Suburban Voices

Action Needed:

• Text Layout and proof reading
• Add Images

Alves, Lesley, 1946- & Rice, Tess. 2001, Suburban voices : stories of multicultural Manningham / written by Lesley Alves ; photographs by Tess Rice. Whitehorse Manningham Regional Library Corp Box Hill, Vic. ISBN 0 9587367 0 7  https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/catalog/2643116

Pontville: Cultural Significance (Kellaway Ellender 1995)

Melbourne Parks and Waterways & City of Manningham - June 1995

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy

[Cover image: hand-drawn survey plan showing river, allotments 1, 2, 3, 4 with acreages 134 Ac, 123 Ao, 146 Acres, and 147.3.0, labelled "Ch. Newman" and "County B..."]

Context Pty Ltd & Nigel Lewis Richard Aitken Pty Ltd. in association with. Dr Carlotta Kellaway & Isabel Ellender

• CONTENTS
• 
  
• SUMMARY iv
• PURPOSE OF REPORT iv
• KEY FINDINGS iv
• 
  
• INTRODUCTION 1
• BACKGROUND TO THE PROJECT 1
• THIS REPORT 2
• METHODS 2
• ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 5
• 
  
• HISTORICAL CHRONOLOGY 6
• SCOPE OF OUR WORK 6
• THE CHRONOLOGY 7
• 
  
• SITE DESCRIPTION & ANALYSIS 14
• METHOD 14
• DESCRIPTION OF KEY FEATURES 14
• PROPERTY HOLDING 15
• FARMING LAND USES & STRUCTURES 18
• TRACKS INTO THE PROPERTY 24
• PONTVILLE HOMESTEAD COMPLEX 25
• OTHER DWELLINGS 43
• OTHER FEATURES 45
• 
  
• ASSESSING SIGNIFICANCE 48
• CRITERIA 48
• PREVIOUS ASSESSMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE 50
• STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE 51
• EXTENT OF SIGNIFICANCE 53
• SCHEDULE OF SIGNIFICANT AREAS 53
• SCHEDULE OF SIGNIFICANT ITEMS BY PERIOD 55
• SCHEDULE OF SIGNIFICANT BUILDING FABRIC: PONTVILLE HOMESTEAD 55
• 
  
• DEVELOPMENT OF POLICY 59
• METHOD 59
• SIGNIFICANT FABRIC 59
• CLIENT, OWNER AND USER REQUIREMENTS AND RESOURCES 59
• OTHER REQUIREMENTS AND CONCERNS 64
• CONDITION OF FABRIC 65
• USES 65
• COMPARATIVE INFORMATION 65
• UNAVAILABLE INFORMATION 66
• 
  
• CONSERVATION POLICY 67
• INTRODUCTION 67
• STATEMENT OF POLICY 68
• 
  
• RECOMMENDATIONS 81
• 
  
• BIBLIOGRAPHY 83
• MANUSCRIPTS 83
• LEGAL RECORDS 83
• ILLUSTRATIVE MATERIAL 83
• MAPS AND PLANS 83
• ORAL HISTORY 84
• PUBLISHED MATERIAL 84
• 
  
• APPENDICES 85
• APPENDIX 1: ORAL HISTORY: SUGGESTED INTERVIEWEES 85
• APPENDIX 2: ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE REPORT 86
• APPENDIX 3: PROPOSED ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS 94
• APPENDIX 4: THE BURRA CHARTER & GUIDELINES 95

SUMMARY

PURPOSE OF REPORT

This report assesses the cultural significance of Pontville, a property dating from 1838 and associated with the early colonial settlement of the Port Phillip district, and sets out a policy framework to guide future decisions about its use, management and development.

KEY FINDINGS

SIGNIFICANCE

1. Historical research and investigation of the building fabric reveals and confirms an early date for the present Pontville house, probably as early as 1843-1850. (see Historical Chronology pages 6 - 13, and Site Description & Analysis, pages 14 - 47).

2. The Pontville house is set within a cultural landscape comprising cleared grazing areas, hawthorn hedges and bushland along the waterways - which appears to date from the early pastoral occupation by Major Newman and his direct family. (see Site Description & Analysis, pages 14 - 47). Despite its location within suburban Melbourne, the property retains a high degree of integrity in its cultural landscape setting.

3. The cultural significance of the Pontville property, defined including the whole of the Melbourne Parks & Waterways Pontville holdings, plus the Monckton property north of Homestead Road, is stated in the report as follows:

Pontville, constructed in the 1840s, on part of an 1830s pastoral holding (of 4400 acres) at the confluence of the Yarra Yarra and the Mullum Mullum Creek, by Major Charles Newman, pastoralist, who was a pioneer of the Templestowe and Warrandyte district, is of State cultural significance:

• for its historical associations with the earliest phase of pastoral activity in the proximity of Melbourne and the continuity of these activities to the present day

• as the last intact 1840s pastoral selection within close proximity to the city from the east (and the same proximity as Woodlands) as well as being apparently the last intact important early homestead site of any importance on the Yarra River within the metropolitan area.

• as the focal point and primary homestead in a farm complex which originally included the two homesteads, Pontville and Monckton; the site of the 1830s turf hut; and all the associated Newman land within the boundary fence enclosing portions 1, 2 3, and 4 as shown on Hoddle's 1850 plan.

• as the primary homestead willed in 1860 to Major Newman's eldest son, the other (Monckton - now demolished) being left to his younger son

• as the homestead where, on its associated land, the Major chose to pasture his valuable horses and cattle

• for its associations with the earliest development of the Templestowe area

• for its association with an ex Indian Army officer; Newman was one of only two in Victoria at this time, an association that was very influential in the development of Australian colonial society, and the obvious influence on the distinctive and unusual Indian Bungalow form employed at Pontville

• for its long associations with the Newman family (1830s-1950), the first white settlers at Deep Creek and claimed by Newman to be the first this far east of Melbourne.

• for the unusual elements, or evidence of elements, surviving from the original structure; these include:

• - the distinctive Indian Bungalow form with a core of three interconnecting rooms surrounded by a broad verandah formed within the main hipped roof, with rooms formerly built within the verandah at both ends, and a large attic space created by the steep roof pitch and the extended walls above ceiling level
• - the masonry structure of stone footings and hearth, the triple thickness walls of locally made bricks and remnant sections of original ruled lime stucco (the oldest such surface identified in Victoria) and remnants of original plaster surfaces
• - the original ceiling structure of pit sawn hardwood, with a ceiling opening for attic stairs trimmed with tusk tenoned joints, and remnant hardwood planked attic floor and patent flooring nails
• - clear evidence of the original building form, including the original roof form being maintained by the current structure, and the form, layout, raked ceilings and subdivision of the missing end rooms

• for later elements associated with the repair and reconstruct of the building in its original configuration; these include:

• - the 1900s timber roof, including iron roofing, and framing which shows evidence of the end rooms
• - the floor structure
• - archaeological values including evidence of an earlier slate roof
• - 1870s -1900s kitchen wing
• - remnants and evidence of other structures, including tank stands, brick well, out buildings and sheds

• for landscaping around the house, especially:

• - the extremely early Cupressus torulosa
• - the formal terracing using similar rock work to the footings of the house

• for the surrounding cultural landscape; including:

• - hedgerows and exotic trees
• - clearing patterns and interface with indigenous bushland
• - the original allotment boundaries and creek and river frontages
• - access road and bridge formation, including the locations of earlier access tracks
• - sites of other structures possibly including the original turf hut
• - the relationship with Newman's later house, Monckton, built overlooking Pontville, and nearby family graves

• for the research potential inherent in the location of and material contained with archaeological deposits associated with Newman's turf hut, for this would provide a rare glimpse of what it meant to be a squatting family in the first years of Port Phillip settlement.

RECOGNITION OF SIGNIFICANCE

4. Pontville should be recognised as a place of cultural significance, of importance to the State of Victoria, and more particularly to the history of the colonial settlement of the Port Phillip district, and the statement of cultural significance set out above should be accepted as the primary basis for the future planning and management of the place.

CONSERVATION POLICY

5. The Conservation Policy contained in this report (see Development of Policy, pages 59 - 66 and Conservation Policy, pages 67 - 80) should be adopted to guide decisions about the future use, management and development of Pontville. The Conservation Policy covers:

Policy 1: Significance of Pontville

Policy 2: Applicability of Conservation Policy

Policy 3: Future extension of Conservation Policy to the area of contributory significance

Policy 4: Period of major significance

Policy 5: Appropriate conservation actions

Policy 6: Priorities for works

Policy 7: Use

Policy 8: Interpretation

Policy 9: Management

Policy 10: Future developments

Policy 11: Research & intervention

Policy 12: Keeping records

Policy 13: Adoption of Conservation Policy

Policy 14: Review of Conservation Policy.

6. After implementation of the Conservation Policy, the area of major significance at Pontville could be expected to appear as described below:

Arriving at Pontville, via the early overland track or the route from Blackburn Road, the visitor gets a glimpse of the homestead through the trees. The homestead has been conserved and is open to visitors. The early building fabric has been carefully preserved and the visitor is able to see the different layers of building fabric that help tell the story of the building. Perhaps they can climb the reconstructed stairs and look into the ceiling space. There may be interpretive displays within the house explaining the Aboriginal and early colonial history of the property.

The end rooms have been reconstructed as has one chimney, returning the building to its original form. The verandah additions by Paddle have been removed, and the original form of the two open verandahs have been reconstructed.

Elements of the homestead garden have been reconstructed, and a new hawthorn hedge has been planted to replace the hedge removed between 1931-1945. The other hawthorns are being trimmed as hedges. Some fences have been reinstated along the old alignment, and the pasture is grazed or cut for hay.

Looking out from the back verandah, the visitor can appreciate the 1930s layout of the farm, with new buildings located in the place of the milking shed, separator building and the cottage. Replanting of indigenous species has reduced the extent of the pasture to the north-east of the house to that shown in the 1931 photograph.

Walking out of the house, the visitor can walk to specific features - turf hut site, clay pit, stone quarry - following an historical trail around the property. For those wanting a longer tour, they can visit Monckton, and on to Pettys, travelling again on the early route traversed by Major Newman and his family in the 1830s.

In the longer term, the existing house at Monckton could provide other visitor facilities and perhaps an opportunity to view an archaeological excavation of the Monckton site.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the analysis contained in this report, and in particular the actions required in the Conservation Policy, the consultants recommend that Melbourne Parks and Waterways and the City of Manningham:

1. Adopt the Statement of Significance and Conservation Policy contained in this report as the basis for the future conservation, use and development of the Pontville.

2. Give priority to the immediate tasks in the Policy 6: Priorities for Works.

• Construct security fence, shutter windows and doors of original building, and provide security and weather protection to vandalised kitchen structure. An archaeological survey of the precinct is required prior to the erection of fencing to ensure that archaeological evidence is not inadvertently damaged by the fence construction.

• Architectural documentation of a staged program of works on the homestead precinct (that is, house, kitchen, outbuildings and its immediate setting). Estimated cost = $4,000 - $5,000.

• Undertake urgent stabilisation and securing of the homestead, kitchen and its immediate setting, that is the Stage 1 works program. It is anticipated that these works would include stabilising the kitchen wing, repairing and reattaching the roof of the house, fixing shutters to the door and window openings of the house. Estimated cost: $8,000 - $10,000.

• Investigation of the mortar and brickwork below floor and above ceiling levels with the aim of determining if both sections appear to be part of a single construction phase. Estimated cost: $600-$1,000.

• Detailed archaeological survey within the homestead precinct to provide a preliminary investigation of the sub-floor or the house and kitchen, to identify areas to be included within secure site fencing and to develop procedures for safeguarding these areas during any immediate stabilisation works and site fencing. See Appendix 3. Estimated cost: $20,000.

• Further historical research involving oral history interviews with key informants who have been directly associated and/or lived at the property, particularly those whose recall includes the period of 1910s-1950s. These interviews would be conducted on-site if possible, and would focus on the homestead precinct and changes made to it at different times. A list of potential informants is contained in Appendix 1. Based on 10-15 interviews, the estimated cost = $4,000 - $4,500.

• Further historical research involving documentary research focusing on the following key aspects: early newspapers (eg. Port Phillip Gazette 1842-1849), other newspapers (1850s-60s); Lands Department records at PRO; Tasmanian archives. Estimated cost: $3,000.

• Seek further funding to enable archaeological survey of the whole property with the aim of accurately locating site features associated with the Major Newman period, including the turf hut site, stone quarry, clay pit and any other features (including those on Monckton). This work will involve careful analysis of aerial photographs combined with field survey and probing. See Appendix 4. Estimated cost = $30,000.

3. Develop a Concept Plan for the whole Tikalara Park, covering both Melbourne Parks & Waterways and City of Manningham land. The Concept Plan would review the Paddles/Tikalara section of the Yarra Valley Park Management Plan in the light of the results of this project which has provided new information on the significance of Pontville.

The Concept Plan would cover:

• all values associated with the Tikalara Park, including this report on Pontville

• future uses and developments

• the Conservation Policy for Pontville, including an implementation strategy and a conservation works and maintenance program

• landscape management

• visitor management and interpretive strategies

• management arrangements.

Prior to the development of the Concept Plan, further work is required to establish the importance of this property, and the wider area, to Koori people. The immediate works recommended above are also a preliminary step in the development of the Concept Plan, and should be commenced as soon as possible.

4. Nominate Pontville to the Historic Buildings Register and the Register of the National Estate.

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND TO THE PROJECT

Pontville is located close to the Yarra River in Templestowe, and within the City of Manningham.¹ The place comprises a house, remnant plantings, outbuildings, tracks and a range of other features associated with the farming use of this area since the late 1830s. The property forms part of a linear open space network along the Yarra River, and is owned and managed by Melbourne Parks and Waterways. Adjoining land, once part of the original holding is owned by the City of Manningham and a number of private owners.

The cultural significance of Pontville had been briefly assessed in two previous studies of the locality², and more recent research initiated by the City of Manningham³ had uncovered further valuable information that suggested the property was of great significance.⁴

In August 1994, Melbourne Parks and Waterways, with the financial support of the City of Doncaster and Templestowe (now Manningham), sought tenders from consultants to prepare a conservation analysis and policy for Pontville. Consultants were appointed and commenced work in late November.

The consultant team comprised Ms Chris Johnston (Context Pty Ltd) in association with Mr Nigel Lewis (Nigel Lewis Richard Aitken Pty Ltd: conservation consultants and architects), Dr Carlotta Kellaway (research historian) and Ms Isabel Ellender (archaeologist). The original timetable envisaged completion at the end of February. Additional work during the project, and consultation with the Friends of Pontville led to revisions to the timetable during the project.

The project has followed the Australia ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of Places of cultural significance (The Burra Charter) and the associated Guidelines on Cultural Significance and Conservation Policy (see Appendix 4). The Charter provides a logical, two stage process for first, analysis of the cultural significance of the place, and second, for the development of conservation policy.

The project was overseen by a Steering Committee, appointed by Melbourne Parks and Waterways, which included representatives of Melbourne Parks and Waterways, City of Manningham, Heritage Victoria, National Trust, Doncaster Templestowe Historical Society, Warrandyte Historical Society. Several members of the Committee were also members of the Friends of Pontville.

¹ The former City of Doncaster and Templestowe is now part of the City of Manningham.

² City of Doncaster & Templestowe Heritage Study, Context Pty Ltd 1991; M. McBriar Interpreting the past: the Yarra Valley Metropolitan Park, MMBW Metropolitan Parks, undated.

³ The former City of Doncaster and Templestowe is now part of the City of Manningham.

⁴ Research by Dr Carlotta Kellaway and inspection by Prof. Miles Lewis, University of Melbourne.

THIS REPORT

This report is arranged into the following sections

• Introduction

Part A: Conservation Analysis

• Historical Chronology

• Site Analysis

• Significance

Part B: Conservation Policy

• Development of Conservation Policy

• Statement of Conservation Policy

Part C: Recommendations

• Next steps

• Priorities

• Structures and processes

METHODS

GENERAL APPROACH

The scope of the project is clearly delineated in the brief. Our approach followed the principles and processes established by the Australia ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of Places of cultural significance (The Burra Charter) and the associated Guidelines on Cultural Significance and Conservation Policy (see Appendix 4). The Burra Charter defines a series of terms, the principles underlying current Australian conservation practice in relation to places of cultural significance, and a process which separates the assessment of cultural significance and policy formulation and development into two separate stages.

The principles that underlie conservation practice are summarised in The Illustrated Burra Charter.⁵ Two points worth emphasising are:

• Places are worth conserving because they enrich our lives today, by helping us understand the past, by contributing to the richness of the present environment, and because we expect them to be of value to future generations.

• The place itself is important; its fabric, setting, contents and meanings provide evidence of its cultural significance. Therefore actions to conserve a place should involve the minimum change necessary to conserve the significant fabric. By keeping change to a minimum protects the evidence of history that is contained in the place.

 

⁵ Peter Marquis-Kyle and Meredith Walker, The Illustrated Burra Charter: Making good decisions about the care of important places, Australia ICOMOS, 1992.

TERMINOLOGY

The following terms are used throughout the report. They adopt the meanings from The Burra Charter as follows:

• Place means site, area, building or other work, group of buildings or other works together with associated contents and surroundings. (Article 1.1)

• Cultural significance means aesthetic, historic, scientific or social value for past, present or future generations (Article 1.2)

• Conservation means all the process of looking after a place so as to retain its cultural significance. It includes maintenance and may according to circumstances include preservation, restoration, reconstruction and adaptation and will be commonly a combination of more than one of these. (Article 1.4).

While the Burra Charter focuses on the conservation of the fabric (or physical material) of the place, the consultants recognise the potential importance and need to conserve meanings, uses and past events that may not be evident in the fabric.

ASSESSMENT OF CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE

Assessment of cultural significance required collection of information about the place through historical research and field inspection. This was followed by an analysis of this information, and an assessment of the significance of the place according to defined criteria. The result of this stage was the statement of cultural significance.

HISTORICAL RESEARCH

The history and development of Pontville had been well-documented, particularly through the recent research and physical investigation by Dr Kellaway and Prof. Lewis which confirmed an early date for some elements of the building and supported the preliminary assessment of its importance contained in Context's 1991 study of the whole municipality. Its association with Major Newman and his family, considered to be the first permanent white settlers in Templestowe, makes this property of particular interest.

It was decided that some particular research sources should be pursued during this project. These included early accounts of the property, Newman wills, specific property records and oral history sources. The unpublished manuscript "A history of the Newman family: the first pioneers in Templestowe" by Hazel Poulter and David Crockett, was provided to the consultants during the project, and proved to be of great assistance.

FIELD INVESTIGATION

Field work was undertaken to further investigate the physical fabric of the whole place - the building, its site and its setting - drawing on architectural, historical, archaeological and landscape analysis techniques.

The homestead has had a complex recent history and careful evaluation of its fabric was required to distinguish significant, contributory and insignificant elements.

The whole of the original Newman property was not able to be investigated in the field, and further work is required.

ANALYSIS & ASSESSMENT OF CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE

Our analysis sought to draw together information from documentary and physical sources to achieve a full understanding of the significance of the place.

In assessing the cultural significance of the place, the consultants defined a set of criteria, based on those of the Australian Heritage Commission. The overall level of significance was defined in relation to the usual categories: national, state, regional, local, interest.

The extent of significance and the relative significance of the elements that make up the place were further defined and ranked using the following categories:

Area/items of major significance

Area/items of contributory significance

Area/items of no appreciable significance.

POLICY DEVELOPMENT

Based on the statement of cultural significance, the consultants then proceeded to the development of a conservation policy.

In developing the conservation policy, the consultants took account of a range of factors including: the significant fabric, the requirements and resources of the client/owner and users, the current ownership, current management and staffing, funding, legal and other statutory requirements, condition of the fabric, past and potential uses and their compatibility with the significance of the place, comparative responses to the conservation of similar places, unavailable information which may be important in the determination or implementation of conservation policy, and finally an analytical assessment of the above factors in relation to the statement of cultural significance. (see Part B for full details).

Based on this analysis, the consultants developed a conservation policy for the place which covers: general approach; fabric and setting; management; use; interpretation; future development and control of intervention; adoption and review.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Finally, the consultants prepared recommendations on the next steps in the development of a management plan for the place. These recommendations include: further research and investigation; urgent conservation works; and management planning requirements.

REPORTING

The consultants reported to the Steering Committee at regular intervals throughout the project. A draft report on cultural significance was presented to the committee prior to the consultant proceeding with the development of conservation policy.

The final report was submitted to both Melbourne Parks and Waterways and the City of Manningham in accordance with the requirements of the brief.

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 4

---

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The project has been greatly assisted by the research conducted over many years by Hazel Poulter and David Crockett, much of which is contained in their unpublished manuscript "A history of the Newman family: the first pioneers in Templestowe". Both also provided additional information and assistance during the project.

The work of Dr Carlotta Kellaway and Prof. Miles Lewis, undertaken in 1994, provided a valuable basis for our work. We are indebted to Prof. Lewis for his expert analysis of the fabric of the place as a result of his 1994 inspection.

Other researchers also provided valuable material, including Marilyn McBriar's comparative study of pastoral properties within the Yarra Valley Metropolitan Park.

Many people assisted with oral history information especially Mrs Hazel Poulter, Fay Pirotta (Webb descendant), Mrs Marie Haynes (nee Berry). Further oral history work is recommended.

Staff of the State Library, Central Plan Office, Registrar-General's Office, Probate Office, and Titles Office assisted our use of their historical source materials.

The Friends of Pontville participated in the project, and responded to our presentation and proposed site inspection with keen interest and enthusiasm, demonstrating their dedication to the conservation of Pontville and its history.

Finally, the Steering Committee (listed below) provided guidance and support throughout the project.

STEERING COMMITTEE

The Pontville Strategy Committee, which formed the Steering Committee for this project, comprised:

Chair: David Perrin, MP

Government of Victoria: Phil Honeywell MP

Melbourne Parks & Waterways: Jeff Saker; Laurie Hilakari; Pat Fricker

City of Manningham: Sonia Rappell; Phyona McMahon

Heritage Victoria: Robyn Mullens

Doncaster & Templestowe Historical Society: Irvine Green; Judith Leaney

Warrandyte Historical Society: Shirley Rotherham

National Trust: Ian Wight

STUDY TEAM

Context Pty Ltd: Ms Chris Johnston

Nigel Lewis Richard Aitken Pty Ltd: Nigel Lewis; Richard Aitken

Research Historian: Dr Carlotta Kellaway

Archaeologist: Isabel Ellender; Dr Roger Luebbers.

HISTORICAL CHRONOLOGY

SCOPE OF OUR WORK

Previous research on the Pontville property⁶ was supplemented during this project by additional historical research undertaken primarily by Dr Kellaway with the assistance of Ms Chris Johnston. This research sought to clarify key events in the history of the Pontville property; identify significant changes in ownership and usage; and help determine the evolution of the homestead complex and its setting.

New documentary investigation included an examination of the Will and Probate Papers of Major Charles Newman (1860-1865) and of his grand-daughter, Caroline Louise Webster (1904-1911). A long 1933 article in the Age newspaper with photographs and descriptions of Pontville and Monckton was perused. Some new maps and valuable air photos were examined.

An 1862 description of 19th century designs for Indian bungalows with sketches was brought to our notice. This was C. Grant's Anglo-Indian Domestic Life: A Letter from an artist in India to his mother in England.

Irvine Green provided copies of the 1856 marriage certificate of Mary Ann Newman and Edward Crosswell, and Charles Newman's Journal (1860-1865 with an 1893 entry) written up by Mary Ann for her blind father when the Newmans were living in Hawthorn.

Another source not previously consulted, which has proved to be of great value, is a manuscript prepared by David Crockett and Hazel Poulter, "A history of the Newman family: the first pioneers in Templestowe"(1994). This document is the result of extensive research into primary source material such as Lands Department records; Mitchell Library manuscripts; and oral history collected from Newman descendants and neighbours; as well as Hazel Poulter's own childhood memories of living in the Pontville area. The team's special thanks go to David Crockett and Hazel Poulter, who not only generously provided copies of their manuscript but found time to discuss many difficult aspects of the origins and development of this historic property.

An updated chronology has been prepared as an expansion of Dr. Kellaway's earlier chronology. The additional material collected has resulted in a better understanding of how the property evolved, although there are still some details in its history that require clarification.

---

⁶ Previous research includes: Context Pty Ltd, City of Doncaster and Templestowe Heritage Study. Aug. 1991; McBriar, M., "Interpreting the Past : Yarra Valley Metropolitan Park." Section 7.1.1. Major Newman and Pontville; Snelgrove, C. & Trumble, M., A report on a survey of "Pontville", Paddles Reserve, Templestowe, Prepared for Victoria Archaeological Survey and Melbourne Water, Yarra Valley Metropolitan Park, Aug. 1993; ; Lewis, Miles, "Pontville, Templestowe," 13 April 1994; Kellaway, C. "Pontville 629-657 Blackburn Road, Templestowe," report to the City of Doncaster & Templestowe, 1994.

THE CHRONOLOGY

Key to sources:  The following sources are used in the chronology.

• Age 1933 - "Two Stations on the Yarra: Bushrangers and Gold," by C.E.S. in The Age 20 August 1933.
• B&K - Billis and Kenyon, Pastoral Pioneers of Port Phillip.
• CK - Kellaway Report.
• DC&HP - David Crockett and Hazel Poulter, "A history of the Newman family: the first pioneers in Templestowe," 1994.
• H.P. - Hazel Poulter personal. comments.
• J.H.K. - J. H. Kerr, Glimpses of Life in Victoria by a Resident. Edinburgh 1872.
• Keogh - G. Keogh
• L.D.M. - Lands Department Maps.
• PdS - Paul de Serville, Port Phillip Gentlemen, Melbourne 1980, p. 193.
• N.J. - Newman Journal.
• WandP - Wills and Probate Papers. Major Charles Newman (1860-1865); Caroline Louise Webster (1904-1911).

Date | Event (source in brackets) | Development at Pontville

• 1834
• Major Newman retires from the 51st Bengal Native Infantry of the East India Company on 6th Sept. 1834. (HP)
• Newman arrives in Hobart, Tasmania too late to get free grant of land. Lived in Barracks and Garrison at Pontville (Tas.) (HP) |
• 1835 | Major Charles Newman farms in Tasmania at Black Brush. |
• 1837 | Major Newman arrives Port Phillip District (CK). |
• 1838: July
• Major Newman owns Yarra Yarra Run (CK)
• Pontville Run 4400 acres (B&K); 10,000 acre run (DC&HP) | Sheep station
• 1839: Xmas | Big Yarra flood. (G) | Impact on property/structures
• 1840: July | Newman's depasturing licence for the run. (CK) | Grazing
• 1840: Sept 30 | Newman engages John Chivers to cut timber and Mary Ann Chivers as governess to his children.(DC&HP). | Timber cutting
• 1841 | Major Newman and family living at Deep Creek (JHK) | Turf hut (& kitchen)
• 1841: Mar. 8 | Census lists Newman household at Deep Creek: a household of 9 persons, 2 being shepherds, one a domestic servant, the Newmans and four children (under 21 years old). Building material shown as "Other" (therefore not stone, brick, wood, mixed or a tent) (NSW Census 1841: Port Phillip District) 
• 1841: Aug. | Major Newman's station marked on Portion 3 Crown Allot. 17, on west side of Deep Creek (now Mullum Mullum Creek) (CK) | Turf hut on west side of creek?
• 1842
• Robbery at Major Newman's homestead.(G) Newman hid in the chimney (based on size of Pontville chimney's this suggests they were still living in turf hut). | Still turf hut?
• Floods on Yarra River in July and October: water rose 50' at Heidelberg. (G) | Impact on property/structures?
• 1842-1844 | Newman and neighbour Anderson dispute boundaries. Newman associated with Major St. John corruption case. (DC &HP). |
• 1843 | Major St. John buys Allot.18 west of Monckton (DC&HP). |
• 1843-1844
• Major Newman Crown Grantee Portions 3 and4. (Portion 4 site of present Pontville homestead) (CK) | Newman Crown Grantee.
• Earliest part of present homestead built (DC&HP). | Homestead begun?
• Hawthorn hedges planted, fencing etc.(HP) | Hawthorn hedges, fencing?
• Race course on flats for Newman. (DC&HP) | Racecourse.
• 1844 | Big flood on Yarra River in October. (G) | Impact on property/structures?
• 1845 | Newman purchases Portion 1. (CK) | Purchase of land
• 1848
• Newman involved in anti- LaTrobe agitation. (G)
• Big flood on Yarra River in October. (G) | Impact on property/structures?
• Big flood on Yarra River in November: rose 37' at Dight's Mill. (G) | Impact on property/structures?
• 1849
• Newman purchases Portion 2. (CK)
• Lands Dept. map shows a stockyard on Portion 2. (CK) |
• 1850 - Homestead building shown on Crown Allot. 4.Boundary fence of Newman property around Allots 1,2,3,4 in Hoddle's Subdivision of Portion 17. | Homestead on present site. Pontville & Monckton one property.
• pre-1851 | Newman described as living in 'oriental splendour at Heidelberg'. (PdS) | Evidence of Indian bungalow?
• 1851
• Gold discovered on Newman land at Deep Creek and Anderson's Creek. (CK)
• Malt house and brewery begun on Newman's Warrandyte property. (DC&HP)
• Black Thursday fire swept through region.(HP) The impact of fires (1851?) on Major Newman's property was noted by William Westgarth who travelled through the area in 1855, noting the trees were severely charred by recent fires. (DC&HP) 
• 1851-1852
• Major Newman's stock:30 horses, 300 cows, 7 pigs, 1300 sheep. (DC&HP)
• Stock at Mt (County of?) Evelyn: 45 horses, 150 cows, 6 pigs, 800 sheep. (DC&HP) | Horses, cows, pigs, sheep at Pontville?  (May relate to Anderson's Creek property)
• 1852-1853 | Newman's three applications for Pre-Emptive Right at Anderson's Creek rejected because no improvements. (CK) |
• 1852 | Newman purchases block of land in Lennox Street, Hawthorn. (DC&HP) |
• 1853: Dec. 20 | Louise Newman (daughter) dies aged 16. (DC&HP) | Grave near Monckton
• 1855-1857 | Major Newman, wife and Mary Ann move into Lonsdale Street house. (DC&HP).
• Charles Newman Newman, Caroline and Thomas (Major's children) living on combined Pontville/Monckton properties. (DC&HP) | Chas. Newman Newman runs Pontville.
• 1857
• Major, wife and Mary Ann move to Hawthorn house. (DC&HP). Described as brick house with stables and coachhouse in (WandP: Newman's 1860 will).
• Caroline Newman dies at Pontville aged 24. (DC&HP). | Grave near Monckton.
• 1857-1858 | Charles Newman Newman rated for Pontville and Monckton properties. (CK) | Chas. Newman Newman living at Pontville
• 1859-1865 | Military Pay (pension) received by Major Newman. Accounts for Lonsdale Street house. Accounts for Hawthorn house (work on completion of house and household expenses) written up by Mary Ann for blind father. (NJ) |
• 1860: May 14 | Major Chas. Newman's Will:
• Main Hawthorn house and contents to wife.
• Lonsdale St. house and Hawthorn cottage to daughter Mary Ann.
• Brick house and allots. 3 and 4 (Pontville) to Chas. Newman Newman and Township of Eltham allot.
• Bluestone house and allots 1 and 2 (Monckton) to son Thomas.
• Six horses to Thomas, rest of horses and cattle pastured at Pontville to be divided between two sons/Chas. Newman Newman to inherit Pontville
• After Charles and Thomas' deaths, property to go to their sons and sons' sons.
• Horses and cattle pastured at Pontville.
• Pontville to go to eldest son (Charles) and Monckton to younger (Thomas)
• Trustees appointed with provision for new appointments when Trustees die, become incapable etc. (WandP).
• 1863: May 16 | Codicil to Major's Will. Thomas disinherited if marries Victoria, or any other Webb daughter before father's death or six months after. His share to go to Mary Ann.(WandP)
• Thomas marries Victoria and they go to live with Webbs east of Pontville. (DC&HP) |
• 1864: Dec. | Thomas and Victoria's first child dies. (DC&HP) | Buried near Monckton.
• 1865: Feb. 8 | Major Newman's wife dies at Hawthorn | Buried near Monckton.
• 1865: July 13 | Mary Ann Newman marries E.R. Crosswell. They live at Hawthorn. (DC&HP) |
• 1865: Sept. 12
• Major Newman dies at Hawthorn. (DC&HP) | Buried near Monckton.
• Charles Newman Newman new owner of Pontville. (CK) |
• 1867 | Florence Newman, daughter of Thomas and Victoria, born. (DC&HP) |
• 1869
• Thomas Newman dies at Collingwood aged 30. (DC&HP) | Seventh grave Monckton
• Mary Ann Crosswell lets widow, Victoria Newman, and family live at Monckton. (DC&HP) | Victoria Newman & family at Monckton.
• 1872
• Charles Newman Newman marries widow McAuley, who has three children including twin sons. (DC&HP)
• Charles and family living at Pontville.
• Additions to Pontville? (DC&HP)
• Pontville let, occupied and farmed by Alexander and William Horne (until 1876) (CK-rate books)
• Pontville leased.
• 16 Jan. 1875
• Caroline Louise Newman born, only child of Charles Newman Newman.(DC&HP)
• Chas. Newman Newman breeds horses and cattle at Pontville(DC&HP) | Horses and cattle bred at Pontville.
• 1877 | Rate books show Charles Newman (farmer) as again the occupier of Pontville. |
• 1870s | Newman's Road formed giving access to Pontville and Monckton. "Huge adzed red gum gate posts" erected at entrances to both Monckton and Pontville. (DC&HP). | Gate posts Pontville.
• 1896
• Caroline Louise Newman marries Robert Webster, carpenter, at Clifton Hill. (DC&HP) |
• Pontville run by Sam McAuley, Charles Newman Newman's stepson, who lives in a 2-roomed weatherboard cottage NE of homestead.(DC&HP)
• Cottage built?
• McAuley runs Pontville.
• 1903 | Mary Ann Crosswell dies. Buried at Whittlesea.(DC&HP). |
• 1904: Jan 15
• Charles Newman Newman dies. Buried Anderson's Creek Cemetery. | Warrandyte cemetery: location not known as records destroyed in 1939 fires.
• Clearing sale after his death. (DC&HP). |
• 1904: June 16
• Caroline Louise Webster (nee Newman) now living at Pontville makes a will leaving her property to her husband and then to her children, Vera, John and Clifford (or Clifton) aged one.
• Trustees of will. Arthur Clarke, husband of Florence, Thomas' daughter, and George Edwards.(WandP).
• Websters at Pontville. Mrs Webster registered owner.
• Mrs Webster mortgages Pontville.(CK)
• 1906 | Monckton leased to Rosses.(DC&HP). |
• 1908 | McAuleys move from Pontville to Warrandyte(DC&HP). | Start of period in which Pontville leased out.
• 1909 | Pontville mortgage discharged(CK). |
• 1910
• Monckton homestead purchased by Morrisons of Northcote as holiday home.(DC&HP).
• Grass family(dairy farmers) at Pontville(DC&HP)
• Dairy farming at Pontville; dairy and separator room built?
• 1911
• Greenwoods lease Pontville(DC&HP)
• Caroline Webster dies. Leaves Pontville and her Eltham township property to her husband and then children. Trustees under Major Newman's will by this time are William Crosswell (Mary Ann's family)and William Davis. Caroline, Thomas' daughter married Timothy Davis.(WandP) |
• Robert Webster owner Pontville.
• Webster children taken care of by Florence Clarke (Thomas Newman's daughter) now living at Monckton. (DC&HP)
• Thomas Newman's daughter still at Monckton.
• 1916 | Victoria Newman dies at Clifton Hill(DC&HP). |
• 1917
• Charles Newman Newman's wife dies. Buried beside husband at Anderson's Creek Cemetery(DC&HP).
• Robert Webster remarries his wife's half-brother's widow, Mrs Bill McAuley, and goes to Williamstown to live.(DC&HP).
• 1920s | Fay manager at Pontville.(DC&HP) |
• 1926 | Robert Webster retires. Still living at Williamstown but comes to Pontville at week-ends and stays in cottage. (DC&HP) |
• 1930
• Berry family at Pontville. (DC&HP) | Dairying continues at Pontville: Berry family
• Berrys pulled shingles out of roof. (HP) | Shingles left in roof space?
• 1933
• Photos of Pontville and Monckton and descriptions. Pontville with two chimneys, spacious front porch with windows on each side, flaking paint etc.(The Age 1933)
• Pontville with porch, cypress at rear, 2 chimneys etc.
• Another photograph in SLV shows house from rear.
• Bridge over creek
• Rear view shows water tank at back next to detached kitchen
• 1934 | Floods cut off Pontville homestead(DC&HP). | Floods at Pontville
• 1936
• Berry family move to Templestowe township(DC&HP)
• Len Van(dairying and poultry) rent Pontville(DC&HP).
• Dairying, poultry at Pontville
• Hardys at Pontville(DC&HP) |
• 
  
• 1939: Jan 13 | Bushfires burn cottage at Pontville associated with McAuleys and Robert Webster(DC&HP). | Pontville cottage destroyed.
• 1950
• Jack and Vera (children of Robert and Caroline Webster) sell their shares of Pontville to Lesley Paddle.(CK)
• Paddle becomes new owner. He does not reside at Pontville.
• Substantial alterations to house (DC&HP)
• Manager's house built near new entrance from Blackburn Road. (DC&HP)
• New entrance to property
• Manager's house.
• 1951 | Robert Webster dies. Clifford Webster(youngest son) inherits his share of Pontville (14.5 acres), plants orchard SW of Pontville, lives there with his family. (DC&HP) | House, orchard and dam.
• 1955 | Clifford sells his share to K. Blackstock. (DC&HP) |
• 1968 | Monckton demolished(DC&HP) |
• 1970
• Blackstock sells to Owen Whelan who builds large house.(DC&HP)
• Paddle dies. (CK) Property remains in his family. |
• 1978-80
• MMBW buys 225 acres including the Pontville homestead. (CK) | MMBW owns large proportion of original Pontville property
• Doncaster/Templestowe Council buys small portion of former Pontville property and constructs Council Depot there. |
• c1985 | Newman headstones still on Monckton property, one down hill used to hold up fences on Morrison property (HP) | Headstones

SITE DESCRIPTION & ANALYSIS

METHOD

The purpose of this section is to report on site observations, analysed in relation to the documentary evidence (summarised in the chronology above).

This physical analysis draws extensively on the invaluable report prepared by Prof Miles Lewis, dated 13 April 1994, as well as subsequent discussions with Prof. Lewis.

The field observations were made on the basis of one day for the architectural analysis and landscape analysis, and three days for the archaeological analysis. Aerial photographs, maps and historical sources were examined as part of this process.

The archaeological investigations sought to assess the significance of extant and hidden structures at Pontville. Although no major excavations were carried out, probing identified sub-surface structures and depth of cultural sediments, and the removal of surface vegetation and top soil delineated features such as the house plinth, garden paths and walls.

This report has also drawn on several connections between this structure and common building practices in Tasmania at the time. The importation of techniques and building materials by Tasmanian settlers in Victoria has been previously established in such cases as Mills cottage at Port Fairy dating from 1842.⁷

DESCRIPTION OF KEY FEATURES

The Pontville property, as now defined, was only part of the holdings of Major Newman. The following features are known or surmised to have been located within Major Newman's holdings, some elements clearly on the Pontville property and others possibly on either Pontville or Monckton.

• Property holding: Pontville & Monckton

• Farming land uses & structures

• Tracks into the property

• Pontville homestead complex: house; detached kitchen; garden & setting; farm buildings; domestic rubbish tips.

• Other dwellings: turf hut; Monckton; McAuley cottage; Cliff Webster dwelling; manager's house (Paddle period).

• Other features: clay pit; stone quarry; family burial ground; bridge; lagoon

---

⁷ See also: E. Graeme Robertson, Early buildings of Southern Tasmania, Vol. II, Georgian House, Melbourne 1970, p. 335.

PROPERTY HOLDING

HISTORICAL INFORMATION

Major Newman held a pastoral lease at Pontville from mid 1838, variously suggested to be 4400 or 6182 acres.⁸ Hoddle's 1841 map shows the boundary of CA 17 - around 564 acres - with Major Newman's station - presumably the turf hut - shown on the western side of the confluence of Mullum Mullum Creek (then Deep Creek) and the Yarra River. A track from Melbourne through the Templestowe village, crosses the creek to the north of the present bridge, and continues east towards Warrandyte.

By 1844 Newman had purchased the eastern two allotments (portions 3 & 4); in 1845 he purchased the western allotment (portion 1), and in 1849 he buys the last piece of the central part of his station (portion 2). During the 1840s Newman is said to have had ongoing boundary disputes, with the boundary marked on trees.⁹

By 1850, all portions were fenced.¹⁰ Major Newman, in a letter to the Colonial Secretary (14/11/1853), says that he improved his property by enclosing it prior to purchasing it.

The possibility that any early boundary markings or evidence of the 1850 fence survives has not been investigated.

FURTHER INVESTIGATION

Locate all past property boundaries on a map/aerial photograph and field check to determine the evidence that remains of these boundaries.

---

⁸ Billis & Kenyon: 4400 acres; Spreadborough & Anderson, 6182 acres.

⁹ Crockett & Poulter, p.22-25

¹⁰ Hoddle's map, Plan of allotments Parish of Bulleen, 1850 shows a single fence enclosing all 4 portions of land.

FIGURE 2: PROPERTY HOLDINGS: TRANSFERS WITHIN NEWMAN FAMILY

1860

[Diagram showing river, allotments 1-4, with hatched area labelled Pontville and Monckton]

Property ownership

Pontville (allots. 3 & 4) inherited by Charles Newman Newman

Monckton (allots. 1 & 2), inherited by Mary Ann Newman (son, Thomas was disinherited)

1910

[Diagram showing similar layout with different shading]

Property ownership

Morrison family buys Monckton (allot. 1 & 2) from Mary Ann Croswell (nee Newman)

Pontville owned by Mrs Caroline Webster (nee Newman) who inherited property in 1904.

FIGURE 3: PROPERTY HOLDINGS: END OF THE NEWMAN ERA

1950

[Diagram showing layout with dotted and shaded areas]

Property ownership

Leslie Eric Paddle purchases from Robert Webster (spouse of Caroline) in 1953

Clifton Charles Newman Webster obtains 14.5 acres

Today

[Diagram showing modern layout]

Property ownership

MP&W - Melbourne Parks & Waterways

PPOS - Proposed Public Open Space

CoM - City of Manningham

[shaded] - Private owners (various)

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 17

FARMING LAND USES & STRUCTURES

CONSTRUCTION DATES

Road and bridge formations, fence lines, hawthorn hedges, the large Mulberry, regrowth of elms, and other exotic trees, interface with indigenous vegetation, river and creek banks, allotment boundaries, providing views from and of the house from various locations that appear to have changed little over many years.

The bush setting has been modified through fires, particularly in 1851 and 1939, and through active cutting for timber and clearing for grazing. The extent of the cleared pasture area shown in the 1931 air photographs is at present the earliest clear evidence of a pattern of clearing that appears likely to have occurred quite early in the development of the property.

EVIDENCE FROM EARLY PERIOD: 1840S -60S

Clearing

Around 1840 Newman engaged John Chivers to cut timber (and his wife Mary Ann as governess to the Newman children). From 1843/44 Chivers (no longer employed by Newman) starting cutting timber in partnership with Thomas Cunningham; they cut logs, provided pit-sawn timber and burnt charcoal. Newman engaged them again, and Crockett believes they would have supplied posts for fencing and the pit sawn timber for the present house.¹¹

The open pastures surrounding the homestead appear likely to have been the first to be cleared, and the general appearance of the landscape is likely to reflect the earliest development of the property. The aerial photographs of the site from 1931 reveal little change in the relative extent of grazing and bush areas until the 1950s when a gradual decline in tree density and new clearing becomes apparent.

Fencing

There are no descriptions of the early extent of internal fencing or of other animal enclosures. Hedges - hawthorn, boxthorn and osage orange - are said to have been adopted by many farmers in the Port Phillip district during the late 1860s and 70s, replacing post-and-rail, wire etc, with the hedges planted and then slowly overgrowing the original fence. It has been suggested that the original fences were post-and-rail and that the hawthorns date from Major Newman's time.¹²

The hawthorn hedge to the north of the house contains remnants of barbed wire (which may be able to be roughly dated). The hedge is clearly shown on the aerial photograph of 1931.¹³ Another hawthorn hedge is located to the south-east of the homestead, close to the creek.

---

¹¹ Crockett & Poulter, pp.

¹² Crockett & Poulter, p. 40.

¹³ Aerial photograph, 1931.

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 18

FIGURE 4: DEVELOPMENT SEQUENCE: BUILDINGS & TRACKS

1841

[Diagram showing river, creek, allotments No16, No17, No18]

Buildings & tracks

■ Site of turf hut.

Track appears to cross creek further north than present crossing.

Source: Hoddle (1841)

1849

[Diagram showing river, creek, allotments 1,2,3,4]

Buildings & tracks

□ Stockyard

Track

Note: no house shown

Source: Hoddle (1849)

1850

[Diagram showing river, creek, fenced area]

Buildings & tracks

■ Pontville homestead

Fencing

Source: Hoddle (1850)

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 19

1857/58

[Diagram showing river, creek, with P (Pontville) and M (Monckton) markers]

Buildings & tracks

■P Pontville

M■ Monckton

1870s

[Diagram showing river, creek, with roads and tracks]

Buildings & tracks

■ Pontville

■ Monckton

Old track to property (H. Poulter, pers. comm.)

New track to property (1931 aerial photos)

Gates marked by large timber posts

Newmans and Warrandyte Roads opened

1935

[Diagram showing river, creek, roads, cottage marker]

Buildings & tracks

Access to Pontville

Access to Monckton via Homestead Road

■C Cottage

Old track still visible

Sources: 1931 aerial photograph; 1935 Yan Yean Army Survey map.

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 20

Stock

Based on the 1851-52 stock count - 300 cows, 7 pigs and 1300 sheep¹⁴ - possible features could have included stock enclosures, sheep wash and shearing areas, and shepherds huts.¹⁵ A stockyard is shown on CA 1 in 1849.¹⁶ This area is now part of Pettys Orchard, part of the original Major Newman holding, but not able to be surveyed within the present project.

Sheep would have been killed for family consumption - and Kerr provides an account of Catherine Newman killing a sheep for dinner on an improvised shambles just outside the chimney of the turf hut.¹⁷ Locating the site of the hut may also may reveal evidence of these stock slaughtering facilities.

Major Newman had a racetrack, so presumably his horses were well-bred and cared for. Major Newman's 1860 will refers to horses and cattle pastured at Pontville. A "byre" of stone - barn with open side walls - existed on Monckton until recent years.¹⁸ It is believed that his horses were stabled at Monckton in the "byre".¹⁹ The Monckton site was not surveyed to see if any archaeological evidence may remain of the byre, nor was the possible racecourse location - said to be at Monckton on the flats - investigated.²⁰

EVIDENCE FROM 1870-1904 PERIOD

Like his father Charles Newman Newman also breed horses; the property was also used for breeding cattle.²¹

The first information about cropping on the property is in 1857 when the first rate book refers to Charles Newman (son) having 50 acres under cultivation. No evidence was located on the location of the cultivated area which would have represented about one-third of portion 4 (and probably represents something like the area shown as cleared in the 1931 air photograph).

EVIDENCE FROM EARLY 1900S-1940S

The property was leased to several families from the early 1900s. The Grass family (1904-1911?) used the property for dairying, perhaps the first time this use occurred.

---

¹⁴ McWilliam notes there may be a possibility that these stock returns represent a double counting, ie. are twice what Newman actually had on the property.

¹⁵ L. Peel, Rural industry in the Port Phillip Region 1835-1880, provides the following information: Typically flocks of 500-1000 sheep were managed by shepherds during the day and enclosed at night. Sheep were washed before shearing, often in a temporary pen in a river, creek or swamp, and shearing may have been in the open or in a rough shed, with the wool pressed in to bales and carted by dray to Melbourne. The washing process evolved rapidly during the 1840s with spout-washing and warm water used on some stations. During the early 1840s depression, sheep were often boiled down for tallow, and by the 1850s the goldrushes had provided a good market for mutton

¹⁶ Plan of No. 17 Portion, Parish of Bulleen, Mr Surveyor Hoddle, 1849.

¹⁷ J.H.Kerr, Glimpses of Life in Victoria by a Resident. Edinburgh 1872.

¹⁸ Michael Burston: pers. comm.

¹⁹ Mrs Hazel Poulter, pers. comm.

²⁰ Pat Fricker, pers. comm.

²¹ Crockett & Poulter, p. 59

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 21

[Photograph, rotated: View of milking shed & separator shed, towards cottage c1930s (Source: Not known)]

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 22

The rate books record Robert Webster, dairyman, at Pontville in 1925-26 but others suggest he continued to work on the railways until he retired in the 1930s. He visited property regularly, staying in the small cottage.²² He moved to Templestowe (to Pontville?) on his retirement, and is shown as registered owner under Caroline Newman's will in 1943.

Later families²³ include:

• Temby

• Henderson

• Berry family (1930s)

The c1930s photographs show a large timber shed (of bushpoles and weatherboard) which served as a milking shed, and a smaller gabled building which served as a separator room.²⁴ These buildings may date from as early as c1904 (the earliest date identified for dairying use). The 1931 aerial photograph also shows another building, located to the east and enclosed within a small paddock. The function of this building is not presently known.

The remnants of the separator building, although collapsed and badly vandalised, provide clear physical evidence of continuity of farm use. This small structure with the gabled roof may date from the 1900s, although it is altered from the appearance of a taller gabled roofed shed on this site in the undated photo of c1930s. It served as a separator shed during the dairy farming period.²⁵

The domed brick underground tank could date from much earlier. It is located close to the group of farm outbuildings. The dome is of pressed red bricks and may be hypothesised to date from no earlier than the 1880s in its present form. It may have been built/rebuilt at the same time as the fireplace in the kitchen. It appears likely that water was collected from the roofs of the outbuildings to fill this tank.

Water was collected from the roof of the kitchen, and evidence of pipe connections to an above-ground tank remains; water may also have been collected from the roof of the homestead.

There is surface rubble from another outbuilding close to the back of the house.

RECENT FARM OUTBUILDINGS AND YARDS: 1940/50S ONWARDS

An orchard was established to the west of the creek between 1945-56²⁶ by Clifford Webster (son of Robert and Caroline Webster). He had 15 acres, and lived there with his family. The orchard continued to 1970, in the ownership of Kelvie Blackstock. He sold to Owen Whelan who built a large house on the allotment.²⁷ Some apple, plum and apricot trees and the dam remain from the small orchard. House site is clear from aerial photographs.

Later (by 1956), another large shed was built on the same general site as the milking shed, but was differently oriented (air photos) and built on a concrete slab base. The roof featured a vaulted central section. Part of the roof section of the large shed remains.

²² Crockett & Poulter, p. 68.

²³ Crockett & Poulter, p. 80.

²⁴ H. Poulter, pers. comm.

²⁵ H. Poulter, pers. comm.

²⁶ Aerial photograph, 1945-6.

²⁷ Crockett & Poulter, p. 68.

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 23

A stockyard? is shown on the western side of the creek, close to the bridge, on the 1956 air photographs, but appears to have been removed by 1976.

TRACKS INTO THE PROPERTY

A simplified development sequence of tracks is shown on Figure 4. The early track to the property is shown on the 1841 and 1849 Hoddle plans; the property was then entered from the west, and the position of the track appears to have changed over this period.

Formation of a road (now Newmans and Monckton Roads) by Bulleen Shire in 1870s provided access to Monckton and Pontville from the south, but on the western side of the creek.²⁸

Tracks to the Monckton and Pontville homesteads are shown on the Heidelberg-Doncaster Army Manoeuvre Map of 1912 and on the 1931 aerial photo. The tracks to the homesteads both derive from the point at which Newmans Road crosses Websters Road. The track to Monckton followed a northerly course along Monckton Road directly to the eastern end of Homestead Road through what is now several private properties. The track to Pontville was the extension of Newman's Road following a north-easterly course in part parallel with the Mullum Mullum Creek but higher up the slope (?down the ridge) than the present track which runs along the river flat. A cursory look did not disclose the old track within the present Pontville property. To locate the old tracks would add to the total context and significance of the historic precinct of the Pontville and Monckton properties (Figure 4).

Part of the early track to the Newman property are said to remain "in an untouched wooded paddock to the south-west of Webster's Road".²⁹ These were outside the area able to be surveyed during the present project.

A pair of entry posts remain - adzed red gum and tear-drop shaped tops - in Monckton Road. These are one of two sets which once stood in Websters Road.³⁰

Entry from south shown on 1931 air photos: close to present alignment. Crockett records Paddle as building "new entrance to the land at the northern end of Blackburn Road, with a manager's house beside the entrance gate".

It would appear from old photographs of Pontville that the track to the house wound around the base of the knoll on which the house now stands, and that the present track is new. This would be consistent with access needs to the back of the house and given the present orientation of the house.

Further investigation is required to locate any evidence of the old Monckton and Pontville access tracks, and the internal tracks on Pontville. Investigate the hawthorn hedge line for signs of a track to a possible location of the turf hut.

---

²⁸ Crockett & Poulter, p. 58; 1912 map.

²⁹ H. Poulter pers. comm.

³⁰ Crockett & Poulter, p. 59.

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 24

PONTVILLE HOMESTEAD COMPLEX

The homestead complex comprises:

• homestead

• detached kitchen

• garden areas, terracing and cypress tree

• farm buildings

• domestic rubbish dumps.

The development sequence is indicated below, and on Figure 5. Then each element is described in more detail.

HISTORICAL INFORMATION

• by 1850 The brick house built probably as:
• three central rooms plus end rooms (one on south possibly divided into 3, the other into two)
• overall shape and form of roof as per present roof.
• first roof material claimed to be shingles³¹ evidence of which remained in roof space until the 1930s
• externally rendered
• internally plastered
• external kitchen
• during 1850s
• Slate roof may have been added at same time as Monckton (also with a slate roof) was built³²
• Cypress planted? (may indicate possible orientation of the house in the opposite direction, with cypress at front)
• 1872 • New kitchen said to have been built by Charles Newman Newman at the time of his marriage; he didn't occupy house until 1876 (rate books)
• 1880s-1900s
• New chimney built to kitchen (at same time as well built/rebuilt?)
• Cottage located to north-east of house
• after 1908 Appears to have been a campaign of works:
• roof replaced with corrugated iron (c1910)³³
• double-beaded lining boards: new ceiling in house and used to line new cupboard in kitchen
• new floorboards in house
• front garden definitely on the western side of house³⁴
• by 1931 • Three farm buildings to north-east of house: large milking shed, separator building, and third building (photos & aerial photos)
• 1939 • Cottage burnt in 1939 bushfires
• by 1945
• New stockyards and building located to east of house (aerial photos)
• Third farm building gone (aerial photos)

• 1950s Major changes by Paddle
• demolition of end rooms
• enclosure of verandah
• use of original bricks for parts of lower part of wall enclosing verandah?
• lining of verandah ceiling
• new farm building replaces large milking shed
• stockyards removed but associated building remains.

---

³¹ Crockett & Poulter, p. 57.

³² Evidence of slate roof (slates and slate nails) located at homestead during field survey.

³³ Corrugated iron roof dated to 1910s by Prof. Lewis; sequence suggested by Crockett appears incorrect.

³⁴ Hazel Poulter, pers. comm.

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 25

FIGURE 5: DEVELOPMENT SEQUENCE: 1931-1956 - DETAIL OF HOMESTEAD PRECINCT

[Diagram - 1931: showing river, creek, hedges, Mulberry tree, Sheds, House, Kitchen, Cypress, Cottage, Large Trees]

1931

Fences: (dashed line)

Tracks: (double line)

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 26

---

[Diagram - 1945: showing river, creek, hedges, Sheds, Kitchen, House, Stockyards, Cypress]

1945

Fences: (dashed line)

Tracks: (double line)

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 27

---

[Diagram - 1956: showing river, creek, hedge, New Building, Shed, Terrace, House, Cypress, Fence, Stockyard, New Alignment]

1956

Fences: (dashed line)

Tracks: (double line)

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 28

---

[Diagram - 1995: showing river, creek, hedge, Cattle Grazed area, Roof Remains marked with X, Kitchen, House, Cypress]

1995

Tracks: (double line)

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 29

---

HOMESTEAD

CONSTRUCTION DATES

The possible range of construction dates is 1843-1850. This is indicated by documentary evidence, including the 1850 Hoddle plan. It is consistent with the use of pit sawn timber in such a well built structure.

ORIGINAL STRUCTURE: ELEMENTS, OR EVIDENCE OF ELEMENTS

Building form

The building form may have Indian colonial antecedents (as discussed by Prof. Miles Lewis in his 1994 report), but also closely follows typical Tasmanian houses of the period.

The principal form of the original main house remains; the roof although rebuilt, apparently retains the original profile. This assumption is based on the apparent maintenance of the original wall height (see Walls below), the extent of chimney penetration through the roof, and the likely verandah height. The attic may have been left unlit, given the likely storage function. If roof lighting was used, an angled skylight, such as was common for habitable attic rooms in Tasmanian houses up to the 1840s, would have been likely rather than a more elaborate dormer structure.

The wall openings generally conforms to the pre 1950s configuration and some are apparently original. The walls of the three main interconnected rooms remain as does one chimney. The large attic space, created by the high pitched roof and the extension of walls above ceiling level, is an unusual feature of the building form. There is very clear evidence of the form, layout and subdivision of the built-in rooms at the north and south ends of the house. Because of the symmetrical design, it is not certain that the original orientation was to the west. The Cupressus indicates a possible earlier orientation to the east.

Footings

Random-rubble local stone footings define the footprint of the demolished built in end rooms; they are also used for the existing brick walls and fireplace footings including the kitchen fireplace footing. There is an unusual stone hearth beneath the southern room dislodged from the now demolished fireplace.

During field work, sections of the verandah footings were uncovered to show they extended across the entire north, west, most of south (mostly rubble) and intermittently along east house walls. (More recent drainage works have interfered with the footings of the east wall; ceramic pipes of bathroom pass underground and drain south). These footings are approx 44-60cm out from the current brick house wall. The outer footings coincide with a notch in the roof timbers indicating wall/verandah timbers used to sit between the two. Twentieth century occupation debris (glass, slate, steel blade knife, 1940 coin) was found in the rubble around the footings.

There is an apparent association with the stone retaining walls for the terraced area to the south west, although a date for this work has not been assessed as yet.

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 30

---

FIGURE 6: HOMESTEAD 1843-50 AND 1870S

[Floor plan diagram showing house layout with three interconnecting rooms, verandah, stone footings, roof form, wall openings unknown, and kitchen built in 1870s]

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 31

---

FIGURE 7: HOMESTEAD 1995

[Floor plan diagram showing later enclosing partition above mantelpiece; stepped brick chimney breast with ceiling is rough finished and was never exposed to room; position of remnant hardwood flooring plank in ceiling space above; stone footings; roof form]

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 32

---

[Photograph]

PONTVILLE. MAJOR NEWMAN'S FIRST HOMESTEAD AT DEEP CREEK.

Pontville c1933. (Source: The Age). [Photograph showing house with cypress tree and outbuilding]

Pontville c1933. (Source: Probably The Age)

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 33

---

[Photograph, rotated: showing rear view of homestead with large cypress tree]. Rear view of homestead c1933.  (Source: SLV Picture Collection)

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 34

---

Walls

The original brick walls (three bricks thick around perimeter walls and double thickness for cross walls) survive of the central section of the house (the three interconnected rooms). They incorporate the surviving fireplace, door and window openings, and a large section of original wall finishes to the whole extent of the walls above the 1950s verandah ceiling.

These include two sections of the original external finish where the open verandahs met the main walls of the house. This is of ruled and black lined, ashlar style sand-coloured lime render, a very rare surviving example of an early external surface finish. The National Trust citation has stated that this is the earliest such surface to be identified in Victoria, and possibly Australia, for such a large surface area. Internal plaster work also survives above verandah ceiling level and in splayed window reveals; it also provides evidence of the removed built-in rooms above ceiling level, and evidence of original floor and ceiling levels.

There has been some question as to whether the main walls were raised at a later date to create the attic. If this were so it would raise a question as to the age of the exposed lime render. Analysis is required of the bricks and mortar composition above and below the ceiling height to address this important issue.

The low walls of the attic space are roughly finished brickwork, and do not have evidence of any surface finish such as white wash.

Timber structure

The pit sawn hardwood ceiling joists are of particular interest and are consistent with a pre 1850s date. They also provide evidence of the original lath and plaster ceiling, there are several remnant hardwood flooring planks for the attic floor. These are consistent with Tasmanian practice for all rooms of most houses up to the 1840s. However, the Ewbank patent pressed flooring nails identified by Prof Lewis are considered unusual for the 1840s and may add weight to the view that the attic was later (see Walls above). The attic stair opening is of interest for being trimmed with shouldered mortice joints. This further indicates the sophistication of this structure.

The later roof structure is important for the manner in which it provides evidence of the original roof form. This includes the housing for the top plate on the attic walls and for the evidence provided by the rafters where they are notched to accommodate the top plate of the demolished built in rooms as well as the missing verandah beam. The top plate location indicated a minimal eaves overhang, as shown in the early photos of the house with the verandah and end rooms intact. (See also Figure 8)

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 35

---

FIGURE 8: DETAIL OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ROOF AND FOOTINGS

[Diagram showing: sheet iron roof, former wall, brick chimney of detached kitchen, existing brick wall verandah, plinth]

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 36

---

NEWMAN FAMILY OWNERSHIP: ALTERATIONS & ADDITIONS

Construction dates

The dates of later works may have occurred as early as the time of the construction of Monckton in 1850s. This house was solidly constructed of stone with a slate roof, and suggest profits were being made at this period. Another possibility was when the property was transferred to his son in 1866 with Major Newman's death. It is possible that the original structure had a slate roof, given the nature and sophistication of the original structure and the alleged 'oriental splendour' of Newman's life style in the 1840s. The use of roofing slate at this time, however, was reserved for very substantial buildings and timber shingles would be likely for the original construction of Pontville. It is even possible that the roof was raised at the time that slates were first used. (See Walls in the section above)

As discussed earlier, the original kitchen wing may not necessarily have been built on the east side. The current structure dates from the 1870s-1880s, possibly incorporating an earlier chimney structure.

At a later date, the slates were removed and the roof structure was rebuilt and clad with the existing 'Emu' brand corrugated iron. The date of the iron is suggested by Prof Miles Lewis to be within a few years of 1908. The rebuilding of the roof and the relining of the lath and plaster ceiling with the distinctive double beaded lining boards, characteristic of the early 1900s, would also appear to have occurred at the same time. The floor could also have been rebuilt with the existing tongue and grooved Baltic flooring with machine sawn joists at this time. The rebuilding of the kitchen chimney may also date from the same period, given the use of the unusual double beaded lining boards next to the new chimney.

The major rebuilding of the early 1900s period represents a possible response to a badly neglected structure, with a roof structure damaged beyond repair by dislodged slates (or damage caused by the weight of a later slate roof). The leaking roof would also have been detrimental to a lath and plaster ceiling and the original planked floor. This may also have been considered unacceptable by the standards of this time. The rebuilding of the kitchen chimney would have been consistent with such a comprehensive renovation. These works could well have coincided with occupancy changes from 1904-1911.

Significant elements providing evidence of original roof form and location of external walls:

The roof structure with Emu Brand galvanised corrugated iron (some sections of original roofing have been replaced).

The floor structure, comprising tongue and grooved Baltic flooring with machine sawn joists (some sections are missing)

The ceiling lining boards of a distinctive double beaded design, It is partially missing in one room and covered with later lining in some areas.

Some window reveal linings which appear to pre-date Paddle alterations.

LATER WORKS: POST-NEWMAN FAMILY OWNERSHIP

Construction dates

The demolition of the end rooms and the enclosure of the verandah and its subdivision into various rooms would appear to date from the post 1950 Paddle ownership, given anecdotal and physical evidence.

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 37

---

[Photograph: Pontville c1968, showing house with tank stand and cypress tree]. Pontville c1968. (Source: Irvine Greene)

[Photograph: Pontville c1968, showing outbuilding with tanks and fencing]. Pontville c1968. (Source: Irvine Greene)

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 38

---

The single brick base wall to the infilled verandah was constructed within the original building line to create an eaves overhang. The brickwork was rendered with a crudely executed hard plaster finish; this was used throughout on other existing exposed walls. There are remnants of brick cross walls that are constructed prior to this rendering. The verandah had a concrete floor constructed at this time.

The kitchen was apparently brought inside at this period, as well as the bathroom/laundry. There was a raised timber floor for these rooms to avoid a step between this area and the main rooms of the house.

The verandah wall lining above the brickwork was cement sheet and the windows adjustable metal framed louvres. The verandah section had a ceiling of caneite lining and strapping which concealed original wall finishes on the verandah and former verandah rooms above the new ceiling level. New windows and doors were fitted throughout. The tapestry brick fire place surround also appears to date from this period.

Later work to the kitchen also appears to have taken place, including the roofing slate floor in the kitchen area, a popular device of the 1960s-70s. The arched hand made brick fireplace opening also has the hallmark of this nostalgic return to older second hand building materials. Further works occurred when the cement sheeting was replaced with rough sawn weatherboards, allegedly for a film set..

There is no appreciable architectural significance associated with these works; furthermore, they have been extensively vandalised.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE

South Room

Probing of sub floor area through broken floor boards disclosed 40cm of dark sediment with cultural material clearly defined above the more orangey natural ground surface. Deposit seen to contain butchered bones (beef and sheep), building rubble (brick, stone, cement, plaster, burnt stone, burnt brick, wood), fruit stones, modern glass. The plaster was covered with a blue wash, and on top of that, a white paper with a pink vertical pattern, different to the remains of the paper (brown/yellow tartan pattern) left on the west wall in that room now. The cream coloured bricks noted by Miles Lewis were observed, and a burnt piece was seen. Other material (pumpkin seeds and egg shell) was probably carried in by rats. No evidence of 19th century material was observed.

Although 1930s photographs show 2 chimneys, 1 in the South Room, the chimney and fire place there have gone. But below the floor by the north wall, is the original sandstone hearth stone, apparently discarded by being dropped from its functional position to the ground surface beneath. The source of the stone has not been determined. The slab measures 125x46x9cm. The sub floor brick hearth foundation is still to be seen, though many bricks are broken away.

North Room

This room also has a break in the timber flooring through which limited access for probing indicated potential for archaeological investigations. In the 62cm of sediments probed, the top 27cm are dark, loose, silty sediment with plant litter, plaster fragments, fire gravel, which could be associated with house construction/ demolition. Below a sharp sedimentary boundary, the lower 35cm is motley yellow/orange clay.

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 39

---

[Photograph: Pontville 1994, showing house with corrugated iron roof, verandah posts, and detached kitchen chimney in foreground]. Pontville 1994

[Photograph: Pontville 1994, showing weatherboard structure with damaged wall, chimney, and pergola-like frame connecting to main house]. Pontville 1994. (Source: Irvine Greene)

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 40

---

Internal kitchen

The present floor is raised from its original level. For approx. 5.1x2.1m it was once covered with slate embedded in mortar. This then sits on a 1cm thick rubberised composite material which itself sits on the floor planks. Some slate remains. Slabs are approx 46x40cm without attachment holes, though 1 was found to have such holes. The slate extends in to doorways and stops at the bathroom door.

Further archaeological investigations required

Archaeological testing of sub-floor deposits to discover the nature of early occupation & perhaps an occupation/ modifications sequence and datable material. Specifically - crockery, glassware, coins, ornaments, which could elucidate how the household was equipped.

Archaeological investigations may also reveal evidence which assists in understanding the earlier roof structure and materials, hearths, house foundations (etc).

Analysis is required of the bricks and mortar composition above and below the ceiling height.

DETACHED KITCHEN

CONSTRUCTION DATES

A new kitchen is said to have been built by Charles Newman Newman at the time of his marriage in 1872; however, it appears he did not occupy house for several years.³⁵

EVIDENCE

This weather board structure has a gabled corrugated iron roof and is lined with standard beaded edged lining boards. It comprised two rooms; apart from the kitchen, the other was apparently a bathroom/wash house. Prof Lewis has suggested a possible 1870s-1890s date for the timber framing practice adopted. The large stepped kitchen chimney breast and flue has bricks and construction details of a more modern character. It appears to be of a later date than the main structure, as indicated by the enclosure of former exposed internal spaces above and behind the mantelpiece; this later date is apparently confirmed by the 1900s double beaded lining boards in side cupboard built at the same time the chimney was rebuilt.

The chimney was built while the earlier external wall of the house was in place as evidenced by the lack of space between the wall and the chimney to finish off the mortar of the brickwork (see Figure 8).

This structure has been extensively vandalised with much of the southern wall removed; the condition of the balance is poor. There are some obvious post 1950 works.

FURTHER INVESTIGATIONS REQUIRED

Archaeological testing of the sub floor could determine whether or not there was an earlier kitchen on this site.

---

³⁵ Crockett & Poulter; Rate books record him as resident in 1876.

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 41

---

GARDEN & SETTING

CONSTRUCTION DATES

There are no early accounts of a garden. By the 1920s-30s, there was a flower garden at the front of the house (western side) and some fruit trees on the eastern side. The terracing to the west and on the slope towards the creek has not been dated as yet.

EXTANT EVIDENCE

There are few surviving elements. The most important is the large Cupressus torulosa (possibly one of a pair planted for the entry to the formal house garden) and apparently planted before c1870. This tree creates some uncertainty as to the original orientation of the house.

Two garden terraces have been identified on the front or west side of the house. Retaining walls, made of local sandstone and up to 50cm high run down the south, west and north sides of the top terrace. Retaining walls run along the south and north sides of the lower terrace.

These garden terraces pre-date the 1931 aerial, may have served either as a formal garden from an early period or later as a vegetable garden. Hazel Poulter recalls a formal garden setting with earth paths in the form of a cross from the 1920s/30s.

A sloping sweep of the ground from the south side of the house to the Mullum Mullum Creek and lush weed growth, suggest it may have been used as either a domestic dump or perhaps a garden. Probing this area located a number of rocks which, on removal of some of the weed and top soil revealed an area of flag stones made from the local sandstone. It was not possible to ascertain the extent of the flagging, nor whether the paths led across or down the slope. There is a stone retaining wall approx. half a metre high at the top of the slope and 2m out from the house wall which runs across the entire south aspect of the house. Hazel Poulter recalls a track leading to the creek with steps cut into an exposure of the local stone; the path and stone steps to the Creek were not seen during our field investigation.

Two tank stands to the north and east of the house provide the other items of interest.

FURTHER INVESTIGATIONS

Further oral testimony should be sought on the function and development of the garden to the west and south of the house. Archaeological testing may be warranted.

Further exposure will be required to ascertain whether the features to the south of the house were part of a terrace or a path either across the slope or down to the Creek, and whether this was the kitchen garden. Early homesteads typically had to be self sufficient. Evidence of a vegetable garden should be searched for.

DOMESTIC RUBBISH TIPS

CONSTRUCTION DATES

Since occupation of property by Major Newman.

EVIDENCE

The expectation is that all the occupied houses - the turf hut, Pontville, Monckton, and the cottage to the north east of Pontville house, would have had domestic rubbish dumps. These

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 42

---

are both revealing of the lifestyle of the occupants and a likely source of dating occupational sequences. No rubbish dumps were located during the field survey.

FURTHER INVESTIGATIONS

A search for and excavation of the domestic tip/s associated with Pontville (and of the turf hut and Monckton) will contribute information about the house, the family and their belongings.

OTHER DWELLINGS

The following other dwellings were, at one time, located within Major Newman's Pontville and Monckton properties:

• turf hut

• other huts

• Monckton

• cottage

• Cliff Webster dwelling

• Manager's house: Paddle period

The other Newman properties are also of interest for the light they may throw on Newman's ideas about appropriate housing for himself and his family.

Other than Pontville, at least four other properties are known to have been owned and occupied by Major Newman and his family prior to 1865:

• House at Black Brush near the township of Pontville in Tasmania. Property held from c1835. No descriptions of the property have been located in the Tasmanian research undertaken by David Crockett. Not known if house is extant.

• Monckton. Built during the 1850s (rated 1857/58)

• Pontville, Lennox St. Hawthorn (included coachouse and stables). Built 1857-60 and occupied by Major Newman, his wife Catherine and their daughter Mary Anne from 1860.

• Major and Catherine Newman owned and occupied a house in Lonsdale Street c1855-57, later leasing it and ultimately leaving it in his will.

Newman also owned a cottage in Hawthorn which he left to Mary Anne in his will.

Only the dwellings located within Pontville and Monckton are considered below.

TURF HUT

A large, one-roomed hut with large (stone?) fireplace across one end wall accommodated the Newman family (2 adults and 5 children). The separate kitchen was built of slabs, and served as sleeping quarters for the station hands. An evocative description is provided by J. H. Kerr who visited Newman's in 1841 (but did not write his account until 1872). Other evidence that could be expected would include: rubbish dump, probably a kitchen garden, paths, tracks.

Three possible locations have been considered:

1. On the western side of the confluence of the Yarra River and Mullum Mullum Creek: This is T. H. Nutt surveyed the Pontville area in 1839 and notes 'Mr Newman's sheep station' on the west side of the Mullum Mullum Creek.³⁶ 1841 Hoddle plan shows "Major Newman's Station" as west of confluence of Mullum Mullum Creek and Yarra River.

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 43

2. On the eastern side of the confluence of the Yarra River and Mullum Mullum Creek: This location is suggested by the very old Mulberry tree and hawthorn hedge. There is no historical documentation in support of this location.

3. Present site of Pontville: suggested as the most logical location for a hut as this site is above most flood levels.³⁷ They also hypothesise that the turf hut may have remained for some time as servants quarters. There is no historical documentation in support of this location.

Surface examination of the river terrace below the Monckton site did not reveal any evidence of occupation. The main areas of soil exposure were in wombat burrows near a fence line (boundary of CA 2, Portion 17). This location is shown as Area 1 on Figure 12.

Area 2 (Figure 12) is the location of the Mulberry tree. The dense vegetation on the eastern side of the confluence precluded surface examination of this area.

Archaeological excavation on the Pontville site (possibly below the existing buildings) would be required to investigate this as the site of the turf hut.

Sub-surface testing/removal of vegetation and soil surface required at likely location/s narrowed down by prior further research. Look for remains of chimney, rubbish dump.

OTHER HUTS

There would have been huts for shepherds in the earliest period, the removal of huts on land claimed by adjoining owners was a cause of disputes in the 1840s.³⁸ The Chivers may had separate accommodation (1840-42) or may have lived in the kitchen with other servants. No locations are recorded, and no evidence was found during the field survey.

The upper area in the house is considered unlikely to have provided accommodation at any stage (see homestead).

MONCKTON

Built during the 1850s (rated in 1857/58), Monckton was a stone house, using stone quarried from the "foot of the hill"; it had a slate roof.³⁹

Monckton was built by Major Newman most probably as a home for his second son, Thomas, to whom he left the house in his 1860 will. The house is said to have been used mainly to accommodate guests during the Major's occupancy of Pontville.⁴⁰ Despite the codicil to Major Newman's will, the house was later occupied by his son's widow and family after the deaths of both the Major and Thomas. Monckton said to have served as a local school c1870s.⁴¹

---

³⁶ Keogh, 1975 p. 2

³⁷ Crockett & Poulter pp. 17,19,39; D. Crockett, per comm.

³⁸ Crockett & Poulter 1994

³⁹ Crockett & Poulter p. 49

⁴⁰ Crockett & Poulter p. 49

⁴¹ Crockett & Poulter, p. 56

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 44

---

The house was described in 1933 as:

an old white-washed house, all under a slate pyramid roof. The fruit trees go almost up to the front door ... with two dim-eyed windows, one each side, and a verandah covering it rakishly ... In an old buggy, in an old barn, the household fowls roost ... the handle of a pump sticks out from a well which is under the house. It is on a knoll, this old house. Fast from it, separated by a pleasant valley through which a creek trickles, and on another knoll - they are twins these two grassy knolls - is another old house (Pontville).⁴²

There are photographs of the house held by Mrs Poulter and by the historical society.

Monckton sold to Morrison family in 1910 and altered. In 1968, it was purchased by Mr and Mrs Murray who demolished house and stables and built a new house.⁴³ The site of the old house said to be within an open courtyard, and there may be archaeological evidence remaining.

COTTAGE

A two-roomed cottage was built for Samuel McAuley, one of Charles' stepsons, at the time of Sam's marriage (1890s?). By the late 1890s Sam McAuley was running the property.⁴⁴

Photographs said to date from the 1930s show the small timber cottage standing in the paddock to the north east of the main house. It was sited near the brow of the hill beyond in the middle of an open paddock surrounded by newly cut stooks. This cottage disappears from the air photos between 1931 and 1945, a victim of the 1939 bushfires.⁴⁵

Further oral history research is needed to determine the form of cottage, its orientation, any garden plantings, outbuildings, rubbish dumps or other site features. The site should be probed for foundations, rubbish dump.

OTHER DWELLINGS

Cliff Webster dwelling: This dwelling dates from 1951 (see chronology). The approximate location is known from aerial photographs but no surface evidence was identified in the field survey. Remnants of his orchard remain.

Manager's house: Paddle period: Built at new entrance from Blackburn Road. Not investigated during field survey.

OTHER FEATURES

CLAY PIT

Clay for the brick walls of the house is assumed to have been quarried and burnt on the site. Hazel Poulter has identified a possible location of the clay pit.⁴⁶ This site, shown on Figure 12 was not investigated in the field survey.

---

⁴² "Melbourne's Historic Homes .. VIII. - Two stations on the Yarra: Bushrangers and Gold. Article by "C.E.S." The Age, 26 August 1933.

⁴³ Crockett & Poulter, pp.69-73

⁴⁴ Crockett & Poulter pp. 59-60

⁴⁵ Hazel Poulter, pers. comm.

⁴⁶ H. Poulter: pers. comm.

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 45

---

STONE QUARRY

Local stone was used to make probably all plinth, paths and walls in Pontville. Only a relatively small amount of stone would have been required. It is assumed to have been cut from an exposure along the creek or on the Yarra. The same stone has been used to make the stone slab area located in the terrace on the south side of the house, the foundation of the house, the retaining walls of the west terraces, and the access track bridge over the Mullum Mullum Creek. It is likely that a different source was used for the fireplace hearth of the southern room.

McBriar has a photograph of a quarry which she found on the property and Hazel Poulter has identified a former stone quarry near the boundary of Monckton and Pontville.⁴⁷ This quarry, being close to Monckton, appears likely to have been the source of stone for Monckton. This site, shown on Figure 12, was not investigated in the field survey.

FAMILY BURIAL GROUND

Louisa Newman died at the age of 16 in 1853, and was buried "in the valley beside the track leading to Monckton"; subsequent burials were: Caroline (daughter) died 1857; Ascot Charles Thomas in 1864 and Alfred Thomas in 1869 (infant sons of Thomas Newman) 1864; Catherine Newman (wife) 1865; Major Newman (1865); Thomas Newman, 1869.⁴⁸

Later family members were interred at Warrandyte or Templestowe cemeteries. The headstones were removed in 1910 and taken to the Templestowe cemetery.⁴⁹

The site was not examined. Hazel Poulter has photographs c1985 when she relocated the bluestone bases of several headstones, the headstones having been broken off and taken to Templestowe cemetery. The general location of the cemetery also contains some plantings which should be assessed.

BRIDGE

Early plans (1841-1850) show two different crossing places on the creek. The present crossing place appears to have been well established by at least the 1920s.⁵⁰ A "small wooden bridge over the Deep Creek" is referred to in Newman family history.⁵¹

The present bridge crosses Mullum Mullum Creek south west of the house. There are remnants of older stone abutments on the northern bank of the creek below the present bridge. These are constructed of cut stone blocks, laid in a random coursed pattern.

LAGOON

There was a lagoon in the locality where local 'socialites' used to have a boat & parties in the 1940s.⁵² The location of this lagoon should be determined by further oral history research.

There is evidence of a lagoon on the river flats of the Mullum Mullum Creek on its west bank immediately before the bridge that crosses the Creek to the Pontville house. There is another lagoon on the west side of the track into Pontville just after entering from Webster's Road.

---

⁴⁷ McBriar, pp. 56; H. Poulter: pers. comm.

⁴⁸ Crockett & Poulter, 51-56

⁴⁹ Crockett & Poulter, p. 65

⁵⁰ H. Poulter pers. comm.; aerial photographs.

⁵¹ Crockett & Poulter. p. 17.

⁵² Irvine Green pers. comm.

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 46

---

FIGURE 9: PONTVILLE & MONCKTON PROPERTIES IN 1931

[Diagram showing Yarra River, bush areas, hawthorn hedges, cottage location, Pontville homestead marker, Mulberry tree, Monckton Homestead, Stables, orchard area with dams, grazing land]

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 47

---

ASSESSING SIGNIFICANCE

CRITERIA

In approaching the assessment of significance, the consultants have complied with the definitions and methods outlined in The Australia ICOMOS Charter for the conservation of places of cultural significance (The Burra Charter) and the Guidelines to the Burra Charter: Cultural Significance.

The Charter defines cultural significance as 'aesthetic, historic, scientific or social value for past, present or future generations' (Article 1.2). These terms mean:

• Aesthetic: aesthetic value includes aspects of sensory perception

• Historic: historic value encompasses the history of aesthetics, science and society (and therefore architecture).

• Scientific: the scientific or research value of a place depends on the importance of the data involved and the extent to which a place can contribute further substantial information. (This criteria is often applied to archaeological sites)

• Social: social value embraces the qualities for which a place has become a focus of spiritual, political, national or other cultural sentiment.

A place may be important because its physical form and fabric demonstrates its significance. A place may also be important because it was associated with significant events or people even though no physical evidence remains.

NATURE OF SIGNIFICANCE

The following criteria, based on the national set of criteria developed by the Australian Heritage Commission, expand on the four values defined above. These criteria were used by the consultants in assessing cultural significance.

History: Does the place provide physical evidence of history? For example, is the place:

• important for association with events, developments or cultural phases which have had a significant role in the human occupation and evolution of the nation, state or locality

• important in demonstrating a distinctive way of life, custom, process, land-use or function no longer practised, in danger of being lost, or of exceptional interest

• important in demonstrating the principal characteristics of the range of human activities in the Australian environment (including way of life, custom, land-use, function or technique)

• important for the way it represents aspects of national or local sentiment, values or concepts.

Design: Does the place demonstrate a particular design style or tradition in relation to the type of place? For example, is the place:

• important for its technical, creative, design or artistic excellence, innovation or achievement

• important as an illustration of the typical fashions, styles and tastes of a past period.

Research (or scientific) value: Does the place have the potential to provide information (through a process of research and investigation) that will contribute to a greater understanding of the history of the locality or beyond?

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 48

---

Aesthetic value: Does the place demonstrate qualities that are considered to contribute to contemporary aesthetic values?

Social value: Does the place have strong or special associations with a particular community or group for social, cultural, symbolic or spiritual reasons?

Association: Does the place have close or special associations with individuals or organisations and groups whose activities have been significant within the history of the locality or beyond?

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

The level of significance refers to the relative importance of a place compared to other similar known examples. The following levels of significance guided the consultants:

• National or state significance: part of the heritage of Australia or Victoria

• Regional significance: part of the heritage of the region

• Local significance: an essential part of the heritage of the locality

• Interest: of historical interest although lacking in the integrity required for a higher ranking.

• Little/none: elements of the place which are of little or no significance.

INTERPRETING ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The archaeological significance of structures at the Pontville property has been considered in terms of scientific value which is based on the following factors:

Representativeness: How representative a structure is will depend on the original distribution of such structures and on the current archaeological knowledge of the region and of particular features. What is left of past activities will be affected by the nature and degree of disturbance since the structure was created and on-going threats.

Condition, integrity and content: The potential for structures to answer research questions depends on the following:

• preservation - the better preserved the site, the more useable and reliable are the data derived from it.

• contents - rich and diverse contents provide a high potential for analysis.

• presence of stratification/internal patterning - a site which has retained intact occupation layers is important for tracing changes over time.

• dating potential - the presence of material which can be dated provides accurate time slots for occurrences and objects.

Value of the information contained in the place: For example, archaeological material and data may have a social value or significance in that they help to support or refute popular values and beliefs. They may provide vital information of a lost past to a local community. They help in an understanding of the past and augment local oral history.

Archaeological assessments also often take into account the educational and interpretive potential of a place. The factors to be considered if the educational values of a site or structure are to be promoted would include: durability of site and contents; accessibility; whether on public or private land; on-going threats to the site. In this report, these factors have been considered in relation to the development of conservation policy rather than as part of the significance of the place.

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 49

---

PREVIOUS ASSESSMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE

Pontville has been assessed in several previous studies and is currently under examination by the Historic Buildings Council. These past assessments are summarised below:

The National Trust of Australia (Victoria) listed Pontville in the National Trust Register as Recorded status (file no. 2814).

The City of Doncaster & Templestowe Heritage Study was prepared by Context Pty Ltd and completed in 1991. It involved an assessment of a large number of places through the City. The statement of significance for Pontville reads:

Of regional significance as a structure incorporating probably the earliest surviving homestead in the study area; requires further investigation to confirm significance.⁵³

In 1991 Marilyn McBriar prepared a report for the MMBW's Metropolitan Parks section entitled Interpreting the past: The Yarra Valley Metropolitan Park. She researched and visited Pontville and reported on its importance.

She concludes that Pontville is of regional rather than just purely local importance. She argues that probably everything on the site relates to the period of Newman's ownership of the land (not to the early squatting period) and the house is typical of many small dwelling of its time. However, the beauty of the site, the placement of the house within the site and the invisibility of the nearby suburbs combined with the continuity of use of the site for grazing, with the contrast between the wooded setting and the small-scale fields hedged with hawthorn make it special..⁵⁴

Melbourne Water Yarra Valley Metropolitan Park and the Historical Archaeological Unit of Victoria Archaeological Survey commissioned Catherine Snelgrove and Mark Trumble to prepare a report on the significance of the property. The statement of significance reads:

Pontville has some local significance due to: its associational links with Major Charles Newman; picturesque location; remnant early domestic architecture and garden;. potential to be of educational value to the local community; potential sub-surface archaeological deposits.

Their summary concluded that "most of the original fabric has been removed thus significantly reducing the importance of the place".⁵⁵

In 1994, Dr Carlotta Kellaway undertook further research on a number of places listed in the City of Doncaster and Templestowe Heritage Study, including Pontville. Her report on Pontville, which included new research, concluded with the following statement of significance:

Of regional significance as a structure incorporating the earliest pioneering homestead in the study area, still of its original site within a landscape which once formed part of an

---

⁵³ Context Pty Ltd, City of Doncaster & Templestowe Heritage Study, prepared for the City of Doncaster & Templestowe, 1991, p. 61..

⁵⁴ Marilyn McBriar, Interpreting the past: The Yarra Valley Metropolitan Park, MMBW's Metropolitan Parks section, 1991, pp. 48-51.

⁵⁵ C. Snelgrove and M. Trumble, A report on a survey at "Pontville" (H7922-122), Paddles reserve, Templestowe, Melbourne Water Yarra Valley Metropolitan Park and the Historical Archaeological Unit of Victoria Archaeological Survey, August 1993.

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 50

---

extensive pastoral property established in the 1930s. Requires an expert investigation of its fabric to determine how much of the building was there prior to 1870.⁵⁶

As a result of Dr Kellaway's research, Professor Miles Lewis from the Faculty of Architecture, University of Melbourne agreed to assess the physical evidence bearing upon the date of the building. His report presents the results of a brief but thorough examination. He concludes that the evidence of the building fabric "suggests that the building is not much later than about 1853" and that (given historical evidence) "a date in the 1840s is most probable". His report describes is some detail the early fabric that remains.

STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE

Pontville, constructed in the 1840s, on part of an 1830s pastoral holding (of 4400 acres) at the confluence of the Yarra Yarra River and the Mullum Mullum Creek, by Major Charles Newman, pastoralist, who was a pioneer of the Templestowe and Warrandyte district, is of State cultural significance:

• for its historical associations with the earliest phase of pastoral activity in the proximity of Melbourne and the continuity of these activities to the present day.

• as the last intact 1840s pastoral selection within close proximity to the city from the east (and the same proximity as Woodlands) as well as being apparently the last intact important early homestead site of any importance on the Yarra River within the metropolitan area.

• as the focal point and primary homestead in a farm complex which originally included the two homesteads, Pontville and Monckton; the site of the 1830s turf hut; and all the associated Newman land within the boundary fence enclosing portions 1, 2 3, and 4 as shown on Hoddle's 1850 plan.

• as the primary homestead willed in 1860 to Major Newman's eldest son, the other (Monckton - now demolished) being left to his younger son

• as the homestead where, on its associated land, the Major chose to pasture his valuable horses and cattle

• for its associations with the earliest development of the Templestowe area

• for its association with an ex-Indian Army officer; Newman was one of only two in Victoria at this time, an association that was very influential in the development of Australian colonial society, and the obvious influence on the distinctive and unusual Indian Bungalow form employed at Pontville

• for its long associations with the Newman family (1830s-1950), the first white settlers at Deep Creek and claimed by Newman to be the first this far east of Melbourne.

---

⁵⁶ Dr Carlotta Kellaway, "Doncaster and Templestowe Heritage Study: Additional Research, prepared for the City of Doncaster & Templestowe. Pontville report prepared 16 January 1994, full report dated July 1994.

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 51

---

• for the unusual elements, or evidence of elements, surviving from the original structure; these include:

- the distinctive Indian Bungalow form with a core of three interconnecting rooms surrounded by a broad verandah formed within the main hipped roof, with rooms formerly built within the verandah at both ends, and a large attic space created by the steep roof pitch and the extended walls above ceiling level

- the masonry structure of stone footings and hearth, the triple thickness walls of locally made bricks and remnant sections of original ruled lime stucco (the oldest such surface identified in Victoria) and remnants of original plaster surfaces

- the original ceiling structure of pit sawn hardwood, with a ceiling opening for attic stairs trimmed with tusk tenoned joints, and remnant hardwood planked attic floor and patent flooring nails

- clear evidence of the original building form, including the original roof form being maintained by the current structure, and the form, layout, raked ceilings and subdivision of the missing end rooms

• for later elements associated with the repair and reconstruct of the building in its original configuration; these include:

- the 1900s timber roof, including iron roofing, and framing which shows evidence of the end rooms

- the floor structure

- archaeological values including evidence of an earlier slate roof

- 1870s -1900s kitchen wing

- remnants and evidence of other structures, including tank stands, brick well, out buildings and sheds

• for landscaping around the house, especially:

- the extremely early Cupressus torulosa

- the formal terracing using similar rock work to the footings of the house

• for the surrounding cultural landscape; including:

- hedgerows and exotic trees

- clearing patterns and interface with indigenous bushland

- the original allotment boundaries and creek and river frontages

- access road and bridge formation, including the locations of earlier access tracks

- sites of other structures possibly including the original turf hut

- the relationship with Newman's later house, Monckton, built overlooking Pontville, and nearby family graves

• for the high research potential inherent in the Pontville homestead complex and the other archaeological sites, being a rare surviving example of an early property likely to still retain substantial archaeological evidence, and for its potential to provide important information about what it meant to be a squatting family in the early years of Port Phillip settlement.

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 52

---

EXTENT OF SIGNIFICANCE

The fabric of Pontville (including all elements of the place) have been ranked as follows:

A MAJOR SIGNIFICANCE

Those elements dating from the Major Newman period and his son's ownership, extending up to 1904.

B CONTRIBUTORY SIGNIFICANCE

Those elements dating from 1904 until the family ownership ceased in 1950

C NO APPRECIABLE SIGNIFICANCE

Those elements dating after 1950

SCHEDULE OF SIGNIFICANT AREAS

The extent of the areas designated as of major significance and contributory significance are shown on Figure 10.

A MAJOR SIGNIFICANCE

The land comprising:

• Portions 3 and 4 (Hoddle 1849, 1850): east, north and west boundaries, the south boundary defined by Melbourne Parks and Waterways boundary

• part of Portion 2, being the current allotment containing the site of the former Monckton homestead, and extending from Homestead Road to the Yarra River, and

• the land on the northern side of the Yarra River to the ridgeline as seen from the Pontville homestead.

B CONTRIBUTORY SIGNIFICANCE

The balance of the land contained within the east, north and west boundaries of Portions No 1 to 4 (Hoddle 1849, 1850).

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 53

---

FIGURE 10: EXTENT OF SIGNIFICANCE

[Map diagram showing the property area bounded by Yarra River, Sweeneys Lane, Kearney Lane, Blackburn Road, Warrandyte Road, Newmans Road, Websters Road, Monkton Road, Briar Lane, Watties Road, Homestead Road, Petty's Orchard, Mullum Mullum Creek, Clifden Court, Concord Rise, Council Depot, with ridge line marked. Shaded area indicates extent of significance]

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 54

---

SCHEDULE OF SIGNIFICANT ITEMS BY PERIOD

Items of major significance and contributory significance are listed below and shown on Figure 12.

| | Major significance (1838-1904) | Contributory significance (1904-1950) | No appreciable significance (1950 -) |

|---|---|---|---|

| Turf hut site | ✓ | | |

| Pontville homestead | ✓ | | |

| Pontville kitchen & well | ✓ | | |

| Pontville gardens & terraces | ✓ | | |

| Pontville outbuildings: separator building & well | | ✓ | |

| Pontville outbuildings: recent building | | | ✓ |

| Cleared area relating to early pastoral occupation | ✓ | | |

| Exotic plantings: hawthorn hedges, mulberry tree and elm regrowth | ✓ | | |

| Tracks to Pontville: overland (c1838-1870s) | ✓ | | |

| Tracks: from Websters Road (1870s) | ✓ | | |

| Tracks: from Blackburn Road | | | ✓ |

| Bridge structure | | ✓ | |

| Gate posts (1870s entrance to property) | ✓ | | |

| Newman graves | ✓ | | |

| Clay pit site | ✓ | | |

| Monckton property | ✓ | | |

| Cottage precinct | ✓ | | |

| Monckton homestead site | ✓ | | |

| Monckton homestead stone quarry | ✓ | | |

SCHEDULE OF SIGNIFICANT BUILDING FABRIC: PONTVILLE HOMESTEAD

A MAJOR SIGNIFICANCE

Original building form

Stone footings

Chimney and brick walls of principal rooms - including early finishes and door and window openings

Pit sawn timber ceiling structure and remnant attic flooring of principal rooms

Main structure and original cladding of kitchen wing

Landscaping associated with the pre 1904 period including the Cupressus sp, (the terracing is also likely to date from this period but cannot be verified)

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 55

---

Any archaeological evidence relating to the pre 1904 period

B CONTRIBUTORY SIGNIFICANCE

Roof structure and roof cladding of the main house

Floor structure and lining board ceiling of the principal rooms

Chimney and associated alterations in the kitchen wing

Any landscaping and archaeological evidence associated with the 1904-1950 period

Potentially some elements of window and doors of the principal rooms; tank stands and other related structures

C NO APPRECIABLE SIGNIFICANCE

Infilling of the verandah (including the concrete and timber floor, brick base wall, stud frame wall, associated wall/ceiling lining and windows, and modern fittings of the kitchen and bathroom)

Fireplace surrounds

Some elements of the window and doors of the principal rooms

Modern plaster surfaces on the walls of the principal rooms (may be over earlier surfaces in some locations)

'Caneite' lining of the principal rooms

Post 1950 works in the kitchen wing - including fittings and 'Masonite' lining

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 56

---

FIGURE 11: ARCHAEOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREAS AT THE PONTVILLE HOMESTEAD

[Site plan diagram showing: shallow depression, electric fence, detached kitchen with damaged roof, sewer pipe, stone retaining wall, stone pavement, south garden slope, driveway to Yarra River, upper terrace, lower terrace, Pontville homestead marked with hatching]

SITE PLAN

Scale: N.A.

Date: 5/07/94

Dwg. No. 941-2

Pro. No. 941

Cad. No. attach.dwg

Rev. No. C

Source of base map: Andrew Lamont Rodda and Richard Peterson, 5/07/94

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 57

---

FIGURE 12: ARCHAEOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREAS IN THE PONTVILLE HISTORIC [PRECINCT]

[Detailed map showing: Yarra River, Reserve for Public Purposes, Shire City, Webster's cottage, 1840s hedge, stone quarry, Monckton Homestead, mulberry tree, area 1, area 2, Pontville Homestead, outbuilding and well, old Monckton track, clay pit, Newmans' graves, Homestead Road, Watties Road, Mullum Mullum Creek, with legend showing Cultural Feature (Building, Track, Fence, Gate), Topography (Water body, Vegetation Canopy), Archaeology (Sensitive Area)]

ARCHAEOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREAS IN THE PONTVILLE HISTORIC PRECINCT

Source: Board of Works Yvmp-Paddles Park Plan, historical, and archaeological survey as discussed in text. Base prepared for Waterways and Parks Division by the Survey and Mapping Branch, Feb., 1989.

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 58

---

DEVELOPMENT OF POLICY

METHOD

This conservation policy has followed the method outlined in the Australia ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance (The Burra Charter) (1988) and the associated Guidelines to the Burra Charter: Conservation Policy (1988). These documents are reproduced in Appendix 4.

SIGNIFICANT FABRIC

Establish or confirm the nature, extent, and degree of intactness of the significant fabric including contents [Guidelines to the Burra Charter: Conservation Policy, s.3.2.1]

Pontville was one of the very early pastoral stations in the Melbourne area, then part of the Port Phillip District of the Colony of New South Wales. Other early stations included Yering, Gulf Station, Kangaroo Ground and Christmas Hills.

The importance of Pontville has been clearly established by the conservation analysis which forms the first part of this report. The Guidelines to the Burra Charter: Cultural Significance suggest that the following information should be collected in the assessment of cultural significance:

• the development sequence of the place and its relationship to the surviving fabric

• the existence and nature of lost or obliterated fabric; the rarity and/or technical interest of all or any part of the place

• the functions of the place and its parts

• the relationship of the place and its parts with its setting

• the cultural influences which have affected the form and fabric of the place

• the significance of the place to people who use or have used the place, or descendants of such people

• the historical content of the place with particular reference to the ways in which its fabric has been influenced by historical forces or has itself influenced the course of history

• the scientific or research potential of the place

• the relationship of the place to other places, for example in respect of design, technology, use, locality or origin

• any other outstanding factor relevant to an understanding of the place.

The statement of cultural significance, which summarises this importance, is contained in the previous section.

CLIENT, OWNER AND USER REQUIREMENTS AND RESOURCES

Investigate needs, aspirations, current proposals, available finance, etc., of owners and users [Guidelines to the Burra Charter: Conservation Policy, s.3.2.2]

As part of the development of this conservation policy, the organisations represented on the Steering Committee have been given the opportunity to provide input. Where relevant, these have been used in the development of the Conservation Policy. There have also been meetings with officers of Melbourne Parks and Waterways and the City of Manningham.

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 59

Here is the OCR transcription of the document as plain text:

---

YARRA VALLEY PARK MANAGEMENT PLAN

The Yarra Valley Park Management Plan (1992) provides the current framework for the use, development and interpretation of the park. The Plan contains heritage policies which apply across the park and are relevant to Pontville:

• Manage post-European settlement cultural heritage landscapes and buildings according to ICOMOS guidelines contained in the Burra Charter

• Manage the landscape to allow for the representation of more than a single historical era in its development, through the maintenance of appropriate plantings from a number of eras and by educating visitors about the characteristics of each.⁵⁷

Other general land management policies also apply.

There are three broad zones within the park: cultural heritage/environment; people/environment; conservation. The area then known as "Paddles", containing Pontville, is within the Conservation Zone which extends from Fitzsimmons Lane to the eastern boundary of the park. The overall "mission" of this zone is to protect and enhance the existing and future natural environment while providing for appropriate access by people.

The Paddles area, now referred to as Tikalara, is regarded in the Plan as providing visitors with a combination of nature-based and history-based experiences. Substantial revegetation is proposed. Conservation of the Pontville homestead through a voluntary organisation is to be encouraged, with the alternative being to let the building safely degrade into a ruin. A limited area of pasture is to be retained, along with the Hawthorns and Mulberry, with the Hawthorns to be replaced by another non-invasive species as they senesce. The Kearney property to the east of Pontville is proposed as the site of an environmental education camping site for up to 40 people, based on its existing facilities; this property is now being developed as residential subdivision.

LINEAR TRAIL NETWORK

The Main Yarra Trail, a bicycle/walking track following the Yarra River and linking with the Mullum Mullum and Porter Street trails is proposed in the Yarra Valley Park Management Plan. This would utilise the existing Pontville bridge over the Mullum Mullum Creek. It is generally to be constructed with asphalt topping but sections in sensitive areas could use light coloured toppings or have a gravelled surface. Development of this trail is the responsibility of Melbourne Parks and Waterways. The main trail to Pettys will be completed in the near future, with the trail in extend eastwards in a series of subsequent stages.

Two other linear trails would link with the Main Yarra Trail: the Mullum Mullum trail and the Green Gully trail. Both would be combined pedestrian cycle trails. The City of Manningham is developing these trails. It is anticipated that the Green Gully trail would link into the Mullum Mullum trail; the combined trail would probably be located on the west side of the creek. At the junction of this trail with the Main Yarra Trail, the City are planning for visitor facilities which may include car park, kiosk, picnic area and toilets. The construction of these trails is expected to occur over the next few years.

ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION

The Yarra Valley Park Management Plan proposed an environmental education camp further east of Pontville on the Kearney's property, however, this property is now proposed for

---

⁵⁷ Melbourne Water, Yarra Valley Park Management Plan, 1992, p. 19.

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 60

---

residential subdivision. A feasibility study by Melbourne Parks and Waterways suggested that MP&W should work in partnership with a non-profit organisation (rather than a commercial operator) to develop such a camp. Current ideas suggest a camp of double the size to that contained in the Plan, being for school and other groups of up to 80 people with bunk rooms, ablutions facilities and a kitchen/dining/meeting room. (See also Project Tikalara below)

The City of Manningham already has an environmental education facility within Currawong Reserve which caters for overnight camps for school groups. It is located on the Mullum Mullum linear trail. A management plan for Currawong Reserve is currently being prepared.

ABORIGINAL CULTURAL CENTRE

A brief to examine the feasibility of establishing an Aboriginal Cultural Centre has been let to Greg Burgess Pty Ltd. Six sites are being examined, including the City of Manningham's part of Tikalara. (which abuts the southern boundary of Pontville). The study will not be completed until June 1995. (See also Project Tikalara below)

PROJECT TIKALARA

In early June, subsequent to the completion of this report in final draft form, Melbourne Parks & Waterways released a Park Note describing a vision for the whole of Tikalara Park (that is both MP&W and Council land).

Tikalara Park is described as "a world renowned centre for sustainable environmental and cultural learning and personal development". The development of the park will involve building the Tikalara Centre, a facility for environmental and cultural interpretation and education. The Centre will be around 2000-3000m², divided into a series of four or more pavilions, and will contain eating areas, a keeping place for artefacts, conference room/auditorium for 200 people, craft studio/workshop, interactive display area, environmental shop.

In addition to the Centre, it is proposed to develop camp sites around the property, each will contain overnight accommodation, communal dining/recreation and class rooms, board walks and seating, and be linked by trails to the Tikalara Centre.

As well as the access provided by the trails described above, a pedestrian bridge will be built across the Yarra River. The estimated cost of the development is $7-8million.

INTERPRETIVE DEVELOPMENT OF THE YARRA VALLEY PARK

The Yarra Valley Park Management Plan proposes interpretation of commercial orcharding at Petty's; Pontville homestead in relation to local history. On the north side of the river, Sweeneys is seen as also providing an opportunity to interpret historic land uses. Aboriginal history interpretation is not included, but is recognised as being of increasing importance. Friends of Pontville have suggested that the reconstruction of Aboriginal dwellings once found in different parts of Victoria could occur on the Pontville site.

Monckton is still privately owned, it is within the park reservation. There is a generous surrounding land holding to the west and north of Monckton within the park bounded by Petty's Orchard and the Yarra River.

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 61

---

YARRA RIVER CANOEING

The Plan recognises that there may be a need for canoe launch/retrieval facilities on the north side of the river associated with Reynolds. A viewing point over the rapids is also proposed.

Other ideas being considered by MP&W include a slalom course around the rapids at the northern section of the Pontville site, and a landing possibly where the Mullum Mullum Creek joins the Yarra River. A slalom course would involve substantial construction work within the river, and use of the course for competitive events would attract large numbers of vehicles.

TOURISM INFORMATION/DISPLAY CENTRE

The development of a Yarra Valley tourist display centre within Paddles/Tikalara has been suggested by Melbourne Parks and Waterways, but is not currently provided for the Plan.

SPORTING FACILITIES

The City of Manningham purchased the Tikalara Reserve with the express aim of developing active recreation/sports facilities on the site. The City is currently investigating a number o sites for a multi-purpose sports centre, including the Tikalara Reserve. Once a site is selected, the City expects to proceed to detailed design during the 1995/96 financial year.

COUNCIL DEPOT SITE

The City of Manningham owns the land on the corner of Blackburn and Warrandyte Roads and has been using this site as part of its depot. The future use of this site has not yet been determined, but may include continuation of depot-related uses.

REVEGETATION PROGRAM, WEED MANAGEMENT AND HABITAT PROTECTION

Yarra Valley Park Management Plan proposes extensive revegetation at Paddles/Tikalara. This has already commenced with the replanting of indigenous species on the south-eastern paddock of the original Pontville land holding. Further revegetation projects are now on hold following the preliminary findings of the conservation analysis.

The weed program includes the eradication of noxious weeds. This is being reviewed given the significance of the hawthorn hedges and the elm regrowth, as well as other significant exotic plants.

The river banks are also being subject to specific works, including the removal of willows, and re-establishment of indigenous plants. Wildlife depends on the river and creek corridors and revegetation of these areas is a priority.

Sections of the northern side of the river have already been acquired by Melbourne Parks and Waterways and proposals exist to acquire other freehold land, including the existing house opposite Pontville.

GRAZING

Yarra Valley Park Management Plan anticipates the phasing out of all grazing in the park in the medium to long-term. The former Paddle property has continued to be grazed since its acquisition by the MMBW.

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 62

---

SUBDIVISION OF ADJACENT FREEHOLD LAND

Land to the west within Major Newman's original holding has already been subdivided and is in the process of being developed for suburban housing estates. There is also a new subdivision to the east on the Kearney property.

GOLF COURSE

A proposal from the City of Manningham to construct a golf course partly on council land and partly on Pontville has been under discussion for several years. The golf course requires a large area and will not proceed if MP&W land is not available. Melbourne Parks and Waterways does not supported this proposal. Subsequent to the completion of this report in final draft form, the City has decided to abandon the golf course proposal.

OWNERSHIP

Melbourne Parks and Waterways owns Pontville, including most of the land designated as the area of major significance. Land to the south - Tikalara Reserve - is owned by the City of Manningham, having been purchased by the City through the MMBW. To the east, the adjoining land is predominantly in public ownership and under the management of Melbourne Parks and Waterways. An area of private land - the Kearney property - is currently proposed for a residential subdivision; substantial habitat areas will be retained within the subdivision. A Panel report on this subdivision is currently awaited.

To the west of Pontville, lies the Monckton property, now zoned proposed Public Open Space but still in private ownership. To the south-west, much of the land within the Major Newman's original holding (that is, north of Websters Road) has been subdivided for housing. Some larger allotments remain.

STATUS OF PONTVILLE WITHIN THE MP&W YARRA VALLEY PARK

The Pontville land is part of the Yarra Valley Parklands, which extend from Burke Road (in the west) to Pound Bend at Warrandyte (in the east). It is within a conservation zone. Monckton is still in private ownership, but within the boundary of the proposed parkland.

The Pontville land is currently a closed area of the park and has very limited public access.

CURRENT MANAGEMENT AND STAFFING

Pontville is managed as part of the Yarra Valley Park by Melbourne Parks and Waterways. Park supervision is under the direction of Jeff Saker whose responsibilities include the whole of the Yarra Valley Parklands. Laurie Hilakari is a MP&W park ranger with a particular knowledge of the area.

The park has work crews who undertake general maintenance and management. Contractors are engaged for more specialised works.

FUNDING

Melbourne Parks and Waterways receives funding from the Open Space Rate. Additional Melbourne Parks and Waterways grants for specific programs are distributed to both MP&W as well as community groups and other park managers (outside MP&W).

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 63

---

OTHER REQUIREMENTS AND CONCERNS

Investigate other requirements and concerns likely to affect the future of the place and its setting including (a) federal, state and local government acts, ordinances and planning controls; (b) community needs and expectations; (c) locational and social context [Guidelines to the Burra Charter: Conservation Policy, s.3.2.3]

GOVERNMENT

FEDERAL

The City of Doncaster & Templestowe Heritage Study recommended that Pontville be nomination to Australian Heritage Commission for addition to the Register of the National Estate. The nomination, sent to Melbourne Parks & Waterways by the City of Doncaster & Templestowe, has not yet been submitted to the AHC.

STATE

Pontville is currently under examination for inclusion on the Historic Buildings Register. Registration imposes certain constraints on the property, especially in matters affecting the physical fabric of the place. Nothing contained in this Conservation Policy overrides the need to seek consent from the Historic Buildings Council for alterations to the property. Melbourne Parks and Waterways is a state government organisation.

LOCAL

The Pontville site is subject to planning controls of the City of Manningham and was identified for protection by the Doncaster and Templestowe Conservation Study. The land on the north of the river is subject to planning controls of the Shire of Nillumbik.

COMMUNITY NEEDS AND EXPECTATIONS

FRIENDS OF PONTVILLE

There has been a long history of concern by local people regarding the future of Pontville. This community has advocated the conservation of the property as many members have historic connections with the immediate area, as well as the Newman family. In particular Hazel Poulter has undertaken considerable historic research into the property. The Friends of Pontville was formed to provide a focus for this community concern. This group has considerable expectations of involvement in the conservation and development of the property. They are also extremely concerned that a full oral history of the property is undertaken.

KOORI INTERESTS

The Coranderrk Koori Co-operative in Healesville has the responsibility for pre-European heritage under federal legislation (the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Heritage Protection Act 1987). They have had no direct involvement with this Pontville project.

The brief for this project did not seek an assessment of the significance of Pontville to Koori people, nor did it ask for the Aboriginal history of the place to be investigated. A report on Aboriginal sites in the Middle Yarra has been undertaken by Isabel Ellender. Further work to establish the importance of this property, and the wider area, to Koori people is an essential next step for Melbourne Parks & Waterways.

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 64

---

LOCATIONAL AND SOCIAL CONTEXT

Pontville is remarkable as it represents an intact historic landscape within the suburban fabric of Melbourne. The views from the homestead site are completely free of any modern intrusions. It is also of note for its juxtaposition to Monckton and Petty's Orchard, which is partially located within Portion 1 of Newman's early land holding. Across the river, the heavily wooded slopes conceal the one house located in this area.

CONDITION OF FABRIC

Survey the fabric sufficient to establish how its physical state will affect options for the treatment of the fabric [Guidelines to the Burra Charter: Conservation Policy, s.3.2.4]

The fabric and its integrity is surveyed in detail in the conservation analysis (see previous sections). In summary, the place has been subject to major change after 1950, neglected for a long period and has been subject to recent vandalism. The impact of the vandalism has largely been confined to fabric of little or no significance. The works represented by the post 1950 fabric has made a major impact on the original structure. Accordingly, the integrity of the fabric is such that full reconstruction is not appropriate.

The outbuildings have collapsed and this has reduced representation of this site as a homestead complex. The condition of the archaeological fabric of the site is unknown.

The integrity of the cultural landscape is currently subject to considerable changes resulting from the current revegetation program.

USES

Collect information about uses, sufficient to determine whether or not such uses are compatible with the significance of the place and feasible [Guidelines to the Burra Charter: Conservation Policy, s.3.2.5]

The original use of Pontville was as a private pastoral property, comprising residence, garden and farm and linked with Monckton. The surrounding land has been reduced by sale, including the sale of land to the south to the council in 1978-80. Private use and ownership of Pontville ceased in the 1970s.

The current use of Pontville is as a grazing property operated by Melbourne Parks and Waterways.

A range of proposed uses have been discussed earlier in the section. New uses could be introduced as part of the Yarra Valley Metropolitan Park; the public ownership and proposed park use of the land will limit the possible uses.

COMPARATIVE INFORMATION

Collect comparative information about the conservation of similar places (if appropriate) [Guidelines to the Burra Charter: Conservation Policy, s.3.2.6]

There is a strong emphasis amongst museum managers both in Australia and internationally, to have a carefully and expertly prepared Conservation Policy to guide management of each property or collection under their control. There is also a trend towards the conservation and interpretation of cultural landscapes as integral parts of the subject property. Thus at Rouse

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 65

---

Hill in Windsor (managed by the Historic Houses Trust of New South Wales) there has been a considerable emphasis on conserving the cultural landscape (including outbuildings, garden and surrounding paddocks). In commissioning and implementing the present study, Pontville will be brought into line with currently accepted standards of conservation management.

Pontville can be compared with other historic properties on public land which focus on the interpretation of the pastoral landscape and associated built fabric. There is a number of properties that share these values, Werribee Park, Point Cook Homestead and Chesterfield Farm (all managed Melbourne Parks and Waterways). In addition Gellibrand Hill Park, which includes Woodlands Homestead, is managed by the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, while Gulf Station is owned and managed by the National Trust of Australia (Victoria).

Of these Gellibrand Hill Park and Gulf Station have the most similarities with Pontville as being very early pastoral properties that never witnessed the substantial homestead buildings associated with Werribee Park and Point Cook. Both Gellibrand Hill Park and Gulf Station have been subject to conservation actions that demonstrate excellence in conservation management and have utilised the services of expert conservation practitioners. These include Bill Snoek, who has undertaken careful timber conservation at Gulf Station, and Andrew Thorn, who has undertaken careful conservation of unusual early painted wall surfaces at Woodlands Homestead. The main similarity between Pontville and these two properties is that all three focus on the early development of pastoral landscape around Melbourne. Pontville lacks the integrity of these sites as continuing homestead complexes, but retains much of the integrity of the early landscape.

UNAVAILABLE INFORMATION

Identify information which has been sought and is unavailable and which may be critical to the determination of the conservation policy or to its implementation [Guidelines to the Burra Charter: Conservation Policy, s.3.2.7]

The following information would be of great assistance in the implementation of conservation policy:

• the form of Newman's Tasmanian house: this information could be sought through further historical research in Tasmania

• the internal room layout and other building detailing prior to the works undertaken by Paddle: this may be available from oral history sources

• the garden and terraces, including the terracing towards the creek: this may be available from oral history sources

• the location of the following features - turf hut, clay pit, stone quarry: this information would be sought through further archaeological survey (see Recommendations)

• the survival of the footings of the Monckton house and stable: this information would be sought through further archaeological survey (see Recommendations).

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 66

---

CONSERVATION POLICY

INTRODUCTION

Pontville is a place of sufficient cultural significance to warrant special care in its maintenance, use and future development. The previous section of the report assesses the cultural significance of the place - the reasons why it is important - and this section provides a framework to guide its future conservation, maintenance, and development.

This section, Conservation Policy, contains a series of succinct policy statements, each with a brief statement of rationale, and an examination of the implications. The subsequent section, Recommendations, outlines immediate priorities, including the implementation of the policy and the preparation of an integrated management plan for the place and the adjoining public land areas.

The Conservation Policy therefore provides the basis for:

• a detailed management plan for the site

• a staged program of works for the site

• an interpretation strategy.

The Conservation Policy contains the following policies:

Policy 1: Significance of Pontville

Policy 2: Applicability of Conservation Policy

Policy 3: Future extension of Conservation Policy to the area of contributory significance

Policy 4: Period of major significance

Policy 5: Appropriate conservation actions

Policy 6: Priorities for works

Policy 7: Use

Policy 8: Interpretation

Policy 9: Management

Policy 10: Future developments

Policy 11: Research & intervention

Policy 12: Keeping records

Policy 13: Adoption of Conservation Policy

Policy 14: Review of Conservation Policy.

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 67

---

STATEMENT OF POLICY

The following policies are recommended for the conservation of Pontville. The policy is shown in italics, followed by an explanation of that policy (Rationale) and a discussion of the major implications that arise from the policy. The extent of the area affected by these policies is defined in Policy 2 below.

POLICY 1: SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PONTVILLE

That Pontville be recognised as a place of cultural significance, of importance to the State of Victoria, and more particularly to the history of the colonial settlement of the Port Phillip district.

That the statement of cultural significance set out in the previous section (including the rankings and extent of significance) be accepted as the primary basis for the future planning and management of the place.

Rationale: The basis of our assessment of the significance of the place is provided in the Statement of Significance.

Major implications: Pontville must be managed in a manner which reflects its cultural significance. The accepted principles for the conservation of such a place in Australia is the Australia ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance (The Burra Charter).

The future conservation, use and development of the place should be carried out in accordance with the principles and processes in the Burra Charter.

The principles that underlie the Burra Charter are:

• the place itself - its fabric, site, setting - is of paramount importance

• the significance of the place should guide decisions about its future conservation, use and development

• no actions should be permitted which would result in the loss of cultural significance.

All conservation works would follow accepted professional standards and be undertaken by suitably qualified personnel. Professional standards are needed to ensure that Pontville is adequately conserved. Suitable standards are enshrined in the Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter and its associated guidelines. See Peter Marquis-Kyle & Meredith Walker, The Illustrated Burra Charter: Making good decisions about the care of important places, Australia ICOMOS, Sydney, 1992. The conservation policy, the various conservation analyses and copies of The Illustrated Burra Charter would be widely distributed to all those connected with Pontville.

POLICY 2: APPLICABILITY OF CONSERVATION POLICY

That this policy apply to the items of major and contributory significance within the area of major significance (as defined in the Statement of Significance and shown on Figures 10 & 12).

Rationale: The definition of this area, the items, the extent and relative significance is based directly on the analysis contained in this report and the conclusions expressed in the Statement of Significance.

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 68

---

Major implications: These policies will have particular application to all parts of the original property acquired by Major Newman that are now within existing or proposed public open space and that are defined as within the area of major significance.

POLICY 3: FUTURE EXTENSION OF CONSERVATION POLICY TO THE AREA OF CONTRIBUTORY SIGNIFICANCE

That the cultural significance of the area of contributory significance (as described in the previous section) be further assessed and policies developed for the conservation of areas or additional features recognised as significance as a result of that process.

Rationale: The definition of the area of contributory significance is based directly on the analysis contained in this report and the Statement of Significance.

Major implications: Assessment of significance should be extended to encompass the balance of Major Newman's original property which includes Petty's Orchard, as well as the part of Tikalara Reserve owned by the City of Manningham This assessment will require further site survey and research work outside the current brief.

While some parts of the area of contributory significance lie outside the control of Melbourne Parks and Waterways, their use and development may impact directly on the significance of the place.

The assessment may result in additional sites and/or areas being recognised as of cultural significance, with the subsequent development of appropriate conservation policies.

POLICY 4: PERIOD OF MAJOR SIGNIFICANCE

That Pontville be recognised as possessing major significance from the late 1830s when Major Newman purchased the property, to the end of his son's ownership (1904), with contributory significance attached to the ensuing period of Newman family ownership which ended in 1950; development after this period is regarded as of no appreciable significance.

Rationale: This period is implicit in the Statement of Significance and has been drawn from our analysis of the place and its history. A schedule of significant sites forms part of the Statement of Significance.

Major implications: Conservation actions detailed in the following policy are drawn directly from these periods of significance.

POLICY 5: APPROPRIATE CONSERVATION ACTIONS

That all items of major and contributory significance (including fabric, landscaping and setting, including views) be conserved, with an emphasis on preservation of items of major significance.

That items of no appreciable significance may be removed

• where it will further reveal the significance of the place; and

• where this would not have an adverse impact on significant fabric, and

• only after proper recording had been undertaken.

That where repair is required, restoration is regarded as the preferred technique over reconstruction.

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 69

---

That reconstruction of missing fabric only be permitted where all of the following criteria can be met:

• where the significance of the place will be further revealed

• where interpretation of the property would be considerably enhanced

• where there is appropriate documentary or physical evidence

• where it does not create unacceptable impact on any fabric of major significance

• where this accords with priorities outlined in this policy.

That a regular program of preventative maintenance be developed and implemented.

Rationale: In the opinion of the consultants, these conservation actions represent the best means of conserving Pontville. The wording of these policies is deliberate and all terms underlined are defined in the Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter (see Appendix 4).

Items from the different periods of significance are defined in the Statement of Significance.

Major implications: Strategies for implementation of these conservation policies should be developed as part of the ongoing conservation management of this site.

The Burra Charter defines reconstruction as 'returning a place as nearly as possible to a known earlier state and is distinguished by the introduction of new materials (new or old) into the fabric. This is not to be confused with either re-creation or conjectural reconstruction'. It is the intention of this policy that reconstructions may be of building forms or spatial experiences rather than items of building fabric.

Based on currently available research, reconstruction of the following elements should not be considered: turf hut; cottage; two outbuildings (shown in 1930s photographs); bridge.

As a guide, major implications of these recommended conservation actions for each element of Pontville are listed below.

Archaeological deposits

Archaeological deposits which remain may reveal important evidence about the place and should be protected to enable future investigation. There may be archaeological evidence in the sub-floor area of the house and kitchen, and in the areas around the house. These areas of archaeological sensitivity should be protected during any works on the place. Archaeological investigations and excavation would best occur as part of a program of works, and should be integrated into such a program.

Homestead building

The homestead is at present in a very vulnerable state and subject to vandalism, which may adversely affect significant fabric. As an urgent interim measure the building should be secured by means of shutters on the doors and windows using the detailing developed by the Historic Places Branch of DCNR. This form of shutter does not require attachment to the fabric of the building, and is the only type suitable in this instance. Damage to significant fabric may also occur due to poor condition of the roof and this should be made water-tight by patching and refixing of the existing roofing iron.

All in-situ elements of the c.1840s fabric of the place be preserved; these include the roof form, remaining walls, stone footings, chimney and brick walls of principal rooms, early wall finishes, door and window openings, pit sawn timber ceiling structure and remnant attic flooring of principal rooms.

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 70

---

Evidence of changes to the fabric from the period of major significance should be also preserved.

Items of contributory significance such as the roof structure and roof cladding, floor structure and lining board ceiling of the principal rooms would also be preserved. Some elements of window and doors of the principal rooms may date from the pre-1950s period and these would also be preserved.

Infilling of the verandah (including the concrete and timber floor, brick base wall, stud frame wall, associated wall/ceiling lining and windows), fireplace surrounds, modern plaster surfaces on the walls of the principal rooms and 'Caneite' lining of the principal rooms have no appreciable significance and could be removed. Some elements of the window and doors of the principal rooms date from after 1950 and could also be removed.

In particular, removal of later wall surfaces to reveal underlying surfaces will need to be approached with extreme caution, and, if undertaken, should only occur in parts of the building where such removal may reveal other aspects of the past form and functioning of the house (for example, the presence of internal doorways into the end rooms, especially if these rooms were reconstructed).

The original building form of the homestead could be recovered by reconstruction of the form of missing verandah rooms. This should be undertaken in a simplified form using modern building technologies to resolve the conflicting priorities between the significance of the unusual building form and the high significance of the original 1840s building fabric.

Archaeological deposits which may remain in the sub-floor area would be preserved, pending the development of an excavation strategy. These sub-floor areas should be protected during any works on the place. Archaeological excavation could best occur as part of a program of works that involved the temporary lifting of floorboards and/or reconstruction of any of the floor.

Kitchen

Interim security measures to prevent unauthorised entry and water penetration is required.

All in-situ elements of the c.1870s-90s kitchen would be preserved, including main structure and original cladding of kitchen wing.

Contributory fabric such as the chimney and associated alterations which demonstrate the evolution of the kitchen through to the late 1940s would also be preserved.

Modern fittings of the kitchen and bathroom such as the post-1950 'Masonite' lining which are of no appreciable significance could be removed.

Archaeological deposits which may remain in the sub-floor area would be preserved, pending the development of an excavation strategy. These sub-floor areas should be protected during any works on the place. Archaeological excavation could best occur as part of a program of works that involved the temporary lifting of floorboards and/or reconstruction of any of the floor.

Landscaping of homestead

Landscaping associated with the pre-1904 period, including the Cypress tree, would be conserved. When the tree ultimately needs to be replaced then it would be appropriate to plant a new tree of the same species (preferably propagated from the existing tree) and in

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 71

---

the same location. If evidence is uncovered of this tree being one of a pair, then it would be appropriate to plant a second tree.

The terracing is likely to date from the pre-1904 period and would be conserved.

Any landscaping and archaeological evidence associated with the 1904-50 period such as tank stands and other related structures would be conserved.

Outbuildings

Evidence of the two remaining outbuildings needs to be carefully examined to confirm that the larger building dates from the Paddle period (post-1950) and does not contain any significant earlier fabric. If so, it can be recorded and removed. If the smaller outbuilding can be confirmed as being present during the significant period (by examination of the 1930s photographs) it would be retained.

The layout of the farm complex as it existed in the 1930s could be reconstructed by the construction of a new structure in the position of and generally adopting the forms of now-demolished outbuildings. Detailing of any new building would clearly be modern. Such a reconstruction would assist in the interpretation of the place. This building could serve compatible uses associated with the future use of the property (e.g. visitor facilities).

The pastoral landscape

The tree cover and extent of clearing as defined in the 1931 aerial photograph (see Figure 9) provides the earliest clear evidence of the past extent of remnant indigenous tree cover and clearing, and should therefore be used to define the boundary for the purposes of revegetation. It is likely that this also reflects a tree cover and clearing pattern that has survived from the period of major significance. The clearing pattern which remained in 1931 it also likely to have reflected the quality of the land. The reduction in the size of the land holding presumably intensified the use of the remaining land and therefore resulted in the additional clearing evident today.

The cleared area relating to early pastoral occupation would largely be retained as open paddocks, but revegetation could occur in areas conforming with the tree cover shown on the 1931 aerial photograph (Figure 9). All tree planting has the potential to disturb Aboriginal and historic sites. Use of small tube stock is advised to minimise potential impacts.

Grazing could be retained as a compatible use as part of the maintenance of the pastoral landscape. Hay cutting based on the practices indicated in the 1930s photographs could be reintroduced.

Indigenous vegetation conforming to the tree cover from the period of significance would be retained.

Exotic plantings relating to early pastoral occupation, including hawthorn hedges, mulberry tree and elm regrowth, would be retained and supplemented with propagated replanting where required. The configurations shown in the 1931 aerial would form the basis for this replanting. Plants that do not conform to this pattern may be removed. The hawthorn hedge may have to be trimmed to conform with requirements for declared noxious weeds. The willows are also said to date from at least the 1920s and are thought

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 72

---

to be part of the early cultural landscape of the property⁵⁸; assessment of their age and condition should be undertaken prior to any decisions being made about whether or not to remove these trees.

Tracks within the Melbourne Parks and Waterways reserve would be retained. The current bridge could be retained but the earlier surviving stone abutments would preserved.

After archaeological investigation of the site, the layout of the cottage precinct as it existed in the 1930s could be reconstructed by the construction of a new structure in the position of and generally adopting the form of the now-demolished cottage. Detailing of any new building would clearly be modern. Such a reconstruction would assist in the interpretation of the place. This building could serve compatible uses associated with the future use of the property (e.g. visitor facilities).

The alignment of fence lines from the period of significance (especially as shown in the 1931 aerial photograph being the earliest clear evidence) would be retained and protected from works which may remove the evidence of this alignment. Should grazing continue, the 1930s pattern of internal fences could be re-established to contain grazing animals to the area away from the house and outbuildings.

Turf hut site

No physical evidence of Newman's turf hut (1837) has been discovered but if archaeological investigation located any remains then this would add greatly to the significance of Pontville. Likely locations have been identified and these should be subject to a detailed archaeological survey.

Based on currently available research, reconstruction of the turf hut should not be considered.

Monckton property

Any pre-1950 fabric of the Monckton homestead and quarry would be conserved whilst later fabric could be adapted. This site has not been investigated as part of this study and it is recommended that this occur to enable appropriate conservation actions to be devised.

Newman graves

The Newman graves, a site of major significance, are located within the Monckton property. The graves and their setting should be properly surveyed and conserved.

Gate posts and tracks

This refers to items outside the current Melbourne Parks and Waterways boundary and includes the gate posts on Monckton Road and several tracks within subdivided areas. These items would be conserved through action by the City of Manningham. In the case of the gate posts, it may be necessary to conserve these as artefacts rather than in their present setting (which is now within a new housing development).

---

⁵⁸ Hazel Poulter, pers. comm.

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 73

---

POLICY 6: PRIORITIES FOR WORKS

That the following works priorities be observed at Pontville:

1 Security measures

2 Conservation of significant fabric, including works necessary for the sound management of the place

3 Further research related to the significance of the place (including archaeological investigation, oral history and documentary research)

4 Landscape management

5 Works associated compatible uses of the place

6 Interpretation of the place.

Rationale: This would provide the best means of conserving the cultural significance of Pontville. It would also avoid any unnecessary expenditure of funds or effort on projects not directed at conservation the property. The emphasis would be on real and authentic features rather than new or recreated features.

Major implications: A works program to provide an implementation strategy for this conservation policy should be developed as a separate commission. This should establish the following time frames:

• ongoing (works of a continuous or cyclical nature)

• immediate (to be undertaken within the next 12 months)

• short-term (1-5 years)

• medium term (works to commence in 5-10 years)

• long-term (works to commence in 10-20 years)

As a guide, the following immediate works are suggested.

1. Construct security fence, shutter windows and doors of original building, and provide security and weather protection to vandalised kitchen structure. An archaeological survey of the precinct is required prior to the erection of fencing to ensure that archaeological evidence is not inadvertently damaged by the fence construction.

2. Documentation of a staged program of works on the homestead precinct (that is, house, kitchen, outbuildings and its immediate setting). Estimated cost = $4,000 - $5,000.

3. Undertake urgent stabilisation and securing of the homestead, kitchen and its immediate setting, that is the Stage 1 works program. It is anticipated that these works would include stabilising the kitchen wing, repairing and reattaching the roof of the house, fixing shutters to the door and window openings of the house. Estimated cost: $8,000 - $10,000.

4. Investigation of the mortar and brickwork below floor and above ceiling levels with the aim of determining if both sections appear to be part of a single construction phase. Estimated cost: $600-$1,000.

5. Detailed archaeological survey within the homestead precinct to provide a preliminary investigation of the sub-floor or the house and kitchen, to identify areas to be included within secure site fencing and to develop procedures for safeguarding these areas during any immediate stabilisation works and site fencing. See Appendix 3. Estimated cost: $20,000.

6. Further historical research involving oral history interviews with key informants who have been directly associated and/or lived at the property, particularly those whose recall includes the period of 1910s-1950s. These interviews would be conducted on-site if

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 74

---

possible, and would focus on the homestead precinct and changes made to it at different times. A list of potential informants is contained in Appendix 1. Based on 10-15 interviews, the estimated cost = $4,000 - $4,500.

7. Further historical research involving documentary research focusing on the following key aspects: early newspapers (eg. Port Phillip Gazette 1842-1849), other newspapers (1850s-60s); Lands Department records at PRO; Tasmanian archives. Estimated cost: $3,000.

8. Seek further funding to enable archaeological survey of the whole property with the aim of accurately locating site features associated with the Major Newman period, including the turf hut site, stone quarry, clay pit and any other features (including those on Monckton). This work will involve careful analysis of aerial photographs combined with field survey and probing. See Appendix 4. Estimated cost = $30,000.

As part of the ongoing works, a regular program of maintenance would be developed and implemented.

POLICY 7: USE

That the primary use of Pontville be for the conservation and interpretation of the cultural significance of the place.

That only compatible uses be permitted, and that other compatible uses not be excluded but be regarded as secondary to the primary use.

That visitor management respects the cultural significance of the place.

Rationale: The mission statement of Melbourne Parks and Waterways includes a commitment to encourage the conservation, interpretation and presentation of a representative range of heritage places and objects.

The term 'compatible use' is defined in the Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter. It means a use which involves no change to the culturally significant fabric, changes which are substantially reversible, or changes which require a minimal impact.

Major implications: The primary use would mean that the property was focussed on:

• the conservation of significant buildings, landscaping, sites and other features,

• the interpretation of the history of the property as part of the early pastoral settlement of the Port Phillip District,

• the interpretation of the fabric of the house and kitchen as an important and evocative example of a rare structure surviving from this period,

• as a demonstration of the evolution of these buildings within a family over one hundred years.

Education would be a major use of the property. Education is here taken to mean more than visits by organised school groups, but could include, for instance, links with other historic properties or kindred organisations, establishment of a research centre, concentrating on aspects which are strongly demonstrated by the significance of the place (e.g. history of early pastoral settlement, architectural history, social history).

The property would not be used for any other purposes except where these are demonstrably complementary to the above purposes and will in no way risk the significance of the place.

Interpretation of the property may include continuation of farming uses such as grazing or hay cutting, but only in accordance appropriate guidelines.

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 75

---

Other compatible uses may be permitted on a temporary basis provided significance fabric is neither damaged, obscured or put at increased risk of damage.

The following potential uses, identified from discussions with Melbourne Parks and Waterways and the City of Manningham, have been considered (see Development of conservation policy for details) and their compatibility is noted below.

• Grazing property: This is a compatible use, having been the primary use of the land since the establishment of the property in 1838. Protection would need to be provided for conservation areas without undue intrusion into the cultural landscape.

• Research into the fabric of the place: Compatible, subject to appropriate controls. This also applies to archaeological research and investigation.

• Interpretation of Pontville as a pastoral holding: Compatible, subject to adoption of an appropriate conservation and interpretation program.

• Nature conservation: This is compatible, subject to the significant cultural values being retained, in particular the open pastoral landscape that has apparently remained in relatively stable state since its first development.

• Passive recreation: Compatible, subject to security of the significant items, especially the significant fabric of the homestead.

• Walking and bicycle trails: Compatible, subject to an alignment and materials that are sensitive to the cultural landscape, and a pre-construction archaeological survey for Aboriginal and historic features.

• Active recreation: Development proposals include a golf course (extending across the area of major significance), and sports areas (within Tikalara Reserve). Active recreation and sporting developments would have a major impact on the cultural landscape and would not be a compatible use within the area of major significance, and would need to be carefully sited to ensure they were not visible from Pontville homestead.

• Buildings: Several types of development proposed for the general area may require the construction of new buildings. These include the Environmental Camp; the Aboriginal Cultural Centre; recreation node with picnic, kiosk and toilets; tourist attraction/information centre; and an indoor sports complex. These uses may be compatible but will require very careful analysis to ensure that the associated buildings, access routes, car parking (etc) do not impact on the significant cultural landscape setting for Pontville, on views from or to the homestead, or on Aboriginal sites. Particular care will be required in terms of location, siting, design and materials, and in relation to the other policies contained in this Statement of Conservation Policy. Such uses would be expected to be located outside the area of major significance and not visible from homestead site.

• Residential use of house: Residential use of the house is not a compatible use as this would jeopardise the conservation and interpretation program required for this significant structure and site.

POLICY 8: INTERPRETATION

That both major and contributory aspects of the cultural significance of Pontville be interpreted, with an emphasis on the evolving, cumulative nature of development at the property, especially to 1950.

That the cultural significance of Pontville be adequately interpreted to the users and managers of the place.

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 76

---

Rationale: Pontville forms a rich cultural environment for visitors and local residents alike. If the place is to be adequately conserved and appreciated it is essential that users and managers are aware of its attributes and suitable management techniques.

Major implications: Interpretation of the Pontville would be based on the concept of authenticity.

Publications ranging from simple free handouts to a detailed book or booklet would need to be prepared to assist with interpretation. Displays would also need to be prepared and a detailed consideration of such works would form part of an implementation strategy (not part of the current commission).

Reconstruction of buildings, structures, features and plantings which have been demolished or removed would form an important part of the interpretation of Pontville. Such reconstructions must adhere to Policy 5: Appropriate conservation action and to the priorities in Policy 6: Priorities for works.

POLICY 9: MANAGEMENT

That management of Pontville be undertaken in a manner which permits the statement of conservation policy to be implemented.

That appropriate and complementary strategies be adopted for land outside the ownership of Melbourne Parks and Waterways to ensure that the visual amenity of views and approach routes is not jeopardised.

Rationale: Such management is needed to ensure that Pontville is managed to safeguard its cultural significance.

Major implications: Establish an ongoing committee to oversee the conservation of Pontville through the implementation of this policy.

The current management structure is currently adequate to deal with Pontville but access to specialist expertise is required to provide optimal conservation of Pontville. A dedicated management team would include a property manager with appropriate curatorial skills, plus other team members with skills covering horticulture, agriculture, building maintenance. This team would supplement the pool of expertise available through the wider Melbourne Parks & Waterways staff. All work at Pontville would be carefully monitored, preferably by the Property Manager.

The public open space designation of Pontville should be refined to reflect the significance of the place.

Some specific conservation planning controls would be required to limit inappropriate development which may impact on the site. This would ultimately be the responsibility of the City of Manningham and the Shire of Nillumbik in consultation with the Melbourne Parks and Waterways.

POLICY 10: FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS

That new works be limited in extent and not dominate significant aspects of the site.

That, where possible, new works be designed to assist in recovering the significance of the site by their siting, building envelope or interpretative potential.

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 77

---

Rationale: This policy is in accordance with the philosophy of the Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter.

Major implications: Works which would assist in recovering the significance of the site include reconstructing areas of the garden, reconstructing building forms, re-emphasising early boundaries or alignments, de-emphasising non-significant additions.

Works that involve ground disturbance will require archaeological investigation; reconstruction works would use archaeological investigations as an important source of information.

All new services (e.g. irrigation and watering systems, lighting, cabling, drainage and similar works) should be as unobtrusive as possible.

Temporary structures would be permitted but erection and siting of major structures such as tents and marquees should be closely monitored and restricted to well defined sites.

Demountable or temporary signs should be used in the property in preference to fixed structures.

POLICY 11: RESEARCH & INTERVENTION

That priority is given to historical research and physical investigations of the fabric which are directed at gaining a better understanding of the development sequence of the property, and particularly of the homestead precinct (house, kitchen, garden, outbuildings).

That only limited physical intervention into the fabric of the homestead be permitted, and that all proposals for intervention be subject to submission and acceptance of an acceptable research proposal, and an arrangement for the documentation of the process and conservation of any materials/artefacts recovered.

That excavation and intervention may be carried out to locate and record sub-surface structures, features and artefacts provided that:

• the work is done in accordance with the Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter and this policy

• adequate resources are made available to ensure the work is professionally undertaken, that items recovered are able to be recorded and conserved, and that the results are able to be published (or otherwise made available)

• structures and features of major significance remain in situ and are only left exposed if their conservation and safety is assured.

That proposals for the location of new structures into the ground (whether temporary or permanent) be preceded by an appropriate investigation of sub-surface remains in the vicinity with the final location of the new structure to be determined with respect to the significance of any discoveries.

That any disturbance or excavation of sub-surface features be carried out in accordance with the Archaeological and Aboriginal Relics Preservation Act 1987 and the associated archaeological permit requirements of Heritage Victoria and the Heritage Services Branch of Aboriginal Affairs Victoria.

Rationale: This policy is in accordance with the philosophy of the Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter, and recognises the research potential of the place, along with the limited availability of early fabric and its significance.

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 78

---

Major implications: There is a need to develop an archaeological investigations strategy to guide all disturbances, interventions and excavations of sub-surface sediments.

To implement this policy, Melbourne Parks & Waterways may require access to expert advice and supervision.

POLICY 12: KEEPING RECORDS

That research and data collected on the site be held by Melbourne Parks and Waterways in an accessible location to facilitate the long-term and day-to-day management of the place.

Rationale: Access to research and data will be vital in the implementation of the policy.

Major implications: A storage and retrieval system for this data should be established by Melbourne Parks & Waterways.

POLICY 13: ADOPTION OF POLICY

That Melbourne Parks and Waterways and the City of Manningham formally adopt the Statement of Significance and Conservation Policy for Pontville and progressively implement its recommendations.

Rationale: The Conservation Policy gives a strategy for managing Pontville to best maintain its cultural significance. If the Conservation Policy is not formally adopted and progressively implemented there is a likelihood that the cultural significance of the place will be jeopardised.

Major implications: This Statement of Conservation Policy needs to be formally approved by Melbourne Parks and Waterways and the City of Manningham.

An implementation strategy should be prepared (by outside consultants or by Melbourne Parks and Waterways staff, or in combination).

Detailed documentation should then be prepared or commissioned by Melbourne Parks and Waterways for all the items listed in the strategy for implementation of the conservation policy.

Once adopted the Conservation Policy should be made readily available, especially to users and managers of Pontville. This is especially true of staff or contractors who are undertaking work at the property.

POLICY 14: REVIEW OF POLICY

That the Conservation Policy be reviewed on a regular basis, preferably at least once every ten years, or when new evidence which has the potential to supplant the present policy is discovered.

That the implementation of the policy be monitored by Melbourne Parks and Waterways.

Rationale: This will ensure that new evidence or analysis can be properly assessed and if necessary incorporated into revisions of the Conservation Policy.

Major implications: Staff and others associated with Pontville should be carefully briefed to ensure that those visitors with new information, especially illustrations, are given an opportunity to have such material noted or copied.

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 79

Here's the OCR text from the document:

---

**Page 80**

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 80

All new historical data and additional physical evidence need to be carefully collected by Melbourne Parks and Waterways and reviewed to determine whether they add to (or conflict with) the existing Conservation Policy.

Reporting on the implementation of the Conservation Policy could be undertaken by an annual report.

**Page 81**

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the analysis contained in this report, and in particular the actions required in the Conservation Policy, the consultants recommend that Melbourne Parks and Waterways and the City of Manningham:

1. Adopt the Statement of Significance and Conservation Policy contained in this report as the basis for the future conservation, use and development of the Pontville.

2. Give priority to the *immediate* tasks in the Policy 6: Priorities for Works.

   - Construct security fence, shutter windows and doors of original building, and provide security and weather protection to vandalised kitchen structure. An archaeological survey of the precinct is required prior to the erection of fencing to ensure that archaeological evidence is not inadvertently damaged by the fence construction.

   - Architectural documentation of a staged program of works on the homestead precinct (that is, house, kitchen, outbuildings and its immediate setting). Estimated cost = $4,000 - $5,000.

   - Undertake urgent stabilisation and securing of the homestead, kitchen and its immediate setting, that is the Stage 1 works program. It is anticipated that these works would include stabilising the kitchen wing, repairing and reattaching the roof of the house, fixing shutters to the door and window openings of the house. Estimated cost: $8,000 - $10,000.

   - Investigation of the mortar and brickwork below floor and above ceiling levels with the aim of determining if both sections appear to be part of a single construction phase. Estimated cost: $600-$1,000.

   - Detailed archaeological survey within the homestead precinct to provide a preliminary investigation of the sub-floor or the house and kitchen, to identify areas to be included within secure site fencing and to develop procedures for safeguarding these areas during any immediate stabilisation works and site fencing. See Appendix 3. Estimated cost: $20,000.

   - Further historical research involving oral history interviews with key informants who have been directly associated and/or lived at the property, particularly those whose recall includes the period of 1910s-1950s. These interviews would be conducted on-site if possible, and would focus on the homestead precinct and changes made to it at different times. A list of potential informants is contained in Appendix 1. Based on 10-15 interviews, the estimated cost = $4,000 - $4,500.

   - Further historical research involving documentary research focusing on the following key aspects: early newspapers (eg. Port Phillip Gazette 1842-1849), other newspapers (1850s-60s); Lands Department records at PRO; Tasmanian archives. Estimated cost: $3,000.

   - Seek further funding to enable archaeological survey of the whole property with the aim of accurately locating site features associated with the Major Newman period, including the turf hut site, stone quarry, clay pit and any other features (including those on Monckton). This work will involve careful analysis of aerial photographs combined with field survey and probing. See Appendix 4. Estimated cost = $30,000.

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 81

**Page 82**

3. Develop a Concept Plan for the whole Tikalara Park, covering both Melbourne Parks & Waterways and City of Manningham land. The Concept Plan would review the Paddles/Tikalara section of the Yarra Valley Park Management Plan in the light of the results of this project which has provided new information on the significance of Pontville.

The Concept Plan would cover:

- all values associated with the Tikalara Park, including this report on Pontville

- future uses and developments

- the Conservation Policy for Pontville, including an implementation strategy and a conservation works and maintenance program

- landscape management

- visitor management and interpretive strategies

- management arrangements.

Prior to the development of the Concept Plan, further work is required to establish the importance of this property, and the wider area, to Koori people. The immediate works recommended above are also a preliminary step in the development of the Concept Plan, and should be commenced as soon as possible.

4. Nominate Pontville to the Historic Buildings Register and the Register of the National Estate.

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 82

**Page 83**

BIBLIOGRAPHY

MANUSCRIPTS

Crockett, David & Hazel Poulter, "A history of the Newman family: the first pioneers in Templestowe," 1994.

Kellaway, C. "Pontville 629-657 Blackburn Road, Templestowe," report to the City of Doncaster & Templestowe, 1994.

Lewis, Miles, "Australian Architectural Index," University of Melbourne, 1991.

Lewis, Miles, "Pontville, Templestowe," 13 April 1994.

McBriar, M., *Interpreting the Past: Yarra Valley Metropolitan Park*, MMBW, 1991. Section 7.1.1 Major Newman and Pontville.

National Trust of Australia (Vic) File No. 2814.

"Newman Family Tree," prepared by D. Crockett and H. Poulter.

"Newman Journal." (kept by A.M. Crosswell, Major Newman's daughter) 1860-1866, 1893.

Pastoral Run Index. Major Newman's Station. Letters to the Colonial Secretary. 29 Oct. 1857, Central Plan Office of Victoria. (concerns an unsuccessful Pre-Emptive Right application).

LEGAL RECORDS

*Census* March 1841. Colony of New South Wales. Port Phillip District.

*Certificate of Marriage.* Edmund Crosswell and Mary Ann Newman. St. Paul's Church, Melbourne, 13 July 1865.

*Registrar-General's Office* Search No. 54349

*Will and Probate Papers.* Major Charles Newman. Includes Will 14 July 1860, Codicil to Will. 16 May 1863, and Probate Papers 17 Nov. 1865.

*Will and Probate Papers.* Caroline Louise Newman Webster. 1904-1911.

*Local Government Records.* Former City of Doncaster and Templestowe. Rate Records.

ILLUSTRATIVE MATERIAL

*Age.* 4 Sept. 1933. (article with illustrations of Pontville and Monckton).

*Pontville. Warrandyte. 1933.* Picture Collection, State Library of Victoria. (view of rear of Pontville).

MAPS AND PLANS

*Plan of the Parish of Bulleen.* B 25 Sydney. Robert Hoddle, 19 Aug. 1841.

*Plan of No.17 Portion, Parish of Bulleen.* B 36 Sydney. Subdivision by Mr. Surveyor Hoddle, 1849.

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 83

**Page 84**

*Plan of allotments marked in the Parish of Bulleen.* B13 Sydney. Robert Hoddle, 4 March 1850.

*Heidelberg-Doncaster Manoeuvre Area.* M.Def. 120. Monash, 1912, Central Plan Office of Victoria.

ORAL HISTORY

Interviews with David Crockett, Irvine Green, Margaret Hodgson, Fay Pirotta, Hazel Poulter, Lil Whitehead.

PUBLISHED MATERIAL

Billis, R. V. and Kenyon, A. S., *Pastoral Pioneers of Port Phillip*, 1974 edn.

Boldrewood, Rolf, *Old Melbourne Memories*, 1884. 1969 edn. ed. C.E.Sayers.

Context Pty Ltd, *City of Doncaster and Templestowe Heritage Study.* Aug. 1991.

*Crown Land Pre-Emptive Right Applications, 1850-1854.* ed. Marjorie Morgan, 1987.

De Serville, Paul, *Port Phillip Gentlemen*, Melb. 1980.

*Doncaster-Templestowe Historical Society Newsletter,* June 1983.

Flett, James, *The History of Gold Discovery in Victoria*, 1979.

Garryowen. *The Chronicles of Early Melbourne*, 1888.

Grant, C. *Anglo-Indian Domestic Life; A Letter from an artist in India to his mother in England,* Calcutta, 1862.

*Historical Records of Victoria*, Vol.6.

Kerr, J. H., *Glimpses of Life in Victoria by a Resident*, Edinburgh, 1872.

McWilliam, Gwen, *Hawthorn Peppercorns*.

*Middle Yarra Concept Plan (Stage2): Burke Road to Watsons Creek.* State Government of Victoria, July 1991.

Melbourne Water, *Yarra Valley Park Management Plan*, 1992.

*Templestowe. A Short History.* Irvine Green, Doncaster Templestowe Historical Society, 1982.

Snelgrove, C. & Trumble, M., *A report on a survey of "Pontville", Paddles Reserve, Templestowe*, Prepared for Victoria Archaeological Survey and Melbourne Water, Yarra Valley Metropolitan Park, Aug. 1993.

*Victoria and its Metropolis*, ed. A.Sutherland, vol.2, 1888.

*Victorian Electoral Roll*, 1856.

White, Robert, "David Fills the Gap" in *Progress Press*, 11 Feb. 1981.

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 84

**Page 85**

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1: ORAL HISTORY: SUGGESTED INTERVIEWEES

- Mrs Hazel Poulter

- Mrs Berry (now Mrs Marie Haines): lived at Pontville c.1930-36. Her niece (who was born there) may also be a useful contact.

- Margaret Hodgson: her father lived at Pontville

- Lil Whitehead (nee McAuley): born at Pontville

- Dorothy Aumann: lived in the area since the 1920s and apparently is familiar with the property particular in the Robert Webster period.

- Betty Hill (nee Anderson): grew up next to Pontville

- Fay Perotta, descendant of Victoria Webb

- Paddle family members:

- Webster family members

- Ian Cullin: lived at Pontville (tenant) c1973 [057 787 318]

- Mr & Mrs M. Murray: owners of Monckton since 1968 re. archaeological potential and Monckton sites.

- Mrs Violet Burston of Culla Hill.

- It may also be possible to locate members of the following families who leased Pontville at various times:

  pre 1908 - McAuley family

  c1910 - Grass family

  c1911 - Greenwood family

  c 1920 Fay (manager)

  c1920s - Temby & Henderson (son Jack Temby is still in district?)

  c 1936 Len Van

  c 1936 Hardy family

- It may also be possible to locate members of the following family which is associated with Monckton:

  c1910 - James Morrison (& his sons Harold, Wattie, Reginald)

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 85

**Page 86**

APPENDIX 2: ARCHAEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE REPORT

The full analysis of archaeological significance as prepared by Isabel Ellender and Roger Luebbers is provided below. This analysis has been summarised and integrated into the main text.

SIGNIFICANCE

The archaeological significance of structures at the Pontville property have been established by assessing how rare or common is the structure (representativeness), and on the potential of structures to answer current archaeological and scientific research questions.

Representativeness.

How representative a structure is will depend on the original distribution of such structures and on the current archaeological knowledge of the region and of particular features. What is left of past activities will be affected by the nature and degree of disturbance since the structure was created and on-going threats.

Scientific significance.

The potential for structures to answer research questions depends on the presence of the following:-

*preservation* - the better preserved the site, the more useable and reliable are the data derived from it.

*contents* - rich and diverse contents provide a high potential for analysis.

*presence of stratification/internal patterning* - a site which has retained intact occupation layers is important for tracing changes over time.

*dating potential* - the presence of material which can be dated provides accurate time slots for occurrences and objects.

Social.

Archaeological material and data may have a social value or significance in that they help to support or refute popular values and beliefs. They may provide vital information of a lost past to a local community. They help in an understanding of the past and augment local oral history.

Educational.

The educational significance of a structure or site will depend on the scientific and social significance, and to an extent, its representativeness. But the following should also be taken into account if the educational values of a site or structure are to be promoted.

durability of site and contents,

accessibility,

public/private land,

on-going threats to the site.

A site or structure which has high educational values or significance if it can endure public visitation, is accessible and on public land, and where on-going threats can be controlled.

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 86

**Page 87**

STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE

The Pontville historic precinct has an archaeological significance based on the presence of a suite of features and structures which span the period between the earliest settlement period of Port Phillip to the middle 20thC. Embodied in the Pontville precinct is the history of one farming family, one of the first in the Templestowe area, from their first tentative squat on the Yarra to established stock and land owners. Historic records, official documents and oral traditions have been used to generate the framework of the property and the family history, and it remains for archaeological methods to flesh out the detail of how they lived and used the land (especially in the last century), and the sequence of alterations made to the buildings. Of highest importance is to locate evidence of and material from Newman's turf hut, for this would provide a rare glimpse of what it meant to be a squatting family in the first years of Port Phillip settlement, and should be considered of state significance.

The following is an assessment of the archaeological significance of extant and hidden structures at Pontville, as well as statements about the importance of features outside the present Pontville property but which belong to its history. The assessments are made on the basis of 3 days in the field, examination of aerial photos, historic and official documents. Although no major excavations were carried out, probing identified sub-surface structures and depth of cultural sediments, and the removal of surface vegetation and top soil delineated features such as the house plinth, garden paths and walls. Clearly, a program of archaeological investigations is required to grasp the rare opportunity offered by Pontville to draw out the richness of personal and property information which spans more than a century.

THE ORIGINAL TURF HUT.

Physical attributes  A description of the hut is known from historic sources (Kerr 1872). It was a long, one room turf house with a ?stone chimney on one end wall. It had a detached slab kitchen that also served as a sleeping quarters. Inferences drawn from this account suggest that the hut was located on the western side of the confluence of the Mullum Mullum Creek with the Yarra Creek.

Three of the most likely locations for the hut have been identified from field survey and historical research. The first, shown on Figure 12 as Area 1, was surveyed because it is believed to be the area visited by Kerr. The second, shown on Figure 12 as Area 2, was inspected because of favourable topographic features, close proximity to freshwater, and the presence of a very old mulberry tree and 1840s Hawthorn hedge planted by Major Newman. The third, located at the site of the Pontville homestead, was identified by David Crockett, a local historian working on the documentation of the Newman history.

Scientific significance

Preservation  Of the three locations identified for the hut, Areas 1 and 2 were superficially examined; some sub-surface exposure (via wombat holes) and ground surface examination revealed no clues; preservation will rely on the extent to which the deposit has remained buried and undisturbed in the ground. No fabric of the habitation was located.

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 87

**Page 88**

Contents  Remains are likely to include evidence of the ?stone chimney, stone paving, and perhaps a refuse dump derived from several years of habitation. The dump may include a range of kitchen and other household materials, personal artefacts, and farming refuse.

Stratification  The materials in a dump may be stratified such as to reveal successions in the character of land use and the economics of the household group through an analysis of the kitchen refuse, personal artefacts, and farming refuse discarded during the establishment phase of the Newman settlement.

Dating  some objects may help date the hut eg bottle glass, coins, china.

Rarity  no fabric from a site of this type is known to survive in Victoria.

Archaeological significance

No early turf huts have survived in Victoria. The historic research and field survey has narrowed down the likely location of the hut to one of 3 places. Further historic research is unlikely to elucidate a more precise location, but archaeological testing has the power to confirm the exact location and nature of what is left. Aerial photos appear to be too late to record any surviving evidence that might help pinpoint its location though early ones may have evidence of early land use. Archaeological techniques provide a rare opportunity to reconstruct an early settlement life. Until the precise location of the hut is established, all 3 probable locations must be considered archaeologically sensitive and should not be developed.

THE PONTVILLE HOMESTEAD.

The house.

Physical attributes  mainly covered by the heritage and architectural reports. But of archaeological importance is the temporal relationship between different structures such as the house, detached kitchen and other features such as the toilet(s), terraces and gardens, as well as the sequence of changes to the house alterations.

Scientific significance

preservation  Some elements of the original fabric of the homestead are well preserved despite the impacts of a succession of alterations and renovations, vandalism, and unsympathetic treatment by previous tenets. An examination of sub-floor sediments indicates at least one room may contain construction fill, and that a range of artefacts related to all construction, renovation, and demolition periods are present; notably, fragments of tiles and bronze nails from a former slate roof, and a 19th century sandstone hearth stone. Milling and carpentry marks on some ceiling timber and wall rendering can be traced to early 19th century origins. The brickwork on the detached kitchen chimney, Figure 8, retains compelling evidence that it was constructed when a former (and presumably original) verandah wall was still standing. Manufacture brands occur on the existing roof metal.

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 88

**Page 89**

contents  The contents of the residential aspects of the homestead include the existing building fabric of a main house and detached kitchen/wash house (roof, walls, and foundation elements), and a meagre scatter of 20th century domestic artefacts. Missing from the site inventory are any 19th century domestic artefacts, farm equipment, storage sheds, toilet(s) and any definitive identification of 19th century outbuildings (stables, dairy, well, etc.). Current archaeological investigation located early 20th century artefact scatters, a stone pavement, and other stonework on the south garden slope, Figure 11, a shallow depression in the rear of the house containing charcoal and food bone, and possible traces of activity centres immediately west of the house.

stratigraphy  The only stratigraphic relationships actually detected, other than those related to building fabric, occur in buried domestic artefact fragments on the south garden slope. Stratified deposits may also occur in the construction fill around the house foundation, beneath the detached kitchen, and in refuse deposits that may have formed close to the homestead.

dating  It can be expected that building fabric and some domestic artefacts on the site can be used to date some activities of the site's occupants and various construction and demolition events.

Rarity  rare opportunity exists to examine and reconstruct through archaeological excavation, the sequence of buildings and house alterations, and a glimpse of farm life as it is expressed in the cultural remains of sub-floor sediments.

Archaeological significance.

The homestead is but one element of the total historic precinct of Pontville. Preliminary archaeological investigations revealed evidence of earlier house construction in the form of the stone footings beneath the present brick walls and roof slates and nails. Relatively undisturbed sub-floor sediments as well as deposits around the footings containing cultural material will contribute to a better understanding of the sequence of house changes and usage. The ground around the house and in the vicinity of the house foundations, and the sub-floor sediments are of high archaeological sensitivity because of the artefacts and depositional sequences they contain. In the event the floor boards in the house are replaced, controlled archaeological excavation of the sediments must be seen as a high priority.

THE GARDENS.

Physical attributes  no plantings appear to have survived, though a large old cedar stands as probably 1 of 2 originals in the back yard. The west terraces have side and end retaining stone walls, though it may be that little was actually done with them other than their construction. At the south of the house it appears there are also terraces with a stone pavement. Oral history has it that there was a track down to the Mullum Mullum Creek with stone steps cut into the base rock at the Creek. Archaeological investigation also revealed a stone block or step at the

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 89

**Page 90**

top of the slope just below a stone retaining wall about 1m out from the house plinth and others may occur nearby. Further archaeological work is required to ascertain whether these form a path and if so, whether it runs down to the Creek or across the slope.

Scientific significance

preservation  archaeological excavation will reveal more of the paths already located by probing through the thick vegetation.

contents  full archaeological investigation of the gardens has not been possible, but probing and some sample removals of vegetation and top soil revealed stone slab flagging, bottle glass, china and what appears to be a piece of earthenware garden ornamentation.

stratigraphy  the position of the domestic dump is not yet known, and the possibility that it could have at some time been on this southern slope, as evidenced by the glass and china. Archaeological excavation may reveal a temporal sequence.

dating  it would seem from aerial photos that the 2 terraces to the west of the house, Figure 11, may have been built after the 1950s during the Paddles era. The south terraces or gardens are probably much older, and the path to the Creek existed in living memory.

Rarity  early homesteads would have had to have their own vegetable gardens; Pontville is no exception and there is as yet meagre evidence of a garden on the south facing slope to the Mullum Mullum Creek. This does not obviate the presence of cultivation for the house elsewhere such as in the back yard where old fruit trees can be seen in 1930s photos.

Archaeological significance.

The gardens of the homestead form an integral part of the complex and therefore is likely to contain cultural material from the last century into this. Further discussion with Hazel Poulter on site will probably be helpful.

THE BACK YARD and HOME PADDOCK.

Domestic dump(s)

Toilet(s)

Drains

Stables

Outbuildings

Quarries

Hawthorn hedges and mulberry tree

Physical attributes  a depression in the slope to the east of the house may be a domestic dump, but this needs investigation. Recent toilet outlet, and drains from it and the detached kitchen survive. Remains of some outbuildings and a well are in the paddock to the east of the house,

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 90

**Page 91**

but older buildings must have existed including stables for Newman's famous horses and visitors to the house. Old photos show an outbuilding closer to the house on the east side of which only some surface debris remains. At least 2 rows of hawthorn hedge survive. One runs down the paddock to the northwest of the house towards the east side of the confluence, at which there stands a very old Mulberry tree. These exotic plantings, according to oral tradition, are from the Newman era, and that this particular hedge and Mulberry tree identify the location of the turf hut must be tested. The source quarry for the stone slabs used to construct the house footings, garden paths and walls was found by McBriar in 1991 but has not been sighted since. The source of clay for the homemade bricks has not been found.

Scientific significance

preservation  the preservation of older structures will be underground. Of particular importance from the point of view of what archaeology can contribute, particular effort should be devoted to finding the domestic dump.

contents  no 19thC objects have been found during brief and limited surface survey. The greatest opportunity to find this material lies in the contents of the domestic dump.

stratigraphy  an intact domestic dump would hold the greatest potential for reconstructing domestic life at Pontville but also the sequence of occupation and the changes that brought about.

dating  dump contents provides an opportunity to date objects.

Rarity  many of these features are still extant (some outbuildings, hawthorn hedges, recent toilet and drains) and are all these elements essential parts of the original complex.

The archaeological significance.

Of vital importance to the understanding of the history and functions of Pontville are the structures around the house. If the domestic dump survives it could contain some of the most revealing material for reconstructing life at Pontville. The extant features mentioned above, the back yard of the house, the slope between the house and outbuildings to the northeast and areas surrounding the outbuildings must be considered archaeologically sensitive, and preserved from any ground disturbance. Of the areas examined, the south garden slop and the area to the east of the homestead are considered to have the greatest archaeological sensitivity.

WEBSTER'S COTTAGE.

Physical attributes  Located on a knoll north of the homestead, Figure 12, no remains of the house or habitation debris survive on the surface. Photos from the 1930s show the 2 roomed timer cottage on the slope to the northeast of Pontville house.

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 91

**Page 92**

Scientific significance

preservation  It is likely that remains of its domestic dump and chimney survive in the ground. These could be found by probing.

contents  untested.

stratigraphy  untested, depends on finding a dump associated with the house.

dating  known from title details to have been built about 1890, and from oral history (Hazel Poulter), (confirmed by an aerial photo taken in the 1940s) was burnt down in the 1939 fires.

Rarity  cannot be assessed as no physical remains have been found.

The archaeological significance.

The significance of the site of the cottage cannot be known until sub-surface testing is carried out to identify any remains, and the area should be considered archaeologically sensitive until at least probing can be carried out.

OTHER FEATURES WITHIN THE ORIGINAL NEWMAN LAND HOLDING.

Monckton  Figure 12

Family graveyard  Figure 12

Access tracks  Figure 12

Racecourse  not located

Boundary fences  not shown

Physical attributes  the original Monckton house was demolished in 1968, but some original features/structures have been retained, though these have not been assessed by the team. The family graveyard has been located in the Heritage Study, but not assessed by the team. The alignment of old access tracks have been located on 1930s aerial photographs and the original boundary fences, described in historical documents as post and rail type, can be seen on title and other historic documents. What remains of the tracks and the fenceline has not yet been established, but they are important for establishing the boundaries of the historic precinct of Pontville. Similarly, Newman's racecourse, said to be on the flats near Homestead Road, and a lagoon used by local socialites, have not been identified by preliminary examination of aerial photos nor by any ground search. Further work will be necessary to fully describe what is left of these features.

Scientific significance

preservation  not assessed

contents  not assessed

stratigraphy  not assessed

dating  not assessed

Rarity  not assessed

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 92

**Page 93**

The archaeological significance.

The archaeological significance of these features remain notional at the moment, though clearly, even if the physical structures cannot now be identified by archaeological investigation, the Pontville Historic Precinct should coincide with the original boundary of Newman's land. A ground survey is imperative in order to find any remaining features and to identify them before further disturbance and urban development destroys structures now outside the Pontville property. Early aerial photos may help direct the search.

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 93

**Page 94**

APPENDIX 3: PROPOSED ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS

The following archaeological program is based on a review of the historical background and a two day survey of the Pontville Precinct*.

1. STAGE ONE: SURVEY OF CULTURAL SITES ON NEWMAN LAND.

Objective:  Survey to record Aboriginal sites and features belonging to 19th century settler occupation within the area identified as the Pontville Historical Precinct.

Tasks:  Conduct an archaeological site survey to accurately record and map all Aboriginal and 19th century European settler features within the precinct. All above-ground building fabric, retaining walls, trees, foot paths, vehicular tracks, and the Mullum Mullum Creek alignment will be recorded on base maps. Consultation with the Wurundjeri, Friends of Pontville and other community groups will be regularly maintained. Report on results.

Techniques:  Site survey will be conducted by systematic search of the entire property employing standard archaeological site recording methods. In addition, a metal detector and steel probe will be deployed to increase sub-surface resolution. Small scale test trenches will be conducted in the Residential Area by hand to delineate boundaries of existing masonry, timber fabric, and relevant sediments belonging to the homestead and outbuildings as required.

Main Aim:  To provide comprehensive inventory of significant visible cultural features in the precinct and recommendations for their management.

Cost:  $25,000

2. STAGE TWO: ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION OF FABRIC

Objective:  Intensive investigation of gardens on southern slope and western terraces, and to the rear of the house (northeast) to locate sub-surface features, including well(s), building ruins, paths, refuse scatters, possible main household tip, and retaining walls.

Tasks:  Excavation of shallow exploratory trenches to locate sub-surface features. Artefacts recovered are to be catalogued and, where required, conserved for curation. A post-excavation stabilization program will be implemented to ensure re-habitation of the precinct environment impacted by excavation disturbances. Report on the results of the investigation.

Techniques:  Excavation by hand and machinery, with routine sieving to retrieve artefacts and other cultural materials.

Main Aim:  To locate all sub-surface features belonging to the homestead occupation.

Costs:  $20,000

3. STAGE THREE: SEARCH FOR THE TURF HUT

Objective:  To locate the remains of the original turf hut of Major Newman and family on the confluence of the Yarra River.

Tasks:  Wide areas of probable locations for turf hut will be excavated. If located, the remains would be assessed for conservation needs and re-buried. A detailed archaeological excavation plan will be developed. Report on the results.

Techniques:  Excavation will be performed by backhoe and by standard archaeological techniques.

Main Aim:  To assess archaeological potential of turf hut site.

Costs:  $5000

4. STAGE FOUR: INTENSIVE ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE TURF HUT

Objective:  To comprehensively expose and record one of the earliest settler huts known for the Yarra River. Details of techniques and costs to be announced.

* The Precinct is defined in Figure 1, Draft report *Pontville: Significance*, submitted by Context Pty. Ltd., 6 February 1995.

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 94

**Page 95**

APPENDIX 4: THE BURRA CHARTER & GUIDELINES

THE AUSTRALIA ICOMOS CHARTER FOR THE CONSERVATION OF PLACES OF CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE (THE BURRA CHARTER)

Preamble

Having regard to the International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (Venice 1966), and the Resolutions of the 5th General Assembly of the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) (Moscow 1978), the following Charter was adopted by Australia ICOMOS on 19th August 1979 at Burra Burra. Revisions were adopted on 23rd February 1981 and on 23 April 1988.

Definitions

ARTICLE 1. For the purpose of this Charter:

1.1 *Place* means site, area, building or other work, group of buildings or other works together with associated contents and surrounds.

1.2 *Cultural significance* means aesthetic, historic, scientific or social value for past, present or future generations.

1.3 *Fabric* means all the physical material of the *place*.

1.4 *Conservation* means all the processes of looking after a place so as to retain its *cultural significance*. It includes maintenance and may according to circumstance include *preservation*, *restoration*, *reconstruction* and *adaptation* and will be commonly a combination of more than one of these.

1.5 *Maintenance* means the continuous protective care of the *fabric*, contents and setting of a *place*, and is to be distinguished from repair. Repair involves *restoration* or *reconstruction* and it should be treated accordingly.

1.6 *Preservation* means maintaining the *fabric* of a *place* in its existing state and retarding deterioration.

1.7 *Restoration* means returning the EXISTING *fabric* of a *place* to a known earlier state by removing accretions or by reassembling existing components without the introduction of new material.

1.8 *Reconstruction* means returning a *place* as nearly as possible to a known earlier state and is distinguished by the introduction of materials (new or old) into the *fabric*. This is not to be confused with either recreation or conjectural reconstruction which are outside the scope of this Charter.

1.9 *Adaptation* means modifying a *place* to suit proposed compatible uses.

1.10 *Compatible use* means a use which involves no change to the culturally significant *fabric*, changes which are substantially reversible, or changes which require a minimal impact.

Conservation Principles

ARTICLE 2. The aim of *conservation* is to retain the *cultural significance* of a *place* and must include provision for its security, its *maintenance* and its future.

ARTICLE 3. *Conservation* is based on a respect for the existing *fabric* and should involve the least possible physical intervention. It should not distort the evidence provided by the *fabric*.

Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy: Page - 95

**Page 96**

The Australia ICOMOS charter for the conservation of places of cultural significance

ARTICLE 4. *Conservation* should make use of all the disciplines which can contribute to the study and safeguarding of a *place*. Techniques employed should be traditional but in some circumstances they may be modern ones for which a firm scientific basis exists and which have been supported by a body of experience.

ARTICLE 5. *Conservation* of a *place* should take into consideration all aspects of its *cultural significance* without unwarranted emphasis on any one aspect at the expense of others.

ARTICLE 6. The conservation policy appropriate to a *place* must first be determined by an understanding of its *cultural significance*.

ARTICLE 7. *Conservation* requires the maintenance of an appropriate visual setting: e.g., form, scale, colour, texture and materials. No new construction, demolition or modification which would adversely affect the setting should be allowed. Environmental intrusions which adversely affect appreciation or enjoyment of the *place* should be excluded.

ARTICLE 9. A building or work should remain in its historical location. The moving of all or part of a building or work is unacceptable unless this is the sole means of ensuring its survival.

ARTICLE 10. The removal of contents which form part of the *cultural significance* of the *place* is unacceptable unless it is the sole means of ensuring their security and *preservation*. Such contents must be returned should changed circumstances make this practicable.

Conservation Processes

*Preservation*

ARTICLE 11. *Preservation* is appropriate where the existing state of the *fabric* itself constitutes evidence of specific *cultural significance*, or where insufficient evidence is available to allow other conservation processes to be carried out.

ARTICLE 12. *Preservation* is limited to the protection, *maintenance* and, where necessary, the stabilisation of the existing *fabric* but without the distortion of its *cultural significance*.

*Restoration*

ARTICLE 13. *Restoration* is appropriate only if there is sufficient evidence of an earlier state of the *fabric* and only if returning the *fabric* to that state reveals the *cultural significance* of the *place*.

ARTICLE 14. *Restoration* should reveal anew culturally significant aspects of the *place*. It is based on respect for all the physical, documentary and other evidence and stops at the point where conjecture begins.

ARTICLE 15. *Restoration* is limited to the reassembling of displaced components or removal of accretions in accordance with Article 16.

ARTICLE 16. The contributions of all periods to the place must be respected. If a *place* includes the *fabric* of different periods, revealing the *fabric* of one period at the expense of another can only be justified when what is removed is of slight *cultural significance* and the *fabric* which is to be revealed is of much greater *cultural significance*.

*Reconstruction*

ARTICLE 17. *Reconstruction* is appropriate only where a *place* is incomplete through damage or alteration and where it is necessary for its survival, or where it reveals the *cultural significance* of the *place* as a whole.

**Page 97**

ARTICLE 18. *Reconstruction* is limited to the completion of a depleted entity and should not constitute the majority of the *fabric* of the *place*.

ARTICLE 19. *Reconstruction* is limited to the reproduction of *fabric*, the form of which is known from physical and/or documentary evidence. It should be identifiable on close inspection as being new work.

*Adaptation*

ARTICLE 20. *Adaptation* is acceptable where the *conservation* of the *place* cannot otherwise be achieved, and where the *adaptation* does not substantially detract from its *cultural significance*.

ARTICLE 21. *Adaptation* must be limited to that which is essential to a use for the *place* determined in accordance with Articles 6 and 7.

ARTICLE 22. *Fabric* of *cultural significance* unavoidably removed in the process of *adaptation* must be kept safely to enable its future reinstatement.

Conservation Practice

ARTICLE 23. Work on a *place* must be preceded by professionally prepared studies of the physical, documentary and other evidence, and the existing *fabric* recorded before any intervention in the *place*.

ARTICLE 24. Study of a *place* by any disturbance of the *fabric* or by archaeological excavation should be undertaken where necessary to provide data essential for decisions on the *conservation* of the *place* and/or to secure evidence about to be lost or made inaccessible through necessary *conservation* or other unavoidable action. Investigation of a *place* for any other reason which requires physical disturbance and which adds substantially to a scientific body of knowledge may be permitted, provided that it is consistent with the conservation policy for the *place*.

ARTICLE 25. A written statement of conservation policy must be professionally prepared setting out the *cultural significance* and proposed *conservation* procedure together with justification and supporting evidence, including photographs, drawings and all appropriate samples.

ARTICLE 26. The organisation and individuals responsible for policy decisions must be named and specific responsibility taken for each such decision.

ARTICLE 27. Appropriate professional direction and supervision must be maintained at all stages of the work and a log kept of new evidence and additional decisions recorded as in Article 25 above.

ARTICLE 28. The records required by Articles 23, 25, 26 and 27 should be placed in a permanent archive and made publicly available.

ARTICLE 29. The items referred to in Articles 10 and 22 should be professionally catalogued and protected.

*Words in italics are defined in Article 1.*

**Page 98**

GUIDELINES TO THE BURRA CHARTER: CONSERVATION POLICY

These guidelines, which cover the development of conservation policy and strategy for implementation of that policy, were adopted by the Australian national committee of the International Council on Monuments and Sites (Australia ICOMOS) on 25 May 1985 and revised on 23 April 1988. They should be read in conjunction with the Burra Charter.

CONTENTS

1.0 Preface

1.1 Intention of guidelines

1.2 Cultural significance

1.3 Need to develop conservation policy

1.4 Skills required

2.0 The Scope of the Conservation Policy

2.1 Introduction

2.2 Fabric and setting

2.3 Use

2.4 Interpretation

2.5 Management

2.6 Control of physical intervention in the fabric

2.7 Constraints on investigation

2.8 Future developments

2.9 Adoption and review

3.0 Development of Conservation Policy

3.1 Introduction

3.2 Collection of information

   3.2.1 Significant fabric

   3.2.2 Client, owner and user requirements and resources

   3.2.3 Other requirements and concerns

   3.2.4 Condition of fabric

   3.2.5 Uses

   3.2.6 Comparative information

   3.2.7 Unavailable information

3.3 Assessment of information

3.4 Statement of conservation policy

3.5 Consequences of conservation policy

4.0 Implementation of Conservation Policy

1.0 PREFACE

1.1 Intention of guidelines

These guidelines are intended to clarify the nature of professional work done within the terms of the Burra Charter. They recommend a methodical procedure for development of the conservation policy for a place, for the statement of conservation policy and for the strategy for the implementation of that policy.

1.2 Cultural significance

The establishment of cultural significance and the preparation of a statement of cultural significance are essential prerequisites to the development of conservation policy (refer to Guidelines to the Burra Charter: Cultural Significance).

1.3 Need to develop conservation policy

The development of a conservation policy, embodied in a report as defined in Section 5.0, is an essential prerequisite to making decisions about the future of the place.

1.4 Skills required

In accordance with the Burra Charter, the study of a place should make use of all relevant disciplines. The professional skills required for such a study are not common. It cannot be assumed that any one practitioner will have the full range of skills required to develop a conservation policy and prepare the appropriate report. In the course of the task it may be necessary to consult with other practitioners and organisations.

5.0 The Report

5.1 Introduction

5.2 Written material

5.3 Graphic material

5.4 Sources

**Page 99**

Guidelines to the Burra Charter: Conservation policy

2.0 THE SCOPE OF THE CONSERVATION POLICY

2.1 Introduction

The purpose of the conservation policy is to state how the conservation of the place may best be achieved both in the long and short term. It will be specific to that place. The conservation policy will include the issues listed below.

2.2 Fabric and setting

The conservation policy should identify the most appropriate way of caring for the fabric and setting of the place arising out of the statement of significance and other constraints. A specific combination of conservation actions should be identified. This may or may not involve changes to the fabric.

2.3 Use

The conservation policy should identify a use or combination of uses, or constraints on use, that are compatible with the retention of the cultural significance of the place and that are feasible.

2.4 Interpretation

The conservation policy should identify appropriate ways of making the significance of the place understood consistent with the retention of that significance. This may be a combination of the treatment of the fabric, the use of the place and the use of introduced interpretative material. In some instances the cultural significance and other constraints may preclude the introduction of such uses and material.

2.5 Management

The conservation policy should identify a management structure through which the conservation policy is capable of being implemented. It should also identify:

(a) those to be responsible for subsequent conservation and management decisions and for the day-to-day management of the place;

(b) the mechanism by which these decisions are to be made and recorded;

(c) the means of providing security and regular maintenance for the place.

2.6 Control of physical intervention in the fabric

The conservation policy should include provisions for the control of physical intervention. It may:

(a) specify unavoidable intervention;

(b) identify the likely impact of any intervention on the cultural significance;

(c) specify the degree and nature of intervention acceptable for non-conservation purposes;

(d) specify explicit research proposals

(e) specify how research proposals will be assessed;

(f) provide for the conservation of significant fabric and contents removed from the place;

(g) provide for the analysis of material;

(h) provide for the dissemination of the resultant information;

(i) specify the treatment of the site when the intervention is complete.

2.7 Constraints on investigation

The conservation policy should identify social, religious, legal or other cultural constraints which might limit the accessibility or investigation of the place.

2.8 Future developments

The conservation policy should set guidelines for future developments resulting from changing needs.

2.9 Adoption and review

The conservation policy should contain provision for adoption and review.

3.0 DEVELOPMENT OF CONSERVATION POLICY

3.1 Introduction

In developing a conservation policy for the place it is necessary to assess all the information relevant to the future care of the place and its fabric. Central to this task is the statement of cultural significance.

**Page 100**

Guidelines to the Burra Charter: Conservation policy

The task includes a report as set out in Section 5.0. The contents of the report should be arranged to suit the place and the limitations of the task, but it will generally be in three sections:

(a) the development of a conservation policy (see 3.2 and 3.3);

(b) the statement of conservation policy (see 3.4 and 3.5);

(c) the development of an appropriate strategy for implementation of the conservation policy (see 4.0).

3.2 Collection of information

In order to develop the conservation policy sufficient information relevant to the following should be collected:

3.2.1 Significant fabric –

Establish or confirm the nature, extent, and degree of intactness of the significant fabric including contents (see Guidelines to Burra Charter: Cultural Significance).

3.2.2 Client, owner and user requirements and resources –

Investigate needs, aspirations, current proposals, available finances, etc., in respect of the place.

3.2.3 Other requirements and concerns –

Investigate other requirements and concerns likely to affect the future of the place and its setting including:

(a) federal, state and local government acts, ordinances and planning controls;

(b) community needs and expectations;

(c) locational and social context.

3.2.4 Condition of fabric –

Survey the fabric sufficiently to establish how its physical state will affect options for the treatment of the fabric.

3.2.5 Uses –

Collect information about uses, sufficient to determine whether or not such uses are compatible with the significance of the place and feasible.

3.2.6 Comparative information –

Collect comparative information about the conservation of similar places (if appropriate).

3.2.7 Unavailable information –

Identify information which has been sought and is unavailable and which may be critical to the determination of the conservation policy or to its implementation.

3.3 Assessment of information

The information gathered above should now be assessed in relation to the constraints arising from the statement of cultural significance for the purpose of developing a conservation policy.

In the course of the assessment it may be necessary to collect further information.

3.4 Statement of conservation policy

The practitioner should prepare a statement of conservation policy that addresses each of the issues listed in 2.0, viz.:

■ fabric and setting;

■ use;

■ interpretation;

■ management;

■ control of intervention in the fabric;

■ constraints on investigation;

■ future developments;

■ adoption and review.

The statement of conservation policy should be cross-referenced to sufficient documentary and graphic material to explain the issues considered.

3.5 Consequences of conservation policy

The practitioner should set out the way in which the implementation of the conservation policy will or will not:

(a) change the place including its setting;

(b) affect its significance;

(c) affect the locality and its amenity;

(d) affect the client, owner and user;

(e) affect others involved.

**Page 101**

Guidelines to the Burra Charter: Conservation policy

4.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF CONSERVATION POLICY

Following the preparation of the conservation policy a strategy for its implementation should be prepared in consultation with the client. The strategy may include information about:

(a) the financial resources to be used;

(b) the technical and other staff to be used;

(c) the sequence of events;

(d) the timing of events;

(e) the management structure.

The strategy should allow the implementation of the conservation policy under changing circumstances.

5.0 THE REPORT

5.1 Introduction

The report is the vehicle through which the conservation policy is expressed, and upon which conservation action is based.

See also Guidelines to the Burra Charter: Procedures for Undertaking Studies and Reports.

5.2 Written material

Written material will include:

(a) the statement of cultural significance;

(b) the development of conservation policy;

(c) the statement of conservation policy;

(d) the strategy for implementation of conservation policy.

It should also include:

(a) name of the client;

(b) names of all the practitioners engaged in the task, the work they undertook, and any separate reports they prepared;

(c) authorship of the report;

(d) date;

(e) brief or outline of brief;

(f) constraints on the task, for example, time, money, expertise;

(g) sources (see 5.4).

5.3 Graphic material

Graphic material may include maps, plans, drawings, diagrams, sketches, photographs and tables, clearly reproduced.

Material which does not serve a specific purpose should not be included.

5.4 Sources

All sources used in the report must be cited with sufficient precision to enable others to locate them.

All sources of information, both documentary and oral, consulted during the task should be listed, whether or not they proved fruitful.

In respect of source material privately held, the name and address of the owner should be given, but only with the owner's consent.

5.5 Exhibition and adoption

The report should be exhibited and the statement of conservation policy adopted in accordance with Guidelines to the Burra Charter Procedures for Undertaking Studies and Reports.

Source: Pontville: Cultural Significance & Conservation Policy; Melbourne Parks and Waterways & City of Manningham - June 1995

DTHS Library DB0253