrie Brauer) and Guringai (Tracey Howie) indicated that the inclusion of the shared territory history of the site could be incorporated into interpretation of the cultural heritage of the site.

Section 2.2 – reference to Awabakal and Guringai NT Claim

JPG do not agree that the management plan is the appropriate place for this reference.

Sect 2.2 – reference to arch assessment should include cultural heritage aspect

Agreed – wording changed accordingly

Sect 2.4 – pathway may have potential to impact on midden and sites – clarification

There is no registered midden in the location of the boardwalk – however salvage will occur in a location where the boardwalk intercepts an area of minimal disturbance and midden may occur there.

Table 2 – no reference to cultural heritage aspect I am not sure how cultural heritage relates to this table. Will need to discuss at the meeting – result no specific comment

Sect 2.5.1 change to Awabakal and Guringai occupation

The shared nature of the area as raised by the ATOAC has been included in the Heritage Interpretation Policy (Sect 2.1 Intro Consultation). It is agreed that this is also a theme that could be interpretation on the site. I have left reference to Awabakal occupation in the CHMP to avoid confusion with the standard reference for the area.

Section 3.1 change to include cultural heritage salvage work

Agreed and changed

Sect 3.3 further discussion re artefact display Meeting indicated that this location be referred to as an interpretation opportunity and the form of the interpretation

is to be determined. This is easily accommodated within the HIP

Sect 3.4.1 Awabakal and Guringai As above

Clarify area of works to include areas of machinery impacts etc

Agreed and compounds will be identified in the DA

ATOAC CHMP

Establish an Aboriginal Advisory Committee Agree – time frame of meetings to be 3 monthly with extraordinary meetings called if required.

Clarify PT 32 Figure 2 Clarified at meeting – reference to the potential view points at the southern end of the site. These were discussed at the meeting 7

th Nov, 2014.

Sections to be included in the CHMP Kerrie to provide. Have incorporated as much as possible to inform the CHMP and where applicable, the HIP .

Only one scarred tree Only one tree located in housing area. Another tree that is considered cultural by some RAPs is located in council reserve.

Wonn1

Recommends regular site inspections to review environmental status of sites

The sites are located on Council land and as such prevention of impact is the focus of the CHMP. Subject to council management

Fencing of sites be permanent Not possible – the boardwalk is designed to control public foot traffic

Long term protection of sites Visitation will be controlled by means of the boardwalk.

Subject to Council management

Biraban LALC

100m buffer around sites The footprint of development has been approved and is not able to be altered now.

Does not agree with moderate significance Noted

Require to be monitoring all earthworks Monitoring was discussed in 2008 however it is no longer considered an effective management tool by OEH. It also has OH&S issues.

Care and Control to be discussed between Stakeholders

Agreed – JPG would encourage the stakeholders to meet and discuss the care and control

Interpretative boards to be discussed with all stakeholders

Agreed – shall be subject to Aboriginal content determination by the RAPs

Indigenous employment – 5% identified positions JPG will be contracting the construction and operation of the project. JPG undertake to arrange introductions to contractors for the RAPs interested in employment opportunities.

Biraban and Bahtabah LALC to be engaged as the contractor of property services

As above

Closed meeting to discuss artefacts salvaged from the site.

JPG have arranged an opportunity for RAPs to discuss artefact curation on the 5/12/2014

Workshop to prepare CHMP A meeting was held to discuss refinements of the CHMP on the 6th and 7th November, 2014.

Within CHMP – procedures for ongoing consultation

4 monthly meetings with additional meetings called as required. .

Procedures for excavation within 50 – 100 m of a site

The project boundary is set back 20 m from the foreshore sites. The area within the project will be subject to an AHIP

Management of cultural heritage values is responsibility of all stakeholders

Agreed

Details of all proposed mitigation strategies The salvage of cultural values within the development is the approved mitigation measure.

Actions as a result of a non-compliance to be transparent

As per the CHMP

No work within 50m of a site or the lake foreshore The set back from the foreshore has been determined over a period between 2002 and 2008. The foreshore land is generally owned by Council and generally has a 20 m setback, except where crossed by marina access and viewing points. This footprint has been approved in the concept plan and there is no scope to change the set back to 50m.

Work to cease if an artefact is uncovered The AHIP will cover this event

Cultural awareness to be included in inductions. To be delivered by a stakeholder

Sect 4.2 – the cultural awareness will be developed with stakeholders and incorporated into the site induction that will be required for all workers prior to starting on site.

Monitoring of all excavation Not possible under current OH&S requirements – salvage excavations will mitigate impact on any objects.

Topsoil to be retained on site. Where possible.

Email 5/1/2015

In relation to the above our LALC do not agree with the comments of Guringai being part of the Lake Macquarie catchment area. I am yet to be privileged to any written material that will inform/educate us that the group was??

The reference to Guringai is not being included until a decision is made on the Native Title Claim.

LHAI

Ongoing regular meetings 4 monthly with additional meetings called as required

Signage with information of Aboriginal history of the site.

Heritage Interpretation Policy encompasses this point and ongoing consultation via the Aboriginal Advisory Committee to which all RAPs are invited to participate.

All stakeholders to be involved in the salvage works

Agreed

Monitoring – supervisor to be selected by stakeholders

Monitoring will not be undertaken

Involvement in grounds plantings, mowing or fencing.

In 2008 JPG discussed using the services of K2 nursery. This project no longer exists so JPG undertake to arrange introductions between RAPs and future construction and operation contractors to identify any potential business / employment opportunities.

Stakeholders participating as field officers to have qualifications

JPG do not wish to exclude people who wish to learn on – the – job. It is up to the stakeholder to ensure that their workers have appropriate skills

Potential features to be recorded and managed with respect to culture such as men’s or women’s areas

Agreed where all stakeholders agree appropriate.

Areas of interest determined by stakeholders for investigation

The entire site has been assessed – the site is bounded by council foreshore and private property.

Recording of artefacts outside the project area. Site officers should not enter private property without consent – where artefacts are found it is a legislative requirement to record them.

10/12/2015 Email received stating that

I think Kerries statement of significance to area is well done with lots of thought.

But I as a Awabakal descendant I also find it offencive to have added the Guringai people as traditional owners in Awabakal country, the Guringai tribe is in the lower central coast and

has no affiliation with this area.

Reference to Awabakal and Guringai occupation of the Trinity Point area will be left out of main text until the determination of the Native Title Claim.

The references within the ATOAC statement of significance will not be amended however as these are direct quotes and Insite will not edit any RAPs statement.

ADTOAC & ATOAC response to Council

Pollution impacting on foreshore Pollution will be controlled by legislative / development controls

Wave action on grinding grooves There will be speed limits in place entering and leaving the marina. The grooves are on the opposite side in public space so there are limited opportunities for

control. The grooves are under water except at low tide, so wave action would be limited to this period.

Continued communication Will be achieved by regular AAC meetings

Measures to promote Awabakal cultural info to the public – lack of dialogue

The interpretation opportunities to be discussed at the next and future meetings

Lack of concern regarding the protection of sites

JPG will be working closely with the AAC to ensure that their activities do no impact on sites.

The area is of physical, oral history and spiritual significance

This is acknowledged and will be reiterated in the interpretation presentations at the site.

ATOAC CHMP suggested content

The ATOAC provided several pages of suggested content, headings and appendices

We reviewed the suggestions and incorporated all of those that were appropriate to the scale of the TPM&MU CHMP. Certain aspects such as the statements of cultural connection to the Awabakal / Guringai people have been incorporated into the Heritage Interpretation Plan (Section 2.1). All RAPs have been invited to provide a statement of significance for inclusion in the HIP

Also both plan have included a statement of cultural significance of the area in the acknowledgments, increased acknowledgement of RAP involvement and increased detail of the structure of the ACC

Further ATOAC CHMP comments received 24/4/15

Confidential

Date post:	18-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

40 Trinity Point Marina and Mixed Use Development May 2015 Insite … · 2015. 11. 26. · Date...

Documents