lawson house 212-218 cumberland street, the rocks may 2006 · lawson house 212-218 cumberland...

Lawson House 212-218 Cumberland Street, The Rocks Conservation Management Plan May 2006

LAWSON HOUSE 212-218 CUMBERLAND STREET, THE ROCKS

CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..............................................................................................4

THE SITE .............................................................................................................4

STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE ...............................................................................4

CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................5

1.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................7

1.1 AIMS OF THE CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN ..........................................7

1.2 BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................7

1.3 LOCATION OF THE STUDY AREA .....................................................................7

1.4 EXISTING HERITAGE STATUS .........................................................................9

1.5 LIMITATIONS.................................................................................................9

1.6 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................9

1.7 AUTHOR IDENTIFICATION .............................................................................10

1.8 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................11

1.9 DEFINITIONS...............................................................................................11

1.10 ABBREVIATIONS..........................................................................................11

2.0 THE SITE AND ITS CONTEXT ............................................................................12

2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION......................................................................................12 2.1.1 EASTERN ELEVATION ..................................................................................................13 2.1.2 WESTERN ELEVATION .................................................................................................15 2.1.3 BASEMENT LEVEL........................................................................................................16 2.1.4 GROUND FLOOR..........................................................................................................17 2.1.5 FIRST FLOOR ..............................................................................................................19 2.1.6 SECOND FLOOR ..........................................................................................................20 2.1.7 ROOF .........................................................................................................................21

2.2 CONTEXT ...................................................................................................22 2.2.1 SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT.....................................................................................22 2.2.2 VISUAL SETTING..........................................................................................................24

3.0 HISTORICAL EVIDENCE ...................................................................................27

3.1 DEVELOPMENT OF THE LOCALITY .................................................................27

3.2 DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE ........................................................................30 3.2.1 RESIDENTIAL PHASE....................................................................................................30 3.2.2 REDEVELOPMENT AND COMMERCIAL USE OF THE SITE ..................................................38

3.3 CHANGES TO THE BUILDING.........................................................................48

3.4 HISTORY OF THE OCCUPATION OF THE SITE..................................................55

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

1



4.0 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS ................................................................................57

5.0 ASSESSMENT OF CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE ......................................................63

5.1 BASIS OF ASSESSMENT...............................................................................63

5.2 ASSESSMENT CRITERIA...............................................................................63

5.3 STATEMENT OF CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE .....................................................66

5.4 RANKING OF SIGNIFICANCE OF INDIVIDUAL AREAS AND ELEMENTS..................67 5.4.1 BASIS OF RANKING......................................................................................................67 5.4.2 EASTERN ELEVATION ..................................................................................................69 5.4.3 WESTERN ELEVATION .................................................................................................70 5.4.4 BASEMENT LEVEL........................................................................................................71 5.4.5 GROUND FLOOR..........................................................................................................72 5.4.6 FIRST FLOOR ..............................................................................................................73 5.4.7 SECOND FLOOR ..........................................................................................................74 5.4.8 ROOF .........................................................................................................................75

6.0 CONSTRAINTS, ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES ....................................................76

6.1 PREAMBLE .................................................................................................76

6.2 ISSUES ARISING FROM THE STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE..............................76

6.3 PHYSICAL ISSUES AND CONSTRAINTS ARISING FROM FABRIC, CONDITION AND

INTEGRITY .........................................................................................................77

6.4 SYDNEY HARBOUR FORESHORE AUTHORITY.................................................77 6.4.1 SHFA VISION AND CHARTER .......................................................................................78

6.5 HERITAGE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK ........................................................78 6.5.1 NEW SOUTH WALES HERITAGE ACT.............................................................................80

6.6 COMMUNITY GROUPS .................................................................................81 6.6.1 NATIONAL TRUST OF AUSTRALIA (NSW) ......................................................................81

6.7 BUILDING REGULATIONS..............................................................................81

6.8 BASELINE ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT...................................................82 6.8.1 BELOW GROUND .........................................................................................................82 6.8.2 ABOVE GROUND .........................................................................................................83 6.8.3 RECOMMENDATION......................................................................................................83

7.0 CONSERVATION POLICIES ...............................................................................84

7.1 PREAMBLE .................................................................................................84

7.2 APPLICATION OF THE BURRA CHARTER.........................................................84 7.2.1 CONSISTENT TERMINOLOGY ........................................................................................84

7.3 THE USE OF LAWSON HOUSE ......................................................................86

7.4 ASSET MANAGEMENT..................................................................................86

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

2



7.4.1 SHFA RESPONSIBILITIES .............................................................................................86 7.4.2 ADOPTION, ENDORSEMENT AND REVIEW OF THE CMP..................................................87 7.4.3 REQUIRED APPROVALS................................................................................................88 7.4.4 TENANCY....................................................................................................................89 7.4.5 APPROPRIATE CONSERVATION SKILLS AND EXPERIENCE...............................................89

7.5 MANAGEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE ..................................................................90 7.5.1 RETENTION OF SIGNIFICANCE ......................................................................................90 7.5.2 CONSERVATION OF SIGNIFICANT FABRIC ......................................................................91 7.5.3 CONSERVATION OF SIGNIFICANT SPACES .....................................................................93 7.5.4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITORING...................................................................................94 7.5.5 ON-GOING MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR.........................................................................95 7.5.6 CONTROLS ON INTERVENTION......................................................................................96 7.5.7 RETENTION OF FIXTURES AND FITTINGS .......................................................................96 7.5.8 INTERPRETATION.........................................................................................................97

7.6 NEW WORK POLICIES .................................................................................98 7.6.1 INTEGRATION OF NEW WORK.......................................................................................98 7.6.2 INTEGRATION OF SERVICES .........................................................................................99 7.6.3 ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE............................................................................................99 7.6.4 SIGNAGE AND EXTERNAL LIGHTING ............................................................................100

8.0 IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN..............................................................................102

8.1 PREAMBLE ...............................................................................................102

8.2 MANAGEMENT ISSUES...............................................................................102

8.3 ON-GOING MAINTENANCE..........................................................................102

8.4 EXEMPTIONS UNDER THE NEW SOUTH WALES HERITAGE ACT......................103 8.4.1 BACKGROUND...........................................................................................................103 8.4.2 STANDARD EXEMPTIONS ...........................................................................................103 8.4.3 SITE SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS ......................................................................................104

8.5 ADAPTIVE REUSE GUIDELINES ...................................................................104 8.5.1 BACKGROUND...........................................................................................................104 8.5.2 CRITERIA FOR COMPATIBLE REUSE OPTIONS ...............................................................105 8.5.3 ADAPTATION GUIDELINES GENERALLY.........................................................................105

9.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................................................107

10.0 APPENDIX....................................................................................................109

10.1 OCCUPATION AT THE SUBJECT SITE ............................................................109

10.2 MEASURED DRAWINGS..............................................................................118

10.3 ONGOING MAINTENANCE...........................................................................119

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

3


CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

THE SITE

Lawson House is a four storey commercial building constructed c.1924 for the well known

confectionary company Cadbury-Fry Pascal as their Sydney Depot. The building was

designed by well known Sydney architectural firm Burcham Clamp and Finch in the Inter War

Free Classical style. Cadbury ceased use of the building in the mid 20th century,

subsequently used as a commercial warehouse and now as an auction house.

The building features frontages to both Gloucester and Cumberland Streets. The overall

shape of the building echoes the curvature of Cumberland Street and follows the sharp

angling of the Gloucester Street alignment. Due to the natural fall of the land down to the

east the Gloucester Street elevation is four levels high compared to the three on Cumberland

Street. The building is constructed of dark face brick with sandstone trim and a reinforced

concrete structure of suspended floors, columns and beams. The elevations are

symmetrically arranged with end bays that culminate in vestigial pediments. The bays on the

western elevation feature rusticate piers. Dressed and moulded sandstone is employed on

stringcourses, parapets, pediments and door surrounds. Internally, the building features the

original office layout to the ground floor formed by timber partitions. The other levels feature a

mixture of later partitioned office spaces and open plan display and storage areas. Lawson

House is largely intact and is in good condition.

STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE

Lawson House was constructed c.1924 as the Sydney Depot for the Cadbury-Fry

confectionary company and designed in the Inter War Free Classical style by architects

Burcham Clamp and Finch.

Historically, the building is evident of the Inter War period of development that occurred in The

Rocks. It is significant for the contribution the building makes to the historical and scientific

values of The Rocks. It also forms a small precinct of Inter War commercial buildings which

replaced Victorian period housing that was intended to be resumed prior to the First World

War. Historically, the building is associated with well known confectionary company Cadbury-

Fry Pascal Pty Ltd although the use was relatively short lived, it was not a flagship building of

the company and the ability to interpret this association has been eroded as the use has

ceased and machinery removed.

Lawson House is also associated with the well known Sydney architectural firm Burcham

Clamp and Finch. Stylistically and structurally it is similar to the other buildings designed by CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

4



John Burcham Clamp but owing to its construction date it does not demonstrate the

progressive techniques of style and construction that are evident in a number of his other

buildings.

Lawson House is aesthetically and technically representative of a restrained example the

Inter War Free Classical style of architecture featuring a robust form, prominent end bays,

dressed stone detailing, timber partitions and other early finishes to office and foyer spaces.

The building structure is relatively common for the period and typical for buildings used as

commercial warehouses.

The site demonstrates some research potential for relics related to the former residential use

of the site from the mid nineteenth century.

CONCLUSION

An analysis of the assessed significance of the place and the site’s relevant constraints,

issues and opportunities has resulted in a set of conservation policies and guidelines to retain

and enhance the cultural significance of Lawson House over the short and long term.

The Conservation Policies include:

• Conserve the commercial use of the existing building where possible. Allow for the

sympathetic adaptive reuse of the place where necessary for the conservation of

significance.

• Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority shall retain management of Lawson House as a

single entity within the overall context of The Rocks precinct.

• The statement of significance should be adopted as the basis for heritage management.

All decisions should consider and seek to retain the values identified in the Statement of

Significance.

• Extant building fabric, both internally and externally should be retained and conserved, in

accordance with the levels of significance identified in Section 5.4 Ranking of Individual

Areas and Elements of this Conservation Management Plan.

• The spatial qualities of Lawson House contribute to its significance and interpretation and

therefore should be conserved as part of its on-going use. Alterations may occur to the

spatial qualities of the building provided it does not impact upon the ability to interpret the

significance of the place or detrimentally impact upon significant fabric.

• The significant fabric of Lawson House should be maintained by the implementation of

the short, medium and long-term maintenance program outlined in Section 8.3 Ongoing

Maintenance.

• Intervention into building fabric for non-conservation purposes should generally be

restricted to approved programs of re-use or upgrading of service areas and facilities.

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

5



• Features and fixtures associated with the site’s historic use as a commercial building

constructed in the Inter War Free Classical style of architecture should be retained and

preserved.

• The heritage significance of Lawson House should be interpreted on site by appropriate

methods.

• The introduction of new fabric should be undertaken in such a manner that it does not

result in a lessening of the cultural significance of the place. New work should be

identifiable as such and should, where possible, be capable of being removed without

damage to significant fabric or spaces.

• The extension or alteration of existing services in Lawson House is acceptable in the

context of re-use, but should not have a detrimental impact to the significance of the

building components as a whole.

• The following maintenance works are required in the short term to mitigate against further

deterioration of significant fabric:

o Water damage to sandstone stringcourse and parapet.

o Damage or cracked external brickwork particularly in corners of windows.

o Repair of rust on window frames.

o Plant growth in bricks at north end of western elevation.

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

6


CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN INTRODUCTION

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 AIMS OF THE CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN

The aim of a Conservation Management Plan (CMP) is to identify the cultural significance of a

place by investigating its history, fabric and context. The level of cultural significance

determines the type and degree of acceptable change, the levels of maintenance required

and the type of adaptive re-use that the place can undergo. This information is then used to

suggest opportunities for making the place useable in order to keep it viable and ensure its

future.

This CMP is intended to be a practical document that will guide future decisions about the

place, Lawson House, in order that the cultural significance is not compromised through

inappropriate change. It will provide structure for the management and conservation of the

significant values of the place with regard to the relevant legislation and the requirements of

the stakeholders.

1.2 BACKGROUND

This report is based on a brief outlined in a letter from the Sydney Harbour Foreshore

Authority (SHFA), and as clarified in subsequent discussions with the Authority.

1.3 LOCATION OF THE STUDY AREA

Lawson House is located between Cumberland and Gloucester Streets, north of Grosvenor

Street on the edge of The Rocks Conservation Area. The building has frontages to each

street while the northern and southern elevations adjoin the neighbouring properties. Lawson

House is sited on Lot 1 of Deposited Plan 75779.

Figure 1: Cumberland Street map; the subject site has been labelled and its curtilage is indicated in bold.

Source: UBD Australian Cities Digital Directory

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

7



Figure 2: Aerial view with subject site indicated in red.

Source: RP Data, http://www.realtor.com.au

Figure 3: Location of Lawson House within the context of The Rocks Conservation Area

Source: Godden Mackay Logan Pty Ltd, The Rocks Heritage Management Plan (2000), p.6.

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

8



1.4 EXISTING HERITAGE STATUS

Lawson House is included as Listing Number 01557 Gazette No 85 on the NSW State

Heritage Register, together with 95 other items in The Rocks that are now individually entered

on The NSW State Heritage Register.

Lawson House, 212-218 Cumberland Street, The Rocks, is not listed independently on the

Register of the National Estate but is part of The Rocks Conservation Area which was listed

on 21/10/1980 as place file no. 1/12/036/0423.

1.5 LIMITATIONS

During the inspection of the site CPH was not allowed to inspect and photograph the

Director’s office (south west corner of the ground floor) and were advised that it featured

original joinery similar to that elsewhere on the ground floor and an air conditioning unit.

1.6 METHODOLOGY

The Conservation Management Plan (CMP) for Lawson House has been structured to fit

within the framework of The Rocks Heritage Management Plan (adopted February, 2002). It

conforms to the current guidelines of the New South Wales Heritage Council.

This CMP has been prepared in accordance with the guidelines of the Australia ICOMOS

Burra Charter, 1999; the NSW Heritage Manual ‘Conservation Management Documents’ and

the Conservation Plan (5th edition, 2000) by James Semple Kerr and published by the

National Trust of Australia (NSW).

A main objective of a CMP, as outlined in the J. S. Kerr’s Conservation Plan, is to set out the

significance of the item and develop appropriate policies to enable the significance of the item

to be retained in its future use and development. The NSW Heritage Manual indicates that a

CMP should be a concise document that makes reference to the other documentation where

necessary rather than repeating the information included in previous reports unless of

particular relevance.

The historical context in this CMP is based on primary sources where possible, reports and

previous research. The following resources were accessed during the course of investigations

for the CMP:

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

9



Primary material from the following sources:

• City of Sydney Archives (including building plans and Council rate and valuation

books)

• Mitchell Library

• Sydney Water

• Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority records including Maintenance Files 1250.01.01

and 1250.02.01.

Reports used in the compilation of this CMP include:

• “Preliminary Conservation Assessment 212-218 Cumberland Street and 195 Gloucester

Street The Rocks” Prepared by Noosphere Ideas Pty Ltd in consultation with Duncan

Marshall for the SHFA in August 2005

• “188 Cumberland Street The Rocks, Sydney: Archaeological Assessment” Prepared by

Karyn McLeod for SHFA March 2002

• “171-193 Gloucester Street The Rocks NSW. A Research Design and Excavation

Methodology for Proposed Historical Archaeological Investigations at the Site.” Prepared

by Graham Wilson and Peter Douglas of Archaeological and Heritage Management

Solutions Pty Ltd on behalf of Stamford Windsor Ltd January 2005

• “The Rocks Heritage Management Plan”, Godden Mackay Logan, February 2002

Cadbury Pty Ltd, who commissioned the construction of the building and was the original

occupant, was contacted but following a search of their records they advised that they held no

records in relation to the subject building.

1.7 AUTHOR IDENTIFICATION

The principle author of this CMP is Benjamin Pechey (Senior Heritage Consultant) at City

Plan Heritage. Fiona Binns (Heritage Consultant) at City Plan Heritage has provided historical

research and documentation assistance.

Unless otherwise stated the photographs included in the CMP were taken by the author Ben

Pechey (Senior Heritage Consultant) or Fiona Binns (Heritage Consultant) City Plan Heritage

in January of 2006.

Plans and elevations of the existing building used throughout the CMP have been supplied by

SHFA. The drawing is entitled, 212-218 Cumberland Street, The Rocks, The Lawson

Building, Drawing No. 287-AR-2003, 6001 to 6006, 6010 to 6012 Issue A, dated 10.08.2005.

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

10



1.8 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

City Plan Heritage would like to acknowledge the assistance of the staff at the SHFA in the

compilation of this report.

1.9 DEFINITIONS

The following definitions are derived from the Burra Charter 1991 and will be used for the

development of the conservation policies in Part 2 of this Plan.

Cultural significance Aesthetic, historic, scientific, social or spiritual value for past, present

or future generations. It is synonymous with heritage significance

and cultural heritage value.

Fabric All the physical material of the place including components, fixtures,

contents, and objects.

Conservation All process of looking after a place so it retains its cultural

significance.

Maintenance The continuous protective care of the fabric and setting of a place,

and is to be distinguished from repair. Repair involves restoration or

reconstruction.

Preservation Maintaining the fabric of a place in its existing state and retarding

deterioration.

Restoration 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.

Reconstruction Returning a place to a known earlier state and is distinguished from

restoration by the introduction of new material into the fabric.

Adaptation The Burra Charter defines adaptation as modifying a place to suit

the existing use or proposed use. For the purpose of this

conservation plan the definition of adaptation will be used as defined

in the draft Sydney Opera House Conservation Plan, 2002, prepared

by J. S. Kerr “modifying a place to suit proposed compatible uses”.

Interpretation All the ways of presenting the cultural significance of a place.

1.10 ABBREVIATIONS

CMP: Conservation Management Plan

SHFA: Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority

SHR: State Heritage Register SHI: State Heritage Inventory

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

11


CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN HISTORICAL Evidence

2.0 THE SITE AND ITS CONTEXT

2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION

Figure 4: Western (Cumberland Street) and eastern (Gloucester Street) facades of Lawson House.

Lawson House was constructed c.1924 as the Sydney Depot for confectioners Cadbury-Fry

and Pascall Ltd. The building, designed by Sydney architectural firm J. Burcham Clamp and

Finch, demonstrates characteristics of the Inter War Free Classical style of architecture.

Figure 5: West elevation vestigial pediment detail and sandstone parapet showing outline of the letters “CRAIG” from a former sign

Lawson House is a four storey building built to the site boundaries with frontages to both

Gloucester and Cumberland Streets. The overall shape of the building echoes the curvature

of Cumberland Street and follows the sharp angling of the Gloucester Street alignment. Due

to the natural fall of the land down to the east the Gloucester Street elevation is four levels

high compared to the three on Cumberland Street. The building is constructed of dark face

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

12



brick with sandstone trim and a reinforced concrete structure of suspended floors, columns

and beams. The elevations are symmetrically arranged with end bays that culminate in

vestigial pediments. The bays on the western elevation feature rusticate piers. Dressed and

moulded sandstone is employed on stringcourses, parapets, pediments and door surrounds.

All windows are steel framed, multi paned and have soldier course brick lintels. Windows on

the lower levels are more vertically proportioned than those to the upper levels. The

Cumberland Street elevation features higher quality detailing and was designed as the

principle elevation.

The building features pedestrian and vehicular entrances from both frontages with the main

pedestrian entry from Cumberland Street. Internally, the building features the original office

layout to the ground floor formed by timber partitions. The other levels feature a mixture of

later partitioned office spaces and open plan display and storage areas.

2.1.1 EASTERN ELEVATION

Figure 6: Eastern Elevation (Gloucester Street)

The eastern elevation fronts Gloucester Street and is four storeys high. The elevation is

arranged with a podium ground level defined by the sandstone stringcourse and two slightly

projecting bays at each end. The bays are topped with vestigial pediments which extend

above the sandstone parapet that runs between the bays.

The basement level features a row of multi paned metal windows except for the northern most

opening, which is a small highlight window, and the southern most opening which is an

original entry door. Two of the windows on the southern end adjacent to the bay have been

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

13



removed and replaced with a single large opening. The entry door is framed by sandstone

with a cornice above and classical motifs in the dressed stone.

Figure 7: East elevation door with sandstone cornice and metal framed windows with decorative sandstone headers to upper levels.

The upper levels are delineated by a stone stringcourse which features the name of the

building occupant. The side bays of the upper levels feature emphasised pilasters; the

ground floor level windows feature moulded stone headers and a stone stringcourse at the 2nd

floor sill level. The parapet also features the name of the building occupant between the side

bays.

Figure 8: East elevation later roller door showing some lettering to the

stringcourse above.

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

14



2.1.2 WESTERN ELEVATION

Figure 10: Glass bricks covering basement light wells at Cumberland

Street elevation.

Figure 11: Western elevation showing the enclosed cart docks with changes in

brickwork evident circa 1970.

Source: SHFA

Figure 9: Western Elevation (Cumberland Street)

The Western Elevation fronts Cumberland Street with the ground floor at street level and

skylights to the basement level in the footpath. This elevation is also configured with end side

bays flanking a slightly lower section. The elevation features the original main entry towards

the southern end of the ground floor. The door features a small cantilevered box awning over.

The ground level originally featured three arched loading dock openings at the northern end.

Two have since been closed and replaced with windows to match original window. The first

and second floor levels feature the projecting end bays with rusticated pilasters flanking

horizontally proportioned windows. The façade between the side bays is further divided into

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

15



three bays with two brick pilasters. Each bay features rows of three square highlight

windows.

2.1.3 BASEMENT LEVEL

Figure 12: Public entryway from Cumberland Street and box awning overhead.

Figure 14: Basement office windows addressing the Gloucester Street vehicular

entry. Figure 13: Basement view showing

some of the stored items and the light well at rear. Services suspended from

the ceiling are also shown.

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

16



The basement floor is given predominantly for storage of large items of furniture. Accordingly,

a large proportion of the floor to the north is open with no partitioning and the concrete

structure visible. At the northernmost end there is a modern kitchenette and original WC. To

the south, the driveway area is separated from the storage area by partitions. There is a small

office area immediately to the north of the driveway which has a bay of windows addressing

the Gloucester Street entry. The office extends to the goods lift which is accessible from the

north and south sides of the lift. Enclosed by a grille and roller door, the lift accesses all four

floors of Lawson House and is an original feature. A second partitioned area at the

southernmost end of the floor operates as a secure work area and storage for ceramics and

small items. The current SHFA plans show a WC at the east wall of this area which has since

been removed. There are fire stairs at the northern and southern ends of the building

accessing all areas. The floor is exposed concrete and the walls are painted brick. At the

Cumberland Street elevation the basement level also features three recessed light bays.

Figure 15: Brickwork in basement showing raised ground floor level. Images also show later

suspended services including lighting and sprinkler systems.

There is evidence at this level of modifications to the ground floor. The floor was raised as

evidenced by the new brickwork above the concrete beams and a lower pitched portion of

roof below the current foyer suggests there may have been a stair case at the ground floor

elevation. The new ceiling consists of suspended acoustic panels and all services and fittings

are modern and suspended from the ceiling. This is standard throughout the floors.

2.1.4 GROUND FLOOR The ground floor retains much of its original fabric. The layout and use of the floor is similar

to its original purpose, providing office space and a public face or front of house for the

building and business. The building is accessed by a set of double doors with original timber

and later glass panelling. The entrance hall is marbled and features a plaque laid when the

building was opened for Lawson’s. The foyer offices have generally retained the original

layout and the majority of original joinery is intact. The timber partitions have been ideintified

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

17



as Queensland maple.1 Later partitions have been inserted to form additional offices north of

the original office spaces. The masonry walls of the offices are generally intact although a

window opening has been inserted between offices along the western side.

Figure 18: Office corridor view tomain foyer showing masonry

partitioning.

Figure 16: Plaque in entry foyer. Image also showing some wall

marbling.

Figure 17: Detail of timber joinery to

ground floor meeting room five.

The bathrooms are original with a few modern fittings and fixtures to the female bathrooms

while the male bathrooms feature mostly original fittings, fixtures and finishes inlcuding glazed

ceramic wall tiles and terrazzo floors. The timber staircase to the first floor is a recent

addition, constructed when the first floor bathroom and kitchenette were remodelled in 1993.

Figure 19: Originally a strong room was fitted to the rear of the ground floor office. This was

demolished c.1990.

1 Feasibility Estimate and Report for the Fire Safety Upgrading and Refurbishment or 212 Cumberland Street and 16-18 Grosvenor Street, prepared by Harry Bate for SHFA, October 1993, p1 CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

18



To the north, where the original cart docks have been enclosed, the floor has been raised to

create a showroom area. There is a modern kitchenette to the northeast corner. The original

painted brick walls are retained although they are covered with plasterboard.

Figure 20: View of ground floor show room area.

.

Figure 21: Modern stair hall to first floor gallery.

Figure 22: Modern stainless steel and glass fittings in ground floor ladies WC however

most fabric in the ground floor WCs remains intact.

2.1.5 FIRST FLOOR The first floor is used for storage and as a public showroom and gallery. It has been

remodelled extensively at the southern end. One of the bathrooms was demolished to

accommodate the new public staircase to the gallery, while the other was converted to a

smaller staff bathroom and kitchenette that feature later fittings. There are two small storage

and service areas at each end of the floor. The southern one is orignal with brick walls while

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

19



the northern one is constructred of plasterboard to a metal frame and houses the computer

server. The floor is open plan and the original painted brick walls are covered in the same

lightweight panelling (possibly masonite) used on the ground and second floors. This

panelling facilitates the display of objects on the walls.

Figure 23: View north of open plan first floor gallery.

Figure 24: Southern section of the first floor, housing the remodeled bathroom and staff kitchenette.

2.1.6 SECOND FLOOR The second floor houses the specialist departments and art storage and is also essentially a

large open floor plan. The southern end of the floor features a series of later partitioned

offices including a kitchenette and one separate enclosed office in the south western corner

by the fire stairs. Some partitioning in the centre of the floor separates the storage areas and

there is a WC to the northeast corner. As with the basement, the concrete structure is

exposed, the walls are painted brick and the lighting and sprinkler systems are suspended

from the ceiling.

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

20



Figu ern re 25: Second floor modkitchenette.

Figure 26: Partitioning to central area of second floor. Concrete flooring and suspended services are also shown.

2.1.7 ROOF The roof is accessed by the fire stair at the southern end of the building. The roof is

trafficable and covered in an asphalt membrane. The lift overrun is housed in a rendered

masonry pitched roof structure along the eastern elevation. The roof is covered in terracotta

shingles and feature wide eaves with brackets. The air conditioning plant is located at the

southern end of the roof.

Figure 27: Lift motor room located on the roof and the original goods lift.

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

21



2.2 CONTEXT

2.2.1 SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT

Figure 28: “Charlotte House" or former NSW Housing Board Building adjacent to the subject site with detail of Sandstone entryway.

Source: Building image from NSW Heritage Office website

Located at the southern end of The Rocks Conservation Area, Lawson House is surrounded

by a variety of building types from the 19th through to the 20th Century. Adjacent to the south

is the former NSW Housing Board Building which is a four storey face brick building

constructed c.1921 which is also identified on the SHFA s170 Register and is entered on the

State Heritage Register. The building is similar in scale and massing to Lawson House and

forms a prominent corner element with elevations to Cumberland, Gloucester and Grosvenor

Streets.

Figure 29: East elevation of the Reynell building, north of the subject site at 202 -210 Cumberland Street as it stands today and circa 1970.

Historic image source: SHFA

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

22



Adjacent to the north at 202-212 Cumberland Street is the Reynell Building which is a two

storey late Federation building constructed in the Warehouse style. It is lower in scale than

most other buildings in Gloucester and Cumberland Streets and is currently undergoing major

refurbishment as part of the development of the vacant lot to the north of the Reynell Building.

The proposed building on this site will be thirty storeys and the Reynell building itself will have

additional storeys constructed.

Figure 30: Former commercial buildings; the Howard O’Farrell and the Australian Drug Company Buildings adjacent to the Reynell building.

Source: RP Data

Figure 31: Gloucester Street view, image showing the Reynell Building and the site of the former commercial buildings.

To the west of the subject site across Cumberland Street is the Bradfield Highway which

defines the edge of The Rocks precinct. To the east of Lawson House across Gloucester

Street is the St Patrick’s Church and complex. The complex consist of various buildings

occupying the block of Grosvenor between Gloucester and Harrington Street including the

Patrick's Church (1840), the convent (1840 and 1896) and the Presbytery and School (1914).

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

23



The Church is approximately two storeys in scale, constructed of ashlar sandstone in the

Victorian Gothic style. South of the site and across Grosvenor Street is Lang Park which is

identified on Schedule 8 Part 3 - Archaeological/Townscape/Landscape Items of the Sydney

LEP 2005. The park is most grassed with mature trees at the edges.

Figure 33:

Figure 32: St Patrick’s church opposite the s

site on Gloucester Street.

ubject

2.2.2 VISUAL SETTING Views to and from Lawson House are quite limited due to the curvature of Gloucester and

Cumberland Streets, as well as the height and siting of the building itself. While Cumberland

Street is located on a natural ridge line, Lawson House is located at the southernmost point,

on the border of The Rocks and the City, where the land is not as steep. Coupled with the

building height at a comparatively small four storeys, Lawson House subsequently cannot be

viewed from anywhere in The Rocks apart from within its context as part of the streetscape of

Cumberland and Gloucester Streets. A relatively complete view of the western elevation can

be garnered from the Harbour Bridge exit ramp.

Figure 34: West elevation as viewed from the Harbour

bridge exit ramp.

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

24



The views from the subject building are also relatively limited due to the built up nature of the

surrounding area. Views to buildings in the immediate context are available from Cumberland

and Gloucester Streets but distant views are limited due to the curvature of the streets. The

Bradfield Highway obscures views to the west from Cumberland Street and the lower levels of

the building but the upper levels allow views to the Harbour Bridge, Observatory Hill and the

buildings along Kent Street. Views south from the two street frontages include Lang Park

which provides a visual buffer to high rise development further south. Due to the alignment

and form of the building views in this direction from within the building are relatively limited.

Figure 35: Streetscape views to the north on Cumberland and Gloucester Streets. These views are rather limited by the curvature of the streets.

Figure 36: Streetscape view south from the corner of Grosvenor and Gloucester Streets to St Phillips church on York Street.

There are some views north from the roof of the building however these are likely to be

obscured by further development of the adjacent Reynell Building and the construction of the

proposed thirty storey residential and commercial building on the site of the former Australian

Drug Company and Howard O’Farrell buildings. The roof of St Patrick’s Church across

Gloucester Street is also visible. Beyond the church the view is limited due to high rise

development although toward the south east Lang Park creates a visual buffer.

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

25



Figure 37: View North West over the Bradfield Highway from the roof of the subject building showing the National Trust Headquarters, Observatory Hill and the Harbour Bridge.

Figure 38: View east to St Patrick's Church and city high rises

from the roof.

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

26



3.0 HISTORICAL EVIDENCE

3.1 DEVELOPMENT OF THE LOCALITY

A more comprehensive history of the developing colony at The Rocks is available in The

Rocks Heritage Management Plan produced by the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority and

available online. This summary is based on the history contained in this plan.

Prior to colonisation, The Rocks area was used by Aborigines although they preferred to live

in harbour bays and rivers that provided more resources. Archaeological excavations in he

Rocks have identified deposits, both prehistoric and historic. Finds have included two shell

midden sites and any future discoveries would be of very high significance to the Aboriginal

community.

Sydney Cove and The Rocks were settled in 1788 primarily as a place to house convicts and

also as part of a large program of exploration and colonisation by the British during the 18th

and 19th centuries. The colony soon expanded initially due to agricultural and whaling

activities and later with other industries such as wool and gold. Early settlement around

Sydney Cove featured the convict and military camps while later the waterfront was used for

government purposes and then private wharfs were established as merchants took advantage

of the Colony’s expanding trade.

The name of the area, The Rocks, responded to the nature of the landscape, which also

enforced a disorderly pattern of settlement as roads and paths needed to traverse the ridges,

steep lanes and stairs went across the ridges and buildings were sited into platforms and

escarpments of quarried sandstone.

Figure 39: Charlotte Place. Cumberland and Gloucester streets are evident in the bottom left hand corner of the image and the southernmost part of the

subject site is just visible.

Source: State Library SPF 85 c. 1870.

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

27



The early urban form of The Rocks was to change drastically in 1900 after the bubonic plague

passed through the area. Much of the precinct was resumed with many buildings

demolished. According to a scheme submitted by Messer’s Hickson Davis and Vernon the

area was replanned with streets realigned and terrace housing and flat buildings later

constructed. The redevelopment continued through into the 1920s.

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

28

Figure 40: 1903 Housing Board Plan showing street realignments and approximate location of the subject site. Source: SHFA

CITY PLAN HERITAGE



On the ridge at Cumberland Street residential buildings had always predominated in both

function and scale though there were also some hotels. As previously noted, Cumberland

Street had formerly been located to the west of its current location and along with Gloucester

Road; the street was realigned in the replanning of the area following the plague.

Nevertheless the residential character of the streetscape certainly persisted in the post plague

Rocks. The building of The Sydney Harbour Bridge commenced in 1923 with construction of

the approach spans, which had a profound effect on the development of the precinct and the

residential character of Cumberland Street. As many as 300 houses were demolished and

plans for The Rocks revisited.2

It was in the initial resumption and redevelopment phase that Cumberland Street and

Gloucester Street were realigned at the northern end yet around the subject site the

alignment of both streets look to have remained approximately the same. It was for this

reason that the early housing of the subject site remained until the site was redeveloped for

the construction of the Cadbury-Fry Pascall Ltd Depot in 1924.

Figure 41: Image showing harbour bridge demolition on Cumberland Street. The

Australian Drug Company and Reynell buildings are visible to the right of the image.

Source: State Records- image number 12685-a007

2 The Rocks Heritage Management Plan, SHFA, Volume 1, February 2002, pp7-9 CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

29



A number of other buildings in the immediate vicinity also belong to this early Inter War phase

of redevelopment in which Victorian dwellings resumed and lots were amalgamated for the

construction of commercial buildings. Other buildings such buildings include:

• Former NSW Housing Board Building (c.1921) at 16-18 Grosvenor Street

• Australian Drug Company (c. 1924) at 194-200 Cumberland Street

• W.T Baker and Co. Building (also known as Publicity House or the Howard

O’Farrell building) at 190-192 Cumberland Street (c.1924)

• Science House (c.1931) at 157-169 Gloucester Street

The Rocks landscape was changed again when many houses and streets were removed to

make way for the Sydney Harbour Bridge between 1925 and 1932. The Bridge essentially

spilt the area into Millers Point to the west and The Rocks to the east.

3.2 DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE

3.2.1 RESIDENTIAL PHASE

Figure 42: Detail of Lesueur's 1802 Map showing the clear demarcation of Cumberland and Gloucester streets.

Source: Ashton and Waterson, Sydney Takes Shape: A History in Maps.

The site is known to have been occupied from the early years of the nineteenth century,

although it is likely that, like the other ridges of The Rocks, it was occupied by the

encampment of settlers in the first weeks of the arrival of the First Fleet in 1788. Lesueur’s

1802 “Plan of the town” (Figure 42) shows the church at the end of Gloucester Street and

some buildings indicated in the vicinity of the subject site with the alignment of Gloucester and

Cumberland Streets was already established.3 The surveyor Charles Grimes noted four

3 “Preliminary Conservation Assessment 212-218 Cumberland Street and 195 Gloucester Street The Rocks” Prepared by Noosphere Ideas Pty Ltd pg 4 CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

30



owners/occupiers at the subject site over two or possibly three allotments in his 1803-1807

field book (Figure 43). The names are unclear but may be Kavanagh, Hardy, Bhilan, and

Elgen. James Meehan’s 1807 “Plan of the Town of Sydney in NSW” clearly indicates the site

and nearby parcels of land that were given over to leasehold. At this time the subject site was

still on Crown Land.4 (Figure 44)

Figure 43: Drawing othe subject site. Surveyors field books Charles Grimes 1803-1807

f

Source: State Records NSW SZ 731)

Figure 44: Detail of Meehan's 1807 map.

Source: Ashton and Waterson, Sydney Takes Shape: A History in

Maps.

By 1822, the settlement of The Rocks was reasonably well established and plans show single

allotments occupying the site, these were most likely dwellings. Nine years later the Hoddie,

Lanner and Mitchell “Map of the Town of Sydney” (Figure 45) provided street names and both

Cumberland and Gloucester Streets were clearly marked as terminating at Charlotte Place

(now Grosvenor Street). Many of these residents would have been employed in occupations

associated with the port including labourers, carters, carriers, agents, importers etc.5

Land at the subject site remained Crown land until the 1830s and Department of Land titles

information shows the subject site to be an amalgamation of various lots granted at this time

4 Ibid 5 Ibid CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

31



as part of Section 64 including all of Lot 13 granted to William Davis in 1836, part of lot 15

granted to Thomas Bray and Edward McRoberts in 1839, part of lot 12 granted to Elizabeth

Gaunson in 1840, part of lot 11 originally granted to James Glover in 1840 and part of lot 16

originally granted to Christopher Crane in 1840. This also included the whole of lot 14 granted

to William Henry Dowling in 1841.6

Figure 45: Detail of Lanner, Hand Mitchell'1831 map

Source

oddie s

: Ashton

y

and Waterson, Sydney Takes Shape: A Historin Maps.

Figure 46: detail of William Henry Wells' 1843 map showing at least two buildings within the subject site curtilage.

Source: Ashton and Waterson, Sydney Takes Shape: A History in Maps.

A survey of the Sydney Council Rate Books and the Sands Directory from the 1850s

highlights the predominantly residential character of the subject site. It would appear from this

assessment that there has been little or no history of industry on the site. There has been

some commercial use in the form of boarding houses and businesses operating from

residences, such as boot makers, dressmakers, jewellers and tailors. The dwellings on site

6 Department of Lands Prior Title Information. Volume 3645 Folio 237. CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

32



were in private ownership until approximately 1907 when the land was acquired by the NSW

Government Rocks Resumptions.

218 Cumberland Street

171 (later 197-199) Gloucester Street)

195

Figure 47: Plan of subject site 1857

Source: Sydney Water Old Council Plan (OCP) 133 June 1857

218 212-216

199-197 195

Figure 48: 1865 Trigonometric Survey showing the recently constructed buildings at 212-216 Cumberland Street

Source: Sydney Water

In terms of the types of buildings on the site, the individual timelines of buildings on each of

the allotments and a further list of the tenants (some with occupations listed) is attached as

Appendix 10.1. In summary, the site was dominated by the large brick and stone terraces

characteristic of residential investment building in The Rocks. There were also some wooden

buildings and smaller scale single storey dwellings on the site, however these occurred earlier

rather than later according to the rate books. By the 1870s the predominant construction

medium was brick and the majority of residences were at least two storeys.

212-216 Cumberland Street: Previously illustrated maps have shown buildings on the subject site as early as 1807. One of

the earliest rate book entries for Cumberland Street was in 1848 listing two double storey

brick houses at 212 and 214, the second being a public house with stables and a pair of

shingled single storey wooden houses at 216 and 218. By the end of the 1850s, these

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

33



buildings were all demolished. 212 remained vacant until the late 1870s. No 214 featured a

small timber dwelling which seems to have occupied the site until 1876.7 At No 216 a stone

dwelling was built circa 1857 and was replaced by a two storey brick residence in c.1865

before being demolished in 1876.

As noted the individual dwellings at 212, 214 and 216 Cumberland Street were demolished

c.1876 with the rate books recording a row of three four storey brick terraces in 1877 yet they

are also identified on the 1865 Trig Survey (Figure 48). Each had a slate roof, seven rooms

and balconies to the rear (east) elevation (Figure 49). The rear elevation of the terraces at

212-216 Cumberland Sreet is depicted in the Lionel Lindsay etching, "Old Houses at

Gloucester Street." The row of terraces remained on site until the 1920s and the construction

of the existing building for Cadbury-Fry Pascall Ltd.

195 Gloucester Street

Rear of 212-216 Figure 49: Lionel Lindsay etching: "Old Houses at Gloucester Street" Showing 193 Gloucester Street and the rear of 212-216 Cumberland Street.

Source: National Gallery of Australia Image number 83.749 (not dated)

218 Cumberland Street: 218 Cumberland Street had a less intermittent early building history, the two or three storey

brick residence built in 1857/8 remained on site until 1877. A new brick residence was built in

1877; it was three storeys but had fewer rooms and a shingled roof. This dwelling is

recorded onsite by survey plans until 1901 (Figure 51) and in rate books until 1923.

7 An anomaly in the Rate Books records a brick dwelling constructed c.1861 for only one year. CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

34



218212-216

195-197

Figure 50: Metropolitan Detail Series City of Sydney Section 61 circa 1887. ML ZM Ser4 811.17/1

Figure 51: Detail of The Rocks Resumption Plan at the subject site c.1901 (SHFA Files)

195 Gloucester Street: The rate book entries for 1857 show a shingled two storey stone residence consisting of two

rooms at No 195. By 1865 a three storey brick building is recorded, which had three rooms

and a slate roof. This building is depicted in Figures 49 and 52 showing its slender three

storey form. It is likely this three storey dwelling remained on site until 1921, although there

are some discrepancies in the rate book entry dated 1907-1911.

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

35



197 & 199

195

Rear of 212-218 Cumberland Street

Figure 52: View north along Gloucester Street showing subject site circa 1901. Image also shows buildings demolished for the Housing Board building to the

south of Lawson House.

Source: 171-193 Gloucester St, The Rocks, NSW. “A Research Design and Excavation Methodology for Proposed Historical Archaeological Investigations at the Site”,

Archaeological and Heritage Management Solutions Pty Ltd

197 & 199 Gloucester Street: The allotment now known as 197 Gloucester Street consisted of a pair of terrace houses from

the mid nineteenth century until the 1920s. The dwellings were commonly identified as 197

and 199 and have a parallel history of ownership and development. Rate books show a pair

of two/three storey houses had been on the site from 1857 until at least 1921 before the site

was cleared for the construction of the Cadbury warehouse. The form of the terraces is

evident in Figure 52 which shows a two storey building with rooms in the roof, dormers and a

cantilevered balcony across the first floor façade. The dwellings were described as stone

prior to 1877 and brick thereafter however they were otherwise quite similar, having a slate

roof and six to seven rooms.

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

36



216-212195199-197

Figure 53: Survey plan showing extant dwellings on the subject site c.1923, just prior to the construction of the subject building. Mid to late Victorian dwellings are extant at

195 and 197-199 Gloucester Street and 21-216 Cumberland Street.

Source: Sydney Water Survey Detail Sheet DS 412

Figure 54: Subdivision at subject site with Lawson's

House curtilage drawn over the site.

Source: LPI Volume 3645 Folio 237 September 1924

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

37



3.2.2 REDEVELOPMENT AND COMMERCIAL USE OF THE SITE Cadbury-Fry Pascall Sydney Depot The first Cadbury factory was built in Australia in 1922 following the company’s successful

English merger with Fry and Sons. Australia had been an important market for the company

since the 1880s and after the factory was established in Claremont, Tasmania, the company

merged with Pascall to become Cadbury-Fry and Pascall8. Two years later the City Council

approved a building application for the subject site to construct the “New Sydney Depot” for

Cadbury-Fry-Pascall Ltd, the cocoa and chocolate manufacturers9. The new warehouse siting

was perfect because of its proximity to the harbour which would enable easy receiving of

deliveries from Tasmania. The building was designed by the Sydney firm of Burcham Clamp

and Finch who had an office in Macquarie Street. Burcham Clamp also designed “Wyoming”,

an office building on Macquarie Street and collaborated with Walter Burley Griffin to create

the Methodist Church in 1915, now used as the Mosman Art Gallery. The architecture of

Burcham Clamp and Finch is discussed further in section 5.0.

Figure 55: Original plan drawings of the western elevation of Cadbury - Fry and Pascall Ltd by Burcham Clamp and Finch 1924. Image showing the three original cart docks.

Source: Sydney archives Centre Development Application 1049/24

8 Cadbury Australia website http://www.cadbury.com.au/sites/cadbury/index.php?pageId=30 9 “Preliminary Conservation Assessment 212-218 Cumberland Street and 195 Gloucester Street The Rocks” Prepared by Noosphere Ideas Pty Ltd pg 5 CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

38



Fi s gure 56: Gloucester Street elevation as drawn in 1924 by Burcham Clamp and Finch. A cart dock waproposed but not built in the original plans.

Source: Building Application 1049/24 City of Sydney Archives Centre

Building plans which survive in the Sydney City Archives are consistent with the packaging,

assembly, storage and distribution of product however the use of the building was not

specified on the plans.10 The basement plans show three “cart docks over” on the ground

floor which is accessed from Cumberland Street and a fourth on the basement level from the

Gloucester Street elevation, which was never built. Provision for awnings and other materials

are outlined and the goods lift is clearly indicated servicing all floors. Fire stairs and egress

are noted at the southern elevation, with the primary access stairs located at the north side of

the building. Plans indicate that the ground floor also featured offices, creating a front of

house and providing a “face” for the Cadbury operations in Sydney.11 From the Cumberland

Street elevation visitors entered a small vestibule area, with typist’s rooms to the right and

manager’s offices to the left. A corridor led the visitor left to the general offices and enquiry

counter and a showroom was directly opposite these offices. A second small service lift is

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

39

10 Ibid 7 11 Ibid



indicated along the eastern wall of the showroom, servicing only the ground floor and the

assembly room above. Ground floor plans also indicate three glazed prismatic lighting bays in

the Cumberland street pavement allowing light to the lower basement floor. These are still

present at the subject site.

Figure 57: Original Basement floor plan. Building Application 1049/24

Source: City of Sydney Archives Centre

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

40



Figure 58: Ground floor plan.

Source: Building Application 1049/24 City of Sydney Archives Centre 1924

Figure 59: First floor plan.


CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

41



The first floor was dedicated almost entirely to assembly and may in part have looked similar

to the packing department at Claremont shown in Figure 60. There was also a small area for

advertising and document storage. Some possible amendments have been pencilled onto

these plans at the southern end of the first floor and may indicate additional larger storage

areas or offices. The second floor plan gives no indication as to its use while the roof plan

shows a parapet and cornice and some building services such as a man hole, motor room

and down piping are also indicated.

Figure 60: Section of the packing department for chocolate assortments at Claremont.

Source: “By Mountain and Sea” Claremont Tasmania Cadbury Brochure, Mitchell Library

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

42



Figure 61: Second floor plan.


Cadbury-Fry continued to use the building throughout World War II, during which time they

were the official supplier of chocolate to the armed forces.12 Records show that in October of

1949 Cadbury-Fry and Pascall applied to the Council for the installation of a bowser tank and

the associated under ground piping for petrol on the premises13. The petrol fill box was

transferred from Cadbury-Fry and Pascall to Craig Mostyn and Co. in 1958, although there is

some suggestion that they may have vacated the premises as early as 195114. It is not known

exactly when Cadbury Fry vacated the warehouse at Cumberland Street.

Cadbury Chocolate was unable to provide further documentation or pictorial evidence relating

to the subject site.

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

43

12 Cadbury Australia website http://www.cadbury.com.au/sites/cadbury/index.php?pageId=30 13 City of Sydney Archives Record Item 4848 NSCA- ITM 148023 14 “Preliminary Conservation Assessment 212-218 Cumberland Street and 195 Gloucester Street The Rocks” Prepared by Noosphere Ideas Pty Ltd pg 7



Figure 62: Cadbury Truck in front of Lawson House. The three cart docks are still in place and visible to the rear. Source: State Library NSW image

d6_21877 circa 1946

Warehouse and Offices Following the vacation of Cadbury-Fry and Pascall, the subject site was occupied as

warehouses and offices. It is likely that Craig Mostyn and Co. first occupied the building in

1958 when the petrol fill box was transferred. Figure 63, taken in 1961, clearly shows the

western elevation and awning of the subject site bearing the name “Craig Mostyn and Co.”

From their humble beginnings in 1923 Craig Mostyn and Co. has become one of Australia’s

most successful companies, exporting selected Australian produce. Originally the company

exported leather, harvested wattle bark for the tanning industry and sold tanning machinery in

Australia15. In the 1920s and 30s they expanded into eucalyptus oil, wool, rabbit skins and

tallow which became the mainstay export. Fruit also provided an excellent export opportunity

and gradually the company also acquired mills and by 1960 Craig Mostyn and Co was

exporting large quantities of bark16. The subject site was probably used as it was under

Cadbury-Fry and Pascall, as an office and packaging and distribution facility although there is

no documentary evidence. Similarly, the site’s proximity to the harbour would have been

beneficial for the exportation of the company’s goods.

Figure 63: This 1961 picture of St Phillip’s Church on York Street also shows the western eof the subject site on the left hand side of the image.

levation

Source: City of Sydney Archive

citation number NSCA CRS

47/2220

15 http://www.fambiz.com.au/?content=generationsarticle&pdf=Generations_2005_Dec 16 Ibid CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

44



Craig Mostyn and Co. lodged two applications with the City Council for alterations to the

building during the 1960s. The 1967 application included a request to replace the goods lift

with a new passenger lift, erecting a roof top lift motor room and laying new roof decking in

connection with the use of the premises as a warehouse and associated office17. The

additional motor room was to match the building exterior with face brickwork and aluminium

coping. This alteration never took place though it was approved.

Figure 64: Detail of York Street elevation plan showing alterations to cart docks. Source: Building Application

1044/68 City of Sydney Archives

Centre

The second development application lodged in December 1968 requested permission to carry

out significant alterations to the exterior at the western Cumberland Street elevation as well

as the ground floor interior; including the filling in with brickwork of the two southernmost dock

entrances, the erection of an internal wall, the removal of interior partitions and the

repositioning of fire doors.18 The new face brickwork was proposed to match the existing and

three new windows were designed to complement the contemporary ground floor windows

and were aligned vertically with the smaller windows on the second storey above. Existing

vents were repositioned in the new brickwork. Internally, the floors at the northern end of the

building were raised. A new ceiling was constructed below the original beams and acoustic

tiles were applied to match existing panels and for soundproofing. The petrol pump installed

by Cadbury was relocated to the northernmost dock where the floor was retained at the

existing level. This new space was to be used as offices. This application was approved and a

single dock entrance remains today.

17 City of Sydney Archives Record Item 5623/68 NSCA-ITM 18522 18 Deed from Commercial Banking Company of Sydney Ltd on behalf of Craig Mostyn and Co 28/12/70 File no. 1/1 D2430 of Sydney Archives Record Item 1044/68 NSCA-ITM 166464 CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

45



In 1982 the building was occupied by Lawson’s and a plaque in the foyer refers to the

opening by Governor Sir James Marshall, for JR Lawson Pty Ltd19. Lawson has been a

household name in auctioneering since 1870 when James R Lawson senior established

himself as the leading auctioneer in Sydney Town. At that time, everything from groceries

such as tea and salt, through to sailing ships were sold by public auction, often on the

wharfs.20 In September 2001 Menzies Group of Companies acquired the historic Sydney

auction house Lawson’s and the company was then expanded into two brands with the

Cumberland Street office now named Lawson-Menzies, targeting the upper end of the

Australian auction market for art, wine, jewels and decorative arts as well as prestigious

house contents auctions.21

Under Lawson and later Lawson-Menzies, the site was used not only for storage and

distribution, but evaluations and public auctions. In order to enhance and rationalise this use,

permission has been granted for various internal alterations since 1993. A report was

prepared and submitted in 1993 and carried out some time later, most likely in 1995, for a

significant refurbishment to the fire safety facilities including new fire doors and installation of

smoke detectors and portable fire extinguishers throughout, as well as new lighting in the fire

stairs. Some internal and external repainting took place along with repairs to the windows and

side doors, the front entry doors and frame were refurbished and picture rails were

reinstated.22

The report also included a recommendation which was carried out in 1994 for the application

of a waterproofing membrane to the roof, while the sump and gutter as well as a section of

corroded down pipe were repaired.23 Floor plans included in the report indicate considerable

additional partitioning to all levels which is undocumented as well as a partially completed

cool room at the northern end of the basement level which may have been constructed when

the building was occupied by the wholesalers Craig Mostyn and Co.

In 1995 Lawson House was refurbished, with some internal partitions demolished in the

Decorative Arts Department, Interview and Collection Areas on the Basement Level. Floor

finishes were also modified in these departments and security gates to the loading dock

installed. At the ground level, more partitioning was demolished in the Administration and

Jewellery Departments including reuse of glass panels. The original 1924 strong room was

19 “Preliminary Conservation Assessment 212-218 Cumberland Street and 195 Gloucester Street The Rocks” Prepared by Noosphere Ideas Pty Ltd pg 7 20 Lawson Menzies Auctioneers, Sydney and Melbourne. http://www.lawsonmenzies.com.au/history.html 21 Ibid 22 Feasibility Estimate and Report for the Fire Safety Upgrading and Refurbishment of 212-218 Cumberland Street and 16-18 Grosvenor Street. Prepared by Harry Bate Oct 1993 pp2-4 23 Ibid pg 2 CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

46

http://www/



also demolished24. The tea room was refurbished and the existing toilet/ kitchen facility was

upgraded to a new client toilet facility. There was also some modification to the area behind

reception.25 There were significant first floor renovations when the tea room was refurbished,

including a new timber staircase. The bathrooms were demolished and converted to a new

staff toilet and kitchen facility.26 The original date of installation of these is undocumented

though they are shown in Bates’ 1993 plans. To accommodate a new data and

telecommunications area, there was some general demolition and removal of all partitions on

the second floor, along with a refurbishment of the WC.

External brickwork was steam cleaned and the stone work stabilised in the same year with

studies indicating that similar work had been undertaken in the past 20 years. Other minor

repairs and alterations included the replacement of the parapet wall flashings and the rain

heads, while down pipes and stormwater footpath crossings were also cleared.

New stair carpet followed in 1996 and the awning on Cumberland Street was remodelled. The

metal fascia was straightened and treated and the awning roof sheeting was renewed. New

Interview and Catalogue Rooms were created in the basement.27 Some additional partitioning

on the ground floor in 1997 obscured the windows to Cumberland Street. In 2000 the first

floor kitchen and bathrooms were again completely re-fitted. There have also been some

alterations to the facades which cannot be traced to any council building application records

including the vehicular entrance on Gloucester Street and the provision of security bars to the

ground floor windows at the Cumberland Street elevation.28

24 Lawson’s Refurbishment: Schedule of Works. Document number 154.01 SHFA File number 1250.01.01 25 Ibid 26 SHFA File number 1250.01.01 27 SHFA file number 1250.02.01 28 “Preliminary Conservation Assessment 212-218 Cumberland Street and 195 Gloucester Street The Rocks” Prepared by Noosphere Ideas Pty Ltd pg 7 CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

47



3.3 CHANGES TO THE BUILDING

West Elevation

Key: Areas remodelled after 1958 Areas remodelled after 1993

Areas remodelled at an unknown date

• In 1968 the removal of two of the cart docks was approved. They were filled in and

windows were constructed based on the existing ground floor windows.

• In 1995 the awning was remodelled.

• In 1995 the external brickwork was cleaned and there was evidence of cleaning

works having been undertaken in the previous 20 years.

• The parapet wall flashings, sump, rain heads and any corroded down pipes were also

repaired or replaced at this time in conjunction with the work on the new weatherproof

roof membrane.

• Security bars have been added to the elevation although the date of this addition is

unknown.

• Parapet signage has obviously been altered with each occupation phase of the

building.

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

48



East Elevation

Key: Areas remodelled after 1993

•

•

•

•

CITY PLAN

MAY 2006


In 1995 the external brickwork was cleaned and there was evidence of previous

cleaning works having been undertaken in the previous 20 years.

The parapet wall flashings, sump, rain heads and any corroded down pipes were also

repaired or replaced at this time in conjunction with the work on the new weatherproof

roof membrane

The addition of the vehicular entry is not traceable to any SHFA file or Council

Building Application file. The date of this modification is therefore unknown.

As with the west elevation the parapet signage has been altered with each

occupation of the building.

HERITAGE

/ CH25-182

49



Basement Floor



• All partitions shown in the above floor plan are modern.

• Those partitions in the office area to the south were probably constructed after 1993

during various modifications.

• The smaller office area on the Gloucester Street boundary addresses the vehicular

entry and may have been constructed concurrent to the driveway. (As previously

mentioned the installation of the vehicular entry is not traceable to any council

approvals or SHFA files and the date therefore is unknown).

• Under the ownership of Craig Mostyn and Co there was a partially constructed

prefabricated cool room at the north end of this floor. This may have been in the

location of the third office area and may have been constructed as early as 1958

when Craig Mostyn and Co took over Lawson House.

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

50



The Ground Floor

Strong Room

Service Lift



• Floor raised and two of the Cumberland Street cart docks were enclosed

accommodating additional office areas for Craig Mostyn and Co. 1968.

• Craig Mostyn and Co also remodelled some interiors, removing some partitions

although details are unknown.

• Suspended ceiling installed on Ground floor in 1968.

• Bathrooms refurbished 1993.

• Travellers Room retained and stair hall constructed within the room 1995.

• The original 1924 strong room was removed in 1995. The office area was also

shortened at this time to accommodate a large show room area.

• Kitchenette remodelled 1995.

• Service cupboard and access adjacent to G2 office enclosed and accessed via G2

• Partitions erected in the former show room on east side and secondary service lift

removed. Date unknown.

• Manager’s office partitioned to create a separate administrative area with a smaller

office adjoining the general office area behind reception. Date unknown.

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

51



The First Floor

Former Service Lift

Additional

office areas

Key: Areas remodelled after 1995 Areas remodelled at an unknown date

• New bathroom and staff kitchen area constructed in former advertising area in 1995.

The facilities were also remodelled in 2000. The room had been converted to a staff

kitchen and bathroom facility prior to the 1995 re-fit although the date of its original

conversion is unknown.

• Timber stairs installed in 1995.

• WC at northern end of floor was probably also remodelled at this time.

• Pencilled additions to the original plan indicate there may have been additional office

areas to the south of the floor though it is not known whether these additional areas

were constructed and if they were, when they were removed.

• As noted at the Ground floor elevation, the secondary service lift has been removed

though it is not known when this occurred.

• Additional room constructed at northern end of the floor to house electrical and

computer services. Again, the date of construction is unknown.

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

52



The Second Floor

Key: Areas remodelled after 1993

Office

Kitchenette

Storage

•

•

•

•

CITY PLA

MAY 200

Additional office space at southern end of floor is a recent construction, probably after

1993.

Kitchenette and partitioned storage area at south end of building probably also date

to the 1993 renovations.

WC 2-4 refurbished in 1995.

Partition and doors dividing the floor are also recent, as are the walls in the open

office area 2-1.

N HERITAGE

6 / CH25-182

53



The Roof

Key: Areas remodelled after 1993 Areas remodelled at an unknown date

• New roof membrane in 1995.

• Additional services at south end of roof. Their installation date is unknown though

they are likely to be modern.

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

54



3.4 HISTORY OF THE OCCUPATION OF THE SITE

Prior to 1926 the site was occupied by numerous dwellings with a vast number of tenants. A

comprehensive history of each allotment and their numerous occupiers and owners is

attached in Appendix 10.1 Occupation of the Subject Site. This information has been

compiled from the Sydney Council Rate Assessment Books hereafter referred to as the Rate

Books and the Sands Directory.

212214216

Gro

sven

or S

treet

Cumberland Street

Gloucester Street

195 197-199

218

Figure 65: Occupation of Subject Site prior to 1857 to mid 1860s

Gro

sven

or S

treet

212214216

195 197-199

218

Figure 66: Occupa

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

Gloucester Street

tion o

Cumberland Street

f Subject Site from mid 1860s to c.1877

55



Gro

sven

or S

treet

Cumberland Street

Gloucester Street

195

212-216197-199

218

Figure 67: Occupation of Subject Site c.1877 to c.1923

Tenants after 1924:

• Cadbury Brothers Limited 1924-1929

• Cadbury-Fry and Pascall 1929-1957

• Craig Mostyn and Co. 1957- Late 1970s/early 1980s

• Lawson Menzies 1982-present

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

56


CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

4.0 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

The level of significance of an item is determined by its value relative to other comparable

items, be they in a local or international context. The rarity and/or representativeness of the

item are considered as part of the overall analysis of its significance. Comparisons will be

made between suitable buildings for the purposes of establishing significance in relation to

the rarity criteria and representativeness criteria of the NSW Heritage Council’s ‘Assessing

Heritage Significance’ guidelines.

The level of significance of an item is determined by its value relative to other comparable

items, be they in a local or state context. The rarity and/or representativeness of the item are

considered as part of the overall analysis of its significance. Comparisons will be made

between suitable buildings for the purposes of establishing significance in relation to the rarity

criteria and representativeness criteria of the NSW Heritage Council’s ‘Assessing Heritage

Significance’ guidelines.

The significant characteristics of Lawson House which have been used to undertake the

comparative analysis are:

• Commercial buildings characteristic of the Inter-War building period in Cumberland and

Gloucester Streets and the wider Rocks area.

• Buildings designed by the architects J. Burcham Clamp and Finch.

Lawson House has been compared to other buildings with similar characteristics which have

been identified listed on the SHFA Section 170 Heritage Register. The information in the

Section 170 listings provided the historical background for the buildings.

Inter-War Commercial Buildings Lawson House is a warehouse/factory constructed in the Inter War Free Classical style for

Cadbury-Fry Pascal Pty Ltd. As previously noted, the majority of Inter-War buildings in The

Rocks tend to be hotels or commercial buildings and thus there is a wealth of comparable

buildings in the vicinity of the subject site.

Adjacent to the south of the subject site is the NSW Housing Board Building, also known as

Charlotte House. It was established in The Rocks as part of the changing Government Social

Policy during the operation of the Sydney Harbour Trust (1902-27). In the wake of growing

unemployment and homelessness, the board regulated public housing and facilitated

affordable private housing in NSW and The Rocks where the problem of housing was directly

related to the Resumptions. The building was constructed c.1921 shortly before Lawson

House. It is a four storey face brick building occupying the entire end of the Cumberland and

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

57



Gloucester Streets block. The building is not distinct in style with its main features being the

dark face brick, rendered lintels, stone stringcourse, unadorned emphasised pilasters, high

proportion of solid to void elements and dressed stone to the entry and ground level quoins.

The form and fenestration is akin to that of the Stripped Classical style however it does not

feature the simplified classical motifs indicative of the style. The original building form has

been compromised through the addition of the fourth floor and alterations have also occurred

to the interior.29 The significance of the building is of historical and social significance for its

ability to reflect various Government operations throughout the twentieth century and of

aesthetic significance owning to its form and detailing.

Figure 68: Former NSW Housing Board Building.

Source: www.heritage.nsw.gov.au

Science House is located at 157-169 Gloucester Street on the corner of Essex Streets. It was

constructed c.1931 and won the Royal Australian Institute of Architects inaugural Sulman

Medal as a building of outstanding architectural merit. It is a 6 storey building consisting of a

rusticated stone podium, three levels of face through the centre and a top level featuring

dressed stone detailing. Internally the building is described as having significant fabric and

spaces which area highly intact. Science House was designed by prominent architects

Peddle Thorp and Walker. The building features an internal structure of reinforced concrete

floors and columns with non-load bearing walls.30 Science House has been identified as

highly significant for its historic, aesthetic and social significance for the Sulman Medal award,

the execution of the architectural style and its association with various professional

organisations.

29 NSW Heritage Office: http://www.heritage.nsw.gov.au/07_subnav_01_2.cfm?itemid=5053180 30 NSW Heritage Office Website: http://www.heritage.nsw.gov.au/07_subnav_01_2.cfm?itemid=5053194 CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

58

http://www.heritage.nsw.gov.au/



Figure 69t

d m

Source: NSW State lib

: Science House showing he Australian Drug Company

building to the rear before olition of its tower. 1930-1940.

rary. Image

e

number 35012

The Bushells Building, located at 121-127 Harrington Street, was constructed between 1924

and 1925 at approximately the same time as Lawson House. It is a seven storey face brick

building consisting of regular fenestration, moulded cornice and stringcourse and rendered

window spandrels and upper level. The building structure consists of load bearing brick walls

with timber and concrete floors. The building is not demonstrative of the characteristics of a

particular architectural style of the period although its fenestration and use of materials is

reminiscent of Federation Warehouse style buildings. Given its style and construction

technique the building is somewhat backward looking for its period of construction. Its

primary significance lies in the historic association with the Bushells Company, who are

prominent in the commercial life of Australia and The Rocks, the ability of the building to

demonstrate its use by the company.

Figure 70: The Bushells’ building after the recent refurbishment.

Source: RP Data

Figure 71: The Bushell’s building before and after the recent

refurbishment.

Source: www.heritage.nsw.gov.au

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

59



It is concluded that Lawson House is representative of Inter War commercial buildings in The

Rocks. Its style, form and detailing are well executed in comparison to many buildings as

evident in the use of dressed stone and mouldings but it does not reach the level of aesthetic

excellence evident in an award winning building of the time such as Science House. In

comparison to buildings of the Free Classical style, the use of motifs such as columns and

arched openings is not as strong other comparable buildings. The building employs

construction techniques typical of the period and the building type with reinforced concrete

floors and columns and non-load bearing brick walls. It is concluded that the building is

typical and representative of the Inter War period style and construction without reaching the

heights of aesthetic excellence demonstrated by similar buildings in the area.

J. Burcham Clamp and Finch John Burcham Clamp was a recognised Sydney architect active between 1899 and 1931. A

gold medallist of the Institute of Architects (NSW), prominent freemason and one time

Building Surveyor for the Anglican diocese of Sydney, Burcham Clamp designed more than

30 commercial buildings throughout the course of his career. He also designed numerous

private homes, residential flat buildings and more than a dozen churches, as well as shops

and institutional buildings. He was known for his efficient planning, competent design and

sound knowledge of construction. Until his death, Burcham Clamp partnered with Barry

Clifford Finch from 1923 -1931.

Despite the fact that there are many of Burcham Clamp’s buildings and designs which can be

dated to this period it is not known which of these were specifically designed with Finch. The

only other commercial building designed during their partnership was “Berlei House” on

Regent Street, Chippendale c.1921. Typically utilitarian, the building is constructed in the

Chicagoesque style and features a horizontally proportioned façade treatment suggesting the

expression of the internal structure. The spandrels express the division of storeys and the

large window openings are of horizontal proportions. The emphatic cornice is also typical of

the style. Berlei House has been altered since its construction with the window frames and

awning replaced and the ground floor altered including the relocation of the original entry.

The expression of Berlei House’s structure in the external form and fenestration is in contrast

to Lawson House as the external treatment of Lawson House conceals rather than expresses

the internal structure with the façade treatment reminiscent of earlier building techniques

which employed load bearing external walls.

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

60



Figure 72: Berlei House also by the architect J Burcham Clamp. Image depicting the

original façade 1920-45.

Source: National Library of Australia nla.pic-vn3071724

One of Burcham Clamp’s more celebrated buildings was the commercial office building

known as “Wyoming” on Macquarie Street, Sydney. It was one of the earliest examples of

high rise building in Sydney and notably shares elements of both Federation and Inter-War

Free Classical styles of architecture. Typical elements of both styles are the symmetrical

façade, and the use of contrasting materials and textures, a vestigial pediment and narrow

intercolumniation. More typical of the Federation period, the ground floor is treated as a base

and Clamp has repetitively used non classical oriels and bays. Wyoming features a reinforced

concrete structure which is relatively modern for its 1909 construction date as many larger

buildings were still using load bearing external walls. Constructed almost 15 years later than

Wyoming, Lawson House employs similar construction techniques and vocabulary of detailing

(although not such high quality). Therefore, Lawson House is a building typical of its time

where as Wyoming employed newer technology, although both buildings were treated in a

relatively traditional exterior. Due to the use of more modern construction techniques and the

much higher quality detailing Wyoming is considered to be a more important building in the

catalogue of Burcham Clamp.

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

61



Berlei House and Wyoming feature relatively forward looking techniques. The façade

treatment of Berlei House reflects the internal structure and the internal structure of Wyoming

is relatively new technology for its time. Lawson House does not feature any innovative or

progressive characteristics as it uses a structure that by 1924 was common technology and

treats the exterior in a traditional style.

Figure 73: “Wyoming” Commercial Office Building at 175-181 Macquarie Street

c.1909-1911.

Interestingly, also among Clamps repertoire were other purpose-built factory and warehouse

buildings designed for newly established Sydney confectioners including Steadman and

Henderson Sweets, Ltd for whom he designed theirHenderson Sweets Ltd Clarence Street

building and the warehouse at Rosebery as well as Wrigleys Australasia’s Rosebery factory,

all constructed after 1914.

When considering the vast body of works accomplished over the course of Burcham Clamp’s

three decade long career, it is obvious that he utilised a number of architectural styles with

skill and Lawson House is reasonably representative of these talents. In design and ornament

the building is predominantly functional and utilitarian and does not demonstrate the high

degree of aesthetic character that other of his buildings exhibit.

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

62


CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN ASSESSMENT OF CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE

5.0 ASSESSMENT OF CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE

5.1 BASIS OF ASSESSMENT

In assessing the cultural significance of a place it is necessary to adequately research and

consider all the information relevant to an understanding of the place and its fabric. The Burra

Charter (1999) defines the cultural significance as being “aesthetic, historic, scientific or social

value for past, present or future generations”.

The assessment of cultural significance is undertaken because it is necessary to understand

the values of a heritage item before making decisions about the future of the item. This then

leads to decisions that will retain these heritage values in the future.31

The ‘Statement of Significance’ indicates what heritage values of a place should be

conserved, and is used as a basis for the formulation of specific guidelines for the

development of conservation policies of a place. The Conservation Plan by J. S. Kerr (fifth

edition, 2000, National Trust), considers the following three criteria as a useful starting point in

assessing the nature of significance:

• ability to demonstrate a process, a custom or style;

• associational (historic) links for which there is or is not surviving physical evidence;

and

• formal or aesthetic qualities.

The following assessment of significance addresses the criteria endorsed by the NSW

Heritage Council, and is in accordance with the NSW Heritage Manual ‘Assessing Heritage

Significance’ guidelines.

5.2 ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

a) An item is important in the course, or pattern, of NSW’s cultural or natural history (or the cultural or natural history of the local area)

• Constructed c.1924, Lawson House is historically representative of the Inter

War phase of commercial redevelopment in the state significant precinct of

The Rocks. The site was originally planned for resumption in the early part of

the twentieth century, however the planned resumptions of the Victorian era

dwellings were interrupted by the First World War and redevelopment of site

and some surround properties did not occur until the 1920s. Consequently

the building stock in this area consists largely of commercial buildings which

31 NSW Heritage Manual, Assessing Heritage Significance, 2000, p.2

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

63



contrasts to the terrace housing and flat buildings constructed during the

Federation period of resumptions. Lawson House is one in a group of four

Inter War commercial buildings in the block bounded by Grosvenor,

Gloucester, Essex and Cumberland Streets.

b) An item has strong or special association with the life or works of a person, or group of persons, of importance in NSW’s cultural or natural history (or the cultural or natural history of the local area)

• The subject building was originally constructed for use as a factory and

warehouse by the well known company Cadbury-Fry who have produced

confectionary in Australia for over 80 years. The main Cadbury factory and

headquarters was located in Claremont, Tasmania and the subject building

was not a flagship building of the company but the ‘Sydney Depot’. The

building was constructed within two years of the main factory and is

considered to be evident of Cadbury’s requirement for a depot in a major

centre most probably to facilitate trade. The change in use of the building

after only 40 years of occupation and the removal of machinery has hindered

the ability to interpret the use of the building by Cadbury-Fry.

• Subsequent occupants of the building include the Lawson Menzies,

auctioneers, and Craig Mostyn and Co, an exporter of goods. Research to

date has not demonstrated that these companies are of historical importance

to the local area.

• Lawson House was designed by Sydney architects Burcham Clamp and

Finch. John Burcham Clamp was prominent throughout the first quarter of

the twentieth century and designed significant buildings such as Wyoming on

Elizabeth Street, Sydney.

c) An item is important in demonstrating aesthetic characteristics and/or a high degree of creative or technical achievement in NSW (or the local are natural history (or the cultural or natural history of the local area)

• Lawson House largely intact example of an Inter War Free Classical

warehouse building. It is features a robust external treatment of prominent

end bays with vestigial pediments and a high proportion of solid to void

elements with rows of almost horizontally proportioned windows to the upper

levels. The solidity of the façade treatment is affirmed through the use of

dressed stone stringcourses and parapets. The detailing is relatively

restrained with a limited use of classical motifs but some decorative

stonework to openings, wall panels and parapets and brickwork quoins to

piers. Internally the building features a structure of reinforced concrete floors

and columns. It has retained some original features such as the fittings and

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

64



finishes and to the entrance and offices on the ground level including

Queensland Maple office partitions. The building is considered to be an

aesthetically representative example of an Inter War Free Classical

commercial building.

• There are some Inter War commercial buildings in the vicinity of Lawson

House, however they are visually disparate and some elements are not of

high aesthetic quality. There is not the level of quality or consistency for it to

be recognised as an aesthetically significant precinct.

• Lawson House makes a strong contribution to the streetscape and the urban

morphology of state significant precinct of The Rocks owning to its form,

details and materials.

d) An item has strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group in NSW (or the local area) for social, cultural or spiritual reasons

• Research to date does not show that an identifiable community or cultural

group holds a special association with the subject building.

• The people of NSW generally demonstrate a special association with The

Rocks area and the subject building makes a contribution to the urban

character of The Rocks.

e) An item has potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of NSW’s cultural or natural history (or the cultural or natural history of the local area)

• Prior to the construction of the subject building, the site was occupied by a

row of three terraces and a separate brick residence which fronted 212-216

and 218 Cumberland Street respectively. A stone dwelling and a pair of brick

terraces at 195 and 197-199 fronted Gloucester Street. These buildings date

from the mid to late nineteenth century. There has been significant

disturbance of the site with the excavation for the basement level,

consequently very little evidence relating to the Cumberland Street structures

is likely to remain. There is moderate potential for relics relating to the

Gloucester Street dwellings such as building foundations and yards with a

higher potential for deeper subsurface features such as wells and cess pits

including the rear outhouses for the terraces at 212-216 Cumberland Street.

f) An item possesses uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of NSW’s cultural or natural history (or the cultural or natural history of the local area)

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

65



• Research to date demonstrates that the subject site does not exhibit any

degree of rarity for which it is significant.

g) An item is important in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a class of NSW’s

• cultural or natural places; or

• cultural or natural environments.

• (or a class of the local area’s cultural;

• or natural places; or

• cultural or natural environments)

• Historically, the subject building is representative of the Inter War phase of

commercial redevelopment in state significant precinct of the The Rocks.

Lawson House also contributes to a small precinct bounded by Grosvenor,

Gloucester, Essex and Cumberland Streets that features four Inter War

commercial buildings that is historically representative of this phase and type

of development in The Rocks.

• Lawson House is a good representative example of the Inter War Free

Classical style of architecture in the local area.

• Lawson House is not considered to be an excellent representative example of

J Burcham Clamp’s architectural work. A number of other well known

buildings designed by Burcham Clamp featured a progressive use of

structural technology or façade design.

5.3 STATEMENT OF CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE

Lawson House was constructed c.1924 as the Sydney Depot for the Cadbury-Fry

confectionary company and designed in the Inter War Free Classical style by architects

Burcham Clamp and Finch. Lawson House contributes to the representative historic and

aesthetic values of the state significant precinct of The Rocks through its architectural style,

built form, streetscape contribution and period of construction.

Lawson House is primarily significant to the local area for its historic and aesthetic values.

Historically, the building is evident of the Inter War period of development that occurred in The

Rocks. It is significant for the contribution the building makes to the historical and scientific

values of The Rocks. It also forms a small precinct of Inter War commercial buildings which

replaced Victorian period housing that was intended to be resumed prior to the First World

War. Historically, the building is associated with well known confectionary company Cadbury-

Fry Pascal Pty Ltd although the use was relatively short lived, it was not a flagship building of

the company and the ability to interpret this association has been eroded as the use has

ceased and machinery removed.

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

66



Lawson House is also associated with the well known Sydney architectural firm Burcham

Clamp and Finch. Stylistically and structurally it is similar to the other buildings designed by

John Burcham Clamp but owing to its construction date it does not demonstrate the

progressive techniques of style and construction that are evident in a number of his other

buildings.

Lawson House is aesthetically and technically representative of a restrained example the

Inter War Free Classical style of architecture featuring a robust form, prominent end bays,

dressed stone detailing, timber partitions and other early finishes to office and foyer spaces.

The building structure is relatively common for the period and typical for buildings used as

commercial warehouses.

The site demonstrates some research potential for relics related to the former residential use

of the site from the mid nineteenth century.

5.4 RANKING OF SIGNIFICANCE OF INDIVIDUAL AREAS AND ELEMENTS

5.4.1 BASIS OF RANKING Lawson House has been carefully assessed to determine a relative grading of significance

into five levels. This process examines a number of factors, including:

• Relative age

• Original design quality

• Degree of intactness and general condition

• Extent of subsequent alterations

• Association with important people or events

• Ability to demonstrate a rare quality, craft or construction process

Grading reflects the contribution the element makes to overall significance of the item (or the

degree to which the significance of the item would be diminished if the component were

removed or altered) and not the significance of the element in a wider local or regional

context.

EXCEPTIONAL Rare or outstanding element directly contributing to an item’s significance

and crucial to the understanding and appreciation of the significance. High

degree of intactness. Original fabric associated with early construction

period or significant phase of use or association.

HIGH Demonstrates a key element of the item’s significance or is associated with a

significant phase of use. It is important to and aids in the understanding and

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

67



appreciation of the place’s significance. It may have suffered from alterations

which do not detract from significance, but generally demonstrate a high

degree of intactness and original fabric. This may also include fabric

inserted in the conservation of a place (restoration or reconstruction)

provided it is accurate.

MODERATE Fabric or spaces formerly of higher significance that have been altered or

modified, but which make a contribution to the overall significance of the

item. May also include fabric from an original or significant phase of use but

which is not integral to the understanding of the primary significance.

LITTLE New fabric associated with present use and does not detract from

significance. May include fabric related to conservation works or an adaptive

reuse which is not restoration or reconstruction but has achieved a

sympathetic outcome.

INTRUSIVE Later fabric or alteration which obscures or detracts from significant fabric or

the overall significance of an item.

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

68


CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSTRAINTS, ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES

5.4.2 EASTERN ELEVATION EXCEPTIONAL 1. Overall from and arrangement of original elements and details HIGH 2. windows 3. parapet and pediments 4. ground level door 5. flag poles 6. cornices and entablatures 7. decorative stone work 8. pilasters 9. face brickwork 10. sandstone footing MODERATE N/A LITTLE 11. Security bars to basement level windows 12. Signage next to driveway 13. Steel capping to side of entry 14. Fire hydrant panel INTRUSIVE 15. later roller door opening 16. concrete bulkhead/lintel over garage entry

Figure 74: Grading of Fabric on Eastern Elevation. NB. Fabric of High Significance has not been individually identified but is included within that marked as Exceptional.

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

69



5.4.3 WESTERN ELEVATION EXCEPTIONAL 1. Overall from and arrangement of original elements and details HIGH 2. windows 3. parapet and pediments 4. main entry including joinery and details 5. flag poles 6. cornices and entablatures 7. decorative stone work 8. pilasters 9. loading dock opening 10. ventilation grates 11. light well bricks MODERATE NA LITTLE 12. Awning 13. Later windows and brick walling to ground level 14. Light attached over roller door 15. later roller door in original opening 16. security bars INTRUSIVE NA

Figure 75: Grading of Fabric on Western Elevation. NB. Fabric of High Significance has not been individually identified but is included within that marked as Exceptional.

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

70



5.4.4 BASEMENT LEVEL EXCEPTIONAL 1. Structure throughout including columns, ceilings and floors HIGH 2. Fire stairs 3. External painted brick walls 4. Original brick walls to light well bays 5. Lift structure and lift including grates, roller doors timber cladding, switches, fittings and

timber threshold (all floors) MODERATE 6. North east WC (original floor and wall coverings) LITTLE 7. Painted brick above concrete bulkheads 8. Suspended acoustic ceiling panels 9. suspended services 10. modern kitchenette fit out 11. later partitioning 12. doors to fire stairs (all floors) INTRUSIVE 13. garage door and entry

Figure 76: Grading of Fabric and Spaces on the Basement Level

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

71



5.4.5 GROUND FLOOR EXCEPTIONAL 1. Structure throughout including columns, ceilings and floors HIGH 2. Fire Stairs 3. External painted brick walls 4. Original office spaces 5. Original joinery including picture rails, skirtings, floors, doors, highlight windows and

fittings in Hall, foyer, WCs and offices. 6. Reception desk (front section) 7. Geometric and lettered fanlights throughout 8. Original tiling to WCs 9. Terrazzo floor and partition in WCs 10. Original light and fittings in men’s WC 11. Lift structure and lift including grates, roller doors timber cladding, switches, fittings and

timber threshold MODERATE 12. Marble cladding to dado and floor and skirting in entry lobby LITTLE 13. later window and door alterations to original wall in offices 14. Later lightweight office partitions 15. Reception desk (section behind) 16. Stair to first floor gallery 17. Modern floorboards and coverings (carpet) 18. Modern wall finishes (paint colour) 19. Raised timber ramp to gallery 20. Urinal and toilets in WCs 21. Air-conditioning unit in south west corner office 22. Raised floor of north gallery 23. North gallery kitchenette (inserted into original bathroom, with modern fittings and

fixtures) 24. Masonite wall panels in front of original painted brick in gallery INTRUSIVE N/A

CITY PLAN HE

MAY 2006 / C

Figure 77: Grading of Fabric and Spaces on Basement Level

RITAGE

H25-182

72



5.4.6 FIRST FLOOR EXCEPTIONAL 1. Structure throughout including columns, ceilings and floors HIGH 2. Fire Stairs 3. Original brick wall to remodelled staff area 4. painted brick walls 5. storage room along southern wall (brick wall and concrete floor) 6. Lift structure and lift including grates, roller doors timber cladding, switches, fittings and

timber threshold (all floors) MODERATE 7. Original WC in northeast corner including terrazzo floor and wall tiling brick arch over door

and door glass and joinery LITTLE 8. later stair and joinery between first and ground floors 9. air-conditioning units to the west wall 10. later room in northwest corner made from lightweight partitions 11. floor covering (carpet) 12. south kitchenette (linoleum floor, modern joinery) 13. South WCs (modern urinals and toilets, joinery, floor and wall coverings) 14. Later door shelving and door joinery to southern storage room INTRUSIVE N/A

Figure 78: Grading of Fabric and spaces on the First Floor

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

73



5.4.7 SECOND FLOOR EXCEPTIONAL 1. Structure throughout including columns, ceilings and floors HIGH 2. Fire Stairs 3. Painted brick external walls 4. Lift structure and lift including grates, roller doors timber cladding, switches, fittings and

timber threshold (all floors) 5. storage room along southern wall (brick wall and concrete floor) MODERATE 6. Original WC in northeast corner including terrazzo floor and wall tiling brick arch over door

and door glass and joinery LITTLE 7. Kitchen fitout 8. later office partitions INTRUSIVE N/A

Office

Kitchenette

Storage

Figure 79: Grading of Fabric and Spaces on the Second Floor

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

74



5.4.8 ROOF EXCEPTIONAL 1. Roof Structure HIGH 2. Parapet walls 3. Stair hall and fire stairs 4. Lift overrun 5. flag poles MODERATE 6. Original WC in northeast corner including terrazzo floor and wall tiling brick arch over door

and door glass and joinery LITTLE 7. Roof covering and water proofing 8. refurbished flashings and capping 9. services and plant equiptment INTRUSIVE N/A

Figure 80: Grading of Fabric and paces on the Roof

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

75



6.0 CONSTRAINTS, ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES

6.1 PREAMBLE

This section outlines various major issues involved in the preparation of the conservation

guidelines for the site. It takes into consideration matters arising from the statement of

significance, procedural constraints imposed by cultural conservation methodology such as

that of the Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter. It identifies all statutory and non-statutory

listings that apply for the site and describes constraints and opportunities arising from these

listings.

6.2 ISSUES ARISING FROM THE STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE

Considering the Statement of Significance, the following issues need to be addressed in the

conservation guidelines.

• The principle significance of the place relates to the representative aesthetic values of the

building as evident in its architectural style and its integrity. These aesthetic values

should be conserved.

• The building contributes to the State significant precinct of The Rocks through its

architectural form and character. It is historically representative of the Inter War period of

redevelopment in the precinct and contributes aesthetically to the visual character of the

area. It is necessary to conserve the contribution of the building to the significant

character of The Rocks area.

• The building has maintained a commercial warehouse type use for over 80 years. The

retention of that use, or a related use, will aid in the conservation of the building’s

significance. However, the use is typical for building of this type and is not of primary

significance and should not be conserved to the detriment of the primary significant

values of the place. The significance of the use allows for sympathetic adaptive reuse.

• There is an opportunity to enhance the ability to interpret and appreciate the association

the building has with the Cadbury-Fry Company.

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

76



6.3 PHYSICAL ISSUES AND CONSTRAINTS ARISING FROM FABRIC, CONDITION

AND INTEGRITY

Considering the physical condition and integrity of the place, the following issues, constraints

and opportunities need to be addressed in the conservation guidelines.

• Lawson House is largely intact internally and externally.

• The place is substantially intact and has suffered very little alteration except for the

insertion of some later partitions, minor internal alterations and some minor façade

alteration.

• The fabric and spaces of the ground floor entry, foyer and offices are largely intact and

significant therefore requiring conservation.

• Evidence exists for the original façade designs prior to the enclosure of openings on the

western elevation and the insertion of the large opening on the eastern elevation. There

is an opportunity to restore or reconstruct the façade to its original design or use these

areas for further alterations to facilitate the ongoing use of the place.

• Areas of altered fabric, internally and externally, present opportunities where change may

occur with less likelihood of significant impact.

• The streetscape context of the building was altered in the mid 20th century with the

closure of the southern end of Cumberland Street. This has resulted in the original main

entry being located on a street that does not receive the traffic it once did and the ‘public

face’ of the building has become its ‘rear’ elevation to Gloucester Street.

• Most of the floors feature an open floor plate dispersed with structural columns with a

good opportunity for sympathetic adaptation and reuse.

• The place is generally in good condition with no evidence of major damage or

deterioration occurring to early or later fabric. Some minor issues which require

remediation include rusted window frames, cracked bricks near windows, water damage

to the stringcourse and plant growth between some bricks.

6.4 SYDNEY HARBOUR FORESHORE AUTHORITY

The Rocks is managed by the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority (SHFA), which was

constituted on 1 February 1999 under the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Act, 1998. Therefore

The Rocks is not within the jurisdiction of the Council of the City of Sydney.

The principle functions of SHFA are stated in its Act as follows:

a) to protect and enhance the natural and cultural heritage of the foreshore area;

b) to promote, co-ordinate, manage, undertake and secure the orderly and economic

development and use of the foreshore area, including the provision of infrastructure;

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

77



c) to promote, co-ordinate, organise, manage, undertake, secure , provide and conduct

cultural, educational, commercial, tourist, recreational, entertainment and transport

activities and facilities.

In recognition of the importance of heritage conservation in The Rocks, The Rocks Heritage

Management Plan (adopted February, 2002) has been prepared to provide a firm basis for

understanding and conserving the heritage value of The Rocks and to assist in preparing

individual Conservation Management Plans for heritage buildings within The Rocks.

6.4.1 SHFA VISION AND CHARTER Vision To demonstrate vision and leadership in creating quality environments that are enriching,

diverse, accessible and sustainable by continually improving Sydney’s significant waterfront

precincts, balancing visitor, community and commercial expectations.

Charter 1. To add value by redevelopment of surplus government land through a highly skilled

organisation that creates new city precincts on the harbour

2. Capitalise on the economic and cultural worth of foreshore precincts, notably The Rocks,

Circular Quay, Darling Harbour, as core attractions for both visitors and Sydneysiders

3. Balance economic return, vibrancy and diversity of harbour foreshores, including the

working waterfront

4. Deliver excellence in its role as place manager for Sydney’s premier harbour sites

5. As custodian, ensure preservation and interpretation of natural and cultural heritage

around the foreshores, promoting a sense of community ownership

6. Facilitate the opening up of foreshore areas to the public, balancing protection with active

use while improving and extending waterfront public domain.

The Authority proposes, subject to the recommendations of the conservation plan, to continue

to use Lawson House for commercial uses.

6.5 HERITAGE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK

There are three principle EPIs under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

that are applicable to The Rocks, and these are as follows:

A. State Environmental Planning Policy (Major Projects) 2005 The SEPP - Major Projects identifies The Rocks as being included within the City Foreshores

Areas. The SEPP provides that development with a capital investment value of less than $5

Million is development under Part 4 of the Act (i.e. requires a Development Application) for

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

78



which the Minister is the consent authority. Development over $5 Million is development to be

dealt with under Part 3A of the Act, i.e. as a Major Project Application, for which the Minister

is also the consent authority.

In accordance with the instrument of delegation from the Minister to the Sydney Harbour

Foreshore Authority Planning Assessment Manager, the Planning Assessment Team

receives and process Development Applications and Major Project Applications, and can

determine DAs (applications less than $5 million in value) under delegation from the Minister.

Major Project Applications are reported to the Minister for determination.

B. Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 The Rocks is included in the 'Foreshores and Waterways Area' defined in the SREP, and as

such any development must be considered in terms of the criteria set out in clauses 21 to 27

of the SREP. The SREP does not identify any heritage items within The Rocks, however it

does identify the Sydney Harbour Bridge and the Circular Quay Ferry Wharves as heritage

items and any development within their vicinity needs to be considered in terms of impacts on

these items, including views to the items. Draft Amendment 1 to the SREP also identifies a

‘Buffer Zone’ for development in the vicinity of the Sydney Opera House, which covers a

majority of The Rocks area, and any impacts on views to the Opera House are to be taken

into consideration.

The SREP also requires the consideration of potential to impact on archaeological or potential

archaeological relics.

The Rocks is also included as a ‘Strategic Foreshore site’ on Sheet 1 of the SREP, for which

a Master Plan (deemed DCP) is required. However this only applies to the City Foreshores

area if the Minister directs, and as yet there has been no such direction.

The DCP that exists under the SREP is also relevant to development in The Rocks. Its

primary focus is on ecological and landscape character areas, and built form design

guidelines for development very close to the water’s edge. The only relevant landscape

character area in The Rocks is Dawes Point.

C. Sydney Cove Redevelopment Authority (SCRA) Scheme The Rocks is covered by the SCRA Scheme which has the status of an EPI under Schedule 6

of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The SCRA Scheme comprises a

series of Building Site Control Drawings which provide for the maximum height of buildings on

any particular site, and which also specify permissible uses for a particular site or precinct.

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

79



The SCRA Scheme does not have any further development provisions nor does it specifically

identify Heritage Items.

6.5.1 NEW SOUTH WALES HERITAGE ACT Heritage and Conservation Register Section 170 of the NSW Heritage Act requires a 'government instrumentality' such as the

SHFA to 'establish and keep a register entitled the Heritage and Conservation Register. The

register must be reviewed annually, and amended if necessary.

The register must contain items, under the ownership or control of SHFA, that are or could be

listed in the NSW State Heritage Register or could be subject to an Interim Heritage Order, or

which are listed as an item of environmental heritage in an environmental planning

instrument.

SHFA has prepared a Section 170 Register, which has been endorsed by the NSW Heritage

Council.

State Heritage Register Lawson House is listed on the NSW State Heritage Register (No. 1557). This listing

recognises the site as being of State significance and provides statutory protection under the

NSW Heritage Act (1977).

Under Section 60 of the Heritage Act any development for State Heritage Register items,

which may affect the significance of the site (buildings, setting etc) must be referred to the

NSW Heritage Council for approval, unless the Minister grants exemptions. The State

Heritage Register lists 96 items in The Rocks.

The Minister has delegated the NSW Heritage Council’s role to approve S.60 Applications for

minor development in The Rocks to the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority for a number of

types of development including change of use of an existing building, temporary uses for 2

years or less, internal fit-outs, shopfronts and awnings etc. SHFA also has delegations to

approve Standard Exemption Applications.

Archaeological Management An excavation permit, issued by the NSW Heritage Council, is required where there is

reasonable knowledge or likelihood that disturbance or excavation of the land is likely to result

in an archaeological relics being discovered, exposed, moved, damaged or destroyed. A

place listed on the State Heritage Register requires a S.60 Application and not a S.140

Application to disturb relics. The Act defines ‘relic’ as -

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

80



Any deposit, object or material evidence

a) which relates to the settlement of the area that comprises New South Wales, not

being an Aboriginal settlement, and

b) which is 50 or more years old.

The ‘relics’; provision of the Heritage Act apply to all land within The Rocks.

6.6 COMMUNITY GROUPS

6.6.1 NATIONAL TRUST OF AUSTRALIA (NSW) Lawson House has not been classified by the National Trust of Australia (NSW).

Listing on the Register of the National Trust carries no statutory implications. The Trust’s

opinions however, are usually sought when major proposals are being formulated in heritage

precincts or in relation to heritage buildings.

6.7 BUILDING REGULATIONS

The Building Code of Australia is concerned with establishing uniform building regulations

across Australia. The Code is implemented in NSW through the Local Government Act 1993.

Generally, minimum standards are required to be reached in building works.

The main provisions of the Code concern structural requirements, fire resistance, access and

egress (including provisions for people with disabilities), services and equipment and health

and amenities.

An assessment of compliance of the complex with the Code has not been carried out for this

report.

In general, when considering the Building Code of Australia in heritage buildings, proposals

must ensure that significance fabric and spatial qualities are not compromised.

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

81



6.8 BASELINE ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

The archaeological potential of the site was assessed in The Rocks and Millers Point

Archaeological Management Plan32 (AR120) as referenced in the SHFA Heritage Register

(B021) which recommends:

Archaeological Assessment Condition: Mostly Disturbed

Assessment Basis: Basements

Recommended Management – Above

Ground Archaeological Remains:

An archaeological watching brief or

monitoring program is recommended

Recommended Management – Below

Ground Archaeological Remains:

An archaeological watching brief or

monitoring program is recommended

6.8.1 BELOW GROUND The historical development of the site indicates European occupation since 1788. There were

small cottages documented on the site from as early as 1840 and typical residential masonry

structures were constructed after the 1860s. Residences included a row of terraces on the

Cumberland Street frontage constructed in 1877 and remaining on site until the early 1920s,

when they were demolished to make way for the subject building. Similarly, the Gloucester

Street frontage was occupied by terraces from the mid 1860s. Deep features such as cellars,

wells and cesspits may be present in former yards and the site has high potential to contain

deposits, surfaces and structural features relating to the former dwellings and associated

structures on the site.

The Cumberland Street frontage was cut to the level of Gloucester Street when the subject

building was constructed. It is unlikely that archaeological features and deposits will survive

on this frontage. At the rear however, properties 212-216 had basement levels and access to

Gloucester Street. From 1870 onwards the land on Gloucester Street behind these buildings

remained vacant save for the associated out buildings of 212- 216. There is high potential for

evidence of this former yard to should ground disturbance be undertaken.

The adjacent land at 171-193 Gloucester Street was assessed by Wilson and Douglas for

Stamford Windsor LTD. These are likely to be equivalent sites archaeologically and

assessment concluded that archaeological potential was low at the Cumberland Street

frontage.33 The archaeological potential of the Gloucester Street frontage was judged more

32 Higginbotham, Kass & Walker, The Rocks and Millers Point Archaeological Management Plan, 1991. This document was not sited but the SHFA Heritage Register entry included the recommendation for the subject site. 33 “171-193 Gloucester Street The Rocks NSW: A Research Design and Excavation Methodology for Proposed Historical Archaeological Investigations at the Site.” Prepared by Graham Wilson and Peter CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

82



highly, with moderate to high potential for evidence of yard deposits, structural remains,

services, in situ soil profiles and internal occupation deposits.34 Therefore it is considered that

Gloucester Street frontage has a similar moderate to high potential for deposits relating to the

dwellings at 197-199 and 195 Gloucester Street, and the rear yard surfaces, wells and

cesspits of the 212-216 Cumberland Street dwellings have. There is a higher potential for

subsurface deposits such as wells and cesspits.

The potential for Aboriginal archaeology is very low due to the extent of change that has

occurred to the site since the end of the eighteenth century. However the existence of

remains is not impossible though they are more likely in a contact context.

6.8.2 ABOVE GROUND Roof, and between-floor spaces are unlikely to contain archaeological relics due to the type of

construction. However, if found the disturbance of such relics should be minimised. If they

do need to be removed, this should only be done by, or under the direction of, a qualified

archaeologist. Locations should be recorded and items conserved, catalogued and stored in

accordance with the SHFA and NSW Heritage Office Guidelines.

6.8.3 RECOMMENDATION The archaeological potential is considered at least moderate based on the historical evidence

and the archaeological assessment, test excavation and recent watching brief of the adjacent

site. An Archaeological Assessment for the site should be prepared prior to the preparation of

any proposal that includes excavation.

Douglas of Archaeological and Heritage Management Solutions Pty Ltd on behalf of Stamford Windsor Ltd, January 2005, p14 34 ibid. CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

83


CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSERVATION POLICIES

7.0 CONSERVATION POLICIES

7.1 PREAMBLE

Conservation can be regarded as the management of change. It seeks to safeguard that

which is important in the built environment within a process of change and development. As

such, it is one of the functions of this document to establish criteria, policies and

recommendations for the conservation and on-going use of the buildings as an appropriate

and desirable future direction. In this way the owners and managers of the place/buildings

will be able to formulate proposals within a known framework of acceptable directions, and

planning authorities will be able to assess those proposals against the criteria.

The following section identifies Policies and Guidelines as the two basic mechanisms with

which to achieve the conservation and on-going use of the subject building in the context of

the adaptive re-use and necessary upgrade of the various building components. A brief

Background provides the context for each of the policies. The Policies identify basic

conservation guidelines, which are required to be met. They are supported by Guidelines and

in places they should be clearly identified by the proponent and discussed in any

Development Application submission.

7.2 APPLICATION OF THE BURRA CHARTER

The Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter 1999,35 known as The Burra Charter, is widely

accepted in Australia as the underlying methodology by which all works to sites/buildings,

which have been identified as having national, state and regional significance are undertaken.

Lawson House has been assessed as having cultural significance within a local and state

wide context and therefore the procedures for managing change and activities at the place

should be in accordance with the recognised conservation methodology of the Burra Charter.

7.2.1 CONSISTENT TERMINOLOGY In order to achieve a consistency in approach and understanding of the meaning of

conservation by all those involved a standardised terminology for conservation processes and

related actions should be adopted. The terminology in the Burra Charter is a suitable basis

for this. Article 1 of the Burra Charter36 gives the following definitions -

35 The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance 1999 36 Ibid, p2 CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

84



Place means site, area, land, landscape, building or other work, group of buildings or other

works, and may include components, contents, spaces and views.

Cultural significance means aesthetic, historic, scientific, social or spiritual value for past,

present or future generations.

Cultural significance is embodied in the place itself, its fabric, setting, use,

associations, meanings, records, related places and related objects. Places may

have a range of values for different individuals or groups.

Fabric means all the physical material of the place including components, fixtures, contents,

and objects.

Conservation means all the processes of looking after a place so to retain its cultural

significance.

Maintenance means the continuous protective care of the fabric and setting of a place, and is

to be distinguished from repair. Repair involves restoration or reconstruction.

Preservation means maintaining the fabric of a place in its existing state and retarding

deterioration.

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.

Reconstruction means returning the place to a known earlier state and is distinguished from

restoration by the introduction of new material into the fabric.

Adaptation means modifying a place to suit the existing use or a proposed use.

Use means the functions of a place, as well as the activities and practices that may occur at

the place.

Compatible use means a use which respects the cultural significance of a place. Such a use

involves no, or minimal, impact on cultural significance.

Setting means the area around a place, which may include the visual catchment.

Related place means a place that contributes to the cultural significance of another place.

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

85



7.3 THE USE OF LAWSON HOUSE

Background The subject building was constructed for a commercial use, specifically as a depot and offices

for the Cadbury-Fry operations in Sydney. The use was generally retained by subsequent

occupants. Craig Mostyn Pty Ltd is a food service/supply company that used the building in a

similar manner to Cadburys while the current users, Lawson-Menzies, are auctioneers who

use the place for storage, showrooms, offices and auctions.

Policy Conserve the commercial use of the existing building where possible. Allow for the

sympathetic adaptive reuse of the place where necessary for the conservation of significance.

Guidelines

• Allow for sympathetic changes to the place in accordance with the Conservation Policies

of this CMP to maintain the use.

• The policy should allow for the expansion of the business in a viable way that does not

compromise the significant fabric of the heritage item.

• Any proposal for adaptive reuse should demonstrate that the conservation of the existing

building is not viable without the change of use.

• An adaptive reuse should financially provide for the ongoing and continued conservation

of the building and the maintenance of significance fabric.

• Any adaptive reuse is to have a positive impact for the conservation of significant fabric.

This is to be achieved through a Schedule of Conservation Works prepared, adopted and

implemented in association with a proposal for major change or the adaptive reuse of the

building.

• If the original and significant use of the place becomes no longer viable to the detriment of

the significant fabric then a sympathetic adaptive reuse of the place may be considered at

which time this CMP should be reviewed.

7.4 ASSET MANAGEMENT

7.4.1 SHFA RESPONSIBILITIES Background Lawson House as part of The Rocks, is owned by the Crown and vested in the Sydney

Harbour Foreshore Authority (SHFA). SHFA has overall responsibility for the management of

the place.

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

86



Policy Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority shall retain management of Lawson House as a single

entity within the overall context of The Rocks precinct.

Guidelines

• The Authority should implement a management structure that integrates development and

conservation work with the overall management of Lawson House.

• SHFA should make this Conservation Management Plan a publicly accessible document.

• SHFA should ensure that this document and any subsequent recording and investigations

are achieved in such a manner that provides an accurate record of the changes to the

significant fabric of Lawson House.

• The intention, aims and policies of this CMP shall be disseminated through, and

implemented by, relevant key staff of SHFA.

• SHFA shall adequately assess the impact of proposed modifications to significant fabric,

prior to the granting of owner's consent.

• All recording, when required, should be undertaken and archived in accordance with the

recording guidelines prepared by the NSW Heritage Office.

• A program of regular monitoring should be established, covering both the physical

changes within Lawson House and visitor experience issues, and be incorporated, where

relevant, into management decisions.

• The Authority should investigate mechanisms which give it better control of the design,

documentation and implementation of work to heritage buildings. One option, which

should be investigated, is that all such activities be undertaken directly by the Authority

and paid for by the tenant.

7.4.2 ADOPTION, ENDORSEMENT AND REVIEW OF THE CMP Background The Conservation Management Plan (CMP) for Lawson House proposes a framework for the

management of heritage issues in relation to upgrading and adaptive re-use projects and, into

the long term, to ensure that the identified significance of the complex is retained and

maintained.

Circumstances, however, will change over the years as various recommendations are

implemented and new use requirements emerge. Conservation Policies need to

progressively respond to changing situations if they are to remain relevant.

Policy This Conservation Management Plan should be adopted as one of the bases for the future

management of the site. Conservation Policies should be reviewed every five years.

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

87



Guidelines

• Reviews of the CMP should be based on The Burra Charter and other guidelines, such as

those by the NSW Heritage Office.

• Reviews should also take into account any other relevant legislation, planning

frameworks, appropriate literature and widely recognised conservation practices and

procedures.

• Reviews should be undertaken by experienced conservation practitioners in conjunction

with relevant ownership and management representatives.

• Irrespective of the requirement to review the document every 5 years, the CMP should

remain as a valid basis for on-going heritage management until such reviews are

completed.

7.4.3 REQUIRED APPROVALS Background To prevent gradual loss of cultural significance through incremental change, a mechanism for

controlling any modifications by tenants to the significant fabric needs to be established.

There are three principle EPIs under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

that are applicable to The Rocks:

1. State Environmental Planning Policy (Major Projects) 2005: This separates

applications into those with over $5 millon investment, which require a Major Project

Application, and those with less than $5 million investment, which require a

Development Application.

2. Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005: The Rocks

is within 'Foreshores and Waterways Area' as defined in the SREP. The SREP

requires consideration of development in relation to specified criteria.

3. Sydney Cove Redevelopment Authority (SCRA) Scheme : the scheme is an EPI for

The Rocks and inlcudes maximum building heights and permissible uses.

Reference should be made to section 6.5 of this CMP for further detail on the approvals

process.

SHFA recieves and processes Development Applications and Major Project Applications with

delgation to determin Developemnt Applications. Major Project Applications are reported to

the Minister for determination. SHFA also has delegation from the NSW Heritage Council to

approve minor Section 60 and Standard Exemption applications.

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

88



Policy Before doing work to any part of Lawson House or lodging a development application or a

Section 60 application, the proponent should liaise with SHFA’s heritage architect and obtain

the consent of the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority.

Guidelines

• Prior to granting owner’s consent to a proposal, the SHFA should, in its capacity as land

owner and manager, be satisfied that there are no adverse heritage impacts associated

with the proposal. Where necessary, a Heritage Impact Assessment and adequate

documentation of the proposed works should be required to assist in the assessment of

owner’s consent applications.

• SHFA has the delegated authority to assess proposals under the NSW Heritage Office

Standard Exemption. An applicant should liaise with SHFA to determine when the

Standard Exemptions are applicable to a particular application.

7.4.4 TENANCY Background To prevent the gradual loss of cultural significance through incremental change, a mechanism

for controlling any modifications undertaken by tenants to the significant fabric needs to be

established.

Policy All tenants of the building should be made aware of the cultural significance of the item.

Tenancies should only be selected/approved by SHFA on the basis that the proposed or

future uses are compatible with the significance, and the sensitive fabric and spaces, and can

be installed and removed without impact.

Guidelines

• Tenants shall adopt the guidelines of this CMP in their planning and design.

• Tenants should be aware of Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority policies.

• The impact of proposed modifications to significant fabric should be adequately assessed,

prior to the granting of owner's consent

7.4.5 APPROPRIATE CONSERVATION SKILLS AND EXPERIENCE Background The Burra Charter encourages the use of skilled and appropriate professional direction and

supervision from a range of disciplines for conservation activities.

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

89



The attitudes, skills and experience required and creative approaches taken in the context of

a conservation project are quite different to those applied to the design and construction of

new buildings.

Policy Appropriate conservation skills and experience should be available within project teams to

deal with any programs of conservation and upgrading of the building components of Lawson

House.

Guidelines

• Appropriate professional skills and experience assembled to work on the detailed

conservation of the building could include, as appropriate, researchers, archaeologists,

architects, structural engineers, building code compliance advisers, materials

conservation specialists and cost planners.

• Building contractors, project managers and trades personnel who are experienced with

working on historic buildings should be selected to work on the project.

7.5 MANAGEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE

7.5.1 RETENTION OF SIGNIFICANCE Background Lawson House was constructed for the well known confectionary company Cadbury-Fry Pty

Ltd in 1924 as their Sydney depot. The building is a good and substantially intact example of

an Inter War commercial building constructed in the Free Classical style of architecture.

Policy The statement of significance should be adopted as the basis for heritage management. All

decisions should consider and seek to retain the values identified in the Statement of

Significance.

Guidelines

• The existing external architectural character and imagery of Lawson House should be

retained and conserved. Conservation should be undertaken in the context of the on-

going use of the building components as a commercial building.

• The conservation, adaptation and maintenance of Lawson House should be approached

with the general principle of changing “as much as necessary but as little as possible”.

• Structural alteration to the building components, which impact on the integrity or

significance of Lawson House, should not occur.

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

90



• Future uses should be compatible with the nature and significance of the building

components and should enable Lawson House to remain a vital and important component

within The Rocks precinct.

• Internal alterations and renovations are acceptable within the context of compatible use;

however they should not impact on the significance of the original or significant internal

fabric, the external façades or the principle building envelope.

• Internal alterations to spaces of lesser significance are allowable to facilitate the ongoing

use provided an interpretation of the original spatial qualities of the space is retained and

no significance fabric is detrimentally altered.

• No externally mounted air-conditioning, ventilation equipment, water heaters or service

components should be visible from the street or impact negatively on the elevations.

• Evidence of the progressive evolution of Lawson House should be respected and retained

where it enhances the ability to interpret the significant values of the item.

• External form, size, height, roof scape and detailing of existing original elements of

Lawson House should be retained.

• The internal configuration of the ground floor office and entry spaces and the associated

fabric are to be conserved.

7.5.2 CONSERVATION OF SIGNIFICANT FABRIC Background One of the key objectives of contemporary conservation practice is that as much of the

significant original fabric of the building or place should be retained and conserved in order to

preserve the essential integrity of the heritage resource for future generations. While any

conservation activity will affect the building in some way, the aim, consistent with responsible

re-use or management aims, should be to minimise the work necessary. In this way the

authenticity of the item will be retained as far as possible within a process of evolutionary

changes and good maintenance practice.

The existing building fabric of Lawson House, both internally and externally, is in good

condition, substantially intact and largely in context with other original elements of fabric. The

building features significant detailing, fittings and joinery related to the Free Classical style of

architecture from the Inter War period and it is these elements that generally give the building

its aesthetic values. The warehouse type use of the building resulted in a rather utilitarian

fitout throughout most of the internal spaces which exhibit few decorative or ornamental

elements except for those around the more public areas such as the main entry.

The building components of Lawson House have been carefully assessed to identify the

differing levels of contribution each makes to the significance of the overall site. The grading

utilises a five-tier system of values: exceptional significance, considerable significance, some

significance, little significance and intrusive.

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

91



The grading of significance of the various elements of Lawson House is a valuable planning

tool, and it assists in developing a consistent approach to the treatment of different elements.

The various grades of significance generate different requirements for retention and

conservation of individual spaces and their various elements.

Policy Extant building fabric, both internally and externally should be retained and conserved, in

accordance with the levels of significance identified in Section 5.4 Ranking of Individual Areas

and Elements of this Conservation Management Plan.

Guidelines

• Items identified as being of exceptional and high significance should be retained and

conserved in situ. Any work, which affects the fabric or external appearance of these

items should be confined to Preservation, Restoration, Reconstruction, or Adaptation as

defined by The Burra Charter. They should also be subject to continuing care and

Maintenance.

• Where the fabric is of moderate significance, some intervention is permissible.

Adaptation, relocation or alteration to components of these items and spaces is

acceptable provided that it protects the overall cultural significance, and is carefully

considered and executed. Such work should take place within defined work programs

and should not be the product of general maintenance or sporadic alterations.

• Elements assessed as of little significance provide evidence of long term use and

support the character and overall quality of the place. They have particular qualities that

can expand overall interpretive themes, but are generally not regarded as essential to the

major aspects of significance of a building or place, often fulfilling a functional role and/ or

are in poor condition. Both retention and removal are acceptable options, depending on

the element. Major interventions should be confined to areas where the fabric is of little

significance. A minimalist approach should be taken in removing fabric graded as little

significance and limited to protecting and enhancing fabric of greater cultural significance,

or allowing practical use of the building.

• Elements identified as intrusive can reduce or obscure the overall significance of the

place, despite their role as illustrators of the site’s progressive development. The

preferred option is for their removal, conversion to a more compatible form or

replacement in a way, which help to retain the overall significance of the item. These

items need not be addressed immediately. A minimalist approach should be taken in

removing fabric graded as intrusive and limited to protecting and enhancing fabric of

greater cultural significance, or allowing practical use of the building.

• Original external and internal fabric, which has been identified as of exceptional or high

significance should be retained and conserved.

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

92



• No conservation or maintenance work should alter or negatively impact on the significant

elements of the external façades or significant internal fabric/space.

• Decayed building fabric, which is not likely to be causing on-going deterioration should

not be repaired for visual reasons if by doing so the patina of age and ability to

successfully interpret various stages of use is degraded.

• Where repairs or alterations are required, new material should closely match original or

adjacent materials. However, evidence of change should not be so well matched as to be

impossible to read on close inspection.

• All structural elements should be retained and conserved with appropriate maintenance.

• All original doors, windows, floors, joinery, balustrades, staircases and associated

landings should be retained, with appropriate maintenance.

• Where it is clear that original or significant fabric has been removed it is considered

appropriate to reconstruct based on extant fabric and/or documentary evidence provided

that the reconstruction works will not detrimentally impact on any extant original or

significant fabric.

• Where the significant fabric has been removed and is stored onsite the fabric should be

reinstated to the original location or adapted for a new use an location if the original

location is not able to be determined.

• The existing goods lift should be conserved and adapted with the retention of fabric,

fittings and the motor.

7.5.3 CONSERVATION OF SIGNIFICANT SPACES Background The significance of various building components of Lawson House is characterised by their

architectural form and detailing and the spatial qualities related to the original use of the

place. Some later partitions have been inserted into original rooms and spaces and additional

office spaces have been created with later partitions on each floor. As an example of an Inter

War Free Classical building it features various elements that belong to the style such as the

arrangement of the facades, the fitout of the entry lobby and ground floor offices. As a

commercial building that was used in a warehouse fashion with offices it also features large

open plan spaces. Furthermore, this use meant that most of the spaces feature a utilitarian

fitout based on their use.

Policy The spatial qualities of Lawson House contribute to its significance and interpretation and

therefore should be conserved as part of its on-going use. Alterations may occur to the

spatial qualities of the building provided it does not impact upon the ability to interpret the

significance of the place or detrimentally impact upon significant fabric.

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

93



Guidelines

• Where the opportunity arises the original configuration of an altered space may be

reinstated or reconstructed based on physical or documentary evidence provided no

detrimental impact occurs to extant significant fabric or spaces.

• The original ground floor office and entry spaces are to be conserved with no further

division or amalgamation of spaces even if other levels and spaces are altered for the

provision of separate tenancies. It is desirable that these significant spaces remain in use

by a single tenancy.

• Alterations may occur to the open plan spaces of the basement, first and second floors

provided the extent of the floor space remains interpretable and a majority of the floor

space (over 50%) remains open plan. Alterations to these spaces are to be reversible.

• The spatial qualities related to the external form of the building are significant and should

not be detrimentally altered. Additional structures may be added to the roof provided they

do not impact upon significant fabric, are necessary to the conservation and continuing

use of the place, are almost wholly obscured from public spaces, are secondary and

distinct to the original form and architectural character of the building.

• It is desirable that the building be used by a single tenant to more appropriately maintain

significant spatial configuration of the place and to limit the introduction of intrusive

services and changes for building code and safety requirements. However, separate

tenancies may be created for each floor level or even within each level if it is necessary

for the continued viable conservation of the place. The division of original or significant

spaces should allow for the interpretation of those spaces and its history as a single

entity.

7.5.4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITORING Background No detailed Archaeological Assessment of the place has been undertaken. The site is

entirely built upon by the existing building and due to the integrity and significance of the

place it is unlikely that excavation will occur to the site except for the provision of new

services. Prior to the construction of the site it was occupied by a number of mid Victorian

residences of varying quality fronting Cumberland and Gloucester Streets and there is the

potential for relics associated with this phase of use of the site. The existing building is likely

to have significantly disturbed the site, particularly along the Cumberland Street frontage,

however there is at least moderate potential for the survival of relics related to those

structures formerly along Gloucester Street.

The Heritage Act 1977 states that any excavation, where relics may be disturbed, requires an

excavation permit. In the case of an item listed on the SHR, such as Lawson House, as

Section 60 application to the NSW Heritage Office is required.

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

94



Policy All work involving excavation of the site should be carried out under archaeological

supervision by a qualified archaeologist.

Guidelines

• Based on the significance of the site and the archaeological assessment, test excavation

and recent watching brief for the adjacent site, it is the recommendation of the CMP that a

detailed archaeological assessment be undertaken prior to any works being proposed

that include excavation of the site or disturbance of below ground deposits.

7.5.5 ON-GOING MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR Background The nature of any building is that its fabric will deteriorate due to the effects of age,

maintenance, weather, vegetation incursion and use. To ensure the on-going conservation of

significant building fabric, a regular maintenance schedule should be implemented, which

provides for regular inspection and for remedial action to be taken where necessary.

Policy The significant fabric of Lawson House should be maintained by the implementation of the

short, medium and long-term maintenance program outlined in Section 8.3 Ongoing

Maintenance.

Guidelines

• The building fabric and services should be subject to continuing care and maintenance by

SHFA.

• In addition to regular maintenance activities, prompt preventative action and repair should

be taken as necessary.

• Prevention of continuing deterioration should take priority over widespread repair or

reconstruction.

• Inspection and maintenance works should only be conducted by those with professional

knowledge and experience of buildings and materials.

• No maintenance work or repairs should negatively impact on significant fabric.

• Maintenance and repair works are to be carried out by tradespeople with demonstrated

heritage skills, experience and knowledge.

• Regular maintenance should be carried out on the Cumberland and Gloucester Street

elevations, including cleaning and repair of damaged brickwork and sandstone.

Sandstone in particular should be monitored for decay.

• The site should be monitored for rust in the windows and awnings, ensuring that the sills

are not coming away from the brick and checking for cracking brickwork.

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

95



7.5.6 CONTROLS ON INTERVENTION Background Article 3 of The Burra Charter indicates that conservation is based on a respect for the

existing fabric of a place and should therefore involve the least possible physical intervention

in order not to distort the evidence provided by the fabric.

Adaptations of existing fabric for practical reasons such as installation of new services and

equipment, and the need to meet fire safety and other statutory requirements may be required

in terms of securing a viable use for the building components as a whole, and satisfying the

changing needs of the general public.

Policy Intervention into building fabric for non-conservation purposes should generally be restricted

to approved programs of re-use or upgrading of service areas and facilities.

Guidelines

• Intervention into any building fabric should respect the integrity of the extant material, be

carefully controlled, and be limited to that required by the proposed works.

• Limited intervention for exploratory or research purposes should generally be restricted to

approved programs of re-use, or upgrading of service areas and facilities.

• Intervention should not be detrimental to the original fabric.

• Existing service areas may be upgraded. Any upgrading is subject to the proper approval

process.

• New internal floor coverings are permissible, but should have minimal impact on the floor

structure.

7.5.7 RETENTION OF FIXTURES AND FITTINGS Background Much of the fittings and fixtures to the original offices on the ground floor and the entry are

intact. These are significant relics of the site’s historic use and aesthetic character that

contribute to the special character of the building components and Lawson House as a whole.

Policy Features and fixtures associated with the site’s historic use as a commercial building

constructed in the Inter War Free Classical style of architecture should be retained and

preserved.

Guidelines

• The retention and conservation of these features and fixtures should be considered as

part of the design work for future adaptive re-use programs.

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

96



• Where original fittings and fixtures have been removed, and there is physical evidence of

the original type (eg. a surviving door handle), they should be reconstructed.

• External face brick work and stone work must not be painted.

• Interior applied finishes should be conserved and further changes closely controlled by

the SHFA so as not to lessen the significance of or an understanding of the interiors. At

an appropriate time an investigation of the original and significant finishes including paint,

tiles and floor covering, should be undertaken.

7.5.8 INTERPRETATION Background Interpretation of historic places essentially reveals long-term connections and cohesions

which underpin our cultural identity. To "interpret" an historic place, in its geographic and

physical setting, is to bring its history to life to increase the public’s understanding, and,

through this extended understanding, to give them an enhanced perception the significance of

the place.

The primary significance of Lawson House is its aesthetic values and its association with The

Rocks precinct. These values are largely self interpreting as the form, architectural style and

period evident in the fabric of the building itself. Conservation works will enhance the ability

to interpret these significant values. The building’s historical associations with the Cadbury-

Fry Company are relatively limited in significance and not considered worthy of introduced

interpretative materials.

Policy The heritage significance of Lawson House should be interpreted on site by appropriate

methods.

Guidelines

• The policies for the treatment of significant fabric interpret its contribution to The Rocks

precinct and aesthetic values. These values are self interpreting and do not require

introduced interpretive materials or methods.

• The interpretation of the place’s significance is to be achieved through the conservation of

significant use, fabric and spaces. Interpretation should take into account all the historic

phases of use and change of Lawson House.

• If significant fabric is removed and is not able to be adapted then it should be relocated

onsite in an interpretative manner. The fabric may be identified and interpreted in a

creative manner appropriate to its level of significance, should be located in a publicly

accessible place and should have no detrimental impact to extant significant fabric.

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

97



7.6 NEW WORK POLICIES

7.6.1 INTEGRATION OF NEW WORK Background The scope for new development is relatively limited due to the significance of Lawson House.

In general, no external alterations or additions should occur, except minor additions for

services or where these can be largely concealed from public view and not detrimentally

impact on the overall aesthetic value of the building. Within the general principles outlined

above in this Conservation Management Plan, some relatively minor internal alterations and

additions could occur. These should generally be confined to less significant areas and

should only affect limited amounts of original fabric. New work should be carefully designed

and integrated with the original character of the significant components.

Policy The introduction of new fabric should be undertaken in such a manner that it does not result

in a lessening of the cultural significance of the place. New work should be identifiable as

such and should, where possible, be capable of being removed without damage to significant

fabric or spaces.

Guidelines

• When a new function is being introduced, a new architectural vocabulary of details and

materials may be adopted provided it is sympathetic to the existing architectural

character. The new architectural vocabulary may be contemporary in style.

• Detailing that replicates or mimics that from the original phase of construction should only

be used to elements for which there is clear evidence of the original detail (either

remaining in the fabric or in documents).

• Where there is no evidence of the original detail, it is not necessary to invent a period

detail (unless the original character of the space is to be recreated and the new element

is required to blend in). However, new elements should be sympathetic with the

character of the significant space.

• Careful detailing will ensure minimal damage to the significant fabric and will allow for

reversibility.

• Where a function is being re-established, new fittings and fixtures may be adopted to

complement the existing architectural character.

• Allow for innovative development and expansion of the facilities in a viable way that

conserves the significance of the place

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

98



7.6.2 INTEGRATION OF SERVICES Background The installation of services is an intrinsic component of the contemporary functioning and

viability of Lawson House. It is recognised that periodic upgrading of services within the

building components will be required. The building currently features a variety of modern

services including additional lighting, security, sprinkler systems and mechanical ventilation

that have generally been installed in sympathetic manner.

Policy The extension or alteration of existing services in Lawson House is acceptable in the context

of re-use, but should not have a detrimental impact to the significance of the building

components as a whole.

Guidelines

• Any proposed upgrading of services should be carefully planned. The preparation of

schematic layouts is not sufficient as service routes must be planned so no damage

occurs to the significant fabric or disrupts significant spaces.

• Areas previously modified for services should be re-used, in preference to modifying

intact significant fabric.

• The surface mounting and/or suspension of services is preferable to chasing services into

significant fabric; in particular face brickwork, stonework and timber.

• Brackets or fixings for services should not damage nor obscure significant fabric or limit

an understanding of significant spaces and fabric.

• Fire upgrading works should not entail the removal of existing building fabric or their

concealment behind modern finishes.

• No externally mounted air conditioning, ventilation equipment or water heaters should be

visible from the street or impact negatively on the façade.

7.6.3 ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE Background The Building Code of Australia is the operative building ordinance in New South Wales for the

conservation and re-use of heritage buildings.

In terms of on-going use programs, the key issues are usually compliance with fire resistance,

egress provisions, and provision of disabled access and facilities. It is essential that the

cultural values of the buildings and the overall complex not be degraded by inappropriate

responses to meeting ordinance requirements.

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

99



Policy Approaches to compliance with building ordinances for the conservation and upgrading and

re-use programs of the various building components of Lawson House should focus on

responding to the spirit and intent of the ordinances if strict compliance would adversely affect

the significance. Uses which require an unacceptable degree of intervention for upgrading to

ordinance compliance should be avoided.

Guidelines

• Conservation and on-going use programs should not place undue stress on the building

fabric in order to meet excessive requirements of ordinance compliance.

• Methods of complying with ordinance requirements which utilise fire or smoke detection

and active fire suppression are preferred to the addition of fire rating material, which may

obscure extant finishes.

• Future upgrades of the buildings should take into consideration any newly developed

approaches for the implementation of fire safety standards that do not harm the existing

significant fabric.

• When dealing with disability access issues, refer to the document “Access to Heritage

Buildings for People with Disabilities” prepared by E.J. Martin (Cox), August 1997.

7.6.4 SIGNAGE AND EXTERNAL LIGHTING Background It is recognised that commercial and retail tenancy identification and temporary signage are

an intrinsic component of the commercial use and viability of Lawson House as a whole.

External lighting of buildings can add to their character. Signage and external lighting,

however, should have no adverse impact on significant heritage fabric and the overall

character of the place.

Policy External signage and lighting should be in harmony with the overall character of the place,

and complement the historic character of the building on which it is mounted.

Guidelines

• Significant external signage and signage locations, including the moulded stone

stringcourse to the first floor level of Gloucester Street, the stone parapet to both

elevations and the fascia sign to the awning over the Cumberland Street entrance, should

be conserved and reused. No new external signage is allowable.

• Signage identifying the building occupants and users should be located in a sympathetic

and functional place within the main entry foyer.

• Signs and external lighting must be compliant with The Rocks Lighting and Signage

policies.

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

100



• Suitably located signs that provide a legible and clear message and contribute to the

vitality of Lawson House are encouraged.

• Signs on the individual building components should be discreet and complementary in

terms of colour, material, proportion, positioning and font.

• Signs should be harmoniously integrated with the architecture of the building and should

not obscure or damage the significant features or fabric.

• It is not necessary to attempt to create or recreate an “historic” character in the signage,

but modern standardised “trademark” signage is not appropriate.

• Fluorescent and iridescent paints are inappropriate. Signs should preferably be

illuminated by floodlighting.

• The illumination of Lawson House should highlight architectural features rather than

floodlighting whole façades. Care should be taken to ensure that over-illumination does

not occur.

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182

101


CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN

8.0 IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN

8.1 PREAMBLE

This Conservation Management Plan has been prepared to provide guidelines for the

conservation, reuse, interpretation and management of Lawson House and to ensure that the

heritage value of the place is maintained and enhanced.

This section sets out the implementation guidelines for the policies with associated

management issues.

8.2 MANAGEMENT ISSUES • SHFA to review and adopt this Conservation Management Plan.

• Continue to develop the emerging concepts for the use of Lawson House and its building

components within The Rocks.

• Ensure funding for recurrent long-term maintenance, and ensure that maintenance is

made at the appropriate time.

• Ensure long-term security of Lawson House.

8.3 ON-GOING MAINTENANCE The on-going maintenance schedule refers to cyclical maintenance works to fabric that should

be implemented by the Authority as part of the process of on-going management of Lawson

House. A record of when this work is performed, and any faults discovered, or repairs made,

should be recorded and kept separately alongside a copy of this maintenance schedule.

The attached Ongoing Maintenance Plan (Appendix 10.3) has been prepared in accordance

with the NSW Heritage Office guidelines “The Maintenance of Heritage Assets: A Practical

Guide”. The aim of the plan is to ensure that the protective care of Lawson House is

maintained over time. It is recommended that owners of the building become familiar with the

maintenance plan and responsible for the implementation of the works indicated in the Long

Term Maintenance Plan.

The following maintenance works are required in the short term to mitigate against further

deterioration of significant fabric:

• Water damage to sandstone stringcourse and parapet.

• Damage or cracked external brickwork particularly in corners of windows.

CITY PLAN HERITAGE 102

MAY 2006 / CH25-182



• Repair of rust on window frames.

• Plant growth in bricks at north end of western elevation.

8.4 EXEMPTIONS UNDER THE NEW SOUTH WALES HERITAGE ACT Background Any major works that are proposed need to be assessed and approved by the Heritage

Council to ensure that the heritage significance of the item will not be adversely affected.

To achieve efficiency and focus only on activities that may affect significance, s.57 of the

Heritage Act contains provisions for granting exemptions for certain activities that would

otherwise require approval under the Act. There are two types of exemptions that can apply to

the property.

• Standard Exemptions such as building maintenance, minor repairs, alterations to certain

interiors and change of use.

• Site Specific Exemptions that relate to a particular property.

Standard Exemptions The NSW Heritage Office has prepared a series of guidelines for the identification of those

exemptions that can be sought as part of the s60 application process. SHFA has delegation

to approve Standard Exemptions.

The current Standard Exemptions for Works Requiring Heritage Council Approval, amended

in March 2006, and can be found at the NSW Heritage Office website at

www.heritage.nsw.gov.au.

Standard Exemptions may apply to maintenance works or alterations to a place listed on the

State Heritage Register.

Works approved under the Standard Exemptions must be carried out in accordance with

relevant Guidelines issued by the Heritage Office including “The Maintenance of Heritage

Assets: A Practical Guide” 1998, “Movable Heritage Principles” 2000 and “The Heritage

Council Policy on Managing Change to Heritage Items”. Furthermore the Standard

Exemptions do not apply to anything affecting relics, places, items or sites of heritage

significance to Aboriginal people or which affect traditional access by Aboriginal people.

The following are the Standard Exemptions:

Standard Exemption 1: Maintenance and Cleaning


MAY 2006 / CH25-182




Standard Exemption 2: Repairs

Standard Exemption 3: Painting

Standard Exemption 4: Excavation

Standard Exemption 5: Restoration

Standard Exemption 6: Development Endorsed By the Heritage Council or Director-General

Standard Exemption 7: Minor Activities with No Adverse Impact on Heritage Significance

Standard Exemption 8: Non-Significant Fabric

Standard Exemption 9: Change of Use

Standard Exemption 10: New Buildings

Standard Exemption 11: Temporary Structures

Standard Exemption 12: Landscape Maintenance

Standard Exemption 13: Signage

Standard Exemption 14: Burial Sites and Cemeteries

Standard Exemption 15: Compliance with Minimum Standards and Orders

Standard Exemption 16: Safety and Security

Standard Exemption 17: Movable Heritage Items

Each exemption features its own set of clauses, criteria and guidelines for how to apply for

the exemption and implement the works.

Site Specific Exemptions The existing Standard Exemptions and delegations to SHFA for minor works provide a

sufficient mechanism for minimising unnecessary approvals for minor work to non-significant

fabric without the need for site specific exemptions in an endorsed CMP.

8.5 ADAPTIVE REUSE GUIDELINES 8.5.1 BACKGROUND It is common for the original use of an older building to cease. This may occur for various

reasons such as a company expanding or failing, technologies changing, market pressures

related to land use. Due to the identified cultural significance of the building however, it is

necessary for it to be conserved, use being a crucial component in the conservation process.

Without a viable use it is very difficult to maintain and conserve a building and its significant

values. Retaining the original or similar use is the most appropriate option for conservation as

minimal change to building fabric is likely to be required. If such a use cannot be found and

made viable, then an adaptive reuse will be required. The Burra Charter defines Adaptation

as ‘modifying a place to suit an existing or proposed use’ (Article 1.9). An adaptive reuse will

provide a new and different, yet compatible use that will provide for all aspects of the viable

conservation of the building into the future.


MAY 2006 / CH25-182



Lawson House was constructed as a commercial warehouse use. The more compatible or

similar a proposed adaptive reuse is to the original use the less likely it is to result in

detrimental impact to the original fabric. The adaptive reuse must be of sufficient financial

viability to allow for the continued conservation of the place and the fabric.

8.5.2 CRITERIA FOR COMPATIBLE REUSE OPTIONS • An adaptive reuse is to have minimal impact on the significance of the place and should

not reduce the level of significance of the place or its constituent elements. It is to

involve minimal change to significant fabric.

• An adaptive reuse must not erode the ability to comprehend or interpret the significant

values of the place.

• A proposal for an adaptive reuse should demonstrate the consideration of alternatives

and why the chosen proposal is the most appropriate for the conservation of the place.

• Where a significant degree of change is proposed in terms of use and physical works

there is to be a positive benefit that will enhance the conservation and interpretation of

the place’s significance.

• An adaptive reuse use should limit physical impact that materially affects significant fabric

and/or does not allow for reversibility with minimal impact to the fabric.

• A proposal for an adaptive reuse must demonstrate that the existing use is not viable for

the continued conservation of the place and its significant fabric.

8.5.3 ADAPTATION GUIDELINES GENERALLY • The adaptive reuse of all building components is acceptable, with compatible new uses

selected that utilise the original character or permit a creative and responsible reuse of

the fundamental architectural, functional and spatial characteristics as far as possible.

• SHFA shall ensure that any new uses selected for the existing building shall adopt the

principle of "loose fit", where the new use is adjusted as necessary to work within the

available spatial and architectural configuration.

• Adaptation of a building's interior should ensure that the original fabric or significant

architectural and spatial features are retained and interpreted as far as possible.

• The detailed requirements of the new uses should not generate undue changes to the

existing fabric that cannot be reversed in the long term, or which do not respect and work

within the existing architectural framework.

• Subdivision of internal spaces should be undertaken in a secondary manner, using such

items as partitions that can eventually be removed and which do not cut into the existing

finishes or details. The open plan nature of the basement, first and second floors should

be maintained by keeping 50% of the floor space of those levels open plan (see

conservation policy guideline in Section 7.5.3) CITY PLAN HERITAGE 105

MAY 2006 / CH25-182



• External alterations and additions may occur to fabric that has previously been altered

and is identified as having little or intrusive significance in this CMP. These changes

should be of a minor nature, and subservient to the primary architectural features and

composition of the existing building.

o Additions may occur to the roof of the building provided they are:

o Almost wholly obscured from public spaces;

o subservient to the existing form of the building;

o setback from all elevations;

o limited to one storey;

o do not detrimentally affect significant fabric;

o and are required for the viable continued use or adaptive reuse of the place.

• Intervention into the building fabric for additions or alterations to services should respect

the integrity of the extant material, and not be detrimental to the original fabric.

• SHFA shall consider alternative approaches to the resolution of functional, safety, BCA or

health requirements to minimise any adverse impact upon significant fabric or features.

• Redundant but significant equipment, fittings and fixtures are to be retained on site,

preferably in their existing location, or in a new location as appropriate for their

interpretation.

• The introduction of new services and associated fittings as part of approved reuse

programs should be carried out with the minimum of disruption to the fabric and spaces.

• Existing or old service chases or conduits should be reused in preference to new chases.

Services should be rationalised, grouped and treated to minimise intrusion.

• Uses which require an unacceptable degree of intervention for upgrading to ordinance

compliance should be avoided.


MAY 2006 / CH25-182


CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN BIBLIOGRAPHY

9.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Noosphere Ideas

“Preliminary Conservation Assessment 212-218 Cumberland Street

and 195 Gloucester Street The Rocks” Prepared in consultation with

Duncan Marshall for the SHFA in August 2005

Karyn McLeod

188 Cumberland Street The Rocks, Sydney: Archaeological

Assessment” Prepared for SHFA March 2002

Wilson and Douglas

171-193 Gloucester Street The Rocks NSW. A Research Design and

Excavation Methodology for Proposed Historical Archaeological

Investigations at the Site.” Prepared by Archaeological and Heritage

Management Solutions Pty Ltd on behalf of Stamford Windsor Ltd

January 2005

Ashton and Waterson

“Sydney Takes Shape. A History in Maps.” Doak Press 1977

Kelly, Max

“Anchored in a Small Cove. A history and Archaeology of The Rocks,

Sydney” Sydney Cove Authority 1997

Godden Mackay Logan Pty Ltd,

The Rocks Heritage Management Plan (2000) adopted February,

2002, is in three volumes, Vol. 1, Vol. 2, Background Papers, and

Vol. 3, Supporting Documentation. For Sydney Cove Authority.

Bates, Harry

Feasibility Estimate and Report for the Fire Safety Upgrade and

Refurbishment of 212-218 Cumberland Street and 16-18 Grosvenor

Street. Prepared for SHFA October 1993

Report of the Observatory Hill Resumed area Development committee 1937,

(NSW Government Printer, Sydney NSW, 1938) located at: State

Archives office box no. 7/5883.

Report of the Housing Board appointed under the Provisions of the “Housing Act, 1912” for

the year ending 30th June 1914 pp 969 Joint Volumes of Papers

presented to the Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly Vol

11, (Sydney, W.A. Gullick, Government Printer, Phillip St, 1915)

Concise Guide to the Archives of NSW (& Supplements)

Sydney, Archives Authority of NSW, 1970


MAY 2006 / CH25-182


CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN BIBLIOGRAPHY

Online Resources

NSW Heritage Office: http://www.heritage.nsw.gov.au

The Rocks: http://www.rocksvillage.com/

Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority: http://www.shfa.nsw.gov.au

Cadbury Australia website http://www.cadbury.com.au

Lawson Menzies Auctioneers, Sydney and Melbourne:

http://www.lawsonmenzies.com.au


MAY 2006 / CH25-182


http://www.rocksvillage.com/

http://www.shfa.nsw.gov.au/

http://www.cadbury.com.au/

http://www.lawsonmenzies.com.au/


CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN APPENDIX

10.0 APPENDIX

10.1 OCCUPATION AT THE SUBJECT SITE

The tenants of the properties are sourced from the Sands Directory and the Rate Books.

Those from the Rate Books are entered in blue, all others are from the Sands Directory.

Owners, building/site descriptions and rated values are from the Rate Books.

212 Cumberland Street Tenants: 1848 James J. Bislin 1858 Thomas Galbraith 1873 Edward Davison 1875/6-1877 Miss Ellen Nolan (Dressmaker) 1877 Elizabeth Nolan 1878/9-1882 Miss Fanny Harvey (Mantlemaker) 1883 Lewis White 1884 Mrs. Jane Brown (Boardinghouse) 1885-1887 Mrs. Mary Evans 1889-1893 Mrs. Evans <1890 Elizabeth Nolan <1894 Louis White 1895-1900 Mary Evans 1895-1897 John Selsby 1898-1904 David Baird/ Bird 1901-1907 John Selby 1905 Edward Roberts 1906-1907 Frederick Robertson 1908-1924 Joseph Mannix 1911-1914 Maria Mannix 1914-1921 Joseph Mannix 212 Cumberland Street

1848 Brick House with shingled roof. Two floors and six rooms. Owned by

John Magrath

<1856 demolished

1857-1872 It is likely the site remained vacant as there is no Sands record at the

site for this period and Rate Books list the site as vacant land in 1861,

1867, 1868 and 1871

1873 Building present. The site was tenanted but no details could be obtained

from the rate books

<1877 Four storey house made of brick with slate roof and seven rooms.

Owned by Robert Watson.


MAY 2006 / CH25-182



<1890-1900 Four storey house made of brick with slate roof and seven rooms.

Owned by Robert Watson. Noted as being a “New House”

1901-1907 Owned by Robert Watson. Two storey brick house with iron roof and

seven rooms. 41 pounds

1907 Land first listed as owned by the NSW Government Rocks Resumption

1907-1923 Three/ four storey brick house with slate roof and eight rooms NSW Gov

RR. 36 Pounds

1918-1921 Lessee S.L Harvey

1924 Construction of New Sydney warehouse Cadbury Fry and Pascall


Tenants:

1848 Henry J Mortram 1857 Thomas Galbraith (owner/occupier) 1858 Jack Byrnes 1858 Thomas Galbraith (Cooper) 1858 Jack Byrnes 1861 Thomas Fennell (Painter) 1861 William Holloway 1862-1864 Edward Damon 1864-1867 John Edward Damon (Master Mariner) 1867 John Damon 1868 Sands lists the building as vacant 1868-1871 Edward Damon 1869-1870 Edward Demond (Master Mariner) 1871-1876 Edward ? Damon (Possibly the same tenant as the previous year) 1875/6-1877 F. Touchett (A similar name is recorded at 216 in 1879) 1877 F Teuchette 1879 Christopher Pitt (Tailor) 1880 Reverend A.M Jarvie (Presbyterian Minister) 1881/2-1884 Robert Caldwell 1885 James Holloway 1886 William Thearle 1887 Mrs. B. Warner 1889 Frederick Tauchert <1890 F. Youchette 1890 Otto W. Kitzing 1891 Mrs. Sugden 1892-1904 Mrs. Mary Williams <1894 Robert Caldwell 1895-1900 Esther Sugden 1901-1907 Mary William 1905-1906 Mrs. Bridget Barry 1907 Mrs. Millicent Barry (Possible relation of former tenant) 1907-1911 Millicent Barry 1908-1915 Frederick Robertson (Formerly of 212 Cumberland Street) 1911-1914 Frederick Robertson 1916-1924 Norman Cooper 1918-1921 Norman Cooper


MAY 2006 / CH25-182




1848 Brick Public House owned by Elizabeth Thompson. Shingled with two

floors and eight rooms and stables out the back

<1857 demolished

1857-1858 Wooden dwelling with two rooms and shingled roof owned by Thomas

Galbraith

<1861 demolished

1861 Shingled brick house owned by Robert Watson. Single storey with three

rooms and noted as a “new house”

1862-1876 Small single storey wooden house off the street with two or three rooms.

Zinc roof and owned by Robert Watson. In bad repair in 1864

c.1876 demolished

1877 Four storey house made of brick with slate roof and seven rooms.

Owned by Robert Watson.

<1890-1900 Four storey brick house with slate roof and seven rooms. Owned by

Robert Watson. Listed as being a “New House”

1901-1907 Owned by Robert Watson. Two storey brick house with iron roof and

seven rooms. 62 pounds


1907-1923 Three/four storey brick house with slate roof and eight rooms NSW Gov

RR. 46 Pounds



Tenants:

1848 John Bourke 1857 Patrick Byrne 1858 Thomas Buckley (Tailor) 1858 Myer Moses 1859/60-1861 William MacGregor 1861-1864 William MacGregor 1865-1866 William MacGregor (Labourer- thereafter at 195 Gloucester Street) 1867 Rate book claims the house is unoccupied 1867 John Willing (Master Mariner) 1868 Sands lists the building as vacant 1869 James Taylor (Master Mariner) 1870 John Garrard (Compositor) 1871 Ralph Medina 1868-1876 Adam Stephens 1873 Francis Fletcher 1875/6-1877 Hermann Finckh (Jeweler) 1877 Herman Finckh


MAY 2006 / CH25-182



1879 F. Tauchert (Cab Proprietor) 1880-1883 Susan Myers/Mears and Henry Myers 1884-1886 Mrs. B. Corbett 1887-1892 Mrs. James H. Carlberg (Boardinghouse) <1890 A Finch 1893-1894 Charles Miller (Engraver) <1894 Susan Meyer 1895-1900 C. Miller 1895-1898 Patrick Leonard 1899 John Cummings 1900-1924 Mrs. Margaret Butler 1901-1907 ? Leonard 1907-1921 Margaret Butler


1848 Wooden House owned by ?Dickson. Shingled single storey with two

rooms.

<1857 demolished

1857-1858 Shingled stone single storey dwelling with one room. Owned by W.S.

Moutry

1862-1864 Stone house shingled with one – two rooms. Owned by W.S Monty

(likely to be the same owner and building as mentioned in 1857)

<1867 demolished

1867-1876 Brick House owned by George Ferguson. Shingled with two or three

storeys and three rooms

1877 Four storey house made of brick with slate roof and seven rooms.

Owned by Robert Watson. 78 pounds

<1890-1900 Four storey house made of brick with slate roof and seven rooms.

Owned by Robert Watson. Noted as being a “New House”

1901-1907 Two storey brick house with iron roof and seven rooms. 62 Pounds.

Owned by Robert Watson


1907-1923 Three/ four storey brick house with slate roof and seven rooms NSW

Gov RR. 55 Pounds

1924 Construction of New Sydney Warehouse Cadbury Fry and Pascall


Tenants:

1848 house not occupied 1858 Myers Moses (Dealer) 1857-1858 not occupied 1859/60-1865 Phillip Dwyer (Stevedore)

CITY PLAN HERITAGE 112 1861-1864 Phillip Dyer

MAY 2006 / CH25-182



1866 Sands lists the building as vacant 1867 Mrs. Mary Welton 1867 Mrs. Mary Simpson 1868 Sands lists the building as vacant 1868-1876 Charles Holloway 1869-1870 Charles Alderway (Shipwright) 1871 Charles Holloway (Shipwright- possibly the same tenant as the previous year) 1873 Charles Holiday 1874/5-1888 Edward Lawrence (Bank Messenger in 1886 and Steward in 1876) 1877 Edward Lawrence 1889 John Hunter 1890 Joseph Latzel (Joiner) 1891 Henry Schmidt 1892 Hannibal de Melim 1893-1895 Miss K. Madden (Tailoress) <1894 Edward Lawrence 1896-1897 Charles Hovering 1898-1903 John Ryan 1901-1907 E. Soulder 1904 Thomas Lyons 1906-1916 William Forster 1907-1918 William Foster 1917-1919 William S. Tipton 1920-1923 William Cryer 1921 William Cryer


1848 Single storey wooden House owned by John O’Dowd

<1857 Demolished

1857-1876 Brick two or three storey dwelling with slate roof and six rooms. Owned

by Henry Cohen

1877-1894 Brick three storey house shingled with three rooms. 26 pounds owned by

George Ferguson

1895-1900 Two storey brick house, iron roof and three rooms. Owned by J

Ferguson 33 pounds

1901-1907 Single storey brick house, iron roof and three rooms. Owned by Robert

Watson 26 pounds


1907-1923 Two storey brick house, three rooms and slate roof owned by the NSW

Govt Rocks resumption. 23 pounds



Tenants:

1858 Patrick Burke CITY PLAN HERITAGE 113

MAY 2006 / CH25-182



1857 Thomas Swift 1858-1861 Thomas Swift 1862-1864 John Slater 1865-1866 John Slater 1867 Rate books show the building was unoccupied 1867-1899 Mr. and Mrs. William MacGregor (William MacGregor’s occupation was listed as a dealer in 1869 and 1870 and as a caterer in 1885) 1868-1900 William MacGregor 1900-1906 Walter Oxley 1901-1907 ? McGregor 1907-1911 Joseph Mannix 1907 Thomas Herbert 1908-1909 Thomas Daly 1910-1920 Bridget Wallace 1911-1918 Bridget Wallace 1921-1922 Alfred Weir 1921 Alfred Weir 1923 Mrs. Catherine McCann (formerly of 199 Gloucester Street)

195 Gloucester Street (Also known as 167 Gloucester Street prior to 1880)

1857-1861 Shingled two storey stone house with two rooms. Owned by Robert

Moutry

1862-1864 Shingled single storey stone house with two rooms. Owned by W.Monty

1865-1866 Building present. Tenanted though the rate books give no details.

1867-1876 Three storey stone house owned by George Ferguson. Three rooms

1877-1890 Brick three storey house with slate roof and three rooms. Owned by

George Ferguson 26 pounds

<1894-1900 Brick three storey house with slate roof and three rooms. Owned by

John Ferguson 26 pounds

1901-1907 Two storey brick house with slate roof and three rooms. Owned by J.

Glover 20 pounds


1907-1911 Two storey stone house with slate roof and six rooms. 39 pounds NSW

Gov RR

1911-1921 Three storey stone house, iron roof and three rooms. NSW Gov RR 23

pounds

1914-1916 All land south of the Sunday Times Newspaper Company and

warehouse at the corner of Essex Street is listed as being owned by the

Trustees of Saint Patrick’s church. NSW Gov RR was previously

indicated and crossed out



MAY 2006 / CH25-182




Tenants:

1857-1858 M. Kirkly 1858 William Newman (Clerk) 1859/60-1870 George Williams (Occupation listed as mechanic in 1863) 1861 Not occupied according to rate books 1862-1864 George Williams 1867 George Williams 1868-1871 George Williams 1871-1876 George Williams 1871 The building is listed as “vacant” 1873 ? Martin 1875 Sands lists the building as “vacant” 1876-1877 J.C.W. Hinsch (Importer) 1877 J.C.W Hinsch 1878/9-1884 James Kelly (Occupation listed as “Blacksmith” in 1879) 1885 Mrs. Murray 1886-1892 Charles W. Kent (Engineer) c. 1890 J.C.W Hinsch 1893-1894 Mrs. Bourke (Formerly of 199 Gloucester Street 1885-1892) <1894 James Kelly 1895-1900 C. Kent 1897-1901 Mrs. A. Bourke/Burke 1901-1907 Alice Burke 1902 Mrs. Mary Purcell 1903-1904 Michael Stollery 1905 Mrs. Alice Green 1907 Joseph Mannax (There is a Joseph Mannix recorded at 212 Cumberland Street after this date until 1924) 1907-1911 Alexander Anderson 1908 Thomas Rowlands 1909 Peter Barry 1910-1914 Mrs. Lenore O’Sullivan 1911-1914 Leonora O’Sullivan 1916 Annie Evans 1917 Emil Swinson 1918 George Jensen 1919-1922 John C. Soranson 1921 John Swanson


1857-1861 Stone dwelling with slate roof, two storey and six rooms. Owned by

Robert Cohen

1862 - 1867 Two or three storey brick and stone house with slate roof and six/ seven

rooms. Owned by Henry Cohen

1868-1890 Owned by Henry Solomon 45 pounds

<1894 Three storey stone house with slate roof and six rooms 58 pounds.

Owned by H.K Groth (Likely to be the same residence…?)


MAY 2006 / CH25-182



1895-1907 Two storey brick house with slate roof and six rooms. Owned by John

Ferguson. 55 pounds


1907-1911 Twos storey stone house with slate roof and six rooms. 33 pounds NSW

Gov RR

1911-1921 Two/ three storey stone house with iron roof and six/ seven rooms. NSW

Gov RR



Trustees of Saint Patrick’s church NSW Gov RR was previously




Tenants:

1858-1861 Thomas Street (Watchmaker) 1857-1861 Mary Street 1862/3-1865 William Boyce (Master Mariner) 1862-1864 William Boyce 1866 George Macaness 1867 William Nash 1867 William Nash (Printer) 1868 Mrs. Brocklebank (Boardinghouse) James Simpson (Shoemaker) 1868-1876 Henry Gilbert 1869 Andrew Gilbert (Mariner) 1870-1873 Mrs. Henry Gilbert 1874/5-1882 Miss Elizabeth Costello 1877 Elizabeth Costello 1883-1884 Peter McGlinchy 1885-1892 Mrs. A. Burke c.1890 Elizabeth Costello 1893-1895 John McElligott (Mariner) 1897 Francis Diez 1898-1899 John W. Anderson 1901-1910 A.G Anderson 1911-1922 Mrs. Catherine McCann


1857-1867 Two or three storey stone and brick house. Slated roof and six to seven

rooms. Owned by Henry Cohen

1868-1876 Owned by Henry Solomon

1877 Three storey brick house with slate roof and six rooms. 45 pounds

Owned by Henry Solomon


MAY 2006 / CH25-182



c.1890 Three storey brick house with slate roof and six rooms. 45 pounds

Owned by Henry Solomon

1897-1922 Building present




Trustees of Saint Patrick’s church NSW Gov RR was previously




MAY 2006 / CH25-182



10.2 MEASURED DRAWINGS

Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority:

287 AR 2003

287 AR 6001

287 AR 6002

287 AR 6003

287 AR 6004

287 AR 6005

287 AR 6006

287 AR 6010

287 AR 6011

287 AR 6012

Issue A (Preliminary), dated 10.08.2005

(Not to Scale)


MAY 2006 / CH25-182



10.3 ONGOING MAINTENANCE

URGENT MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE Lawson House

General

Blocked or broken stormwater and sewerage lines that require repair or cleaning. Clearing of blocked gutters and downpipes. Damaged or defective light fittings and switches. Broken water service or leaking faucets and toilet cisterns. Failed light bulbs. Storm damage to building fabric. Vandalism or break and enter damage to windows and doors. Broken or defective locks and latches, replacement of keys or lock cylinders. Be aware: When identifying responsibility for repair costs and if claimable against insurance. Ensure the appropriate authorities have been advised an appropriate trade persons have been used.

As they occur “ “ “ “ “ “ “ “ “ “ “ “ “ “ “ “ “ “ “ “ “ “ “ “

External

Water damage to sandstone parapet Damage or cracked external brickwork particularly in corners of windows Repair of rust on window frames Plant growth in bricks at north end of Western elevation

Action required Action required Action required Action required

Internal

Nill


MAY 2006 / CH25-182



ON-GOING MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE Lawson House

Building or Site element

Every Year (Or monthly where

specified)

Every 2 years Every 5 years Every 10 years Every 20 years

GENERALLY OVERALL BUILDING Check for cracks or

damage to the façade, is there any sign of rust, cracked brickwork or stone, or water damage?



specified)


EXTERNAL WALLS Brick elements Inspect areas for plant

growth and birdexcretion. Inspect for grime, growth from joints and graffiti. (4-12 months)

Inspect for loose,

broken or missing mortar joints and bricks, patch repair asnecessary.

Inspect and re-point brickwork whnecessary in accordance to conservation specialist recommendations.

ere

Sandstone Inspect for loose,

fretted, broken or missing mortar joints to stones around windows, doors, along flashings and on cornices and


MAY 2006 / CH25-182



other projections. Check if the stone is crumbling or has surface salts; this can indicate a moisture problem.

Inspect for signs of delamination that can affect the soundness of stone. Is there rising or falling damp? Has an appropriate mortar been used to joints? Inspect for incompatible mortars where lime was originally used.

PAINT

Inspect for paint deterioration and weathering, as well as failure or damage and grime generally

TIMBER DOORS

Inspect for loose or damaged hardware and ensure operate smoothly. Is the threshold secure, decayed, excessively worn or broken? Check if the glass is broken or cracked and if the hardware is operational. Ensure the doors do not damage walls when

Life expectancy 10-15 years. Repair where necessary


MAY 2006 / CH25-182



opened and that the furniture is secure, missing or defective.

METAL WINDOWS

Inspect for corrosion to wrought iron grilles on basement andCumberland Streetwindows re-paint if necessary.

Inspect for loose or damaged mouldings, architraves, anddecayed stiles at sill level, sashes, decayed and broken sash cords, sash joints, and slipped and loose flashing.

Inspect the previously painted surfaces for paint deterioration and weathering. Suitably prepare and paint.

Inspect for paintdeterioration andweathering.

The defects identified in the 5

Inspect for corrosion

th year inspection of the windows should be rectified prior to painting if programmed for the same year.

Life expectancy 10-15 years. Repair where necessary

AWNING

Is there any sign of rust? Inspect for loose or raised fixings, sheet edges and surfaces that are deformed. Look for rust stains around fixings and where sheets are lapped. Also inspect under awning signage for damage, decay and rust. (every 5-7 years)

STORMWATER DISPOSAL

GUTTERS, RAINWATER HEADS & DOWNPIPES

Inspect gutters and downpipes for leaves, rubbish and debris. (monthly) Inspect gutter linings for corrosion and defective

Inspect gutter, rainwater heads and downpipe joints for cracks, loose or missing brackets.


MAY 2006 / CH25-182



joints. (Every 6 months)

DRAINAGE

Inspect for loose or slipped external flashing and broken mortar bedding. (Every 6 months) Ensure stormwaterdrains are not blocked. (annual)

The defects identified in the 5th year inspection of the drainage should be rectified prior to painting if programmed for the same year.

ROOFING

Waterproofing membrane

Inspect for lifting joints, surface blisters or physical damage and cracks. Check on hot days and after rain as surface dries

Life expectancy of 20years. Renew if necessary

FLASHING/ CAPPING

Inspect for loose or raised fixings to metal cappings, cappings that have lifted, slipped or are deformed from wind damage. Check whether capping tiles have cracked or broken mortar bedding, have slipped or are missing

PARAPETS,

Inspect parapet surrounds for adequate flashing and watertightness


MAY 2006 / CH25-182





specified)


INTERNAL GENERALLY

WALLS

Inspect for damaged or decaying sections of plaster walls, flaking or peeling paint and signs damp.

Inspect for all joints of walls, floor and ceiling for potential movements, if necessary have a structural engineer to inspect.

BRICK AND LIGHTWEIGHT WALLS (if applicable)

Inspect for cracks in brickwork, peeling paint (if painted), and signs of damp.

CEILINGS Regularly check for evidence of damp

Inspect for paint deterioration and weathering, as well as failure or damage and grime generally.

CONCRETE FLOOR STRUCTURE

Inspect for broken areas, growth from construction joints. Is it lifting or undulating?

Inspect for cracks, is it straight and true?

JOINERY Check regularly for signs of pest damage such as white ants

Inspect for loose, inadequate or damaged hardware. Ensure joinery elements operate satisfactorily.

WINDOWS Inspect for loose or damaged mouldings,


MAY 2006 / CH25-182



architraves, and decayed stiles at sill level, sashes, decayed and broken sash cords, sash joints, and slipped and loose flashing. Check internal faces around windows for stains that can indicate failed flashing. Inspect window sills, frames and sashes for paint deterioration and weathering. (Every 2-3 years) The defects identified in the 3rd year inspection should be rectified prior to painting if programmed for the same year. Check whether hardware operates properly.

SERVICES

FIRE SAFETY

Inspect fire system for damaged and loose fittings in accordance to services manual and authority regulations. Regularly check and


MAY 2006 / CH25-182



maintain fire egress (monthly)

ELECTRICAL

Inspect power supply according to services manual and authority regulations. (weekly) Inspect main switch board according to services manual and authority regulations. (monthly) Inspect electricity services for damaged and loose fittings according to services manual and authority regulations. (annual)

PLUMBING

Inspect taps for drips, ease of operation and secured to walls or supports. (monthly) Inspect stormwater system for blockage and damage. (Every 6 months) Inspect sewerage system for damaged


MAY 2006 / CH25-182



grates and blockage. (Every 6 months) Inspect hot water system according to services manual and authority regulations. (Every 6 months)

Goods Lift Continue regular maintenance works as per current inspection process.


MAY 2006 / CH25-182


CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN APPENDICES

CITY PLAN HERITAGE

MAY 2006 / CH25-182