Technical Paper 2 – Heritage Assessment - Transport for NSW ...

Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage Impact forRemoval Methodology ConceptNovember 2012

Issues Descriptions Date Issued ByA Draft for Review 10/10/2012 GLB Updated draft 16/10/2012 GLC Revised draft 31/10/2012 GLD Revised Draft 05/11/2012 GLE Revised Draft 05/11/2012 GLF Report Finalised 12/11/2012 GLGraham Brooks & Associates Pty LtdIncorporated in NSWArchitects, Planners & Heritage Consultants71 York St, Level 1Sydney 2000 AustraliaTel: (61) 2 9299 8600Fax: (61) 2 9299 8711Email: gbamain@gbaheritage.comwww.gbaheritage.comABN: 56 073 802 730ACN: 073 802 730Nominated Architect: Graham Leslie BrooksNSW Architects Registration: 38362

The documents reviewed, in preparation of this report, were:• Monorail Removal Project Removal Methodology Concept (Evans and Peck, dated 3 October 2012)• Monorail Removal Project Removal Methodology Concept (Evans and Peck, dated 5 October 2012)• Monorail Removal Project Station Removal Methodology - DRAFT (Evans and Peck, dated 10October 2012)• Monorail Removal Project Galeries Victoria Station Removal Methodology - DRAFT (Evans andPeck, dated 24 October 2012)• Monorail Removal Project Removal of Monorail on Pyrmont Bridge - DRAFT (Evans and Peck,dated 23 October 2012)• Report Pyrmont Bridge Control Tower Restoring to original location, (Waterman AHW Pty Ltd, dated 22October 2012)• Pyrmont Bridge Darling Harbour Sydney Conservation Management Plan (Otto Cserhalmi & Partners, June2006)1.4 Site IdentificationThe Monorail network extends for 3.6 kms within the Sydney Central Business District (CBD), connecting the citywith Pyrmont, Darling Harbour, the Sydney Convention & Exhibition Centre and Chinatown. A map of the monorailnetwork is shown in Figure 1.1.Figure 1.1Map showing the Monorail network marked inredSource: TfNSW5Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd

1.5 The Study AreaThe study area for this report is the route of the Monorail, as shown in Figure 1.1, and the built environment of thestreets it passes through.1.6 Historical ContextThe Monorail, originally known as TNT Harbour Link, is located within two historically important areas of Sydney;the southern section of the CBD and Darling Harbour. As it runs through established street corridors it is in thevicinity of a range of historic and heritage listed buildings.The Monorail was constructed in the late 1980s to provide a transport link to the former rail yard and industrialarea of Darling Harbour which was redeveloped to provide entertainment and exhibition facilities to coincide withthe Bicentenary of Australia.1.7 Heritage ConsiderationsAlthough no part of the Monorail structure itself is heritage listed, the route physically crosses two individuallylisted items, through a Special Area, and is in close proximity to a number of individually listed heritage items, asnoted below.The following heritage items are directly in the path of the Monorail:• Pyrmont Bridge, listed on the NSW State Heritage Register and the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority(SHFA) Section 170 Register• The overall property at 275 Pitt Street, that contains the Galeries Victoria Station and the Former School ofArts but not the heritage item itself (NSW State Heritage Register, Sydney LEP 2005, Draft Sydney LEP 2011)• Darling Harbour Rail Corridor, listed on the SHFA Section 170 Register• Special Area 2, York Street, listed under the Sydney LEP 2005.A list of the identifi ed heritage items immediately adjacent to, and in the vicinity of, the Monorail has been includedin Section 4.0 of this report. While no physical impact will be generated by the proposed removal it is essential thatthe works methodology guards against accidental damage.6Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd

NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act)The REF is to be approved under Part 5 of the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&AAct). Assessment under Part 5 of the EP&A Act must take into account the environmental factors prescribed inthe Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000. In respect to heritage, Clause 228(2)(e) requiresconsideration of “any effect on a locality, place or building having aesthetic, anthropological, archaeological,architectural, cultural, historical, scientific or social signifi cance or other special value for present or futuregenerations”.In addition to the identifi ed State Heritage Register items, there are a number of heritage items immediatelyadjacent to, and in the vicinity of, the Monorail route that are listed in the heritage schedules of the Sydney LEP2005, the Draft Sydney LEP 2011 and the SHFA Section 170 Register. This report has been commissioned toidentify potential impacts on the built environment along the Monorail route.1.8 AuthorshipThis report has been prepared by Gail Lynch, Associate Director, of Graham Brooks and Associates Pty Ltd andhas been reviewed by the Director, Graham Brooks. Unless otherwise noted all of the photographs and drawingsin this report are by Graham Brooks and Associates Pty Ltd.1.9 Report LimitationsThis report is limited to an inspection of the Monorail route made from the nearest pedestrian access, review ofthe methodology statements, prepared by Evans and Peck, and the results of the vibration impact assessmentreport, communicated by GHD.The assessment of heritage impact is based on the Statements of Signifi cance for the identifi ed heritage itemssourced from the NSW State Heritage Inventory. Analysis is limited to the European built heritage of the studyarea.European archaeological and Indigenous heritage assessments of the subject site are outside the scope of thisreport. A separate report has been prepared by Archaeological Heritage Management Solutions (AHMS). Anyreference to European archaeological heritage in this report has been provided for information only.8Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd

The Monorail2.0The Monorail, originally known as TNT Harbour Link, was constructed to provide a transport link between DarlingHarbour and the Sydney CBD. The former rail yard and industrial area at Darling Harbour was redeveloped in thelate 1980s to provide entertainment and exhibition facilities to coincide with the Bicentenary of Australia.The system was designed by Von Roll-Habegger of Switzerland and when it opened, in July 1988, was consideredto be state of the art technology. 1 It included a 3.6 km track of box girder fabricated steel supported on steel columnsspaced between 20 and 30 metres apart, a maintenance facility, control room, rolling stock and associated powerinfrastructure. It was renamed Metro Monorail in 1998, following its purchase by Metro Transport Sydney Pty Ltd.It was purchased by the NSW Government in March 2012 and is currently operated by Veolia. The Monorail willcease operating in mid-2013 and will be removed to facilitate the development of the new Sydney InternationalConvention, Exhibition and Entertainment Precinct (SICEEP) at Darling Harbour.A pictorial overview of the Monorail is included below.Figure 2.1Darling Park Monorail Station, east of Pyrmont BridgeFigure 2.2Monorail column and beams in the centre of Pyrmont BridgeFigure 2.3Harbourside Station, immediately south of the western end of thePyrmont BridgeFigure 2.4Convention Station, above the Darling Harbour Rail Corridor1 TNT Harbour-link: moving with Sydney into the 21st century, TNT Ltd,9Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd

Figure 2.5The Monorail stabling and maintenance facility, above the DarlingHarbour Rail CorridorFigure 2.6Paddy’s Market Station at HaymarketFigure 2.7Monorail route along Harbour StreetFigure 2.8Monorail route along Pitt StreetFigure 2.9Galleries Victoria Station in Pitt StteetFigure 2.10The exit from City Centre Station at the corner of Pitt and MarketStreets10Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd

3.2 The MethodologyThe Monorail removal methodology concepts have been prepared by Evans and Peck. They include:• removal of the services cables• installing a temporary support structure beneath the beams to allow them to be cut into sections ofapproximately 20 metres• cutting the rail beams in the vicinity of the existing support columns and lifting them out using a mobile crane• cutting the support columns above the ground or above concrete pedestal / crash barrier, if present• removal of the concrete pedestal.With regard to Pyrmont Bridge, the Darling Harbour Rail Corridor and the locality of the Former School of Arts,specifi c work methodology statements have been prepared.It is understood that the vibration study, prepared as part of this REF, has concluded there will be no adverseimpacts to adjoining buildings.12Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd

Report Study Area4.1 Introduction4.0The study area for this report is the route of the monorail, as shown in Figure 4.1, and the built environment of thestreets it passes through.14139363837403129283534333230211927262524232220279 10 13 1415811121618176354Figure 4.1Map showing the Monorail route, connecting Darling Harbour, Pyrmont and the Sydney CBD, and the approximate locations of identifi edheritage items as numbered in the following tableSource: TfNSW13Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd

4.2 Identified Built and Townscape Heritage Items within the Study AreaThe location of the identifi ed heritage items within the study area, listed in the following table, have beencategorised as:• those directly in the path of the Monorail• those immediately adjacent to it• those in the vicinity (generally on the other side of the street).A copy of the City of Sydney LEP 2005 Heritage Maps, showing the location of these items and marked with theroute of the Monorail, has been included below.MapReferenceItem Name & AddressIdentifierLot / DP and LEPmap referencesourced from DraftSydney LEP 2011Heritage Listing/s1 Pyrmont Bridge State HeritageRegisterLocation in relation tothe MonorailDirectly in the path2 Darling Harbour RailCorridorSHFA S170 RegisterSHFA S170 RegisterDirectly in the path3 Power House Museum500 Harris StreetLot 1, DP 631345I2031Sydney LEP 2005,Schedule 9Draft Sydney LEP2011In the vicinity4 Paddys Market facade SHFA S170 Register In the vicinity5 Former Post Offi ceStores Street facades68 Harbour StreetLot 10, DP 818716I852State HeritageRegisterSydney LEP 2005,Schedule 8 Part 2Immediately adjacentDraft Sydney LEP20116 Former HydraulicPump StationPart Lot 301,DP 1021761State HeritageRegisterIn the vicinitySHFA S170 Register7 Commerce Buildings345B -353 SussexStreetLot 1, DP 124203I1966Sydney LEP 2005,Schedule 8 Part 1Draft Sydney LEP2011Immediately adjacent14Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd

8 Buckle Chambers53–55 Liverpool Street(1 Douglass Street)Lot 1, DP 60150,Lot 1, DP 61203,Lot 1, DP 61794,Lot 1, DP 63036,Lot 1, DP 63289,Lot 1, DP 930250Sydney LEP 2005,Schedule 8 Part 1Draft Sydney LEP2011Immediately adjacentI17339 Former warehouse76–78 Liverpool StreetLot 1, DP 58575I1850Sydney LEP 2005,Schedule 8 Part 1Draft Sydney LEP2011In the vicinity10 Former commercialbuilding facade“Danchen House”545–553 KentStreetLot 31, DP 855390I1837Sydney LEP 2005,Schedule 8 Part 2Draft Sydney LEP2011In the vicinity11 Retail Terrace69–79 Liverpool StreetLots A–E, DP 23162I1849Sydney LEP 2005,Schedule 8 Part 1Draft Sydney LEP2011Immediately adjacent12 Sir JohnYoung Hotel557-559 GeorgeStreetLot 1, DP 131398I1797Sydney LEP 2005,Schedule 8 Part 1Draft Sydney LEP2011Immediately adjacent13 Spanish Club88 Liverpool StreetLot 1, DP 67498I1851Sydney LEP 2005,Schedule 8 Part 1Draft Sydney LEP2011In the vicinity14 Former ANZ Bank553–555 GeorgeStreet3 MonkeysLot 1, DP 877238I1796Sydney LEP 2005,Schedule 8 Part 1Draft Sydney LEP2011In the vicinity15 Century Hotel640–642 GeorgeStreetLot 1, DP 724114I1801Sydney LEP 2005,Schedule 8 Part 1Draft Sydney LEP2011In the vicinity15Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd

16 Brickfi eld Place98–112 LiverpoolStreetLot 2, DP 844093Lots 3–4,DP 1112871I1852Sydney LEP 2005,Schedule 8 Part 3Draft Sydney LEP2011In the vicinity17 Commercial building“Fayworth House”379–383 Pitt StreetLot 1, DP 853043(SP 50853)I1944Sydney LEP 2005,Schedule 8 Part 1Draft Sydney LEP2011Immediately adjacent18 Former Lismore Hotelfacade343–357 Pitt StreetLot 1, DP 872326(SP 55792)I1942Sydney LEP 2005,Schedule 8 Part 2Draft Sydney LEP2011Immediately adjacent19 Sydney Water building(339–341 Pitt Street)115–119 BathurstStreetLot 1, DP 621404I1672State HeritageRegisterSydney LEP 2005,Schedule 8 Part 1Immediately adjacentDraft Sydney LEP201120 Edinburgh CastleHotel294–294B Pitt StreetLot 1, DP 516988I1940Sydney LEP 2005,Schedule 8 Part 1Draft Sydney LEP2011In the vicinity21 Former communitybuilding “YMCA”323–331 Pitt StreetLot 200, DP1083474I1941Sydney LEP 2005,Schedule 8 Part 1Draft Sydney LEP2011Immediately adjacent22 Commercial building“International House”284–292 Pitt StreetLot 11, DP 1048658I1939Sydney LEP 2005,Schedule 8 Part 1Draft Sydney LEP2011In the vicinity23 School building“Lincoln Building”280–282 Pitt StreetLot 1, DP 535299I1938Sydney LEP 2005,Schedule 8 Part 1Draft Sydney LEP2011In the vicinity16Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd

24 Pitt Street UnitingChurch 264A PittStreetLot 1, DP 80969I1936State HeritageRegisterSydney LEP 2005,Schedule 8 Part 1In the vicinityDraft Sydney LEP201125 Community building“Pilgrim House”262–264 Pitt StreetLot 1, DP 80969I1935Sydney LEP 2005,Schedule 8 Part 1Draft Sydney LEP2011In the vicinity26 Criterion Hotel258–260 Pitt StreetLot 1, DP 230025I1933Sydney LEP 2005,Schedule 8 Part 1Draft Sydney LEP2011In the vicinity27 Commercial building“National Building”248A–250 Pitt StreetLot 1, DP 1042711(SP 68274, SP74861, SP 75167,SP 75732)I1931Sydney LEP 2005,Schedule 8 Part 1Draft Sydney LEP2011In the vicinity28 Former School of Arts275 Pitt StreetLot 111,DP 1014769,Lot 12,DP 1048563I1937State HeritageRegisterSydney LEP 2005,Schedule 8 Part 1Draft Sydney LEP2011Immediately adjacent29 The Marble Bar interior259 Pitt StreetLot 1, DP 1087916I1934Sydney LEP 2005,Schedule 8 Part 2Draft Sydney LEP2011In the vicinity30 Commercial building“Banking House”226–230 Pitt StreetLot 1, DP 66194I1930Sydney LEP 2005,Schedule 8 Part 1Draft Sydney LEP2011In the vicinity31 Commercial building“Simpson House”249–251 Pitt StreetLot 1, DP 212027I1932Sydney LEP 2005,Schedule 8 Part 1Draft Sydney LEP2011Immediately adjacent32 Community building“City Tattersalls Club”(202–204 Pitt Street)Lot 1, DP 600465I1929Sydney LEP 2005,Schedule 8 Part 1Draft Sydney LEP2011In the vicinity17Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd

33 Community building“City TattersallsClub”(198–200 Pitt Street)Lot 1, DP 600465I1928Sydney LEP 2005,Schedule 8 Part 1Draft Sydney LEP2011In the vicinity34 Commercial building“Merivale Building”194 Pitt StreetLot 1, DP 945729I1927Sydney LEP 2005,Schedule 8 Part 1Draft Sydney LEP2011In the vicinity35 Former bank facadeand external walls“London House”192–192A Pitt StreetLot 10, DP 865713Lot 1, DP 132358I1926Sydney LEP 2005,Schedule 8 Part 2Draft Sydney LEP2011In the vicinity36 Former Tatler Hotelfacade(432–434 GeorgeStreet)Lot 1, DP 1047949I1784Sydney LEP 2005,Schedule 8 Part 2Draft Sydney LEP2011Immediately adjacent37 State Theatre 49–51Market StreetLot 1, DP 115628I1887State HeritageRegisterSydney LEP 2005,Schedule 8 Part 1In the vicinityDraft Sydney LEP201138 Former commercialbuilding “Gowings”452–456 GeorgeStreetLot 1, DP 667918I1789Sydney LEP 2005,Schedule 8 Part 1Draft Sydney LEP2011In the vicinity39 Commonwealth Bank423–427 GeorgeStreetLot 4648, DP 669119I1781Sydney LEP 2005,Schedule 8 Part 1Draft Sydney LEP2011Immediately adjacent40 Queen VictoriaBuilding and Arcade429–481 GeorgeStreetLot 1, DP 811077I1783State HeritageRegisterSydney LEP 2005,Schedule 8 Part 1In the vicinityDraft Sydney LEP201141 Former warehouse“Archway Terrace”26–32 Market StreetLots A–B, DP 392745I1886Sydney LEP 2005,Schedule 8 Part 1Draft Sydney LEP2011In the vicinity18Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd

4.3 Heritage Areas Along the Monorail RouteThe Sydney LEP 2005 identifi es streetscapes and special areas of aesthetic and historic interest in addition to theindividual heritage items.There are no identifi ed heritage streetscapes within the study area.The Monorail route passes through Special Area 2, York Street, along the Market Street corridor, and runsimmediately north of Special Area 4, Haymarket, along the Liverpool Street corridor. An analysis of the impact ofthe Monorail removal on these special areas is included in Section 5.2 of this report.4.4 City of Sydney Heritage MapsThe following extracts from the Sydney LEP 2005 maps show the location of the Monorail route in relation to thatof the listed heritage items.Figure 4.2Extract from Sydney LEP 2005 Central SydneyHeritage Map (Sheet 1) showing Schedule 8 Part1 Heritage Items marked in green and the routeof the Monorail marked in blackSource: City of Sydney website19Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd

Figure 4.3Extract from Sydney LEP 2005 Central SydneyHeritage Map (Sheet 2) showing Schedule 8 Part2 Building Elements marked in blue and the routeof the Monorail marked in blackSource: City of Sydney websiteFigure 4.4Extract from Sydney LEP 2005 Central SydneyHeritage Map (Sheet 3) showing Schedule 8 Part3 Archaeological/Townscape/Landscape Itemsmarked in yellow and the route of the Monorailmarked in blackSource: City of Sydney website20Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd

Figure 4.5Extract from Sydney LEP 2005 Central SydneyHeritage Streetscape Map showing the route ofthe Monorail marked in blackSource: City of Sydney websiteFigure 4.6Extract from Sydney LEP 2005 Central SydneyCentral Sydney Special Areas Map showing theroute of the Monorail marked in blackSource: City of Sydney website21Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd

4.5 Other Heritage Items Along the Monorail RouteIn addition to the items of built and townscape heritage, listed above, the database search results show thefollowing elements to be within the study are:• Hay Street Stormawater Channel on the Sydney Water S170 Register• Pier St Precinct - Archaeological Remains on the SHFA S170 Register.As these items are located below the ground they are items of archaeological heritage to be addressed in theAHMS report.22Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd

Assessment of Heritage Impact5.05.1 IntroductionThis Statement of Heritage Impact has been prepared in accordance with the criteria developed in the New SouthWales Heritage Offi ce (now the Heritage Branch of the NSW Offi ce of Environment and Heritage) guidelines,Altering Heritage Assets and Statements of Heritage Impact, originally published in the NSW Heritage Manual.There are two sets of questions that are considered in the NSW Heritage Manual ‘Statements of Heritage Impact’guidelines relevant to the Monorail removal.Those relating to partial demolition have been considered below in relation to Pyrmont Bridge, the Darling HarbourRail Corridor and the Former School of Arts.Is the demolition essential for the heritage item to function?• The Monorail was designed and constructed to allow the Pyrmont Bridge, Darling Harbour Rail Corridor andthe Former School of Arts to continue their existing functions. The structures to be removed are all additionsthat were made to these items. Their removal is not essential to the function of any of these heritage items.• The removal methodology concept for Pyrmont Bridge has been developed in consultation with SHFA toensure that no important fabric or features of the bridge are adversely affected by the demolition.• There are no important features of the Darling Harbour Rail Corridor affected by the demolition.• The Former School of Arts is located on the same land parcel that contains the Galeries Victoria Station whichis to be removed. There are no physical works proposed for the Former School of Arts building itself, only thatadjacent to it.Are important features of the item affected by the demolition (e.g. fireplaces in buildings)?• No important features of these heritage items are to be affected by the demolition proposed in the removalmethodology concepts.Is the resolution to partially demolish sympathetic to the heritage significance of the item?• The partial demolition will remove intrusive additions to the Pyrmont Bridge and will enhance the setting andviews of the Former School of Arts and Darling Rail Corridor. As such this resolution is sympathetic to theseheritage items.If the partial demolition is a result of the condition of the fabric, is it certain that the fabric cannot berepaired?• The partial demolition is not required as a result of the condition of the fabric of these heritage items.23Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd

The questions to be considered relating to development adjacent to, or in the vicinity of, a heritage item areaddressed below in relation to the overall Monorail removal concept. In general there will be a positive impact froma heritage perspective, as the Monorail can be considered a negative infl uence in the visual context of the heritagelisted buildings along the route. These general responses are supported by specifi c analysis within a data sheetfor each heritage item, in the following sections of this report.How is the impact of the new development on the heritage significance of the item or area to be minimised?• With the exception of the Pyrmont Bridge, Darling Harbour Rail Corridor and the property containing theFormer School of Arts, the Monorail removal has no physical impact on the heritage items along its route.Specifi c considerations required are noted in the data sheet for each heritage item, in the following sectionsof this report.Why is the new development required to be adjacent to a heritage item?• As the Monorail runs through established street corridors it is in the vicinity of a range of historic and heritagelisted buildings.How does the curtilage allowed around the heritage item contribute to the retention of its heritagesignificance?• Although the buildings along the Monorail route are generally considered to have a lot boundary curtilage theviews to these items, from the public domain, extends the visual catchment to the adjacent roadways. Theopen space of these roadways contributes to their setting and the appreciation of their signifi cance.How does the new development affect views to, and from, the heritage item? What has been done tominimise negative effects?• The removal of the Monorail will improve views to, and from, the heritage items along its route.Is the development sited on any known, or potentially significant archaeological deposits? If so, havealternative sites been considered? Why were they rejected?• Not applicable, archaeological assessment is addressed in the AHMS report.Is the new development sympathetic to the heritage item? In what way (e.g. form, siting, proportions,design)?• The removal of the Monorail is sympathetic to the heritage items along its route as the Monorail can beconsidered a negative infl uence in their visual context.Will the additions visually dominate the heritage item? How has this been minimised?• Not applicable.Will the public, and users of the item, still be able to view and appreciate its significance?• The removal of the Monorail will enhance the opportunities to view and appreciate the signifi cance of theheritage items along its route.24Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd

5.2 Impact on the Heritage Items in the Monorail PathItemPyrmont Bridge(Map Reference 1)Heritage Listings • State Heritage Register• SHFA S170 RegisterStatement ofSignifi cancePyrmont Bridge is an item of State heritage signifi cance for its aesthetic, historical and scientifi ccultural values. An essential link between the city and the inner western suburbs, Pyrmont Bridge isclosely associated with the economic and social development of Sydney at the end of the 19th century.Pyrmont Bridge is closely associated with Percy Allen, PWD Engineer-in-Chief of bridge design, whowas responsible for the introduction of American timber bridge practice to NSW and designed over 500bridges in NSW. The quality of the carved stonework of the piers and portals added to the aestheticappeal of the bridge. At the time of construction the swing span of Pyrmont Bridge was one of the largestin the world. It was one of the fi rst swing bridges to be powered by electricity. The timber approachspans demonstrate a rare example of deck type Allan trusses; there being no other known example. Thebridge’s Australian design and technological innovation was a source of pride for the people of NSW.Despite the demolition of the eastern approach to the bridge and the construction of the mono-rail track,Pyrmont Bridge retains its essential heritage values.Proposed works • Removal of all structural steel elements that are part of the Monorail facility;• Make good of Bridge deck and waterproof membrane;• Removal of hydraulic machinery platform;• Re-support of the centre pivot walkways following removal of structural steel;• Removal of block seats on the Bridge Deck which contain the beam lifting rams and make good;• Removal of all electrical elements pertaining to the Monorail;• Relocation of “Stop Don’t Walk” signs from pier columns;• Relocation of fluoro lighting on machine deck;• Decommissioning and potential removal of submarine cabling supply power to the Monorail (orelements of the Monorail);• Removal of Control Circuits for the Monorail;• Conduct operational and test plans of control circuits following removal of equipment;• Removal of all hydraulic components pertaining to supply of power to the powerpaks;• Drainage of all hydraulic fluids and disposal at an appropriate facility;• Relocation of pedestrian and cycle signage currently located on Monorail columns; and• Make good on steel to be suitably corrosion protected if any existing elements are affected byMonorail removal process, e.g. fi xtures and fi ttings.Continued on next page25Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd

Proposed workscontinuedAdditionally, the bridge Control Cabin is to be relocated to its original location and the manual brakesystem is to be reinstated. The rationale for the relocation of the Control cabin is detailed in the ReportPyrmont Bridge Control Tower Restoring to original location, prepared by Waterman AHW Pty Ltd,dated 22 October 2012. The Executive Summary of the Waterman report notes the following:This report deals with the re-location of the Control Tower above the swing span of PyrmontBridge. The Control Tower was moved to avoid clashing with the installed monorail track and isto be moved back to its original location.The mechanics of 3 devices will be re-directing back to the original control tower location.The Hand brake is to be re-installed and the currently operating electric brake is to be modifi ed.A separate methodology for these works is yet to be developed.ApplicableConservationManagementPlan PoliciesThe Pyrmont Bridge Darling Harbour Sydney Conservation Management Plan (Pyrmont Bridge CMP),June 2006, prepared for SHFA by Otto Cserhalmi & Partners, grades the Monorail as an intrusiveelement of the Pyrmont Bridge and recommends that it be removed, or modifi ed, in the long term toreduce the adverse impact. The following comments and policies from the Pyrmont Bridge CMP arerelevant to the Monorail removal:The installation of the monorail has caused problems, particularly where the supports interfacewith the deck. Movement and leakage is a problem here, resulting in water penetration anddeterioration of the hardwood structure below. (page 190)Documenting Conservation WorksPolicy 5.10Ensure that all maintenance works to the bridge are documented by consultants with suitableexperience in repair and maintenance of historic bridges. The documents should outline theconservation approach adopted.RecordingA record of all works to the bridge that impact on signifi cant fabric should occur.SkillsInternally a high level of knowledge has been built up in relation to the bridge and its operation.An operation manual is in draft form that makes reference to conservation issues.Policy 5.14Ensure that all work to the surviving signifi cant fabric, and the modern fabric copies from theoriginal, including routine maintenance, is undertaken by skilled tradesmen.Policy 5.15Ensure that repairs to the bridge are carefully undertaken without damage to surroundingsignifi cant fabric or damage to the moveable sections of the structure.Policy 5.16Ensure that all work to the surviving fabric, and the modern fabric copies from the original, isundertaken by skilled tradesmen.Policy 5.17Ensure that all works to the bridge are documented by consultants with suitable experience inthe repair and maintenance of historic bridges.Considerable effort was made in the 1987 works to retain the bridge as an operating swing spanthat used a d/c current. The original installation is substantially intact, although the cabin hasbeen moved. It is essential that the components that operate the bridge remain in operation andremain with the bridge. The source of the power supply has altered and a special rectifi er builtwithin the Harbourside. (page 211)26Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd

Heritage ImpactThe NSW Heritage Manual ‘Statements of Heritage Impact’ guidelines contain a set of questions to beanswered when assessing partial demolition of a heritage item. These are considered below in relationto the removal of the Monorail from the Pyrmont Bridge.Is the demolition essential for the heritage item to function?• The Monorail was designed and constructed to allow the swing span of the Pyrmont Bridge toremain operable. The structures to be removed are all additions and alterations that were made tothis item at that time. The removal is not essential to the function of Pyrmont Bridge. However, thePyrmont Bridge Darling Harbour Sydney Conservation Management Plan (Pyrmont Bridge CMP),June 2006, prepared for SHFA by Otto Cserhalmi & Partners, grades the Monorail as an intrusiveelement of the Pyrmont Bridge and recommends that it be removed, or modifi ed, in the long termto reduce the adverse impact.Are important features of the item affected by the demolition (e.g. fireplaces in buildings)?• No important features of the Pyrmont Bridge are proposed for demolition.Is the resolution to partially demolish sympathetic to the heritage significance of the item?• The partial demolition will remove intrusive additions to the Pyrmont Bridge and will enhance itssetting and available views. As such this resolution is sympathetic to this heritage item.If the partial demolition is a result of the condition of the fabric, is it certain that the fabric cannotbe repaired?• The partial demolition is not required as a result of the condition of the fabric of this heritage item.The conceptual methodology for the Monorail removal is considered to be a positive heritage outcomefor the Pyrmont Bridge for the following reasons:• it removes intrusive additions• enhances its setting and views• allows the water penetration issues caused by the installation of the monorail to be rectifi ed• allows the return of the bridge Control Cabin to its original location and the reinstatement of themanual brake system.MitigationMeasuresConsidering the above, the impact of the proposed Monorail removal on the signifi cance of the PyrmontBridge should be mitigated by:• The preparation of a detailed work method statement for the deconstruction and conservationworks, by a suitably qualifi ed engineer with experience in the repair and maintenance of historicbridges, in consultation with SHFA. This should include specifi cation of the materials to be used inany repair works required.• The preparation of a detailed work method statement for the relocation of the bridge Control Cabinand reinstatement of the manual brake system, by a suitably qualifi ed engineer with experience inthe repair and maintenance of historic bridges. This should be done in consultation with SHFA andinclude the specifi cation of the materials to be used in any conservation works required.• Consultation with SHFA to determine suitable locations for the lighting and signage that is to berelocated.• The engagement of a suitably qualifi ed engineer, with experience in the repair and maintenance ofhistoric bridges, to oversee the deconstruction and “make good” works.• Ensuring that the “make good” conservation works required are undertaken by skilled tradesmanand that any unforeseen, or accidental, damage is “made good” under the supervision of anqualifi ed engineer with experience in the repair and maintenance of historic bridges.27Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd

Eastern end of Pyrmont Bridge where a Monorail support columnpasses through the bridge deckLooking west from midway across Pyrmont Bridge showing thepivot column in the centre of the bridgeLooking west over Pyrmont Bridge showing the Monorail structureto be removedPivot column in the centre of the bridgeBase of a typical support column to be removedBase of a support column to be removed, adjacent to the junctionof the swinging component28Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd

ItemDarling Harbour Rail Corridor(Map Reference 2)Heritage Listings • SHFA S170 RegisterStatement ofSignifi canceThe Darling Harbour goods line was part of the fi rst railway opened in New South Wales in 1855,the current corridor corresponds with that purchased from the Harris family in 1853 for this purpose.It therefore has a high degree of signifi cance as a place. The Ultimo Road Bridge is believed to beconstructed in the 1850s, and is therefore one of the only remaining features of the original railway whichjoined Darling Harbour and Granville (Parramatta Junction) in 1855. The siting of the railway along whatwas the edge of Darling Harbour strongly infl uenced the development of Pyrmont and Ultimo. Becauseof it, wool stores, engineering works and other industries were built here after the 1870s, giving thispart of Ultimo its industrial, rather than residential, fl avour. The site also contains two railway bridges.The Railway Square road overbridge (outside the curtilage of this listing) built in 1855 is historicallysignifi cant as the oldest railway bridge to be constructed and still in use in New South Wales. It is astrong connection to the fi rst railway construction and the original Redfern (Sydney) Station. The Ultimorailway underbridge is a mid 19th century construction with classic revival inspired cast iron columnsand mid 19th century sandstock brick abutments. Both items are assessed individually as historicallyrare, scientifi cally rare, archaeologically rare and socially rare.RecommendedManagementon the InventoryListingWith any archaeological remains it is preferable to leave them undisturbed. In the case of the Ultimocorridor, the site is covered in a layer of approximately 350-450mm of ballast which potentially protectsany potential archaeological remains.Proposed works • Removal of columns, rail beams, concrete pedestals, stations, maintenance facility and controlroom over and alongside the light rail corridor and Darling Drive.Heritage Impact • The Monorail stabling and maintenance facility, and control room, have been constructed over theextant rail corridor at Darling Harbour, which is currently utilised for the light railway.• The removal of the monorail infrastructure from this historic and contemporary transport corridor isconsidered to be a neutral heritage outcome for this item, given its role as an infrastructure corridor.• Archaeological assessment is outside the scope of this report. The curtilage and management ofthis heritage item in terms of its archaeological values is discussed in the report prepared by AHMS.MitigationMeasures• Preventative measures to be taken as necessary to avoid any physical impact on to this item.29Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd

ItemFormer School of Arts275 Pitt Street(Map Reference 28)Heritage Listings • State Heritage Register• Sydney LEP 2005, Schedule 8 Part 1• Draft Sydney LEP 2011Statement ofSignifi canceThe School of Arts building is an important link in the history of Sydney’s cultural growth. It has stood onthe present site since 1837, and has seen important early cultural and educational activities, includingthe fi rst courses in drawing for Australian trained architects, and the fi rst performance of a Gilbert andSullivan musical in Sydney. It is directly linked with the formation of Sydney Technical College. Thefacade of the School of Arts is an important survivor of 19th Century Sydney. It shows John Bibb’s skillsas a later Regency/early Victorian designer, and this transitional aspect is of real interest showing ahigh degree of creative achievement. The surviving 19th Century interior reveals fashionable taste anddetail, especially plasterwork, stencilling and skylights. The remains of the 1830 chapel interior givefurther significance to the interior, and reveal acceptance of building re-use and adaption. The Schoolof Arts was an important educative and social centre for Sydney’s intelligensia in the 19th century andits character and spaces still demonstrate aspects of an earlier way of life. The Governor was its patronand leading citizens such as J.H. Goodlet (brick manufacturer) and Norman Selfe (engineer) served onits committee. Technical education in New South Wales has its chief focus in the School of Arts prior tothe transfer of the facility to the government in the later 19th century.Proposed works • Columns, rail beams and concrete pedestals to be removed from the adjacent footpath, and stationimmediately to the south of the building to be deconstructed.• No physical works are proposed to the former School of Arts building (currently the Art HouseHotel) itself. However, the Monorail Station at Galeries Victoria that is to be removed is attached toa building that is on the same Lot and DP as this State Heritage Register item.30Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd

Heritage ImpactThe NSW Heritage Manual ‘Statements of Heritage Impact’ guidelines contain a set of questions to beanswered when assessing partial demolition of a heritage item. These are considered below in relationto the removal of the Monorail and the Galeries Victoria Station from the property at 275 Pitt Street, thatcontains the State Heritage Register item, the Former School of Arts.Is the demolition essential for the heritage item to function?• The Former School of Arts is located on the same land parcel that contains the Galeries VictoriaStation which is to be removed. There are no physical works proposed for the Former School ofArts building itself, only that adjacent to it.Are important features of the item affected by the demolition (e.g. fireplaces in buildings)?• There are no physical works proposed for the Former School of Arts building itself, only thatadjacent to it.Is the resolution to partially demolish sympathetic to the heritage significance of the item?• The partial demolition will enhance the setting and views of the Former School of Arts. As such thisresolution is sympathetic and will be a positive heritage outcome for this item.If the partial demolition is a result of the condition of the fabric, is it certain that the fabric cannotbe repaired?• Not applicable, as there are no physical works proposed to the heritage item, the Former Schoolof Arts.The conceptual methodology for the removal of the Monorail and Galeries Victoria Station is consideredto be a positive heritage outcome for the Former School of Arts as it will improve the setting of, andviews to and from, the building.While no physical impact will be generated by the proposed removal it is essential that the worksmethodology guards against accidental damage.MitigationMeasuresConsidering the above, the impact of the proposed Monorail and Galeries Victoria Station removal onthe significance of the Former School of Arts should be mitigated by:• Refinement of the conceptual methodology for the removal of the Monorail removal to include adetailed work method statement for the proposed works in this location, discussion of the risk ofcollateral damage to the adjacent State Heritage Register item, the Former School of Arts, and theprotection measures to be undertaken to prevent such damage.• The requirement that any unintentional damage to the Former School of Arts be “made good” underthe supervision of an experienced heritage practitioner.31Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd

ItemSpecial Area 2 - York StreetHeritage Listings • Sydney LEP 2005CharacterStatementYork Street and the streets and lanes surrounding it contain evidence of one of the early warehousingareas in Sydney that serviced Darling Harbour as a working port. The area is typifi ed by its 19th and20th century, 5–8 storey masonry buildings of a consistent scale, form and character. The architecturalemphasis of the buildings located at street intersections are a distinctive characteristic of this area.The network of lanes, internal courtyards, uniform block pattern with narrow frontages and west-easttransport links all present the various layers of the area’s past and present commercial/retail character.The Queen Victoria Building is evidence of early markets in the area. Its grand scale and rare compositionwith dominant domes appear in many views and terminate vistas within the area, such as that fromMullins Street. There are views through the area between the Harbour and the City, as well as manysignifi cant vistas such as that along York Street, which is terminated by the Town Hall to the south.Proposed works • Columns, rail beams and concrete pedestals to be removed from Market Street.Heritage Impact • Improvement to setting and views.• Positive impact on the presentation and character of this area provided measures are taken toprevent accidental physical impact.MitigationMeasures• Preventative measures to be taken as necessary to avoid any physical impact on this area.• Any damage should be “made good” under the supervision of an experienced heritage practitioner.• Although kerbs are not listed as heritage items in the Sydney LEP 2005 the City of Sydney identifi essignifi cant trachyte, bluestone and sandstone kerbs in their assets database. Enquiries should bemade to determine if there are any of these elements within the study area, in particular the defi nedSpecial Areas.32Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd

5.3 Impact on the Heritage Items Immediately Adjacent to the MonorailItemFormer Post Office Stores Street Facades68 Harbour Street(Map Reference 5)Heritage Listings • State Heritage Register• Sydney LEP 2005, Schedule 8 Part 2• Draft Sydney LEP 2011Statement ofSignifi canceThe former John Bridge woolstore has historic signifi cance for its association with John Bridge & Co,one of the leading wool and grain businesses for which it was built. Now part of the Furama Hotel, itis a rare example of a large fi ne Victorian period woolstore beautifully built in polychrome brickwork. Itis a superbly-scaled element in the streetscape. It is representative of a period of development whichsaw many warehouses constructed around the piers, wharves and goods railway sidings of DarlingHarbour. The small display section of cruciform cast-iron structure retained from the original structurehas scientifi c signifi cance.Proposed works • No physical works are proposed for this item.• Columns, rail beams and concrete pedestals to be removed from the adjacent footpath.Heritage Impact • Improvement to setting and views.• No adverse impact on the identifi ed heritage signifi cance of this item provided measures are takento prevent accidental physical impact.MitigationMeasures• Preventative measures to be taken as necessary to avoid any physical impact on this buildingfacade.• Any damage should be “made good” under the supervision of an experienced heritage practitioner.33Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd

ItemFormer Hydraulic Pump StationPier Street, Ultimo(Map Reference 6)Heritage Listings • State Heritage Register• SHFA S170 RegisterStatement ofSignifi canceHydraulic Pumping Station No.1 played a pivotal role in the industrial, commercial and architecturaldevelopment of Sydney. As the city’s fi rst and major public provider of hydraulic power, it has stronghistorical associations with many prominent buildings and fi rms. The elegant structure of the remainingbuilding is one of the very few industrial landmarks remaining in this part of the city.Proposed works • No physical works are proposed for this item.• Immediately adjacent to a potential materials storage area.Heritage Impact • No adverse impact on the identifi ed heritage signifi cance of this item provided measures are takento prevent accidental physical impact.MitigationMeasures• Preventative measures to be taken as necessary to avoid any physical impact on this building.34Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd

ItemCommerce Buildings345B -353 Sussex Street(Map Reference 7)Heritage Listings • Sydney LEP 2005, Schedule 8 Part 1• Draft Sydney LEP 2011Statement ofSignifi canceCommerce Buildings is a fi ve storey commercial warehouse building in the Federation Free style andforms part of the Sussex Street warehouse precinct. The building has medium historic signifi cancefor its ability to refl ect the importance of this part of the city as an industrial area. It has aestheticsignifi cance due to the high level of exterior and interior detailing in particular the arched parapets anddecorative brickwork.Proposed works • No physical works are proposed for this item.• Columns, rail beams and concrete pedestals to be removed from the adjacent footpath.Heritage Impact • Improvement to setting and views.• No adverse impact on the identifi ed heritage signifi cance of this item provided measures are takento prevent accidental physical impact.MitigationMeasures• Preventative measures to be taken as necessary to avoid any physical impact on this building.• Any damage should be “made good” under the supervision of an experienced heritage practitioner.35Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd

ItemBuckle Chambers53–55 Liverpool Street (1 Douglass Street)(Map Reference 8)Heritage Listings • Sydney LEP 2005, Schedule 8 Part 1• Draft Sydney LEP 2011Statement ofSignifi canceUnison House has historic signifi cance as a remarkably intact Federation Warehouse which despiteseveral alterations retains the bulk of its original fabric. The building is one of a dwindling number ofwarehouses in this part of the city which was formerly a thriving warehouse precinct connected with theDarling Harbour wharves and rail yards. It has aesthetic signifi cance deriving from the appearance ofthe elevations to the side street, which is highly evocative of the character of early 20th century Sydney.Proposed works • No physical works are proposed for this item.• Columns, rail beams and concrete pedestals to be removed from the adjacent footpath.Heritage Impact • Improvement to setting and views.• No adverse impact on the identifi ed heritage signifi cance of this item provided measures are takento prevent accidental physical impact.MitigationMeasures• Preventative measures to be taken as necessary to avoid any physical impact on this building.• Any damage should be “made good” under the supervision of an experienced heritage practitioner.36Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd

ItemRetail Terrace69–79 Liverpool Street(Map Reference 11)Heritage Listings • Sydney LEP 2005, Schedule 8 Part 1• Draft Sydney LEP 2011Statement ofSignifi cance69-79 Liverpool Street demonstrates the continuous process of commercial development in the CBDand refl ects typical retail space of this time. It is considered to be of local signifi cance. It is somewhatanachronistic being typical of 1880s Victorian boom time Italianate architecture. Although the parapetdate is 1896, documentary evidence suggests it may have been erected in 1888. The facebrick of therear elevations also suggests that the building was earlier, and rendered over in 1896. The buildinghas significance as a rare group with a cartway. Evidence in the cartway of a much earlier singlestorey sandstock brick building incorporated into the Victorian development is a signifi cant feature ofthe row. 69-79 Liverpool Street is characteristic of the Victorian Boom time Italianate style, utilising richclassical detail to enliven the strict repetition of the facade. Scale, form and facade treatment make it animportant component of the historic townscape character of lower Liverpool Street now characterisedby the influence of the Spanish community. It occupies a critical location on Liverpool Street terminatingthe vista down Kent Street, although this is partially disrupted by the monorail. Internal remodellingthroughout has greatly undermined the intactness of the fabric and aesthetic signifi cance. Severaloccupancies cater to the Spanish speaking community refl ecting the importance of this precinct to theSpanish and South and Central-American immigrant population.Proposed works • No physical works are proposed for this item.• Columns, rail beams and concrete pedestals to be removed from the adjacent footpath directlyabove, and in close proximity to, the building awnings.Heritage Impact • Improvement to setting and views.• No adverse impact on the identified heritage signifi cance of this item provided measures are takento prevent accidental physical impact.MitigationMeasures• Preventative measures to be taken as necessary to avoid any physical impact on this building.• Any damage should be “made good” under the supervision of an experienced heritage practitioner.37Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd

ItemSir John Young Hotel557-559 George Street(Map Reference 12)Heritage Listings • Sydney LEP 2005, Schedule 8 Part 1• Draft Sydney LEP 2011Statement ofSignifi canceThe Sir John Young Hotel, situated on a prominent corner location at the intersection of George andLiverpool Streets, is externally a fi ne and largely intact example of the Federation Free Style. The hotelis one of fi ve constructed in the style; the others are the Australian (Cumberland Street), the HotelSweeney’s, the Observer, and the Welcome Inn. The building has aesthetic signifi cance as a prominentcorner element, and as the fi nest detailed of the remaining fi ve hotel buildings in this style. Although theground fl oor of the hotel has been subjected to modifi cations it still retains many of the original features,and has social signifi cance as a fi ne working example of an inner city corner hotel and as a componentof the George Street entertainment precinct immediately south of the Sydney Town Hall. It is signifi cantas the important eastern component of a group of three storey buildings, including the adjacent terracerow of heavily modelled Victorian shops, which defi ne the southern side of Liverpool Street, west ofGeorge Street. It refl ects the growth of the southern end of the CBD as part of the revival following theconstruction of Central Railway and the Haymarket complex. It has historical signifi cance for continuingthe hotel use established by an earlier hotel of the same name on the site.Proposed works • No physical works are proposed for this item.• Columns, rail beams and concrete pedestals to be removed from the adjacent footpath directlyabove, and in close proximity to, the building awning.Heritage Impact • Improvement to setting and views.• No adverse impact on the identified heritage signifi cance of this item provided measures are takento prevent accidental physical impact.MitigationMeasures• Preventative measures to be taken as necessary to avoid any physical impact on this building.• Any damage should be “made good” under the supervision of an experienced heritage practitioner.38Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd

ItemCommercial building “Fayworth House”379–383 Pitt Street(Map Reference 17)Heritage Listings • Sydney LEP 2005, Schedule 8 Part 1• Draft Sydney LEP 2011Statement ofSignifi canceFayworth House is part of an ongoing tradition of centralising commercial, fi nancial and professionaldealings within the CBD having particular associations with a well known Australian retailing fi rm. Thechoice of site refl ects the importance of this portion of the CBD as retail precinct in the 1920s-30s, andretail growth after World War I. It is a good example of the Chicagoesque style, uncommon in Sydney’sCBD, with limited use of classical ornamentation. It has landmark presence on a prominent corner site inthe southern CBD townscape. The two stages of construction mark the transition from a timber columnand beam structure with load bearing masonry walls on the lower two fl oors, to the post-World War IIsteel framed upper section.Proposed works • No physical works are proposed for this item.• Columns, rail beams and concrete pedestals to be removed from the adjacent footpath and roadwayin close proximity to the building awning.Heritage Impact • Improvement to setting and views.• No adverse impact on the identifi ed heritage signifi cance of this item provided measures are takento prevent accidental physical impact.MitigationMeasures• Preventative measures to be taken as necessary to avoid any physical impact on this building.• Any damage should be “made good” under the supervision of an experienced heritage practitioner.39Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd

ItemFormer Lismore Hotel facade343–357 Pitt Street(Map Reference 18)Heritage Listings • Sydney LEP 2005, Schedule 8 Part 2• Draft Sydney LEP 2011Statement ofSignifi canceThe facades of the Lismore Hotel are located at the western edge of the city. The remaining facadesare face brick with rendered classical detailing in the Federation Free Classical style. The Lismore Hotelwas one of fi ve hotels of this style in the city the others being the Metropolitan, the Bristol Arms, theHarbour View and the Ship Inn. The hotel had signifi cance as part of the network of small purpose builthotels providing a social / recreational venue and budget accommodation located within the city centrebut this signifi cance is now lost with only the facades remaining of the original building. The face brickand render facades of the building retain aesthetic signifi cance due to their classical ornamentationwhich refl ected the current architectural fashions in the city and the social character of the immediatearea.Proposed works • No physical works are proposed for this item.• Column, rail beams and concrete pedestal to be removed from the adjacent roadway.Heritage Impact • Improvement to setting and views.• No adverse impact on the identifi ed heritage signifi cance of this item provided measures are takento prevent accidental physical impact.MitigationMeasures• Preventative measures to be taken as necessary to avoid any physical impact on this building.• Any damage should be “made good” under the supervision of an experienced heritage practitioner.40Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd

ItemSydney Water building(339–341 Pitt Street) 115–119 Bathurst Street(Map Reference 19)Heritage Listings • State Heritage Register• Sydney LEP 2005, Schedule 8 Part 1• Draft Sydney LEP 2011Statement ofSignifi canceThe 1939 Sydney Water head offi ce building is of State signifi cance, refl ecting the function and growthof Sydney Water and the importance the organisation has had and continues to have in the lives ofmany people in NSW. The building in its aesthetic, historic and scientifi c (technical/research) qualitiesis an outstanding example of architectural growth and development for its values which are reflected inits original design, materials, construction techniques, evidence of use, movable relics and siting withinthe City of Sydney. The building is held in high esteem by recognised community groups and authoritiesthroughout Australia and New South Wales.Proposed works • No physical works are proposed for this item.• Columns, rail beams and concrete pedestals to be removed from the adjacent roadway.Heritage Impact • Improvement to setting and views.• No adverse impact on the identifi ed heritage signifi cance of this item provided measures are takento prevent accidental physical impact.MitigationMeasures• Preventative measures to be taken as necessary to avoid any physical impact on this building.• Any damage should be “made good” under the supervision of an experienced heritage practitioner.41Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd

ItemFormer community building “YMCA”323–331 Pitt Street(Map Reference 21)Heritage Listings • Sydney LEP 2005, Schedule 8 Part 1• Draft Sydney LEP 2011Statement ofSignifi canceThe original front section of the former YMCA building facing Pitt Street, has historic signifi canceas the home of the YMCA movement in Sydney for nearly 100 years, and for associations with anumber of prominent people, including founder Sir James Fairfax and architect Charles Slatyer. It isaesthetically signifi cant as a fi ne and elaborately ornamented example of the Federation Free Style, andretains many fi ne decorative elements of this period including moulded plaster, carved stonework andcoloured leadlight glass. The building has social signifi cance as a physical reminder of the activities andimportant infl uence of the Young Men’s Christian Association in Sydney, and an exemplar of the typicaldevelopment pattern of the time with retail uses at street level.Proposed works • No physical works are proposed for this item.• Rail beams to be removed from above the adjacent footpath.Heritage Impact • Improvement to setting and views.• No adverse impact on the identifi ed heritage signifi cance of this item provided measures are takento prevent accidental physical impact.MitigationMeasures• Preventative measures to be taken as necessary to avoid any physical impact on this building.• Any damage should be “made good” under the supervision of an experienced heritage practitioner.42Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd

ItemCommercial building “Simpson House”249–251 Pitt Street(Map Reference 31)Heritage Listings • Sydney LEP 2005, Schedule 8 Part 1• Draft Sydney LEP 2011Statement ofSignifi canceSimpson House, formerly Film House or Kyana building, is an eight storey steel framed buildingconstructed in the Federation Anglo Dutch Style. It has a distinctive position within the Pitt Streetstreetscape, due partly to its painted advertising signs. The building has high historic signifi cance as thefi rst offi ce for Australasian Films which served as a focus of the initial Pitt Street fi lm industry precinct. Ithas high historic signifi cance for its association with prominent Sydney medical practitioner Dr WilliamOdillo Maher and as an important building in the professional work of the noted architectural fi rm ofRobertson & Marks. The building has high aesthetic signifi cance as a fi ne and largely intact example ofthis rare style which features a high quality facade fi nished composition and for the extent of the intactinterior and exterior fabric with outstanding potential to be restored.Proposed works • No physical works are proposed for this item.• Rail beams to be removed in close proximity to awning and building facade.Heritage Impact • Improvement to setting and views.• No adverse impact on the identified heritage signifi cance of this item provided measures are takento prevent accidental physical impact.MitigationMeasures• A detailed work method statement should be developed for the removal works to be undertakenadjacent to Simpson House at 249-251 Pitt Street where the rail beams to be removed are in closeproximity to the building facade. It should include preventative measures to be taken as necessaryto avoid any physical impact on this building .• Any damage should be “made good” under the supervision of an experienced heritage practitioner.43Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd

ItemFormer Tatler Hotel facade(432–434 George Street)(Map Reference 36)Heritage Listings • Sydney LEP 2005, Schedule 8 Part 2• Draft Sydney LEP 2011Statement ofSignifi canceThe Former Tattler Hotel, located in a prominent position in George Street, just north of Market Street,was significant for continuing a long tradition with the Hotel trade on the site. The building now remainsonly as a facade in the Federation Anglo Dutch style. The hotel was signifi cant as part of the network ofsmall purpose built hotels providing a social / recreational venue and budget accommodation locatedwithin the city centre but this signifi cance has now been reduced with the changed use of the building.The face brick and render facade of the building retains some aesthetic signifi cance for its ornamentationwhich refl ected the current architectural fashions in the city and the social character of the immediatearea. It is one of only four hotels in the style located within the city, the others are the Forbes Tavern,the Chamberlain and the Crown, all retaining at least some of the traditional uses and now holding moresignifi cance than the former Tattler’s Hotel.Proposed works • No physical works are proposed for this item.• Columns, rail beams and concrete pedestals to be removed from the adjacent footpath. Rail beamin close proximity to the building awning.Heritage Impact • Improvement to setting and views.• No adverse impact on the identifi ed heritage signifi cance of this item provided measures are takento prevent accidental physical impact.MitigationMeasures• Refi nement of the removal methodology to minimise the potential for damage to this building.• Preventative measures to be taken as necessary to avoid any physical impact on this building.• Any damage should be “made good” under the supervision of an experienced heritage practitioner.44Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd

ItemCommonwealth Bank423–427 George Street(Map Reference 39)Heritage Listings • Sydney LEP 2005, Schedule 8 Part 1• Draft Sydney LEP 2011Statement ofSignifi canceThe Commonwealth Bank, located on George, Market and York Streets, is a twelve storey tower of PostWar International Style. The building has historic signifi cance as the fi rst major building to be completedin Sydney following the end of the Second World War. The building has aesthetic signifi cance for its wellresolved facade and for its coordinated program of public art. It is important as part of a body of workproduced by the Commonwealth Department of Works and Housing. The building’s planning whichincluded three separate banking chambers, one on the lower ground , one on the ground and anotheron the fi rst fl oor linked by escalators was unique for its time. The building has scientifi c signifi cance asthe earliest intact curtain wall in the Sydney CBD and for the largest single concrete beam poured for acommercial building of its time. The building has scientifi c signifi cance for the innovative distribution ofair through perforated metal ceiling tiles giving complete air distribution through twin hot and cold ducts,mixed at the point of distribution.Proposed works • No physical works are proposed for this item.• Columns, rail beams and concrete pedestals to be removed from the adjacent footpath.Heritage Impact • Improvement to setting and views.• No adverse impact on the identified heritage signifi cance of this item provided measures are takento prevent accidental physical impact.MitigationMeasures• Preventative measures to be taken as necessary to avoid any physical impact on this building.• Any damage should be “made good” under the supervision of an experienced heritage practitioner.45Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd

ItemSpecial Area 4 - HaymarketHeritage Listings • Sydney LEP 2005CharacterStatementThe number of remaining warehouses and service laneways in Haymarket is, along with the name ofthe area itself, evidence of its historic role as markets and its proximity to the port of Darling Harbour.The area offers evidence of its development following the establishment of Central Station in 1906 andthe subsequent decline and resurgence of the area since the markets moved from the City centre.Despite these changes, the area retains a “market” atmosphere, characterised by a diversity of uses,vibrant street life and a diverse social and ethnic mix.As an area somewhat removed from the City centre, it retains fi ne grained subdivision patterns, narrowfrontages, informal public spaces and generally low building heights. The consistent low street wall, andthe absence of the tower form, creates a pleasant microclimate at street level, which is well sunlit andprotected from windsProposed works • Columns, rail beams and concrete pedestals to be removed from the southern side of LiverpoolStreet between Dixon and George Street, at the northern edge of the Haymarket Special Area.Heritage Impact • Improvement to setting and views.• Positive impact on the presentation and character of this area provided measures are taken toprevent accidental physical impact.MitigationMeasures• Preventative measures to be taken as necessary to avoid any physical impact on this area.• Any damage should be “made good” under the supervision of an experienced heritage practitioner.• Although kerbs are not listed as heritage items in the Sydney LEP 2005 the City of Sydney identifi essignifi cant trachyte, bluestone and sandstone kerbs in their assets database. Enquiries should bemade to determine if there are any of these elements within the study area, in particular the defi nedSpecial Areas.46Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd

5.4 Impact on the Heritage Items in the Vicinity of the MonorailItemPower House Museum500 Harris Street(Map Reference 3)Heritage Listings • Sydney LEP 2005, Schedule 9• Draft Sydney LEP 2011Statement ofSignifi canceThe building dates from one of the key period of layers for the development of Ultimo as a direct resultof subdivision of the Harris and Macarthur Estates and industrial redevelopment of the area at the turnof the century. The building is also signifi cant for its association with the Sydney tram network. It is agood example of a Federation industrial building which makes a positive contribution to the streetscape.Proposed works • No physical works are proposed for this item.• Columns, rail beams and concrete pedestals to be removed from the western edge of the DarlingDrive, in the vicinity of this item.Heritage Impact • Improvement to setting and views.MitigationMeasures• No mitigation measures considered necessary.47Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd

ItemPaddys Market facade(Map Reference 4)Heritage Listings • SHFA S170 RegisterStatement ofSignifi canceMarket City (“Paddy’s Market”) and site is considered to be of heritage signifi cance for its historicaland social values. The site and facades of the buildings are also signifi cant for their contribution to theSydney Markets Group and the Haymarket Conservation Area, both listed in the National Estate. Thesite is signifi cant in the evolution and pattern of the history of NSW. Paddy’s Markets stands on earlyreclaimed land and was part of Surgeon John Harris’s Ultimo Estate. The precinct is signifi cant asan area of early industrialisation, with some of the fi rst steam machinery in Australia installed in millspreviously on the site. The buildings have been associated with markets in Sydney since 1840 and areassociated with the Queen Victoria Building in a larger network of markets in the Sydney area. The areacontinues its historic busy market like atmosphere of social signifi cance to the Sydney community. Theyare also associated with Sydney’s Chinatown and is an important cultural centre which demonstratesthe growth of the Chinese community in Sydney from about 1870. Note: This listing is solely intendedfor the preservation of the surviving form and fabric of the original 1909-10 building and is not intendedto cover the post-1990s development of the site.Proposed works • No physical works are proposed for this item.• Columns, rail beams and concrete pedestals to be removed on the opposite side of the street.Heritage Impact • Improvement to setting and views.MitigationMeasures• No mitigation measures considered necessary.48Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd

ItemFormer warehouse76–78 Liverpool Street(Map Reference 9)Heritage Listings • Sydney LEP 2005, Schedule 8 Part 1• Draft Sydney LEP 2011Statement ofSignifi cance76-78 Liverpool Street has aesthetic signifi cance as a good example of a Federation Warehouse withunusual Art Nouveau facade detailing which largely retains its original structure, appearance andconfi guration. It has historic signifi cance as a reminder of the extensive warehouse development whichoccurred in the western precinct of the city in the decades around the turn of the century, and for its earlyassociation with the NSW Government Printing Offi ce. Externally, the substantial alterations at groundlevel have reduced some of the significance of the building, although the unusual Art Nouveau detailsat the top of the facade survive. Internally the building has retained some significant fabric and has asimilar extent of alteration to other Federation Warehouses such as Subito.Proposed works • No physical works are proposed for this item.• Columns, rail beams and concrete pedestals to be removed on the opposite side of the street.Heritage Impact • Improvement to setting and views.MitigationMeasures• No mitigation measures considered necessary.49Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd

ItemFormer commercial building facade“Danchen House” 545–553 Kent Street(Map Reference 10)Heritage Listings • Sydney LEP 2005, Schedule 8 Part 2• Draft Sydney LEP 2011Statement ofSignifi canceThe facade of the former Danchen House has historic signifi cance as an example of the late VictorianWarehouse style, at least the top section of which was designed by Kent Budden & Greenwell who wereamong the pioneers of the style. The facade has aesthetic signifi cance as a prominent presence on thestreet corner.Proposed works • No physical works are proposed for this item.• Columns, rail beams and concrete pedestals to be removed on the opposite side of the street.Heritage Impact • Improvement to setting and views.MitigationMeasures• No mitigation measures considered necessary.50Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd

ItemSpanish Club88 Liverpool Street(Map Reference 13)Heritage Listings • Sydney LEP 2005, Schedule 8 Part 1• Draft Sydney LEP 2011Statement ofSignifi canceThe Spanish Club, 88 Liverpool Street is signifi cant as an unusually tall Federation warehouse oftraditional loadbearing construction. It has aesthetic significance as an imposing element in LiverpoolStreet and because of its bold facade with fenestration presaging the Chicagoesque style. It hashistorical signifi cance as a representative of the turn-of-the-century warehouses once abounding in thispart of Sydney. It has additional historical signifi cance as an example of the work of the eminent fi rm ofarchitects Kent & Budden, the principals of which both served as presidents of the RAIA. It has technicalsignifi cance as a rare example of an unusually tall building having a traditional timber internal structureand for its early use of metal framed windows. The building has social signifi cance as an identifi edgathering place for Spaniards in Sydney and as a place for the dissemination of Spanish culture to thebroader community generally.Proposed works • No physical works are proposed for this item.• Columns, rail beams and concrete pedestals to be removed on the opposite side of the street.Heritage Impact • Improvement to setting and views.MitigationMeasures• No mitigation measures considered necessary.51Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd

ItemFormer ANZ Bank553–555 George Street3 monkeys(Map Reference 14)Heritage Listings • Sydney LEP 2005, Schedule 8 Part 1• Draft Sydney LEP 2011Statement ofSignifi canceThe ANZ Bank building at 553-555 George Street refl ects the general processes of urban redevelopmentduring the later decades of the nineteenth century. It is noteworthy for the longevity of its associationwith banking. Located at the corner of George and Liverpool Streets, the ANZ Bank building is a fi nerepresentation of the Victorian Italianate style in face brick with limited stone detailing rather than themore common uniform stone or stucco fi nishes, combining a curved entry with arched pediment over.Its architectural qualities while excellent are not as exceptional as other contemporary examples of thisbuilding type such as the former Commercial Banking Corporation of Sydney at 744 George Street (no5024.) Its scale and form make it an important contributor to the townscape quality along the downtownsection of George Street and the western end of Liverpool Street.Proposed works • No physical works are proposed for this item.• Columns, rail beams and concrete pedestals to be removed on the opposite side of the street.Heritage Impact • Improvement to setting and views.MitigationMeasures• No mitigation measures considered necessary.52Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd

ItemCentury Hotel640–642 George Street(Map Reference 15)Heritage Listings • Sydney LEP 2005, Schedule 8 Part 1• Draft Sydney LEP 2011Statement ofSignifi canceThe Century Hotel, located on a prominent corner of George and Liverpool Streets, is a six storeyhotel of Inter war Art Deco Style. It is historically signifi cant as part of a group of hotels like the GreatSouthern further along George Street, and the Broadway Hotel near Central Station. The Century Hotelhas a powerful ability to refl ect the attractive building opportunities offered for breweries in the briefperiod between the end of the depression and the beginning of the Second World War. It is an importantbuilding in the professional career of the architectural partnership of Rudder and Grout, most noted fortheir hotel designs. It is aesthetically signifi cant as a rare and outstanding example of a highly intactoriginal Art Deco Hotel with an exterior and some intact interiors of high quality design with outstandingpotential to be restored with minimum effort. It is particularly noted for its use of horizontal and verticalmassing. It is socially significant as a surviving example of an Art Deco Hotel with a lengthy tradition ofhotel trade on the site.Proposed works • No physical works are proposed for this item.• Columns, rail beams and concrete pedestals to be removed on the opposite side of the street.Heritage Impact • Improvement to setting and views.MitigationMeasures• No mitigation measures considered necessary.53Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd

ItemBrickfield Place98–112 Liverpool Street(Map Reference 16)Heritage Listings • Sydney LEP 2005, Schedule 8 Part 3• Draft Sydney LEP 2011Statement ofSignifi canceBrickfield Place is a good example of urban design for public open space. The site has historic, culturaland aesthetic signifi cance.Proposed works • No physical works are proposed for this item.• Columns, rail beams and concrete pedestals to be removed on the opposite side of the street.Heritage Impact • Improvement to setting and views.MitigationMeasures• No mitigation measures considered necessary.54Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd

ItemEdinburgh Castle Hotel294–294B Pitt Street(Map Reference 20)Heritage Listings • Sydney LEP 2005, Schedule 8 Part 1• Draft Sydney LEP 2011Statement ofSignifi canceThe Edinburgh Castle Hotel, a three storey hotel of Inter War Georgian Style, is located on a prominentcorner site. The building has historic signifi cance for its embodiment of a lengthy tradition of hoteltrading on this site and for the continuity of the hotel name from the 1860s. It is an important buildingin the professional work of the noted architectural partnership of Rudder and Grout. The building hasaesthetic signifi cance as rare and outstanding example of a highly intact original hotel exterior andinterior of high quality design with outstanding potential, due to its degree of integrity, to continue in itsoriginal state. The building is signifi cant for its contribution as a landmark building to the corner of Pittand Bathurst Streets. The building is socially signifi cant as it has remained a hotel of the same name onthe same site since the 1885’s and prior to that on the diagonally opposite corner.Proposed works • No physical works are proposed for this item.• Columns, rail beams and concrete pedestals to be removed on the opposite side of the street.Heritage Impact • Improvement to setting and views.MitigationMeasures• No mitigation measures considered necessary.55Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd

ItemCommercial building “International House”284–292 Pitt Street(Map Reference 22)Heritage Listings • Sydney LEP 2005, Schedule 8 Part 1• Draft Sydney LEP 2011Statement ofSignifi canceInternational House has historical signifi cance as the home for over 50 years of Bennett and Wood,a well-known Sydney supplier of motor cycles and parts which is still in business today. It hasaesthetic signifi cance as a good and restrained example of the Federation warehouse style, largelyintact externally, which achieves prominence because of its corner location, and exhibits the typicalcurved corner with timber windows curved in plan. Although the curved corner element including itstimber windows is intact (unlike other city buildings such as the former Danchen House, InventoryNo 2424121), International House is overall less signifi cant than other similar examples such as theFarmers and Graziers Woolstores.Proposed works • No physical works are proposed for this item.• Columns, rail beams and concrete pedestals to be removed on the opposite side of the street.Heritage Impact • Improvement to setting and views.MitigationMeasures• No mitigation measures considered necessary.56Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd

ItemSchool building “Lincoln Building”280–282 Pitt Street(Map Reference 23)Heritage Listings • Sydney LEP 2005, Schedule 8 Part 1• Draft Sydney LEP 2011Statement ofSignifi canceThe Lincoln Building is an L shaped ten storey building of Inter War Commercial Palazzo Style withfacades facing Pitt Street and Bathurst Street. The Lincoln Building, together with the 1908 cornerbuilding ‘Speedwell House’, has historic signifi cance for its former long association with the fi rm ofBennett & Wood. It is an important building in the professional work of the noted architectural partnershipof Spain and Cosh. The building is aesthetically signifi cance as an excellent example of a highly intactoriginal commercial exterior with outstanding potential, due to its degree of integrity, to continue in itsoriginal state. The building is well resolved in its detailing in its exterior and is particularly noted for itsuse of classical imagery. The L shaped building plan, is with Culwulla, unusual and one of only two inthe city with facades fronting two streets.Proposed works • No physical works are proposed for this item.• Columns, rail beams and concrete pedestals to be removed on the opposite side of the street.Heritage Impact • Improvement to setting and views.MitigationMeasures• No mitigation measures considered necessary.57Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd

ItemPitt Street UnitingChurch 264A Pitt Street(Map Reference 24)Heritage Listings • State Heritage Register• Sydney LEP 2005, Schedule 8 Part 1• Draft Sydney LEP 2011Statement ofSignifi canceThe Pitt Street Uniting Church has had a signifi cant role in the development of the social and religiouslife of Australia. It has always represented a pioneering and socially aware face to the community. Itarchitectural design is signifi cant as arguably the fi nest example of Neo Classicism in Australia. It is afi ne example of notable architect John Bibb’s work. It was the fi rst Independant Church in Australia. Ithas associations with notable local fi gures, including David Jones and James Fairfax.Proposed works • No physical works are proposed for this item.• Columns, rail beams and concrete pedestals to be removed on the opposite side of the street.Heritage Impact • Improvement to setting and views.MitigationMeasures• No mitigation measures considered necessary.58Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd

ItemCommunity building “Pilgrim House”262–264 Pitt Street(Map Reference 25)Heritage Listings • Sydney LEP 2005, Schedule 8 Part 1• Draft Sydney LEP 2011Statement ofSignifi cancePilgrim House is a seven storey commercial building in the Commercial Palazzo style, which forms partof a varied streetscape within Pitt Street. The building has high historic signifi cance in the history of theAustralian Broadcasting Commission as the fi rst Federal head offi ce of the ABC and as a venue for theABC’s live studio broadcasts until 1970. The building has high social signifi cance for its ability to refl ectthe social justice concerns of the Uniting Church. The building has high aesthetic signifi cance as a rareCommercial Palazzo building with a triumphal arch motif. The building has a high level of exterior andinterior fabric with outstanding potential to be restored.Proposed works • No physical works are proposed for this item.• Columns, rail beams and concrete pedestals to be removed on the opposite side of the street.Heritage Impact • Improvement to setting and views.MitigationMeasures• No mitigation measures considered necessary.59Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd

ItemCriterion Hotel258–260 PittStreet(Map Reference 26)Heritage Listings • Sydney LEP 2005, Schedule 8 Part 1• Draft Sydney LEP 2011Statement ofSignifi canceThe Criterion Hotel constructed in the Inter-War Art Deco style is situated in a prominent location on thecorner of Pitt and Park Streets in the inner city Town Hall precinct, and has aesthetic signifi cance forthe quality of its exterior detailing. The Criterion has signifi cance as the fi nest of the fi ve remaining hotelbuildings constructed in this style in the CBD; the others which all remain operational are the Criterion(Sussex Street), the Great Southern, the Tudor Inn, and the Wynyard. It also has aesthetic signifi canceas an important corner element and for its contribution to the streetscape of the immediate area. Thehotel has historic significance for carrying on the name of the Criterion Theatre which formerly occupiedthe site. The hotel has social signifi cance as a fi ne, largely intact, and fully operational example of asmall inner city corner hotel. The building has social signifi cance as part of the network of purpose builthotels which provided social / recreational venues and budget accommodation for the local community.Proposed works • No physical works are proposed for this item.• Columns, rail beams and concrete pedestals to be removed on the opposite side of the street.Heritage Impact • Improvement to setting and views.MitigationMeasures• No mitigation measures considered necessary.60Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd

ItemCommercial building “National Building”248A–250 Pitt Street(Map Reference 27)Heritage Listings • Sydney LEP 2005, Schedule 8 Part 1• Draft Sydney LEP 2011Statement ofSignifi canceNational Building is a twelve storey reinforced concrete commercial building constructed in the InterwarCommercial Palazzo style and having a prominent position due to its height relative to the streetscape.The building has historic signifi cance as a refl ection of the history of building societies and otherinvestment institutions in the commercial life of Sydney. It is an important building in the professionalwork of the architectural fi rm of Joseland & Gilling. The building has a high aesthetic signifi cance as afi ne and largely intact example of the style and includes many of the identifying elements such as thearched windows, antique cornice and terrazzo plasterwork.Proposed works • No physical works are proposed for this item.• Columns, rail beams and concrete pedestals to be removed on the opposite side of the street.Heritage Impact • Improvement to setting and views.MitigationMeasures• No mitigation measures considered necessary.61Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd

ItemThe Marble Bar interior259 Pitt Street (482-496 George Street)(Map Reference 29)Photograph not included as it is not part of the streetscapeHeritage Listings • Sydney LEP 2005, Schedule 8 Part 2• Draft Sydney LEP 2011Statement ofSignifi canceThe Marble Bar is of aesthetic and historical signifi cance as a unique and highly ornate example of abar room from the High Victorian period. It is also of signifi cance for its past associations with Sydney’ssporting fi gures and club personalities.Proposed works • No physical works are proposed for this item.• Columns, rail beams and concrete pedestals to be removed in the next street.Heritage Impact • Although the draft Sydney LEP map identifi es the whole site as a heritage item the listing is for theinterior of the Marble Bar, which is located at basement level and accessed from George Street.• The Monorail removal will have no impact on this heritage item, given its internal location withinthe Hilton Hotel.MitigationMeasures• No mitigation measures necessary.62Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd

ItemCommercial building “Banking House”226–230 Pitt Street(Map Reference 30)Heritage Listings • Sydney LEP 2005, Schedule 8 Part 1• Draft Sydney LEP 2011Statement ofSignifi canceBanking House, a six storey steel framed banking and commercial building constructed in theFederation Academic Classical style, is part of the varied Pitt Street streetscape. The building hashistoric significance for its refl ection of the fi nancial power of the racing industry. It is signifi cant as theBank of New South Wales’ fi rst venture into the development offi ce space and an important exampleof the professional work of noted architect John Reid. The building has a high aesthetic signifi canceas a fi ne and largely intact example of the style (externally and at ground fl oor), and includes many ofthe identifying elements such as the triumphal arch, classical columns, ground fl oor mosaic tiles andpressed ceilings.Proposed works • No physical works are proposed for this item.• Columns, rail beams and concrete pedestals to be removed on the opposite side of the street.Heritage Impact • Improvement to setting and views.MitigationMeasures• No mitigation measures considered necessary.63Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd

ItemCommunity building “City Tattersalls Club”(202–204 Pitt Street)Map Reference 32)Heritage Listings • Sydney LEP 2005, Schedule 8 Part 1• Draft Sydney LEP 2011Statement ofSignifi canceThe Tattersalls Club is one of the few surviving city clubs in its late 19th century premises (105 years ofcontinuous occupation). The quality of the building refl ects the importance of this type of social institution,and particularly the prestige of the racing industry in Sydney. It is associated with the distinguishedarchitectural practice of Sheerin & Hennessy, and several alterations were the work of other notablefi rms. During its later years the building has also been associated with popular entertainment. The CityTattersalls Club exhibits a confi dent adaptation of Classical elements to envelop a steel framed buildingexpressing the lightness of structure in stonemasonry and timber. The Free Classical architecturalapproach marks a transition from the Victorian to the Federation period. It contributes signifi cantly tothe townscape character of this block of Pitt Street. The building demonstrates excellence in its externalstonemasonry and joinery as well as its internal plaster ceilings, leadlight panels and stair details.Proposed works • No physical works are proposed for this item.• Columns, rail beams and concrete pedestals to be removed on the opposite side of the street.Heritage Impact • Improvement to setting and views.MitigationMeasures• No mitigation measures considered necessary.64Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd

ItemCommunity building “City Tattersalls Club”(198–200 Pitt Street)(Map Reference 33)Heritage Listings • Sydney LEP 2005, Schedule 8 Part 1• Draft Sydney LEP 2011Statement ofSignifi canceCity Tattersall’s Club Centre (north) is a six storey reinforced concrete retail and commercial buildingconstructed in the Federation Free Classical Style, which together with its adjacent building, occupiesa prominent position in the Pitt Street streetscape. The building has high historic signifi cance as arefl ection of the importance of Pitt Street as a bookmaking and gambling precinct since the midnineteenthcentury. The building has high social signifi cance for its ability to demonstrate the importanceof horse racing in Australian popular culture. The building has aesthetic signifi cance for its contributionto Pitt Street. The Club Room has a high aesthetic signifi cance as a fi ne and highly intact example of astreamlined modern interior and includes many specifi c elements such as the decorative columns andbar grill.Proposed works • No physical works are proposed for this item.• Columns, rail beams and concrete pedestals to be removed on the opposite side of the street.Heritage Impact • Improvement to setting and views.MitigationMeasures• No mitigation measures considered necessary.65Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd

ItemCommercial building “Merivale Building”194 Pitt Street(Map Reference 34)Heritage Listings • Sydney LEP 2005, Schedule 8 Part 1• Draft Sydney LEP 2011Statement ofSignifi canceMerivale, formerly Symonds’ Buildings, is a seven storey timber framed masonry retail commercialbuilding constructed in the Federation Free Style. The building has historic signifi cance as a remnant ofthe formerly prominent Sydney family business of Symonds’ Furnishing refl ecting the importance of aJewish-run businesses in Sydney’s commercial life. The building has high aesthetic signifi cance for theextent of the intact interior and exterior fabric with outstanding potential to be restored.Proposed works • No physical works are proposed for this item.• Columns, rail beams and concrete pedestals to be removed on the opposite side of the street.Heritage Impact • Improvement to setting and views.MitigationMeasures• No mitigation measures considered necessary.66Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd

ItemFormer bank facade and external walls“London House” 192–192A Pitt Street(Map Reference 35)Heritage Listings • Sydney LEP 2005, Schedule 8 Part 2• Draft Sydney LEP 2011Statement ofSignifi canceShirley House, a seven storey reinforced concrete commercial building modifi ed in the Federation FreeClassical style, is located on a corner site. The building refl ects the development of Edward Fay Pty Ltdas one of Sydney’s major twentieth-century retail shoe store chains and is a rare remnant of a formercolonial banking company, the London Bank. The building has aesthetic signifi cance as a survivingbasic form of building not withstanding the many alterations which have occurred.Proposed works • No physical works are proposed for this item.• Columns, rail beams and concrete pedestals to be removed on the opposite side of the street.Heritage Impact • Improvement to setting and views.MitigationMeasures• No mitigation measures considered necessary.67Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd

ItemState Theatre 49–51 Market Street(Map Reference 37)Heritage Listings • State Heritage RegisterStatement ofSignifi cance• Sydney LEP 2005, Schedule 8 Part 1• Draft Sydney LEP 2011The State Theatre, Sydney is of national heritage signifi cance at an exceptional level, as a majormilestone in the development of the cinema building in Australia, being a departure from the then popular‘atmospheric cinemas’ and one of the last of the great fl amboyant cinemas erected in the late 1920s,just prior to the Great Depression. It achieved a spatial enclosure of extraordinary fantasy, brilliantlycapturing the cinema going spirit of the times. In the State Theatre nothing was real, everything wasfantasy, there to stimulate the imagination of the visitor and movie patron. It’s architectural compositionis unique in Australia. The architectural and spatial progression from the introductory gothic imageryon the street frontage, through the 14th century Gothic Hall and Robert Adam inspired Empire Roomto the Baroque drama of the Rotunda and French Empire decorated foyers into the splendour of themain auditorium is an experience unparalleled in any 19th or 20th century building in New South Wales.The interiors that make up this composition are of the highest of quality design in terms of theatricalityand execution, they remain almost completely intact and in excellent condition. The surviving sectionsof the gothic detailing are unique, of the highest quality craftsmanship and of exceptional significance.The State Theatre achieved a consistency of execution by the use of the gothic motif not only in themain street level foyers, as the spatial introduction to the Theatre and shopping areas, but across thewhole street frontage, over the full extent of the multi storey Market and George Streets facades andthroughout the upper interior levels of the Shopping Block. The original gothic imagery of the street levelfaade and on the soffi t of the awning, refl ected and set the scene for the lavish interiors. The detailingremains almost intact and in good condition, except where Art Deco decoration was substituted in 1937.The 1937 Market Street shop front alterations have a high level of cultural signifi cance as a fi ne andnow rare example of Art Deco style of shopfront design, executed at a time when the Shopping Blockneeded a radical new image to counter fl agging consumer support.Proposed works • No physical works are proposed for this item.• Columns, rail beams and concrete pedestals to be removed on the opposite side of the street in aconfi ned streetscape.Heritage Impact • Improvement to setting and views.• No adverse impact on the identified heritage signifi cance of this item provided measures are takento prevent accidental physical impact.MitigationMeasures• Refi nement of the removal methodology to minimise the potential for damage to this building.• Preventative measures to be taken as necessary to avoid any physical impact on this building.• Any damage should be “made good” under the supervision of an experienced heritage practitioner.68Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd

ItemFormer commercial building “Gowings”452–456 George Street(Map Reference 38)Heritage Listings • Sydney LEP 2005, Schedule 8 Part 1• Draft Sydney LEP 2011Statement ofSignifi canceThe Gowings Building is part of an ongoing tradition of centralised commercial, fi nancial and professionaldealings in the CBD having particular associations with the pre-eminent Australian retailing fi rm. Thechoice of site refl ects the importance of George Street as a retail precinct. It is representative of thepopular Commercial Palazzo style used for inter-war commercial buildings. The Gowings Building isan important townscape element on a major city corner, and contributor to the setting of the QueenVictoria Building precinct along with other major inter-war buildings such as Dymock’s, BBC Hardwareand the State Theatre Building. It is important as an icon for CBD retailing, and for its relationship withGrace Bros, State Shopping Block, Dymocks Building, and BBC Hardware as well as David Jones, asa traditional department store/retail focus at the intersections of George, Pitt and Castlereagh Streetswith Market Street.Proposed works • No physical works are proposed for this item.• Columns, rail beams and concrete pedestals to be removed on the opposite side of the street in aconfi ned streetscape.Heritage Impact • Improvement to setting and views.• No adverse impact on the identifi ed heritage signifi cance of this item provided measures are takento prevent accidental physical impact.MitigationMeasures• Refi nement of the removal methodology to minimise the potential for damage to this building.• Preventative measures to be taken as necessary to avoid any physical impact on this building.• Any damage should be “made good” under the supervision of an experienced heritage practitioner.69Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd

ItemQueen Victoria Building and Arcade429–481 George Street(Map Reference 40)Heritage Listings • State Heritage RegisterStatement ofSignifi cance• Sydney LEP 2005, Schedule 8 Part 1• Draft Sydney LEP 2011The Queen Victoria Building is an outstanding example of the grand retail buildings from the Victorian-Federation era in Australia, which has no known equal in Australia in its architectural style, scale, levelof detailing and craftsmanship. Saved from demolition in the 1980s, and restored to its original glory,the Queen Victoria Building is an iconic heritage building of Sydney and Australia. Dating from 1898,the Queen Victoria Building represents Australia’s largest and grandest Victorian arcade, as well as thelargest, most monumental and most intact of the market buildings of Sydney City. The site of the QueenVictoria Building has continued to operate as a market facility for over 190 years, which is a signifi canthistorical continuum. The Queen Victoria Building is a superb example of the Federation Romanesquestyle, also known as the American Romanesque style and a continuation of the Victorian Romanesquestyle. It represents possibly the largest and fi nest example of the American Romanesque style to beconstructed in Australia, demonstrating the infl uence of the prominent 19th Century American architect,Henry Hobson Richardson, in Australia during this period. The building expresses an ambitious use ofbuilding technology, excellent craftsmanship and decorative detailing. Both the building exteriors andinteriors are remarkable and outstanding for their quality, workmanship, materials, richness, imageryand style. The Queen Victoria Building also represents an important building in the professional workof the prominent City Architect, George McRae (later, the NSW Government architect) and has anoutstanding ability to refl ect through its aesthetics and scale, the planning strategies of the City Architectfor Sydney during the late 19th Century. The Queen Victoria Building represents an important shift inheritage consciousness in Sydney during the 1980s because of the public outcry that brought aboutits conservation and, in particular, the historical restoration approach taken for its refurbishment. It alsorefl ects, through its building development concessions, the importance of heritage conservation in morerecent government strategies.Proposed works • No physical works are proposed for this item.• Columns, rail beams and concrete pedestals to be removed on the opposite side of the street.Heritage Impact • Improvement to setting and views.MitigationMeasures• No mitigation measures considered necessary.70Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd

ItemFormer warehouse “Archway Terrace”26–32 Market Street(Map Reference 41)Heritage Listings • Sydney LEP 2005, Schedule 8 Part 1• Draft Sydney LEP 2011Statement ofSignifi canceThe Archway Terrace has historic signifi cance as one of the earlier buildings in the western citywarehouse precinct which developed as an adjunct to Darling Harbour It has aesthetic signifi cance as aprominent group of warehouses of striking and unusual design and detailing, and a rare group of almostdomestic scale warehouses in the western precinct of the city.Proposed works • No physical works are proposed for this item.• Columns, rail beams and concrete pedestals to be removed on the opposite side of the street.Heritage Impact • Improvement to setting and views.MitigationMeasures• No mitigation measures considered necessary.71Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd

5.5 Summary of Heritage Impacts• The construction of the Monorail had a detrimental impact on the setting of the listed heritage items alongits route, and affected views to many individual items. Additionally, it disrupted views to heritage items in thewider locality, such as the view to the Obelisk Sewer Vent at the eastern end of Bathurst Street, from west ofPitt Street.• The physical impacts of the removal works, on the heritage items along the route of the Monorail, is limited tothe works to the Pyrmont Bridge and the Darling Harbour Rail Corridor.• The conceptual methodology for the Monorail removal is considered to be a positive heritage outcome for thePyrmont Bridge for the following reasons:• it removes intrusive additions• enhances its setting and views• allows the water penetration issues caused by the installation of the monorail to be rectifi ed• allows the return of the bridge Control Cabin to its original location and the reinstatement of themanual brake system.• The removal of the monorail infrastructure from this historic and contemporary Darling Harbour Rail Corridoris considered to be a neutral heritage outcome for this item, given its role as an infrastructure corridor.• The Former School of Arts is located on the same land parcel that contains the Galeries Victoria Station, tobe removed. There are no physical works proposed for the Former School of Arts building itself, only to thebuilding immediately adjacent to it.• There is potential for the removal process to have unintentional physical impacts on the adjacent heritageitems. The deconstruction works need to be undertaken in a manner that prevents any potential for damage.As this has not been addressed in the draft removal methodology concepts it is recommended that the fi nalwork method statements, both general and property specific, include discussion of the risks associated with,and measures to be undertaken, to prevent collateral damage to adjacent buildings.• The removal of the Monorail will reinstate the former setting of the heritage items along its route and allowappreciation of the uninterrupted views from the public domain. From a heritage perspective this is anoverwhelmingly positive impact.• The removal of the Monorail will have a positive impact on the presentation and character of the two specialareas, Haymarket and York Street, that the route passes by and through.• The impacts on the individual heritage items along the Monorail route are summarised in the following table.72Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd

MapReferenceItem Name & Address Heritage Listing/s Heritage Impacts1 Pyrmont Bridge State HeritageRegisterSHFA S170 Register• The Pyrmont Bridge Darling Harbour SydneyConservation Management Plan, June 2006,prepared for SHFA by Otto Cserhalmi & Partners,grades the Monorail as an intrusive element ofthe Pyrmont Bridge and recommends that it beremoved, or modifi ed, in the long term to reducethe adverse impact.The conceptual methodology for the Monorail removalis considered to be a positive heritage outcome for thePyrmont Bridge for the following reasons:• it removes intrusive additions• enhances its setting and views• allows the water penetration issues caused bythe installation of the monorail to be rectifi ed• allows the return of the bridge Control Cabin toits original location and the reinstatement of themanual brake system.2 Darling Harbour RailCorridorSHFA S170 Register • The Monorail stabling and maintenance facility,and control room, have been constructed over theextant rail corridor at Darling Harbour, which iscurrently utilised for the light railway.• The removal of the monorail infrastructure fromthis historic and contemporary transport corridor isconsidered to be a neutral heritage outcome forthis item, given its role as an infrastructure corridor.• Archaeological assessment is outside the scope ofthis report. The curtilage and management of thisheritage item in terms of its archaeological valuesis discussed in the report prepared by AHMS.3 Power House Museum500 Harris StreetSydney LEP 2005,Schedule 9• Improvement to setting and views.Draft Sydney LEP 20114 Paddys Market facade SHFA S170 Register • Improvement to setting and views.5 Former Post Offi ceStores Street facades68 Harbour Street6 Former Hydraulic PumpStationState HeritageRegisterSydney LEP 2005,Schedule 8 Part 2Draft Sydney LEP 2011State HeritageRegisterSHFA S170 Register• Improvement to setting and views.• No adverse impact on the identifi ed heritagesignificance of this item provided measures aretaken to prevent accidental physical impact.• Improvement to setting and views.• No adverse impact on the identifi ed heritagesignificance of this item provided measures aretaken to prevent accidental physical impact.73Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd

7 Commerce Buildings345B -353 Sussex StreetSydney LEP 2005,Schedule 8 Part 1Draft Sydney LEP 2011• Improvement to setting and views.• No adverse impact on the identifi ed heritagesignificance of this item provided measures aretaken to prevent accidental physical impact.8 Buckle Chambers53–55 Liverpool Street(1 Douglass Street)Sydney LEP 2005,Schedule 8 Part 1Draft Sydney LEP 2011• Improvement to setting and views.• No adverse impact on the identifi ed heritagesignificance of this item provided measures aretaken to prevent accidental physical impact.9 Former warehouse76–78 Liverpool StreetSydney LEP 2005,Schedule 8 Part 1Draft Sydney LEP 2011• Improvement to setting and views.10 Former commercialbuilding facade“Danchen House”545–553 KentStreet11 Retail Terrace69–79 Liverpool StreetSydney LEP 2005,Schedule 8 Part 2Draft Sydney LEP 2011Sydney LEP 2005,Schedule 8 Part 1Draft Sydney LEP 2011• Improvement to setting and views.• Improvement to setting and views.• No adverse impact on the identifi ed heritagesignificance of this item provided measures aretaken to prevent accidental physical impact.12 Sir JohnYoung Hotel557-559 George StreetSydney LEP 2005,Schedule 8 Part 1Draft Sydney LEP 2011• Improvement to setting and views.• No adverse impact on the identifi ed heritagesignificance of this item provided measures aretaken to prevent accidental physical impact.13 Spanish Club88 Liverpool StreetSydney LEP 2005,Schedule 8 Part 1Draft Sydney LEP 2011• Improvement to setting and views.14 Former ANZ Bank553–555 George Street3 MonkeysSydney LEP 2005,Schedule 8 Part 1Draft Sydney LEP 2011• Improvement to setting and views.15 Century Hotel640–642 George StreetSydney LEP 2005,Schedule 8 Part 1Draft Sydney LEP 2011• Improvement to setting and views.16 Brickfi eld Place98–112 LiverpoolStreetSydney LEP 2005,Schedule 8 Part 3Draft Sydney LEP 2011• Improvement to setting and views.74Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd

17 Commercial building“Fayworth House”379–383 Pitt StreetSydney LEP 2005,Schedule 8 Part 1Draft Sydney LEP 2011• Improvement to setting and views.• No adverse impact on the identifi ed heritagesignificance of this item provided measures aretaken to prevent accidental physical impact.18 Former Lismore Hotelfacade343–357 Pitt StreetSydney LEP 2005,Schedule 8 Part 2Draft Sydney LEP 2011• Improvement to setting and views.• No adverse impact on the identifi ed heritagesignificance of this item provided measures aretaken to prevent accidental physical impact.19 Sydney Water building(339–341 Pitt Street)115–119 Bathurst Street20 Edinburgh Castle Hotel294–294B Pitt Street21 Former communitybuilding “YMCA”323–331 Pitt StreetState HeritageRegisterSydney LEP 2005,Schedule 8 Part 1Draft Sydney LEP 2011Sydney LEP 2005,Schedule 8 Part 1Draft Sydney LEP 2011Sydney LEP 2005,Schedule 8 Part 1Draft Sydney LEP 2011• Improvement to setting and views.• No adverse impact on the identifi ed heritagesignificance of this item provided measures aretaken to prevent accidental physical impact.• Improvement to setting and views.• Improvement to setting and views.• No adverse impact on the identifi ed heritagesignificance of this item provided measures aretaken to prevent accidental physical impact.22 Commercial building“International House”284–292 Pitt Street23 School building“Lincoln Building”280–282 Pitt Street24 Pitt Street UnitingChurch 264A Pitt Street25 Community building“Pilgrim House”262–264 Pitt Street26 Criterion Hotel258–260 Pitt StreetSydney LEP 2005,Schedule 8 Part 1Draft Sydney LEP 2011Sydney LEP 2005,Schedule 8 Part 1Draft Sydney LEP 2011State HeritageRegisterSydney LEP 2005,Schedule 8 Part 1Draft Sydney LEP 2011Sydney LEP 2005,Schedule 8 Part 1Draft Sydney LEP 2011Sydney LEP 2005,Schedule 8 Part 1Draft Sydney LEP 2011• Improvement to setting and views.• Improvement to setting and views.• Improvement to setting and views.• Improvement to setting and views.• Improvement to setting and views.75Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd

37 State Theatre 49–51Market Street38 Former commercialbuilding “Gowings”452–456 George StreetState HeritageRegisterSydney LEP 2005,Schedule 8 Part 1Draft Sydney LEP 2011Sydney LEP 2005,Schedule 8 Part 1Draft Sydney LEP 2011• Improvement to setting and views.• No adverse impact on the identifi ed heritagesignificance of this item provided measures aretaken to prevent accidental physical impact.• Improvement to setting and views.• No adverse impact on the identifi ed heritagesignificance of this item provided measures aretaken to prevent accidental physical impact.39 Commonwealth Bank423–427 George StreetSydney LEP 2005,Schedule 8 Part 1Draft Sydney LEP 2011• Improvement to setting and views.• No adverse impact on the identifi ed heritagesignificance of this item provided measures aretaken to prevent accidental physical impact.40 Queen VictoriaBuilding and Arcade429–481 George StreetState HeritageRegisterSydney LEP 2005,Schedule 8 Part 1• Improvement to setting and views.41 Former warehouse“Archway Terrace”26–32 Market StreetSpecial Area 2York StreetSpecial Area 4HaymarketDraft Sydney LEP 2011Sydney LEP 2005,Schedule 8 Part 1Draft Sydney LEP 2011• Improvement to setting and views.Sydney LEP 2005 • Improvement to setting and views.• Positive impact on the presentation and characterof this area provided measures are taken toprevent accidental physical impact.Sydney LEP 2005 • Improvement to setting and views.• Positive impact on the presentation and characterof this area provided measures are taken toprevent accidental physical impact.77Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd

Recommended Mitigation Measures6.0The bullet points below list the generalised and site specifi c measures recommended to mitigate the potentialheritage impacts identifi ed in the summary and table in Section 5.5 of this report.General Mitigation Measures• It is recommended that a photographic record of the Monorail be prepared. This should be lodged with theState Library of NSW and the City of Sydney archives to facilitate its future use as a historical record.• As the Monorail has been an integral part of the urban fabric and transport infrastructure of the Sydney CBDfor more than two decades consideration should be given to the preparation of an Interpretation Strategy forthe Monorail.• In general, the deconstruction methodology needs to ensure the works are undertaken in a manner thatprevents any potential for damage and that measures are taken as necessary to avoid any physical impact onthe adjacent buildings. These should include the use of protective screens, where necessary, to protect theadjacent building facades and awnings when using oxy-acetylene kits to cut beams.• The fi nal work method statements, both general and property specifi c, must include discussion of the risksassociated with, and measures to be undertaken, to prevent collateral damage to adjacent buildings.• Any damage to heritage items should be “made good” under the supervision of an experienced heritagepractitioner, other than those to the Pyrmont Bridge, where the heritage practitioner should also be an engineer.• Enquiries should be made to determine if there are any signifi cant trachyte, bluestone and sandstone kerbsalong the Monorail route that are likely to be impacted by the proposed works, in particular the defi ned SpecialAreas of Haymarket and York Street.Simpson House, 249-251 Pitt Street• A detailed work method statement should be developed for the removal works to be undertaken adjacentto Simpson House at 249-251 Pitt Street where the rail beams to be removed are in close proximity to thebuilding facade.Market Street Corridor• The conceptual methodology for the works required in the Market Street corridor, between Pitt and GeorgeStreets, should be further refi ned, given the presence of a number of signifi cant building and facades in aconfi ned streetscape, and the close proximity of the rail beams to the awning of the Former Tatler Hotelfacade. Consideration should be given to the use of a lift mechanism to lower cut sections of beam, ratherthan an overhead crane.78Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd

Pyrmont Bridge Mitigation Measures• A detailed work method statement for the deconstruction and conservation works for the Pyrmont Bridgeshould be prepared by a suitably qualifi ed engineer, with experience in the repair and maintenance of historicbridges, in consultation with SHFA. This should include specifi cation of the materials to be used in any repairworks required.• A detailed work method statement should be prepared by a suitably qualifi ed engineer, with experience in therepair and maintenance of historic bridges, for the relocation of the bridge Control Cabin and reinstatement ofthe manual brake system. This should be done in consultation with SHFA and include the specifi cation of thematerials to be used in any conservation works required.• SHFA should be consulted to determine suitable locations for the lighting and signage that is to be relocatedprior to the undertaking of these works.• A suitably qualifi ed engineer, with experience in the repair and maintenance of historic bridges, should beengaged to oversee the deconstruction and “make good” works.• Any “make good” conservation works required should be undertaken by skilled tradesman and any unforeseen,or accidental, damage should be “made good” under the supervision of a qualifi ed engineer with experiencein the repair and maintenance of historic bridges.Former School of Arts Mitigation Measures• Refi nement of the conceptual methodology for the Monorail removal should include a detailed work methodstatement for the proposed works in the vicinity of Galeries Victoria Station, discussion of the risk of collateraldamage to the adjacent State Heritage Register item, the Former School of Arts, and the protection measuresto be undertaken to prevent such damage.• The requirement that any unintentional damage to the Former School of Arts be “made good” under thesupervision of an experienced heritage practitioner.79Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd

Bibliography7.0PUBLICATIONSCity of Sydney Council, Draft Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2011, Sydney, City of Sydney Council, 2011Evans and Peck, Monorail Removal Project Galeries Victoria Station Removal Methodology - DRAFT, dated 15October 2012Evans and Peck, Monorail Removal Project Galeries Victoria Station Removal Methodology - DRAFT, dated 24October 2012Evans and Peck, Monorail Removal Project Removal Methodology Concept, dated 3 October 2012Evans and Peck, Monorail Removal Project Removal Methodology Concept, dated 5 October 2012Evans and Peck, Monorail Removal Project Station Removal Methodology - DRAFT, dated 10 October 2012Evans and Peck, Monorail Removal Project Removal of monorail on Pyrmont Bridge - DRAFT, dated 23 October2012ICOMOS Australia, The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of Places of CulturalSignifi cance (Burra Charter), Canberra, Australia ICOMOS, 1999Mayne-Wilson W, Heritage Curtilages, NSW Heritage Offi ce and the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning,NSW, 1996NSW Heritage Offi ce and Department of Infrastructure Planning and Natural Resources, NSW HeritageManual, Sydney 2001NSW Heritage Offi ce, Interpreting Heritage Places and Items Guidelines, NSW Heritage Offi ce, 2005Otto Cserhalmi & Partners, Pyrmont Bridge Darling Harbour Sydney Conservation Management Plan, June 2006TNT, TNT Harbour-link: moving with Sydney into the 21st century, 1986TNT, TNT the Facts, 1988Waterman AHW Pty Ltd, Report Pyrmont Bridge Control Tower Restoring to original location, 22 October 2012WEBSITESwww.heritage.nsw.gov.au, State Heritage Inventorywww.legislation.nsw.gov.au, NSW Legislationwww.shfa.nsw.gov.au, SHFA Section 170 Register80Monorail Removal ProjectStatement of Heritage ImpactNovember 2012Graham Brooks & Associates Pty Ltd